At the beginning of the new century, the comparative study between India and India and China seems to be a hot topic at home and abroad. 4 Western scholar Gilbert? Etienne's monograph "Century Competition: China and India" has a great influence. The National Intelligence Council (NIC) also released a report that India may replace China as the "locomotive" of world economic development. Indians also swept away Nehru's worries, saying that "the 20th century belongs to the West, and China wants to become a world leader in 2 1 century, but the years after this century belong to us Indians". From China's point of view, the concern for India reflects the profound thinking of China people on China's development path. At the same time, it is beneficial to study and accurately evaluate India's potential and future development, learn from India's experience correctly, and unswervingly take the road of Socialism with Chinese characteristics.
First, from the center to the periphery: the interruption of Indian national development in modern times and its reasons
Almost like China, India has an ancient history and natural conditions for national economic development. Aryan tribes from the northwest conquered here in BC 1500. Their combination with the local people created the classic Vedic culture. Since then, Arabs conquered this land again in the 8th century, followed by Turks who arrived in the 2nd century/kloc-0 and European businessmen who arrived here at the end of the 5th century/kloc-0. Historically, during the Peacock Dynasty (324- 15 1), India was once a big country in South Asia, starting from the Himalayas in the north, Mysore in the south, Assam in the east and Hindu Kush in the west. During the Mughal Dynasty in the Middle Ages (1526- 1857), the territory of India was close to this scale again. During India's rule, Britain extended its influence in Asia to Afghanistan and parts of Tibet in the north, to the Indian Ocean in the south and to Southeast Asia in the east. After independence, India is mainly composed of the Himalayas in the north, the central plains and the Deccan Plateau in the south. It borders Pakistan, China, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Myanmar and Bangladesh, and borders on the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. The coastline is 5560 kilometers long. Many rivers originate in or flow through India. India has a tropical monsoon climate, and the temperature varies greatly with altitude. The long coastline is conducive to commercial development, and the vast land area and tropical monsoon climate are suitable for agricultural development. In 200 1 year, India's land area was 297.32 million hectares, while the cultivated land area was161750,000 hectares, accounting for 54.4% of India's land area. In the same period, the cultivated land area in China only accounts for 13.5% of the national land area. nine
Among the four ancient civilizations in the world, Indian ancient civilization forms are second only to China in preservation time. Agricultural globalization 10 originated from four ancient civilizations and spread all over the ancient world, which once made China and India become superpowers and civilization centers in the ancient world. However, when history entered the19th century, these two countries declined rapidly, and after half a century, they gradually entered the marginal and peripheral countries of the capital world from the central countries of the agricultural world. From 1600 to 1947, during most of India's independence, Britain's development indicators were not as good as India's except per capita GDP. 1857 Britain suppressed the Indian national uprising, and after the establishment of direct rule in India, the degree of British plunder of India expanded dramatically. 1 1 In addition, British colonial rule over India placed Indian laborers in the production relationship between colonial rule and feudal lords. Among them, non-workers account for a considerable part of national income. Moreover, compared with the Mughal period, the suzerain was forced to intervene in the non-productive class and send colonial officials. They divided up 5% of the national income. Workers in the production field who provide wealth for the society get a lower share in the national income distribution. 12 it is worth noting that the above-mentioned wealth distribution is only after-tax distribution, and taxation is an important part of Britain's deprivation of Indian national wealth. The Indian people have to pay for Britain's excessive administrative expenses in India, Britain's expenses in the wars in Myanmar and Afghanistan, the devaluation of the Indian currency after 1873 and the increase of domestic expenditure burden. 13 The main taxes include land tax, commodity tax, salt tax, stamp duty and opium tax, with the exception of opium tax, other taxes fall in all classes in India. Among them, land tax is the main source of fiscal revenue, which increases the burden on agricultural producers. 14 Take the land tax in Bangladesh as an example. During the Mughal Empire, the province's land tax only accounted for 40%-48% of the province's annual income. 1795, the land tax collected by the East India Company actually accounted for 85% of the province's income, which caused India to owe a lot to Britain. 15
Not only that, Britain also seized a considerable part of wealth from colonial India in the name of the sovereign state. The following table shows the labor wealth flowing from India to Britain in vain during the period of 1868- 1930.
Britain's "Captured" Wealth from India (1868- 1930)
The ratio of India's export surplus to its net GDP (%) is1868-18721.0/.3191-
Source: [English] Angus? Angus Maddison, translated by Wu Xiaoying, Xu Xianchun and Shi Faqi: A Millennium History of World Economy, Peking University Press, 2003, p. 80.
