Behind the Curtain Story of Mamata’s Historic Fast of 25 days in 2006


    On Friday, the 18th May, 2012 Dipak Ghosh, ex-TMC MLA and ex-IAS officer published his book Mamata Banerjee As I Have Known Her. The book contains exclusive as well as explosive information on DIDI

    He also said that 25 days fasting on the Metro channel, Kolkata in December, 2006 on Singur issue was celebrated with chocolates and sandwiches.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

13 Responses to “Behind the Curtain Story of Mamata’s Historic Fast of 25 days in 2006”

  1. Ashok Chaudhury Says:

    We should thank Mr. Dipak Ghosh for divulging the fraud of Didi in the name of fasting in support unwilling peasants of Singur , who should understand that they are simply cheated.

  2. a k banerjee Says:

    this is nothing new of mamata,…she is by far the greatest actor ever born in bengal…….shame…………..shame…….shame

    • P.Ch.Roy Says:

      I totally agree to your comment Mr Banerjee, when you say: “Mamata is by far the greatest actor ever born in Bengal..” The opposition still is in quest of ways to combat this pathological liar, because, still she could draw huge crowds and mesmerize her audience with bewitching interlocution.

  3. Devashish Says:

    She has been the greatest fraud that not only Bengal, but the country has ever seen. I dont understand how she is still surviving with her head held high. The earlier she is exposed, the better for the country.

  4. Saket Samdarshi Says:

    Nothing to say, But Yes our society requires Respected Dipak Ghosh type eye opner people.

  5. foto art Says:

    I’m amazed, I must say. Seldom do I come across a blog that’s both educative and interesting, and without a doubt,
    you have hit the nail on the head. The problem is something not enough folks are speaking intelligently about.

    I’m very happy that I stumbled across this during my hunt for something relating to this.

  6. watch dogs demo download Says:

    Excellent blog post. I certainly love this website.
    Keep it up!

  7. asit guin Says:

    Alipore court acquitted five persons accused of r@ping Trinamul Congress worker Champala Sardar in 1998. Sardar was a Trinamul candidate from Aswathaberia village in Bhangar, South 24-Parganas, in the 1998 panchayat election and the incident became a major issue then. The five accused — Anwar Ali Gharami, Chunnat Gharami, Iran Ali Mollah, Biswanath Ruidas and Uday Mandal — were arrested after Sardar lodged an FIR alleging that they had r@ped her. Sardar had claimed in the FIR that the five men dragged her into the desolate house of Muchhe Sardar and took turns in r@ping her. The incident triggered tension as Trinamul made it an issue before the last panchayat poll and several Union ministers came to the state to meet Sardar in nursing home. First assistant sessions Judge Sandipan Banerjee acquitted all the accused as medical reports did not confirm whether Sardar was r@ped or molested. Statements made by Sardar in court were contradictory, said the judge. All the five were falsely implicated by Trinamul leader Mamata Banerjee. None of them was involved as the incident did not take place at all. Anwar Ali said his family life and social standing suffered following the allegations of rape leveled against him by Sardar and other Trinamul leaders in the locality. The issue had rocked the state before the 1998 elections. The media had also played it up to embarrass left front.

  8. asit guin Says:

    Land reforms by countryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search Agrarian reform and land reform has been a recurring theme of enormous consequence in world history — see, for example, the history of the Semproninan Law or Lex Sempronia agraria proposed by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus and passed by the Roman Senate (133 BC), which led to the social and political wars that ended the Roman Republic.

    A historically important source of pressure for land reform has been the accumulation of significant property by tax-exempt individuals or entities. In ancient Egypt, the tax exemption for temple lands eventually drove almost all the good land into the hands of the priestly class, making them immensely rich (and leaving the world a stunning legacy of monumental temple architecture that still impresses several millennia later), but starving the government of revenue. In Rome, the land tax exemption for the noble senatorial families had a similar effect, leading to Pliny’s famous observation that the latifundia (vast landed estates) had ruined Rome, and would likewise ruin the provinces. In the Christian world, this has frequently been true of churches and monasteries, a major reason that many of the French revolutionaries saw the Catholic Church as an accomplice of the landed aristos. In the Moslem world, land reforms such as that organized in Spain by al-Hurr in 718 have transferred property from Muslims to Christians, who were taxable by much higher rates.

    In the modern world and in the aftermath of colonialism and the Industrial Revolution, land reform has occurred around the world, from the Mexican Revolution (1917; the revolution began in 1910) to Communist China to Bolivia (1952, 2006) to Zimbabwe and Namibia. Land reform has been especially popular as part of decolonization struggles in Africa and the Arab world, where it was part of the program for African socialism and Arab nationalism. Cuba has seen one of the most complete agrarian reforms in Latin America. Land reform was an important step in achieving economic development in many Third World countries since the post-World War II period, especially in the East Asian Tigers and “Tiger Cubs” nations such as Taiwan, South Korea, and Malaysia.

    Since mainland China’s economic reforms led by Deng Xiaoping land reforms have also played a key role in the development of the People’s Republic of China, with the re-emergence of rich property developers in urban areas (though as in Hong Kong, land in China is not privately owned but leased from the state, typically on very long terms that allow substantial opportunity for private speculative gain).

