Editorial published in "Agriculture & Industry Survey" magazine - August 2026 issue.
There is a growing contradiction at the heart of rural India. Many of our laws and policies are framed with admirable intentions: protection for small farmers, safeguards for tenants, equal treatment within families, and state oversight of land records. Yet, on the ground, these well-meaning ideas are often producing consequences that few in urban policy circles seem willing to confront.
When landholdings become unviable
One of the most serious questions before rural India is the shrinking size of agricultural landholdings. Indian agriculture is already dominated by small and marginal farmers. In many families, land has been divided over generations, and each further division makes the holding less capable of supporting a household, hiring labour, mechanising operations, investing in irrigation, or building a dignified livelihood.
This is not merely a family matter. It is an economic question. How small can a farm become before it stops being a viable farm? If rural policy does not address this honestly, we may end up creating millions of landowners who have legal title to land, but not enough land to build a secure livelihood.
The issue is not whether families should have inheritance rights. The issue is whether physical fragmentation of agricultural land can continue endlessly without creating unworkable farms. Rural India needs better systems for land pooling, family agreements, leasing, cooperative cultivation, shared ownership models, consolidation and family farming companies, so that land remains economically usable even when ownership is shared.
Small farms and the need for aggregation
The rise of cooperatives and Farmer Producer Organisations itself tells us something important: small landholdings, by themselves, are often not viable economic units. Farmers are being encouraged to aggregate for input purchase, credit access, storage, processing, marketing and bargaining power precisely because individual holdings are too weak to face the market alone. If this is the reality, then rural policy must honestly ask whether endless subdivision of land can coexist with modern, productive agriculture.
If every heir receives a physical share of land, do we also need better systems for family farming companies, land pooling, cooperative cultivation, leasing, consolidation and shared mechanisation? If not, we may end up creating millions of landowners who remain economically insecure because their holdings are too small to support modern agriculture.
Tenancy laws need a modern reset
The tenancy question is equally complicated. India has a painful history of zamindars, princely estates and exploitative landlordism. Protective tenancy laws were born out of that history, and they had a moral purpose. But some of these laws have now become outdated and, in some states, irrational. There are situations where a tenant who does not pay rent cannot be easily evicted, while the landowner is trapped in litigation for years. In some families, the tenant’s children may now be well placed in urban jobs, even abroad, while the landowner, unable to regain control of his own land, remains financially weak in the village. This is not social justice. It is legal imbalance.
This is where the NITI Aayog’s Model Agricultural Land Leasing Act, 2016, deserves more attention. Its broad idea was to legalise and secure land leasing in a way that protects both the landowner and the cultivator. A modern leasing framework can allow landowners to lease without fear of losing ownership, while giving tenants formal recognition and access to institutional support. More states should examine this seriously, because informal leasing is already happening. The real question is whether the law will recognise reality or continue to push it underground.
Weak farmers and freebie politics
The political consequence of weak rural economics is even more serious. A countryside filled with very small, economically weak farmers is easily exploited. When farmers are kept fragile, politics becomes transactional. Offer a loan waiver, promise free electricity, announce a subsidy, distribute a benefit before elections — and the deeper questions are pushed aside. Why are farms unviable? Why are young people unable to build prosperous rural lives? Why are land records still so vulnerable? Why is leasing still uncertain? Why do rural families remain dependent on officials and politicians for basic economic security?
This weakness damages democracy itself. Economically weak farmers are not naturally free citizens in the democratic process. They are often pushed into becoming beneficiaries waiting for the next promise.
Political parties, many of which are bankrupt of any serious rural development plan, find it easier to offer freebies than to speak about land reform, rural enterprises, markets, technology, water, skill development or local institutions.
Even the so-called “I am the son of the soil” political leaders are sadly often parochial, self-interested and family-centred, more concerned with political inheritance than with rebuilding agriculture.
It is also a tragedy that farmer politics itself has become narrow and fragmented, often limited to regional demands such as MSP in one state or cooperative loan waivers in another, instead of asking larger questions about land viability, markets, tenancy, water, technology, rural enterprise and long-term prosperity.
Indian agriculture has been exploited repeatedly — by native rulers, invaders, colonial collectors, zamindars, petty officials after Independence, political parties distributing freebies, and farmer leaders who speak in the name of farmers while serving their own ambitions.
Land records and the colonial revenue mindset
The revenue administration also needs a complete rethink. Rural India still lives with colonial-era language and structures: collectors, revenue offices, mutations, survey records and layers of paperwork that ordinary people struggle to navigate. One wrong mutation, one disputed entry, or one manipulated record can drag a family into years of litigation. For a small rural household, the cost of correcting a land record can be financially and emotionally devastating.