Angus? Angus Maddison believes that the above information "can give a general understanding of the situation of Indian resources flowing into Britain because of accepting foreign rule. From 1868 to the 1930s, India's resource outflow accounted for about 0.9% to 1.3% of its national income, which means that about one-fifth of India's net savings were transferred to Britain, which could have been used to import capital goods. " 16 Indian economist dabai? In his paper "Poverty in India" (1876), Naorojr divided Britain's ways of obtaining wealth from India into two aspects: "First, European officials remit their deposits abroad, and the British pay for various needs in Britain and India, such as pensions and wages paid in Britain; The second is the remittance of unofficial Europeans. " This means that India's exports must be much larger than its imports in order to meet the requirements of economic consumption. 17 India exports food and agricultural raw materials. In order to realize the surplus of commodity account, even in famine years, grain exports must be maintained at the original level. 181899-1907 Lord Guan Song, a former governor of India, also had to admit that "there would be no British Empire without India"19.
Under the dual exploitation of colonial economy and feudal economy, although India's GDP developed greatly in the last hundred years before independence (1857-1947), India's per capita income only increased by 0.5% in the last hundred years, which was almost at a standstill. 2 1 India's economy does not develop because of development: the result of rapid development is to quickly provide high surplus value for British capital, rather than quickly feeding back the basic labor force of Indian society. This has seriously hindered the primitive accumulation of Indian national capital and interrupted the process of independent formation of Indian national capital. India has become a cow that provides "nutrition" for British capitalists and Indian feudal lords. As a result, workers who live in the majority of the population cannot obtain reasonable "nutrition" to survive and develop because they provide more labor products. As a result, India's social base continues to shrink.
Modern China and India had similar experiences and destinies. "Before the19th century, China was stronger than any country in Europe or Asia. From the 5th century to14th century, its earlier developed technology and elite-based rule generated higher income than Europe. " 1820, China's GDP is nearly 30% higher than the sum of western Europe and its derivative countries. ". However, from the forties of 19 to the forties of 100, China's economy declined rapidly: "By 1950, the per capita GDP was less than three quarters of that of China 1820". During this period, China's economy formed a semi-colonial and semi-feudal abnormal structure: foreign capital in China controlled most of China's investments related to modern industry. From 65438 to 0936, foreign industrial capital accounted for 57.2% of China's industrial capital, of which Northeast China accounted for 84.6%. They monopolized and controlled 96.8% of pig iron production, 65.7% of coal production, 77. 1% of power generation, 64% of cotton production, 58% of cigarette production (1935) and 90.7% of railway mileage in China. From 2465438 to 0937, Japan launched a full-scale war of aggression against China, directly plundering China's economic resources. By 1938, the Japanese occupied the land of China13, with 40% agricultural production capacity and 92% industrial production capacity. After War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression's victory, the Kuomintang's bureaucratic capital was greatly strengthened. By the eve of the birth of New China in 1949, the bureaucratic capital led by the four families of Jiang, Song, Kong and Chen, which were inextricably linked with western capital, had controlled 70% of the national banks and 80% of the industrial capital, and controlled all railways, highways, air transport and ships with a tonnage of over 43%. According to the statistics of assets and capital verification in the early days of the founding of New China, the original value of assets of state-owned and public-private joint ventures nationwide was191600 million yuan, most of which were confiscated and taken over by the former Kuomintang bureaucratic capital; 1948, the net assets of China123,000 national industries were only 2.008 billion yuan. Before the Kuomintang fled to Taiwan Province Province after its defeat, it further plundered state property by expanding the fiscal deficit. 1948 in the last four months, the fiscal deficit of the Kuomintang government was as high as 78%. Under the triple exploitation of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism, China's economy has lost the conditions for independent appreciation of national capital and benign development of national market. However, international capital, domestic bureaucratic capital and feudal landlords have squeezed China's economy excessively, which has made China's national capital in a state of continuous shrinking for a long time. The relations of production hinder the growth of productive forces, which has become the same aspect of the tragic fate of China and India. Social revolution, that is, national revolution against colonial oppression, striving for independence and sovereignty and anti-feudal democratic revolution, has become the only way for India and China to liberate and develop productive forces.