    Contents [hide]
    1 Latin America
    1.1 Brazil
    1.2 Bolivia
    1.3 Chile
    1.4 Colombia
    1.5 Cuba
    1.6 Guatemala
    1.7 Mexico
    1.8 Nicaragua
    1.9 Peru
    1.10 Venezuela
    2 Middle East and North Africa
    2.1 Ottoman Empire
    2.2 Egypt
    2.3 Iran
    2.4 Maghreb
    2.5 Syria
    3 Europe
    3.1 Albania
    3.2 Soviet Union and Imperial Russia
    3.3 Scotland
    3.4 Sweden
    4 Africa
    4.1 Ethiopia
    4.2 Kenya
    4.3 Namibia
    4.4 South Africa
    4.4.1 Challenges for Land Reform in South Africa
    4.5 Zimbabwe
    5 North America
    5.1 Canada
    5.2 United States
    6 Asia
    6.1 Afghanistan
    6.2 China
    6.3 India
    6.4 Japan
    6.5 Philippines
    6.6 Sri Lanka
    6.7 South Korea
    6.8 Taiwan
    6.9 Vietnam
    7 Oceania
    7.1 Australia
    8 See also
    9 References
    Latin America[edit]”The first liberating revolutions never destroyed the large landholding powers that always constituted a reactionary force and upheld the principle of servitude on the land. In most countries the large landholders realized they couldn’t survive alone and promptly entered into alliances with the monopolies — the strongest and most ruthless oppressors of the Latin American peoples. U.S. capital arrived on the scene to exploit the virgin lands and later carried off, unnoticed, all the funds so ‘generously’ given, plus several times the amount originally invested in the ‘beneficiary’ country.”

    — Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary, 1961[1]

    Children singing the Internationale, at the 20th Anniversary of Brazil’s Landless Workers MovementBrazil[edit]In the 1930s, Getúlio Vargas reneged on a promised land reform. A first attempt to make a national scale reform was set up in the government of José Sarney, as a result of the strong popular movement that had contributed to the fall of the military government. However, the so-called First Land Reform National Plan never was put into force. Strong campaign including direct action by the Landless Workers’ Movement throughout the 1990s has managed to get some advances for the past 10 years, during the Fernando Cardoso and Lula da Silva administrations.

    Bolivia[edit]The revolution of 1952 was followed by a land reform law (Law Decree 3464) on August 2, 1953. However, in 1970 only 45% of peasant families had received title to land, although more land reform projects continued in the 1970s and 1980s. A 1996 Agrarian Reform Law (also Spanish: Ley INRA) increased protection for smallholdings and indigenous territories, but also protected absentee landholders who pay taxes from expropriation.[2] Bolivian president Evo Morales restarted land reform when he took office in 2006.[3] On 29 November 2006, the Bolivian Senate passed a bill authorizing the government redistribution of land among the nation’s mostly indigenous poor. The bill was signed into law hours later, though significant opposition is expected[4]

    Chile[edit]Main article: Chilean land reform
    Attempts at land reform began under the government of Jorge Alessandri in 1960, were accelerated during the government of Eduardo Frei Montalva (1964–1970), and reached its climax during the 1970-1973 presidency of Salvador Allende. Farms of more than 198 acres (80 hectares) were expropriated. After the 1973 coup the process was halted, and up to a point reversed by the market forces.

    Colombia[edit]Alfonso López Pumarejo (1934–1938) passed the Law 200 of 1936, which allowed for the expropriation of private properties, in order to promote “social interest”. Later attempts declined, until the National Front presidencies of Alberto Lleras Camargo (1958–1962) and Carlos Lleras Restrepo (1966–1970), which respectively created the Colombian Institute for Agrarian Reform (INCORA) and further developed land entitlement. In 1968 and 1969 alone, the INCORA issued more than 60,000 land titles to farmers and workers. Despite this, matsetela (2000) stated that the process was then halted and the situation began to reverse itself, as the subsequent violent actions of drug lords, paramilitaries, guerrillas and opportunistic large landowners severely contributed to a renewed concentration of land and to the displacement of small landowners. In the early 21st century, tentative government plans to use the land legally expropriated from drug lords and/or the properties given back by demobilized paramilitary groups have not caused much practical improvement yet.

    Cuba[edit]Main article: Agrarian Reform Laws of Cuba
    Land reform was among the chief planks of the revolutionary platform of 1959. Almost all large holdings were seized by the National Institute for Agrarian Reform (INRA), which dealt with all areas of agricultural policy. A ceiling of 166 acres (67 hectares) was established, and tenants were given ownership rights, though these rights are constrained by government production quotas and a prohibition of real estate transactions.

    Guatemala[edit]Land reform occurred during the “Ten Years of Spring” (1944–1954) under the governments of Juan José Arévalo and Jacobo Arbenz—particularly after Decree 900, passed in 1952. It has been remarked that it was one of the most successful land reforms in history, given that it was relatively thorough and had minimal detrimental effects on the economy and on the incomes of wealthy classes (who were mostly spared because only uncultivated land was expropriated). The reforms were reversed entirely after a US-backed coup deposed the Arbenz government.[5]

    Mexico[edit]The first land reform was driven by Ley Lerdo (the Lerdo Law of 1856), enacted by the liberals during the Reform War of the 1850s. One of the aims of the reform government was to develop the economy by returning to productive cultivation the underutilized lands of the Church and the municipal communities (Indian commons), which required the distribution of these lands to small owners. This was to be accomplished through the provisions of Ley Lerdo that prohibited ownership of land by the Church and the municipalities.[6] The reform government also financed its war effort by seizing and selling church property and other large estates. After the war the principles of the Ley Lerdo were perverted by Pres. Porfirio Diaz, which contributed to causing the Mexican Revolution in 1910. A certain degree of land reform was introduced, albeit unevenly, as part of the Mexican Revolution. Francisco Madero and Emiliano Zapata were strongly identified with land reform, as are the present-day (as of 2006) Zapatista Army of National Liberation. See Mexican Agrarian Land Reform.

    Nicaragua[edit]Land reform was one of the programs of the Sandinista government. The last months of Sandinista rule were criticized for the Piñata Plan which distributed large tracts of land to prominent Sandinistas.

