Women’s Land Rights and Peace in the Family | Anita Ratnam

Published on 05-02-2008 In General

Viewed 1821 times

Women’s Land Rights and Peace in the Family

One of the new campaigns emerging from civil society organisations over the last few months has focussed on land rights for women. From being an issue that was considered almost ridiculous just a decade ago, it has now gathered momentum especially since the 2005 amendment of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. The Amendment establishes the rights of daughters and widows of sons to a share in ancestral agricultural land and includes daughters as coparceners in the Mitaksara joint family property, with the same birthrights as sons to share, to claim partition, and to become “managers”, while also sharing liabilities.

The Amendment itself is the result of a long process of research, advocacy and grassroots mobilisation that began around 1992. Since the Beijing Women's Conference and the inclusion of a section on “Women and Development “ in our 6th Five year Plan, there has been some attention paid to intra household dynamics and the situation of women within families. Studies on the impacts of women gaining ownership to land in the Bodh Gaya movement and some outstanding scholarly work by Joan Mencher, Gita Sen and others highlighted the need to go beyond the notion of “household” as a unit for development planning. This was followed by Bina Aggarwal’s 1994 landmark book “ A Field of Ones Own” where various dimensions to women’s land rights are explored. It is her untiring efforts that led to the 2005 Amendment despite apprehensions among MPs that it would “break our families!” Yet, much remains to be done in terms of other anomalies in the Act, the need to re-look at the Indian Succession Act 1925 which governs Christians and the Muslim Personal Law Shariat (Application) Act of 1937.

In a country where ownership of land is highly skewed with small and marginal farmer-households comprising 78 percent of rural families, will the sharing of these smallholdings with women make any real difference to the vast majority? Evidence from rigorous research establishes that even at this level, sharing of land with women has lead to increased welfare for the family in terms of food security, nutrition of children and a more efficient agriculture and sustainable use of land. The irrefutable facts are that these women spend a greater share of their earnings on family welfare, balance food needs with cash crops and hold the key to conservation of seeds and biomass. Their role in agriculture is immeasurable, even if they are not allowed to use the plough!

The increasing out migration of men has led to a feminization of agriculture putting these women in a unique predicament of having responsibility of land and homestead without ownership. It is now well accepted that in an agrarian society like ours, land is the key resource which determines not just income and access to food, but also defines dignity, status, vulnerability of women to sexual assault, ability to get credit and bargaining power in negotiating wages when working on others land. Depriving women and their dependants of these benefits of ownership, while burdening them with the responsibility of taking care of land and family, is hardly justifiable.

Yet the arguments in favour of women's land/house property rights go beyond the welfare of the household as such rights have lead to women’s empowerment vis-à-vis her family itself. Wherever women have owned property, their relationship with the spouse and family has been more equal, with the women’s opinions and interests being considered significant. Girl children are treated better and not perceived as burdens to be quickly disowned.

Recent studies from Kerala have established that land/house ownership has made women less vulnerable to abandonment (and destitution!) and to domestic violence. And of course, when women own property much of the justification for dowry comes into question.

Despite these multiple findings and arguments, the fact remains that today we continue to adhere to custom and tradition regardless of what rights law recognizes. This pervades agrarian families as well as those who are well entrenched in cities with urban real estate as property. In our cultural fabric, do we really recognize women as rightful claimants of our lands and houses? Immediately, scores of counter arguments emerge out of the woodwork to justify not “giving” women share in land and houses. Maybe a brief look at some of these would help de-bunk some misconceptions and serve to remind us of the challenges that lie ahead.

Firstly, the argument that women get married and “go away” to become members of their spouses household. Men too get married, go away, and set up home independently or go away in search of jobs. If a son’s physical absence from the property has never been an excuse to disinherit, why use this excuse only where women are concerned? Besides, when a son marries into a fatherless/sonless family, his wife and mother- in-law often expect the son in-law to move in with them for security and convenience, while he himself assumes that he will gain access to their property. If convenience and expedience can override custom, surely the entire family’s welfare too can be allowed to take precedence over traditional practice!

A second set of arguments is that land reform is the answer, not the sharing of existing smallholdings with sons and daughters. Of course the fear is that it would lead to further fragmentation. Praveena Kodoth’s 2005 enquiry into land reforms in Kerala has revealed that when OBC households received land, their status anxiety led to an increased seclusion of their women as part of their attempts to gain social prestige. For the women, this meant now working on spouse’s land and depending on spouses for even minor needs, instead of having their own wage incomes. More disturbingly, land titles in men’s names led to a sea change where the community moved from bride price to paying huge dowries in a span of two decades. This eventually led to women's families selling land acquired through reforms, to pay for dowries! There are lessons to be learnt here, if land reform ever comes back seriously on state agenda.

Embedded in customs are deeply held beliefs- that it is sons who are breadwinners and who look after parents in their old age. On the contrary, women are not only breadwinners, there is an increasing desire among parents to seek out their daughters as caregivers in their old age. Parents who give daughters agricultural land or urban real estate can indeed walk into their daughter’s homes or seek their help, with head held high.

And finally, it is women themselves who could hold back as they are conditioned to be the “good” sister, mother, widow, and daughter in law or wife. They would probably be content to have homes to dwell in and claim property only for their sons, denying themselves and their daughters too, in the bargain. As those who feel responsible for peace at home, women could abdicate rights in favour of harmony. But is harmony built at the cost of family welfare and on an infringement of anyone’s rights, really a peace to be proud of?

0 Comments

Blog

Print