Policy support for women’s land rights in India has not translated into title deeds in women’s names. When agriculture depends heavily on women’s labour, why have women not joined together to demand rights to land?

Research carried out in Jharkhand, India, asks this question. Commentators often argue that to overcome inequality, women need to work together across boundaries of class, caste or religion to achieve their common interests. However, not all women have the same interests regarding land rights and they are therefore unlikely to work together to pursue greater equality. In fact, men’s and women’s interests within a family group are often more similar. A woman’s position as part of a household - as a daughter, a wife, a mother or a widow – is perhaps the most important influence on her loyalties and alliances in relation to land.

In Jharkhand, many factors influence the position of women with regard to land rights:

• Women do have power: agricultural production is dependent on women’s labour, which they can and do withhold if rights are not given to them.
• Women often side with their household, rather than with another woman. Equally, men regularly support a woman’s land claim when it is in their interest.
• Customary rights allow women to inherit land in some cases, as widows or daughters. However, these are often challenged by male relatives, since competition for land ownership is high, in a context where land markets are absent.
• Women’s interests change with their social position throughout their lives.
• Collective action works only where a group has common interests, but class, caste and other differences frequently outweigh gender identity.

A land claim by a woman based on parental or marital inheritance is considered a challenge to men, since land provides status and identity. Other women are just as likely to oppose it, though, if the claim threatens their household status. Women therefore need the support of the wider community, especially men with power, in making land claims and are often better off making male allies than trying to rouse collective action by women.

Policies must understand differences between women and competing and changing interests outside gender:

• Land titling and reform programmes should include secondary rights to the land, including women as named heirs. Untitled areas traditionally considered women’s plots should be officially demarcated.
• Customary laws are more socially acceptable than existing state law and provides for land rights for women in certain cases. These aspects of customary law should be included in and legitimised by official policies.
• As well as land, women need access to credit and technology. Collective action would be more useful in helping to access these resources. It is in the interests of all women involved in agriculture, so more likely to achieve collective support.
• Policymakers need to avoid generalising across groups, gender or geographical areas and take account of people’s differences and changing circumstances throughout their lives.

Source(s):
‘Questioning Women’s Solidarity: The Case of Land Rights, Santal Parganas, Jharkhand, India’, The Journal of Development Studies, 41:3, by Nitya Rao, 2005

Funded by: University of East Anglia; Overseas Research Students Award Scheme

id21 Research Highlight: 30 November 2005

Further Information:
Nitya Rao
School of Development Studies
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 1603 592333
Fax: +44 (0) 1603 451999
Contact the contributor: n.rao@uea.ac.uk

University of East Anglia, UK

Other related links:
'Land rights in Africa: protecting the interests of vulnerable groups'

'Seclusion and exclusion of women from agriculture in south Niger'

'Women’s inheritance rights in rural China: tradition, legislation and reality'

'Legal approaches to land and water – supporting the right to development'