It is worth noting that although India and China experienced the same historical fate, relatively speaking, before the success of the national revolution, there were obvious differences in their economic development. In 1820, India and China accounted for 15.4% and 32.7% of the world GNP allocation respectively. Up to 1952, Indian accounts for 3.8%, which is still lower than China's 5.2%. 1820, the economic development levels of India and China were11billion and 228.6 billion international dollars (1990),1952,226.6 billion and 305.7 billion international dollars (/. However, in terms of GNP, per capita GNP growth rate and output of major industrial products, China is not as good as India. From 1820 to 1952, the compound annual growth rate of GNP in India and China is 0.54 and 0.22 respectively. In the same period, the average annual compound growth rate of GNP per capita was 0. 10 and -0.08 respectively. In 29 1948, the output of raw coal, power generation, steel, pig iron, cement and sulfuric acid in India was higher than that in China. These data show that India in colonial and semi-colonial period lags behind China in terms of economic GNP and economic development level, but it is ahead of China in comprehensive development potential. Knowing this is helpful to understand why India is left behind by China.
Second, India's independence: a low-cost but innate political revolution.
Revolution is to liberate and develop productive forces, but India's independent revolution did not make it achieve the expected economic achievements. The reason is that the interests of the landlord bourgeoisie, especially the big landlord and big bourgeoisie, represented by the Indian National Congress led by Nehru, prevented the Indian people, as the vast producers, from becoming the direct market for their products, thus narrowing the conditions for the formation of Indian national capital and national market. Therefore, the victorious revolution did not create sufficient conditions for the liberation and development of India's productive forces. This is the fundamental reason for the different development speed of the two countries in the future, which is different from the essence of China 1949 Revolution. However, in order to further understand the background of this reason, we have to compare the different "socio-economic structure and socio-cultural development restricted by economic structure" caused by the national revolution and the democratic revolution dominated by land reform in these two countries.
India's national democratic revolution, like Europe and America and different from China, is a bourgeois-led revolution that reflects the interests of capitalists and landlords, but different from Europe and America, like China, India and China's national democratic revolution occurred in the declining period of world capitalism and the rising period of world socialist revolution. The British bourgeois revolution is the initial political motive force of the wave of industrial globalization sweeping the world. After the industrial revolution landed in Great Britain and won, it reversed and affected the European continent, causing a deconstructive impact on the feudal system in Europe. This led to the Napoleonic Wars in the early19th century and the European Revolution in the 1940s. This revolution awakened the European continent, American continent and Japan, and made them complete the transformation of their national capitalism in resisting the impact of modern capital globalization: Bismarck of Germany completed the national reunification in the 1960s and 1970s, Russia completed the serfdom reform, the United States achieved the national sovereignty unification and the national market unification, and the Meiji Restoration of Japan completed the transformation from feudalism to national capitalism. At the same time, India and China, which occupied the position of superpowers in the wave of agricultural globalization in the Middle Ages, slipped into the peripheral areas attached to the capital center: they not only failed to keep up with the wave of national transformation-perhaps because their ultra-stable social structure and super-strong international status made it difficult for them to change with the changes in the environment, but also were constantly impacted by Britain and countries that completed the national modernization transformation in this wave. 19 From the 1940s to the 1950s, Britain achieved the conquest of India and the victory of the war against China. This forced India and China to enter the historical process of colonial and semi-colonial, and thus the initial proletariat appeared in these two countries. This, in turn, foreshadows the different development paths of India and China in the future.
From the internal analysis of the two countries, the national bourgeoisie and workers' and peasants' movements in India and China developed greatly in the early 20th century, and the Soviet socialist countries representing the interests of workers and peasants appeared in the world. At this historical crossroads, India's complete colonial status and China's semi-colonial status split the revolutionary road between the two countries: Britain's complete and powerful control over India not only made India's workers and peasants movement not form an independent and powerful political force, but also made India's national bourgeoisie weaker under the dual pressure of British colonial rule and local feudal forces, so that "non-violence and non-cooperation" became the highest form for Indian people to strive for independence. China's semi-colonial status makes China a "weak link" in the international capital chain. In the late 1920s, the Kuomintang (KMT), which split from China's * * * production party, betrayed the interests of workers and peasants under the banner of national democracy and quickly fell to western international capital, becoming a political faction representing comprador forces. At home, the Kuomintang government sacrificed the interests of workers and peasants, and internationally, it transferred the national interests to the capital powers in exchange for the rapid development of China's economy. Contrary to the development path of Japan after Meiji Restoration, China in Chiang Kai-shek's period was the sovereign country in Asia that chose the development path of Latin America earlier. As a result, the national capital has fallen on a large scale, the fiscal deficit has soared, and farmers, workers and the middle and small bourgeoisie have gone bankrupt on a large scale. Compared with India's later development path, China's development path in Chiang Kai-shek's period was an earlier version of East Asia and Latin America's road, while India's economy in Nehru's period was almost the salvation form of China's Chiang Kai-shek's South Asia road.