    Peru[edit]Land reform in the 1950s largely eliminated a centuries-old system of debt peonage. Further land reform occurred after the 1968 coup by left-wing colonel Juan Velasco Alvarado, and again as part of a counterterrorism effort against the Shining Path during the Internal conflict in Peru roughly 1988–1995, led by Hernando de Soto and the Institute for Liberty and Democracy during the early years of the government of Alberto Fujimori, before the latter’s auto-coup.

    Venezuela[edit]Hugo Chávez’s government enacted Plan Zamora to redistribute government and unused private land to campesinos in need.

    Middle East and North Africa[edit]See also: Arab Socialism

    photo of the Shah distributing land deeds during Iran’s White RevolutionOttoman Empire[edit]The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 (1274 in the Islamic Calendar)was the beginning of a systematic land reform programme started during the Tanzimat period by Sultan Abdülmecid I of the Ottoman Empire during the latter half of the 19th Century, with the overall aims of increasing state revenue generated from land and for the state to be able to have greater control over individual plots of land. This was followed by the 1873 land emancipation act.

    Egypt[edit]Initially, Egyptian land reform essentially abolished the political influence of major land owners. However, land reform only resulted in the redistribution of about 15% of Egypt’s land under cultivation, and by the early 1980s, the effects of land reform in Egypt drew to a halt as the population of Egypt moved away from agriculture. The Egyptian land reform laws were greatly curtailed under Anwar Sadat and eventually abolished.

    Iran[edit]Significant land reform in Iran took place under the Shah as part of the socio-economic reforms of the White Revolution, begun in 1962, and agreed upon through a public referendum. At this time the Iranian economy was not performing well and there was political unrest. Essentially, the land reforms amounted to a huge redistribution of land to rural peasants who previously had no possibility of owning land as they were poorly paid labourers. The land reforms continued from 1962 until 1971 with three distinct phases of land distribution: private, government-owned and endowed land. These reforms resulted in the newly created peasant landowners owning six to seven million hectares, around 52-63% of Iran’s agricultural land. According to Country-Data, even though there had been a considerable redistribution of land, the amount received by individual peasants was not enough to meet most families’ basic needs, “About 75 percent of the peasant owners [however] had less than 7 hectares, an amount generally insufficient for anything but subsistence agriculture.”.[7] By 1979 a quarter of prime land was in disputed ownership and half of the productive land was in the hands of 200,000 absentee landlords[7] The large land owners were able to retain the best land with the best access to fresh water and irrigation facilities. In contrast, not only were the new peasant land holdings too small to produce an income but the peasants also lacked both quality irrigation system and sustained government support to enable them to develop their land to make a reasonable living. Set against the economic boom from oil revenue it became apparent that the Land Reforms did not make life better for the rural population: according to Amid, “..only a small group of rural people experienced increasing improvements in their welfare and poverty remained the lot of the majority”.[8] Moghadam argues[citation needed] that the structural changes to Iran, including the land reforms, initiated by the White Revolution, contributed to the revolution in 1979 which overthrew the Shah and turned Iran into an Islamic republic.

    Maghreb[edit]As elsewhere in North Africa, lands formerly held by European farmers have been taken over. The nationalisation of agricultural land in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia led to the departure of the majority of Europeans.[9]

    Syria[edit]Land reforms were first implemented in Syria during 1958. The Agricultural Relations Law laid down a redistribution of rights in landownership, tenancy and management . A culmination of factors led to the halt of the reforms in 1961, these included opposition from large landowners and sever crop failure during a drought between 1958 and 1961, whilst Syria was a member of the doomed United Arab Republic (UAR). After the Ba’th Party gained power in 1963 the reforms were resumed. The reforms were portrayed by the governing Ba’th Party as politically motivated to benefit the rural property-less communities. According to Arsuzi, a co-founder of the Ba’th Party, the reforms would, “liberate 75 percent of the Syrian population and prepare them to be citizens qualified to participate in the building of the state”.[10] It has been argued that the land reform represented work by the ‘socialist government’ however, by 1984 the private sector controlled 74 percent of Syria’s arable land.[11] This questions both Ba’th claims of commitment to the redistribution of land to the majority of peasants as well as the state government being socialist – if it allowed the majority of land to be owned in the private sector how could it truly be socialist. Hinnebusch argued that the reforms were a way of galvanising support from the large rural population, “they[Ba’th Party members] used the implementation of agrarian reform to win over and organise peasants and curb traditional power in the countryside”.[12] To this extent the reforms succeeded with increase in Ba’th party membership, they also prevented political threat emerging from rural areas by bringing the rural population into the system as supporters.

