http://ijopaar.com; 2016 Vol. 1(1); pp. 96-100 Paper ID: D16108; The Neoliberal Globalization and Indian Village: Changing terms of discourse on Women’s Land Rights by Pradeep Sharma* and Prashant K. Trivedi**,pp. 96-100. Page 96 The Neoliberal Globalization and Indian Village: Changing terms of discourse on Women’s Land Rights Pradeep Sharma* and Prashant K. Trivedi** *Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Shia P. G. College, Lucknow. **Assistant Professor, Giri Institute of Development Studies, Lucknow. Abstract The myth of ‘Men Farmer’ was already blasted long back. Further, in South Asia, there has been a highly gendered agrarian transition, as men move faster to non-farm jobs than women leading to a much discussed phenomenon ‘feminization of agriculture’. In the context of agriculture becoming increasingly less profitable, men move out of agriculture leaving behind women to take care of their farms. In 2004-05, 49% of male workers but 65% of all women workers and 83% of rural female workers were still in agriculture (NSSO 2004-05), and their percentage was rising. An estimated 35% of households are de facto female-headed from widowhood, marital breakdown, or male outmigration, and overall 38.9% of all agricultural workers are women (NSSO 2004-05). Many are uneducated and possess few skills beyond farming. Farm size is also falling and landlessness is growing. Women constitutes most of the landless, typically owning no land themselves even when born or married into landed households. Indeed, given intra-household inequalities in resource distribution, there are poor women in non-poor households whose work contributions (as unpaid family workers) are usually invisible, and who remain atomized and isolated as workers. 1. The Neoliberal Discourse on Land Reforms The ‘forgotten agenda’ of 1960s has resurfaced again, albeit at times in a new form. This new form might be dominant but do not go uncontested by proponent of ‘traditional’ land reforms. Both are not considered mutually exclusive in the sense that concrete steps taken under each may coincide but focus is definitely different. If market led reforms takes into account market compatibility of land tenure system, redistributive reforms were oriented towards increasing productivity and bringing down inequalities. Another distinguishing aspect was the way both these approaches negotiate with local power structure. If land reforms through market admittedly follow a non-confrontationist approach, redistributive land reforms were intended to alter power relations at local level. The neoliberal conceptualization of land reforms is radically different from the redistributive land reforms. International Organizations such as the World Bank call for rolling out of existing land legislation and propose a few measures to replace ‘traditional’ measures of land distribution. As part of non-traditional measures, the World Bank (2007) dismisses acquisition of ceiling surplus land; and proposes the provision for loans to the poor for buying land from market (page 43). The Bank also calls for legitimizing leasing of land where it remains illegal till now and eliminating restrictions on land rental and lease term where leasing is legal but these restrictions are in place. It also advocates liberalization of land sale market by doing away with all the restrictions put on changes in land use-from agriculture to non-agriculture and by allowing industrialists or other non- agricultural land users to directly negotiate with land owners for purchase of their land. In today’s context marked by dominance of neoliberal development paradigm, the state also shows more and more inclination towards capital. It also means making land tenure system market compatible. World Bank’s suggestions are precisely in this direction and for that reason are likely to get hearing in the government. But at the same time, government also knows that it is sitting on a volcano of landlessness. According to an estimate landless and virtually land form 40.3 percent of all rural households owning less than 0.5 percent of total land in 2003. At the other end, only 9.5 percent households own 56.6 percent area revealing increasing polarized land ownership pattern. This situation presents before us some possibilities alongside few dangers. In an attempt to balance