Urban assumptions, rural consequences
The deeper problem is that rural India is too often interpreted through urban assumptions. In cities, equal division of property appears straightforward. In rural areas, dividing a house site is not the same as dividing a working farm. In urban policy language, “protect the small farmer” sounds unquestionably correct. But if protection becomes a reason to freeze tenancy laws, block land mobility and discourage leasing, the same protection can trap agriculture in inefficiency.
The way farmer politics has been reduced to relief, symbolism and political patronage is also part of the urban assumption about governing rural India. It assumes that farmers can be kept quiet through short-term benefits, instead of being made strong enough to demand land reform, better markets, reliable records, fair leasing systems and real rural enterprise.
From beneficiaries to strong rural citizens
Rural India does not need nostalgia or sympathy. It needs institutional redesign. Laws made to correct past injustice must be updated to address present realities. Tenants must be protected from exploitation. Small farmers must not be crushed by markets. But land must also remain economically usable. Farmers must be free to lease, pool, consolidate, diversify and exit agriculture where necessary.
Rural India cannot be left to politicians who neither understand its structural problems nor have the courage to address them beyond freebies and vote-bank calculations. Nor can it be governed by disconnected bureaucrats and distant experts who rarely face the consequences of their advice.
Rural India needs strong citizens, not just beneficiaries. It needs farmers and rural families who can articulate their own future, question policy, build institutions, and participate in democracy from a position of economic confidence. Otherwise, we may end up with a countryside full of legally recognised rights but economically unviable farms, protected tenants but insecure land markets, digital records but endless disputes, and young people tied to land that can no longer support them.
The time has come to rebuild rural policy from the ground up — not from the urban imagination, not from political slogans, and not from institutional self-congratulation, but from the lived reality of India’s villages.
Like a short burst of monsoon rain, this editorial has poured out what has been on our mind. The irony, however, is hard to miss: it may be read mostly by urban readers, while the rural India we are speaking about may never read it at all. That, in itself, is part of the tragedy. Rural India is discussed, interpreted and governed by those who can write, publish and speak — while many who live its realities remain unheard.
Editorial published in "Agriculture & Industry Survey" magazine - August 2026 issue.
There is a growing contradiction at the heart of rural India. Many of our laws and policies are framed with admirable intentions: protection for small farmers, safeguards for tenants, equal treatment within families, and state oversight of land records. Yet, on the ground, these well-meaning ideas are often producing consequences that few in urban policy circles seem willing to confront.
When landholdings become unviable
One of the most serious questions before rural India is the shrinking size of agricultural landholdings. Indian agriculture is already dominated by small and marginal farmers. In many families, land has been divided over generations, and each further division makes the holding less capable of supporting a household, hiring labour, mechanising operations, investing in irrigation, or building a dignified livelihood.
This is not merely a family matter. It is an economic question. How small can a farm become before it stops being a viable farm? If rural policy does not address this honestly, we may end up creating millions of landowners who have legal title to land, but not enough land to build a secure livelihood.
The issue is not whether families should have inheritance rights. The issue is whether physical fragmentation of agricultural land can continue endlessly without creating unworkable farms. Rural India needs better systems for land pooling, family agreements, leasing, cooperative cultivation, shared ownership models, consolidation and family farming companies, so that land remains economically usable even when ownership is shared.
Small farms and the need for aggregation
The rise of cooperatives and Farmer Producer Organisations itself tells us something important: small landholdings, by themselves, are often not viable economic units. Farmers are being encouraged to aggregate for input purchase, credit access, storage, processing, marketing and bargaining power precisely because individual holdings are too weak to face the market alone. If this is the reality, then rural policy must honestly ask whether endless subdivision of land can coexist with modern, productive agriculture.
If every heir receives a physical share of land, do we also need better systems for family farming companies, land pooling, cooperative cultivation, leasing, consolidation and shared mechanisation? If not, we may end up creating millions of landowners who remain economically insecure because their holdings are too small to support modern agriculture.
Tenancy laws need a modern reset
The tenancy question is equally complicated. India has a painful history of zamindars, princely estates and exploitative landlordism. Protective tenancy laws were born out of that history, and they had a moral purpose. But some of these laws have now become outdated and, in some states, irrational. There are situations where a tenant who does not pay rent cannot be easily evicted, while the landowner is trapped in litigation for years. In some families, the tenant’s children may now be well placed in urban jobs, even abroad, while the landowner, unable to regain control of his own land, remains financially weak in the village. This is not social justice. It is legal imbalance.