    Europe[edit]Albania[edit]Albania has gone through three waves of land reform since the end of World War II: in 1946 the land in estates and large farms was expropriated by the communist government and redistributed among small peasants; in the 1950s the land was reorganized into large-scale collective farms; and after 1991 the land was again redistributed among private smallholders. At the end of World War II, the farm structure in Albania was characterized by high concentration of land in large farms. In 1945, farms larger than 10 hectares, representing numerically a mere 3% of all farms in the country, managed 27% of agricultural land and just seven large estates (out of 155,000 farms) controlled 4% of agricultural land, averaging more than 2,000 hectares each (compared to the average farm size of 2.5 hectares at that time).[13] The first post-war constitution of independent Albania (March 1946) declared that land belonged to the tiller and that large estates under no circumstances could be owned by private individuals (article 10). The post-war land reform of 1946 redistributed 155,000 hectares (40% of the land stock) from 19,355 relatively large farms (typically larger than 5 hectares) to 70,211 small farms and landless households.[13] As a result, the share of large farms with more than 10 hectares declined from 27% of agricultural land in 1945 to 3% in 1954. By 1954, more than 90% of land was held in small and mid-sized farms of between 1 hectare and 10 hectares. The distributive effects of the post-war land reform were eliminated by the collectivization drive of the late 1950s-early 1960s, and by 1962 less than 18% of agricultural land had remained in family farms and household plots (the rest had shifted to Soviet-style collective and state farms).[13] By 1971 independent family farms had virtually disappeared and individual farming survived only in household plots cultivated part-time by cooperative members (approximately 6% of agricultural land). The post-communist land reform begun in 1991 as part of the transition to the market was in effect a replay of the 1946 land reform, and the arable land held in cooperatives and state farms was equally distributed among all rural households without regard to pre-communist ownership rights. Contrary to other transition countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Albania adopted a distributive land reform (like the CIS) and did not restitute land to former owners. The post-communist land reform of the 1990s was accompanied by special land privatization legislation, as Albania was the only country outside the former Soviet Union that had nationalized all agricultural land (in stages between 1946 and 1976).[14]

    Soviet Union and Imperial Russia[edit]Main articles: Stolypin reform and Decree on Land
    Scotland[edit]The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 ends the historic legacy of feudal law and creates a framework for rural or croft communities right to buy land in their area.

    Sweden[edit]In 1757, the general reparcelling out of land began. In this process, the medieval principle of dividing all the fields in a village into strips, each belonging to a farm, was changed into a principle of each farm consisting of a few relatively large areas of land. The land was redistributed in proportion to earlier possession of land, while uninhabited forests far from villages were socialized. In the 20th century, Sweden, almost non-violently, arrived at regulating the length minimum of tenant farming contracts at 25 years.

    Africa[edit]Ethiopia[edit]The Derg carried out one of the most extensive land reforms in Africa in 1975.

    Kenya[edit]Kenyatta launched a “willing buyer-willing seller” based land reform program in the 1960s, funded by Britain, the former colonial power. In 2006 president Mwai Kibaki said it will repossess all land owned by “absentee landlords” in the coastal strip and redistribute it to squatters.[15]

    Namibia[edit]A limited land reform has been a hallmark of the regime of Sam Nujoma; legislation passed in September 1994, with a compulsory, compensated approach.[16]

    South Africa[edit]The Native Lands Act of 1913 “prohibited the establishment of new farming operations, sharecropping or cash rentals by blacks outside of the reserves”[17] where they were forced to live. “Land restitution” was one of the promises made by the African National Congress when it came to power in South Africa in 1994.

    These property rights are extremely important as, not only do they empower farmer workers (who now have the opportunity to become farmers) and reduce inequality[18] but they also increase production due to inverse farm size productivity. Farmers with smaller plots who live on the farm, often use family members for labor, making these farms efficient. Their transaction costs are less than larger plots with hired labor.[19] Since many of these family members were unemployed it allows previously unemployed people to now participate in the economy and better the country’s economic growth.[20]

    The Land Reform Process focused on three areas: restitution, land tenure reform and land redistribution.[17][21] Restitution, where the government compensates (monetary) individuals who had been forcefully removed, has been very unsuccessful and the policy has now shifted to redistribution with secure land tenure. Land tenure reform is a system of recognizing people’s right to own land and therefore control of the land.

    Redistribution is the most important component of land reform in South Africa.[22] Initially, land was bought from its owners (willing seller) by the government (willing buyer) and redistributed, in order to maintain public confidence in the land market.[17] Although this system has worked in various countries in the world, in South Africa it has proved to be very difficult to implement. This is because many owners do not actually see the land they are purchasing and are not involved in the important decisions made at the beginning of the purchase and negotiation.

    In 2000 the South African Government decided to review and change the redistribution and tenure process to a more decentralized and area based planning process. The idea is to have local integrated development plans in 47 districts. This will hopefully mean more community participation and more redistribution taking place, but there are also various concerns and challenges with this system too.[23]

    These include the use of third parties, agents accredited by the state, and who are held accountable to the government. The result has been local land holding elites dominating the system in many of these areas. The government still hopes that with “improved identification and selection of beneficiaries, better planning of land and ultimately greater productivity of the land acquired…”[24] the land reform process will begin moving faster.[25] As of early 2006, the ANC government announced that it will start expropriating the land, although according to the country’s chief land-claims commissioner, Tozi Gwanya, unlike Zimbabwe there will be compensation to those whose land is expropriated, “but it must be a just amount, not inflated sums.”[26][27]

    Despite these moves towards decentralization, these improved practices and government promises are not very evident. South Africa still remains hugely unequal, with black South Africans still dispossessed of land and many still homeless. The challenge for the incumbent politicians is to improve the various bureaucratic processes, and find solutions to giving more South Africans secure land tenure.

    Challenges for Land Reform in South Africa[edit]Various researchers have identified various challenges facing land and agrarian reform in South Africa. The following are amongst the challenges as identified by Hall (2004) and the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (2008):