The essence of Latin American road is to develop economy by sacrificing the interests of workers and peasants and transferring national interests to capital center countries. As a result, workers and peasants are generally engaged in class struggle in the increasingly serious poverty: the scale and intensity of the struggle are directly proportional to the beautification of Latin America in China. The result of beautifying the national economy during Chiang Kai-shek's period was, on the one hand, to make political preparations for China's * * * production party, which represented the interests of China's peasants and workers, to replace Kuomintang rule. On the contrary, the loose indirect pluralistic control of international capital on China made it possible for the China * * * Production Party, representing the interests of workers and peasants in China, to gain national political power in 1949. Judging from the consequences of Indian development, this is not only a great change with historical turning point in China's modern history, but also a great blessing in China's history. Compared with India, this kind of luck is more because China tasted the sweetness of the Latin American model too early, which will inevitably lead to national misfortune. It is this misfortune that makes China people more determined to choose the China * * * Production Party, which represents the interests of workers and peasants who account for the majority of China's population. Only with the political power representing the interests of workers and peasants can China carry out a more thorough land reform, thus forming a unified national economy and national market. In this sense, 1949 China Revolution was a great historical event in East Asia in the late 1940s, which integrated the dual meanings of American War of Independence and Civil War. Unlike the two revolutions in the United States, the workers' and peasants' revolution led by China's * * * production party made the social revolution completed in the United States in a hundred years, and it was completed in China in several decades. Its benefits can be proved by the time difference between China and the United States when Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping rose and the speed difference between and the later developed Indian.
Marx and Lenin had great hopes for the victory of the socialist revolution in India and China. Marx optimistically predicted in Persian and China, The Future Consequences of British Rule in India and other articles:
In a few years, we will see the world's oldest empire dying, and we will also see the dawn of a new era in Asia. 38
Lenin also thought in his oral diary in his later years:
In the final analysis, the outcome of the struggle depends on this: Russian, Indian, China and so on constitute the vast majority of the world's population. It is the majority of this population who have participated in the struggle for their own liberation very quickly in recent years. Therefore, in this sense, there is no doubt about the final solution of the world struggle. In this sense, the final victory of socialism is absolutely guaranteed. 39
However, as a result of historical development, except Russia and China, India's workers' and peasants' revolution did not produce a political party that reflected the interests of Indian workers and peasants, but the Congress Party, which was intentionally supported by Britain and more reflected the interests of property owners, became the ruling party. The reason for this historical difference lies in Britain's firm and effective colonial rule over India for centuries, which makes India not a "weak link" like Russia and China in the global capital chain that originated in Britain. During the revolutions in Russia and China, the workers' and peasants' parties gradually stepped onto the historical stage and became the ruling party. While dismembering and suppressing the workers and peasants' movement with bloody violence, India and Britain deliberately tolerated the "non-violence and non-cooperation" movement led by Gandhi and deliberately supported the Congress Party, which embodies the interests of big landlords and big capitalists. Results After World War II, the Congress Party, which reflected the interests of Indian landlords and bourgeoisie, was pushed to the position of the main ruling party by Britain. 40 1947 14 In August, India became independent, and the new government * * 14 cabinet members, 8 from the National Congress Party and 6 from the African Congress Party, excluding the * * * Production Party. 195 1 At the end of the year, after the founding of the People's Republic of India, general elections were held for the Federal People's House and the Legislative Yuan for the first time. After the election, the total seats of the Congress Party in the People's House and the Legislative Yuan were 74.4% and 68.4% respectively. 4 1 At this time, the Indian state power became a real "committee to manage the whole bourgeoisie". Forty two.
Contrary to China's high-cost political revolution, Indian independence, this low-cost political revolution will inevitably make the country pay a high price for its future development.
Third, land reform: the biggest political "tofu residue" project in the national development foundation.