This is where the NITI Aayog’s Model Agricultural Land Leasing Act, 2016, deserves more attention. Its broad idea was to legalise and secure land leasing in a way that protects both the landowner and the cultivator. A modern leasing framework can allow landowners to lease without fear of losing ownership, while giving tenants formal recognition and access to institutional support. More states should examine this seriously, because informal leasing is already happening. The real question is whether the law will recognise reality or continue to push it underground.
Weak farmers and freebie politics
The political consequence of weak rural economics is even more serious. A countryside filled with very small, economically weak farmers is easily exploited. When farmers are kept fragile, politics becomes transactional. Offer a loan waiver, promise free electricity, announce a subsidy, distribute a benefit before elections — and the deeper questions are pushed aside. Why are farms unviable? Why are young people unable to build prosperous rural lives? Why are land records still so vulnerable? Why is leasing still uncertain? Why do rural families remain dependent on officials and politicians for basic economic security?
This weakness damages democracy itself. Economically weak farmers are not naturally free citizens in the democratic process. They are often pushed into becoming beneficiaries waiting for the next promise.
Political parties, many of which are bankrupt of any serious rural development plan, find it easier to offer freebies than to speak about land reform, rural enterprises, markets, technology, water, skill development or local institutions.
Even the so-called “I am the son of the soil” political leaders are sadly often parochial, self-interested and family-centred, more concerned with political inheritance than with rebuilding agriculture.
It is also a tragedy that farmer politics itself has become narrow and fragmented, often limited to regional demands such as MSP in one state or cooperative loan waivers in another, instead of asking larger questions about land viability, markets, tenancy, water, technology, rural enterprise and long-term prosperity.
Indian agriculture has been exploited repeatedly — by native rulers, invaders, colonial collectors, zamindars, petty officials after Independence, political parties distributing freebies, and farmer leaders who speak in the name of farmers while serving their own ambitions.
Land records and the colonial revenue mindset
The revenue administration also needs a complete rethink. Rural India still lives with colonial-era language and structures: collectors, revenue offices, mutations, survey records and layers of paperwork that ordinary people struggle to navigate. One wrong mutation, one disputed entry, or one manipulated record can drag a family into years of litigation. For a small rural household, the cost of correcting a land record can be financially and emotionally devastating.
Urban assumptions, rural consequences
The deeper problem is that rural India is too often interpreted through urban assumptions. In cities, equal division of property appears straightforward. In rural areas, dividing a house site is not the same as dividing a working farm. In urban policy language, “protect the small farmer” sounds unquestionably correct. But if protection becomes a reason to freeze tenancy laws, block land mobility and discourage leasing, the same protection can trap agriculture in inefficiency.
The way farmer politics has been reduced to relief, symbolism and political patronage is also part of the urban assumption about governing rural India. It assumes that farmers can be kept quiet through short-term benefits, instead of being made strong enough to demand land reform, better markets, reliable records, fair leasing systems and real rural enterprise.
From beneficiaries to strong rural citizens
Rural India does not need nostalgia or sympathy. It needs institutional redesign. Laws made to correct past injustice must be updated to address present realities. Tenants must be protected from exploitation. Small farmers must not be crushed by markets. But land must also remain economically usable. Farmers must be free to lease, pool, consolidate, diversify and exit agriculture where necessary.
Rural India cannot be left to politicians who neither understand its structural problems nor have the courage to address them beyond freebies and vote-bank calculations. Nor can it be governed by disconnected bureaucrats and distant experts who rarely face the consequences of their advice.
Rural India needs strong citizens, not just beneficiaries. It needs farmers and rural families who can articulate their own future, question policy, build institutions, and participate in democracy from a position of economic confidence. Otherwise, we may end up with a countryside full of legally recognised rights but economically unviable farms, protected tenants but insecure land markets, digital records but endless disputes, and young people tied to land that can no longer support them.
The time has come to rebuild rural policy from the ground up — not from the urban imagination, not from political slogans, and not from institutional self-congratulation, but from the lived reality of India’s villages.
Like a short burst of monsoon rain, this editorial has poured out what has been on our mind. The irony, however, is hard to miss: it may be read mostly by urban readers, while the rural India we are speaking about may never read it at all. That, in itself, is part of the tragedy. Rural India is discussed, interpreted and governed by those who can write, publish and speak — while many who live its realities remain unheard.
Editorial published in "Agriculture & Industry Survey" magazine - August 2026 issue.