    Willing seller-willing buyer principle: it takes a long time to negotiate land price with the current land owners;
    Claim disputes: it is a long process to mediate and resolve claim disputes (e.g. unresolved disputes between Makgoba Traditional Council and the Trust in the Limpopo Province, South Africa);
    Capacity: there is lack of institutional capacity for community legal entities (e.g. Trust);
    Beneficiary selection: it is a lengthy process and time consuming process to select the rightful beneficiaries for land redistribution;
    Resettlement support: it requires enough resources and time to effectively facilitate post-resettlement support to new land owners;
    Monitoring and evaluation: there is lack of reliable monitoring system and evaluation thereof;
    Policy: there are gaps in the current policies which compromise effective implementation of land reform programme.
    Different political views: there is lack of common consensus among political parties on land reform debate.
    Unresolved land claims, which are largely rural claims, are mostly affected by a number of challenges such as:

    disputes with land owners on the validity of claims, land prices, settlement models and conditions;
    family or community dispute;
    conflict among traditional leaders, community, trust and beneficiaries
    boundaries disputes among traditional leaders;
    reluctance of other government departments and institutions to release state land;
    high land prices and disputes on land valuation;
    land price negotiations with current owners;
    lack of technical and financial support;
    mismanagement of resources;
    untraceable claimants; and
    land claim disputes resolution and mediation.(source)
    Zimbabwe[edit]Efforts at land reform in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe moved, after 15 years, in the 1990s, from a “willing seller, willing buyer” approach to the “fast track” land reform program. This was accelerated by “popular seizure” led by machete gangs of “war veterans” associated with the ruling party. Many parcels of land came under the control of people close to the government, as is the case throughout Africa. The several forms of forcible change in management caused a severe drop in production and other economic disruptions. In addition, the human rights violations and bad press led Britain, the European Union, the United States, and other Western allies to impose sanctions on the Zimbabwean government. All this has caused the collapse of the economy[citation needed]. The results have been disastrous and have resulted in widespread food shortages and large scale refugee flight.

    North America[edit]Canada[edit]A land reform was carried out as part of Prince Edward Island’s agreement to join the Canadian Confederation in 1873. Most of the land was owned by absentee landlords in England, and as part of the deal Canada was to buy all the land and give it to the farmers.

    United States[edit]Following the U.S. Civil War, many blacks and military officials considered land reform vital. The downfall of the Confederacy emancipated millions, but few former slaves had the means to exercise real autonomy. Land, even at depressed post-war prices, was difficult for African Americans to procure.[28] At the same time, with southern wealth the result of centuries of forced labor, blacks nationwide called for property on the basis of just reparations.[29] Politically, redistribution carried the support of Radical Republicans.[30] But opposing any grants to blacks were racist moderates and conservatives, along with a White House committed to ‘restoration’.[31][32] Given national divisions, reform efforts were varied but short-lived.

    Many African Americans believed property was critical to erasing slave-oriented social order.[33] In addition to speaking out, some demanded plots and moved into their master’s plantation homes by force.[34] Others bought land collectively, or squatted on what was undeveloped.[35] Throughout war and Reconstruction, the presence of Federal troops provided a platform for agricultural policy. In 1865, William Tecumseh Sherman issued Field Order 15, taking coastal land in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, and dividing it into 40-acre plots for black settlement, hence the term “40 acres and a mule”.[36]

    In March, Congress established the Freedmen’s Bureau, whose commissioner had authority to redistribute confiscated or abandoned southern land.[37] The Bureau held 850,000 acres (3,400 km2), and key directors pushed for its settling with former slaves. When President Andrew Johnson began to pardon Confederates and restore their property, Commissioner Oliver O. Howard issued Circular 13. The order instructed agents to establish 40-acre parcels with haste. Johnson rescinded the order, and an overwhelming majority of Bureau land returned to its previous owners.[38]

    The final reform attempts of Reconstruction occurred within state governments. In South Carolina, a land commission was established, which purchased property and sold it on long-term credit.[39] Other state Republicans utilized new tax systems, penalizing large estates, to seize and divide land and stimulate black ownership. This indirect method achieved little, as taxes were repaid and lands were reclaimed. Of property not redeemed, much was exploited by investors.[40]

    Ultimately, Reconstruction was discounted as ‘Socialism’ by moderates committed to free-market transformation, a popular new line of political attack[41] levied against the likes of Boss Tweed and Benjamin F. Butler (politician) alike.[42] Radicals began to fall even earlier, with the failure of Johnson’s impeachment. Liberal Republicans, eroding the era’s political landscape, called for an immediate end to “black barbarism”.[43][44] White supremacist violence and financial panic[45] weakened Reconstruction to the breaking point. With the Compromise of 1877, it was finished.[46]

    The Dawes Act of 1887 split the Indian tribal lands into allotments held by individual Indians. Most tribal land still owned by ethnic Indians was recollectivized in 1934.

    Asia[edit]Afghanistan[edit]Afghanistan has had a couple of attempts at land reform. The government of Mohammad Daoud Khan responded to the inequities of the existing land tenure conditions by issuing a Land Reform Law in 1975. The government limited individual holdings to a maximum of 20 hectares of irrigated, double-cropped land. Larger holdings were allowed for less productive land. The government was to expropriate all surplus land and pay compensation. To prevent the proliferation of small, uneconomic holdings, priority for redistributed lands was to be given to neighboring farmers with two hectares or less. Landless sharecroppers, laborers, tenants, and nomads had next priority. Despite the government’s rhetorical commitment to land reform, the program was quickly postponed. Because the government’s landholding limits applied to families, not individuals, wealthy families avoided expropriation by dividing their lands nominally between family members. The high ceilings for landholdings restricted the amount of land actually subject to redistribution. Finally, the government lacked the technical data and organizational bodies to pursue the program after it was announced.

    Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) first step ay land reform was Decree No. 6, which canceled gerau and other mortgage debts of agricultural laborers, tenants, and small landowners with less than two hectares of land. The cancellation applied only to debts contracted before 1973. The Decree No. 8 of November 1978 made new landholdings from the 20 hectares of prime irrigated land in the 1975 law to just six hectares. It divided all land into seven classes and again allowed for larger holdings of less productive land. There was no compensation for government-expropriated surplus land and it established categories of farmers who had priority for redistributed land; sharecroppers already working on the land had highest priority.[47][48]

    China[edit]China has been through a series of land reforms. In the 1940s, the Sino-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, funded with American money, with the support of the national government, carried out land reform and community action programs in several provinces.