The absolute limitation of natural supply and natural resources storage determines that productive labor is the absolute means of human survival and development. The absolute condition for the formation of human productive labor is the absolute combination of labor force and means of production. There are two ways of this combination: natural combination and strong combination. After the emergence of private property system, strong alliance is a common way in human history. For example, the Romans conquered the Mediterranean, the Mongols conquered parts of Asia and Europe, Cromwell conquered the Irish, the Europeans conquered the Indians, and the British conquered the Indians, all of which were the historical forms of this powerful combination. Some people monopolize the means of production to form the free possession of the fruits of others' labor and thus form the political rule over these people, which makes the absolute natural combination of early human labor and means of production become a relatively artificial strong combination, and thus forms a complex wealth possession relationship between producers and possessors of means of production and between different possessors of means of production. 43
However, ownership itself is not social wealth, but only the form of possession of social wealth. Ownership does not create value, so it is not the source of wealth. In a specific historical period, private ownership can stimulate workers' personal initiative and enthusiasm for accumulating wealth. However, if the labor results of producers who constitute the social labor base are "intercepted" by different private owners, social labor will begin to shrink. The degree of shrinkage is directly proportional to the number of times the property owner "intercepts" the labor achievements of producers.
The key to study a country's development and corresponding national strength is not to study its GDP or GNP performance, but to study its profit destination and its feedback to social workers. Marx said: "Production is directly consumption, and consumption is directly production". Workers are also consumers, not only producers of products, but also basic consumer groups to realize their own products. In this sense, people are the main body of the country, not only because they are the main body of national production, but also because they are the main body of national consumption. Only when social products feed back social workers, that is, people, can the development of this society be benign and sustainable. When the national economy continues to grow, but the fruits of this growth cannot reasonably feed back the producers, or even maintain their own survival, and social wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people with little consumption potential, then the national development loses the power of sustainable development, and then the social crisis will follow. At this time, the productive forces will put forward the requirement of changing the relations of production. The national democratic revolutions in India and China mentioned earlier happened for this reason.
Land is the first resource for human survival, and the original version of production relations is the relationship between man and land. Therefore, it is also the primitive yeast that has formed the relations of production and class at all times and in all countries, and it is also the primitive yeast that has formed modern capital. Generally, national reform and social reform begin with land reform. Therefore, just as the quality of gene chain determines the final result of life development, the consequences of national land reform also determine the ultimate potential of national physical development, especially the body of a traditional agricultural country. After the success of Indian and China national revolutions, the first basic national transformation project was land reform. The difference in results has laid the foundation for the difference in development speed and potential between the two countries.
If the agrarian revolution is divided into two stages: the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution, Indian land reform not only has no socialist land reform content, but also has no thorough democratic reform content like China's. At the beginning of independence, the Indian National Congress realized that the feudal land relationship inherited from the British was the main reason why Indian agriculture fell into a chronic crisis before independence. Therefore, according to 1948 February National Meeting of State Tax Ministers and 1949 National Congress Party Land Reform Committee's report, each state began to formulate its own land reform law according to the principle of abolishing the middleman system in Darfur determined by the central government. From 65438 to 0953, the central government established the Central Land Reform Commission, which was composed of members of the Planning Commission, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Food, as the guiding body of land reform. Land reform has two main purposes: one is to eliminate the factors that hinder agricultural production in the land ownership structure; The second is to directly combine the land as the means of production with the laborers, and create conditions to achieve high efficiency and high yield of the agricultural economy. The content of land reform includes three aspects and is implemented in two stages.
The first is to abolish the middleman system such as Chai Mingda. Before independence, there were three kinds of land tenancy systems in India: the Kandal tenancy system, the Mahawar tenancy system and the Letewal tenancy system. Under the land tenancy system of Chai Mingda and others, Chai Mingda and others, who collected taxes on behalf of the colonial government, actually became foreign landlords and brutally exploited farmers who rented land. In addition to the agricultural tax levied by the colonial government and the management fee levied by Chai Mingda, foreign landlords such as Chai Mingda also raised rents at will to strengthen the exploitation of tenant farmers. By abolishing this middleman system, the Indian government enables farmers who cultivate land to directly contact the land and pay taxes directly to the government. In the 30 years after independence, the Indian government spent 6.7 billion rupees to buy land from landlords and distributed about 5.77 million hectares of land to farmers with little or no land. 46
The second is to reform the tenancy system. High land rent is the same feature of India's land structure. During the British rule, land tenancy was not only very common in Indian agriculture, but also informal or oral tenancy prevailed in rural India besides public tenancy. The land supply is certain, but the population and poverty population are increasing day by day. The tenant is exploited by the landlord's increasing rent, and the lease period is extremely unstable. The decline of handicraft industry has further increased the dependence on land, thus increasing the exploitation of land rent. Since 1953, state governments have passed a series of bills on "tenancy reform", the main contents of which are "fair rent" and "maintaining tenancy relationship". After independence, the Indian government carried out the reform of tenancy system in the process of land reform, and the specific measures included fixing rent, ensuring tenancy, and granting some tenant farmers permanent tenancy rights. According to the specific situation of each state, the proportion of land rent stipulated by each state government in agricultural income is different, and it is generally maintained at 1/3 to 1/6 of agricultural income. At the same time, in order to facilitate farmers to pay rent, it was also decided to change the long-term physical rent into monetary rent. In order to guarantee the land lease term, the Indian government also stipulates that landlords are allowed to recover the land in the name of self-cultivation, but when recovering the land, the minimum area must be reserved for tenants to maintain their lives, and tenants cannot be expelled. In addition, during the third five-year plan period, the government also asked tenant farmers to buy land, so that tenant farmers have a direct relationship with the state. This is also the content of the first stage of land reform.
