Page 113 - Communication Processes Volume 3 Communication Culture and Confrontation

88 Karine Bates

demonstrates that this level is low in spite of the land reforms (Agarwal
1994). Despite diverse legislative initiatives, property continues to be
transmitted to women mainly at the time of marriage (generally in
the form of jewellery or other types of moveable goods) and through
inheritance. As Agarwal points out:

Yet the voice of the disinherited female peasant has until recently
gone largely unheard, not only by policy makers but also by grass-
roots groups and academics. Instead, employment is taken as the
principal measure of women’s economic status, obscuring what has
been commonplace in measuring the economic status of men or of
households: property ownership and control. (ibid.: 2)
Governmental policies in South Asia are elaborated in the context
of Five Year Plans. In India the 8th FiveYear Plan noted two important
points regarding women and agricultural land. First, the modification
of succession laws for women should provide women with an equal
part of the parents’ property, because this is an essential condition to
ameliorate their status. Second, the planners ask the government to give
40 per cent of ‘surplus land’ to non-married or abandoned women as
well as to widows, the balance being for the married women (ibid.: 7).
These ‘surplus lands’ are composed of those the government has ac-
quired from households possessing more land than the required quota
of the specified ceilings. The second recommendation was the only
one to be developed into specific policies. The problem is that the land
surpluses only represented 0.56 per cent of arable land of the country.
Approximately 21 million hectares of land still have to be distributed
for a total of 185 million hectares of arable land for the whole country
(Government of India 1992). This land includes, among other things,
net sown area as well as land under miscellaneous tree crops and
groves. According to Agarwal (1994: 7), this quantity (and quality) of
land cannot solve the problems of access to land for women. 11
As pointed out by Agarwal, the government does not consider
12
property in common lands and private land the same way. The idea
of independent property rights for women was recognized, but only
for private land. Consequently, women do not have the same access to
property depending on whether the land is private or public (ibid.: 9).
In addition, the process of land privatization in India is not equitable
for women (Agarwal 1998). It was only during the 1980s that land
rights for women were discussed in the context of common land