    The thorough land reform launched by the Communist Party of China in 1946, three years before the foundation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), won the party millions of supporters among the poor and middle peasantry. The land and other property of landlords were expropriated and redistributed so that each household in a rural village would have a comparable holding. This agrarian revolution was made famous in the West by William Hinton’s book Fanshen. In 1948, Mao Zedong envisaged that “one-tenth of the peasants” (or about 50,000,000) “would have to be destroyed” to facilitate agrarian reform.[49] Ren Bishi, a member of the party’s Central Committee, likewise stated in a 1948 speech that “30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed.”[49] Shortly after the founding of the PRC, land reform, according to Mao biographer Philip Short, “lurched violently to the left” with Mao laying down new guidelines for “not correcting excesses prematurely.”[50] Mao insisted that the people themselves, not the security organs, should become involved in the killing of landlords who had oppressed them.[50] This was quite different from Soviet practice, in which the NKVD would arrest counterrevolutionaries and then have them secretly executed and often buried before sunrise. Mao thought that peasants who killed landlords with their bare hands would become permanently linked to the revolutionary process in a way that passive spectators could not be.[50] Actual numbers killed in land reform are believed to have been lower, but did rank in the millions,[49] as there was a policy to select “at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution.”[51] R.J. Rummel, an analyst of government killings, or “democide”, gives a “reasonably conservative figure” of about 4,500,000 landlords and better-off peasants killed.[49] Philip Short estimates that at least one to three million landlords and members of their families were killed, either beaten to death on the spot by enraged peasants at mass meetings organized by local communist party work teams or reserved for public execution later on.[50] Estimates abroad ranged as high as 28,000,000 deaths.[49] In 1976 the U.S. State department estimated that there may have been a million killed in the land reform;[52] Mao estimated that only 800,000 landlords were killed.[49]

    In the mid-1950s, a second land reform during the Great Leap Forward compelled individual farmers to join collectives, which, in turn, were grouped into People’s communes with centrally controlled property rights and an egalitarian principle of distribution. This policy was generally a failure in terms of production.[53] The PRC reversed this policy in 1962 through the proclamation of the Sixty Articles. As a result, the ownership of the basic means of production was divided into three levels with collective land ownership vested in the production team (see also Ho [2001]).

    A third land reform beginning in the late 1970s re-introduced the family-based contract system known as the Household Responsibility System, which had enormous initial success, followed by a period of relative stagnation. Chen, Wang, and Davis [1998] suggest that the later stagnation was due, in part, to a system of periodic redistribution that encouraged over-exploitation rather than capital investment in future productivity.[53] However, although land use rights were returned to individual farmers, collective land ownership was left undefined after the disbandment of the People’s Communes.

    Since 1998 China is in the midst of drafting the new Property Law which is the first piece of national legislation that will define the land ownership structure in China for years to come. The Property Law forms the basis for China’s future land policy of establishing a system of freehold, rather than of private ownership (see also Ho, [2005]).

    India[edit]Since independence, there has been voluntary and state initiated/mediated land reforms in several states. The most notable and successful example of land reforms are in the states of West Bengal and Kerala. After promising land reforms and elected to power in West Bengal in 1977, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) kept their word and initiated gradual land reforms, such as Operation Barga. The result was a more equitable distribution of land among the landless farmers, and enumeration of landless farmers. This has ensured an almost lifelong loyalty from the farmers and the communists were in power till 2011 assembly election.[54] In land reform in Kerala, the only other large state where the CPI(M) came to power, state administrations have actually carried out the most extensive land, tenancy and agrarian labor wage reforms in the non-socialist late-industrializing world.[55] Another successful land reform program was launched in Jammu and Kashmir after 1947. However, this success was not replicated in other areas like the states of Andhra and Madhya Pradesh, where the more radical Communist Party of India (Maoist) or Naxalites resorted to violence as it failed to secure power. In the state of Bihar, tensions between land owners militia, villagers and Maoists have resulted in numerous massacres. All in all, land reforms have been successful only in pockets of the country, as people have often found loopholes in the laws that set limits on the maximum area of land that is allowed to be held by any one person.

    Japan[edit]The first land reform in recent history, called the Land Tax Reform or chisokaisei (地租改正?) was passed in 1873 as a part of the Meiji Restoration. Another land reform in Japan was carried out in 1947 (during the occupied era after World War II) under instructions of SCAP based on a proposal from the Japanese government which had been prepared before the defeat of the Greater Japanese Empire. This last reform is also called Nōchi-kaihō (農地解放,emancipation of farming land ).

    Philippines[edit]Main article: Land reform in the Philippines
    This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2009)

    During the Macapagal Administration in the early 1960s, a limited land reform program was initiated in Central Luzon covering rice fields. During the martial law era of the Marcos Administration, Presidential Decree 27 instituted a land reform program covering rice and corn farms. Rice and corn production under this land reform program was heavily supported by the Marcos Administration with land distribution and financing program known as the Masagana 99 and other production loans that led to increased rice and corn production. The country produced enough rice for local consumption and became a rice exporter during that period. The Aquino Administration in the mid-1980s instituted a very controversial land reform known as CARP which covered all agricultural lands. The program led to rice shortages in the succeeding years and lasted for 20 years without accomplishing the goal of land distribution. The program caused entrepreneurs to stay away from agriculture and a number of productive farmers left the farming sector. The CARP was a monumental failure in terms of cost to the government and the landowners whose lands were subjective legal landgrabbing by the government. CARP expired at the end of December 2008.[56]