The third is to implement the land holding cap system, which is the content of the second phase of land reform. At the annual meeting of Nagpur in 1959+ 10, the government of the Congress Party passed a resolution to implement the "land quota", requiring the state governments to formulate corresponding bills and orders before the end of that year. 196 1 At the end of the year, the Indian government announced that each state would implement the maximum land holding law, stipulating that the land beyond the limit would be handed over by the state to the village council, which would then distribute it to landless farmers or agricultural cooperatives for cultivation. This move is intended to limit the monopoly of big landlords on land. 1971August, the Central Land Reform Commission of India decided to adjust the upper limit. Taking a family of five as the distribution unit, the maximum amount is set at 10 mu of the best land to 54 mu of the worst land. On July 1975 and 1 day, the Indian government announced a 20-point economic program, put forward a land ceiling system, and requested to speed up the allocation and registration of surplus land. People's Party 1977 came to power, demanding to speed up the pace of land reform and reform the shortcomings and loopholes in the land law through investigation. The minimum land owned by each farmer is 2.5 acres.
Land reform is the basic project to realize democratic revolution after the success of Indian national revolution. In terms of its depth, breadth and thoroughness of revolution, the effect of Indian land reform is no less than that of China. The reason also lies in the essential difference in the leading nature of their respective revolutions. Similar to the reasons why Chiang Kai-shek Kuomintang in China noticed but could not solve the problems of agriculture and workers in the 1920s, Nehru Congress Party also saw that a thorough agrarian revolution was of key significance to the future of India. However, due to the interests of the big landlords and capitalists represented by the Congress Party itself and the constraints of the parliamentary seats occupied by the big landlords and capitalists on the Nehru government, even the best political design of the Congress Party government could not be realized. Just as Chiang Kai-shek's regime of the Kuomintang in China was built on the support of feudal bureaucrats and comprador, although it had long recognized the importance of the land issue, it could not carry out a thorough and effective agrarian revolution in Chinese mainland. The Indian National Congress has been carrying out land reform for more than 30 years, and finally had to start with "thunderous enthusiasm" and end with "listlessness". Forty nine
Nevertheless, India's land reform has liberated agricultural productivity to a great extent. From 195 1- 1952 to 1978- 1979, India's agricultural output increased by 2.8% on average, from1900-190/. Since the 1960s, India has launched the "Green Revolution" movement, and the grain planting area in India has increased from 97.3 million hectares of 1950- 195 1 to 2000-200 119.8 million hectares. By the 1970s, food was basically self-sufficient. 5 1 however, in terms of the transformation of production relations, "except for the abolition of identification, as far as the whole country is concerned, other items have not actually been seriously implemented." It was this failure that not only greatly reduced the achievements of India's land reform, but also made India fall behind China in the next half century.
In the early days of independence, landlords and rich peasants, who accounted for less than 15% of the rural population, occupied 85% of the land, of which the big landlords, who accounted for less than 2% of the population, occupied 70% of the total land; Poor peasants, who account for more than 85% of the rural population, only account for 15% of the land. Among them, 25% farmers in rural areas have no place to stand. After the land reform, this kind of land was concentrated in the hands of a few big landlords. As shown in the following table:
Number of business owners and business areas in India (1970- 1986)
Number of categories (ten thousand) Area (ten thousand hectares)1970-1971985-19861970-19765438. 700 (58)1500 (9) 2200 (13) Small occupier (1-4 hectares) 2400 (34) 3100 (32) 4900 (30) 60 p？ m？ Sang Dalam, translated by Lei Qizhun, etc. Indian Economy (Volume II), Sichuan University Press, 1994, p. 77.
The data provided above may