    Sri Lanka[edit]In 1972, the Government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, through the Land Reform Law, imposed a ceiling of twenty hectares on privately owned land and sought to distribute lands in excess of the ceiling for the benefit of landless peasants. Both land owned by public companies and paddy lands under ten hectares in extent were exempted from this ceiling. Between 1972 and 1974, the Land Reform Commission took over nearly 228,000 hectares. In 1975 the Land Reform (Amendment) Law brought over 169,000 hectares of plantations owned by companies (including British-owned companies) under state control.[57]

    South Korea[edit]In 1945–1950, United States and South Korean authorities carried out a land reform that retained the institution of private property. They confiscated and redistributed all land held by the Japanese colonial government, Japanese companies, and individual Japanese colonists. The Korean government carried out a reform whereby Koreans with large landholdings were obliged to divest most of their land. A new class of independent, family proprietors was created.[58]

    Taiwan[edit]Main article: Land reform in Taiwan
    In the 1950s, after the Nationalist government came to Taiwan, land reform and community development was carried out by the Sino-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction. This course of action was made attractive, in part, by the fact that many of the large landowners were Japanese who had fled, and the other large landowners were compensated with Japanese commercial and industrial properties seized after Taiwan reverted from Japanese rule in 1945. The land program succeeded also because the Kuomintang were mostly from the mainland and had few ties to the remaining indigenous landowners. See also: Taiwan Land Reform Museum

    Vietnam[edit]Main article: Land reform in Vietnam
    In the years after World War II, even before the formal division of Vietnam, land reform was initiated in North Vietnam. This land reform (1953–1956) redistributed land to more than 2 million poor peasants, but at a cost of from tens[59] to hundreds of thousands of lives[60] and was one of the main reason for the mass exodus of 1 million people from the North to the South in 1954. The probable democide for this four-year period then totals 283,000 North Vietnamese.[61] South Vietnam made several further attempts in the post-Diem years, the most ambitious being the Land to the Tiller program instituted in 1970 by President Nguyen Van Thieu. This limited individuals to 15 hectares, compensated the owners of expropriated tracts, and extended legal title to peasants who in areas under control of the South Vietnamese government to whom had land had previously been distributed by the Viet Cong.

    Oceania[edit]Australia[edit]See also: Aboriginal Land Rights Acts
    See also[edit]Anti-globalization movement
    Eminent domain
    Homestead principle
    Land Banking
    Land claim
    Land rights
    México Indígena
    Land reform in Vietnam
    References[edit]1.Jump up ^ “Cuba: Historical Exception or Vanguard in the Anticolonial Struggle?” speech by Che Guevara on April 9, 1961
    2.Jump up ^ Fabricant, Nicole (2010). “Mapping a new geography of space and power”. Bolivian Studies Journal. 15-17: 114–149 [118]. ISSN 2156-5163.
    3.Jump up ^ James Read, Bolivia head starts land handout, BBC News, 4 June 2006. Retrieved 20 July 2006.
    4.Jump up ^ “Morales signs controversial bill into law.” [1], Taipei Times, 30 November 2006. Retrieved 30 November 2006.
    5.Jump up ^ Gleijeses, Piero. “The Agrarian Reform of Jacobo Arbenz.” Journal of Latin American Studies 21, 3 (1989): 453-480.
    6.Jump up ^ Jaime Suchlicki, Mexico: From Montezuma to the Fall of the PRI, Brassey’s (2001), ISBN 1-57488-326-7, ISBN 978-1-57488-326-8
    7.^ Jump up to: a b “Iran – Rural Society”. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
    8.Jump up ^ Amid, M. (1990) ‘Agriculture, Poverty and Reform in Iran’ London, Routledge
    9.Jump up ^ Raimondo Cagiano De Azevedo (1994). “Migration and development co-operation.”. Council of Europe. p.25. ISBN 92-871-2611-9
    10.Jump up ^ as quoted in Heydemann 1999 p.193 ‘Authoritarianism in Syria: Institutions and Social Conflict’ 1946-1970 Cornell University Press Ithica
    11.Jump up ^ “Syria – Agriculture”. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
    12.Jump up ^ Hinnebusch, R. 2001 p.55 ‘Syria Revolution From Above’ Routledge New York
    13.^ Jump up to: a b c Statistical Yearbook of the Popular Republic of Albania 1963, Department of Statistics, Tirana, 1964
    14.Jump up ^ Z. Lerman, C. Csaki, and G. Feder, Agriculture in Transition: Land Policies and Evolving Farm Structures in Post-Soviet Countries, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, 2004.
    15.Jump up ^ Joseph, Odhiambo (2006-08-22). “Pledge to redistribute Kenya land”. BBC News. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
    16.Jump up ^ Namibia: Land Reform to Cost Billions
    17.^ Jump up to: a b c Deininger, Klaus. “Making Negotiated Land Reform Work: Initial Experience from Colombia, Brazil and South Africa.” World Development Vol. 27(1999): 651-672
    18.Jump up ^ Keefer, Philip, and Stephen Knack. “Polarization, politics and property rights: Links between.” Public Choice 111(2002): 127-154
    19.Jump up ^ Van den Brink, Rogier, Glen Sonwabo Thomas, Hans Binswanger, Agricultural Land redistribution in South Africa: towards accelerated Implementation. 1st ed. Cape Town: HSRC Press, 2007
    20.Jump up ^ Torstensson, Johan. “Property Rights and Economic Growth: An empirical study.” KYKLOS 47(1994): 231-247
    21.Jump up ^ Moseley, W.G. and B. McCusker. 2008. “Fighting Fire with a Broken Tea Cup: A Comparative Analysis of South Africa’s Land Redistribution Program.” Geographical Review. 98(3): 322-338.
    22.Jump up ^ Lahiff, Edward. “Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies.” Land Reform in South Africa: A status Report 2008 38(July 2008): 1-42
    23.Jump up ^ Hall, Ruth. “Decentralisation in South Africa’s Land Redistribution.” Presentation to the PLAAS regional workshop on Land Reform from Below? Decentralisation of Land Reform in Southern Africa. Program for land anad agrarian studies. Kopanong Conference Centre, Kempton Park, Johannesburg. 23-04-2008. Address
    24.Jump up ^ Lahiff, Edward. “Program for Land and Agrarian Studies.” Land Reform in South Africa: A status Report 2008 38(July 2008): 1-42
    25.Jump up ^ Hall, Ruth. “Decentralization in South Africa’s Land Redistribution.” Presentation to the PLAAS regional workshop on Land Reform from Below? Decentralization of Land Reform in Southern Africa. Program for land and agrarian studies. Kopanong Conference Centre, Kempton Park, Johannesburg. 23-04-2008. Address
    26.Jump up ^ “IRIN Africa | Southern Africa | South Africa | SOUTH AFRICA: Deadline for land transfer negotiations set | Governance | News Item”. 2006-08-15. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
    27.Jump up ^ “SA land expropriation to start soon : Mail & Guardian Online”. 2009-11-24. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
    28.Jump up ^ Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Harper & Row, 1988, p. 374
    29.Jump up ^ Foner, 1988, p. 104
    30.Jump up ^ Alan Brinkley, The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People, 6th ed, McGraw-Hill, 2010, p.372-374
    31.Jump up ^ Brinkley, 2010, p. 375
    32.Jump up ^ Clayborne Carson, Emma J. Lapsansky-Werner, and Gary B. Nash, The Struggle for Freedom: A History of African Americans, Combined vol., 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 2011, p. 265-266,276-277
    33.Jump up ^ Brinkley, 2010, p. 371
    34.Jump up ^ Foner, 1988, p.104-105
    35.Jump up ^ Foner, 1988, p. 105-106, 403
    36.Jump up ^ “Order by the Commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi”. Freedmen and Southern Society Project. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
    37.Jump up ^ “Freedmen’s Bureau Bill”. An Act to Establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees. The Online Library of Liberty. Retrieved 2013-01-29.
    38.Jump up ^ Foner, 1988, p. 159
    39.Jump up ^ Foner, 1988, p. 375
    40.Jump up ^ Foner, 1988, pp. 375-377
    41.Jump up ^ Foner, 1988, pp. 524-525
    42.Jump up ^ Republicans of the era firmly believed in free-labor ideology, considering the laws of contract vital to society. Reconstruction policy was predominantly geared to establishing a workforce employeed conditionally, and paid for its work. Foner, 1988, pp. 164-169, 379-380
    43.Jump up ^ James S. Pike, reporting on the south, indicating the growing appeal of racist rhetoric in anti-Reconstruction politics. Foner, 1988, p. 525
    44.Jump up ^ Foner, 1988, pp. 524-531
    45.Jump up ^ Brinkley, 2010, p. 387
    46.Jump up ^ Foner, 1988, pp. 602-612
    47.Jump up ^ Afghanistan Country Study and Government Publication
    48.Jump up ^ Afghanistan Country Study
    49.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Rummel, Rudolph J. (2007). China’s bloody century: genocide and mass murder since 1900. Transaction Publishers. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-4128-0670-1.
    50.^ Jump up to: a b c d Short, Philip (2001). Mao: A Life. Owl Books. pp. 436–437. ISBN 0-8050-6638-1.
    51.Jump up ^ Twitchett, Denis; John K. Fairbank, Roderick MacFarquhar. The Cambridge history of China. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-24336-X. Retrieved 2008-08-23.
    52.Jump up ^ Stephen Rosskamm Shalom. Deaths in China Due to Communism. Center for Asian Studies Arizona State University, 1984. ISBN 0-939252-11-2 pg 24
    53.^ Jump up to: a b “SD: Institutions : Land reform in rural China since the mid-1980s, Part 1”. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
    54.Jump up ^ “Assembly election 2011 West Bengal: Trinamool Congress rises like phoenix”. The Times Of India.
    55.Jump up ^ [Heller, Patrick. 1999. The Labor of Development. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, Chapters 2 and 3.]
    56.Jump up ^ CARP not renewed,, 3 January 2009.
    57.Jump up ^ “Sri Lanka land reform legislation”. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
    58.Jump up ^ “South Korea – The Emergence of a Modern Society”. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
    59.Jump up ^ Communist Party of Vietnam, Kinh nghiệm giải quyết vấn đề ruộng đất trong cách mạng Việt Nam (Experience in land reform in the Vietnamese Revolution), available online: Bao Dien tu Dang Cong san Viet Nam
    60.Jump up ^ The Viet Minh Regime, Government and Administration in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Bernard Fall, Greenwood Press, Connecticut, 1975.
    61.Jump up ^ “Statistics Of Vietnamese Democide”. Retrieved 2010-06-27.

  9. Virginia Says:

    Thanks a bunch for sharing this with all of us you actually realize what you’re talking approximately!
    Bookmarked. Please additionally discuss with my web site =).
    We may have a hyperlink alternate arrangement between us

  10. go right here now Says:

    What a material of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious experience on the topic of unexpected feelings.

  11. Harrison Says:

    Wonderful blog! I found it while browsing on Yahoo News.
    Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo News?
    I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to
    get there! Thanks

  12. Says:

    This site was… how do you say it? Relevant!! Finally I’ve
    found something which helped me. Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: