[Letter from SV Raju]

Summary

In this letter dated March 14, 1974, S. V. Raju argues that opposition to land ceilings should not be dismissed as anti-social; he presents it as a pragmatic response to the fragmentation of landholdings. He contends that the decline of the joint family system is itself contributing to this fragmentation, while smaller plots become more productive only through intensive cultivation and modern agricultural inputs. He also argues that equal redistribution of all Indian land would still not provide enough land to cover everyone in rural areas.

Raju refers Reju John to page 15 of the Swatantra Party’s Statement of Policy and encloses a resolution adopted at the party’s 1968 Bhubaneshwar Convention. He characterizes that resolution as more realistic and more just to the landless than any scheme for land ceilings. The handwritten note from Reju John, dated March 18, 1972, asks whether opposition to land ceilings amounts to being anti-social and mentions Minoo Masani’s speech at an FFI meeting in Delhi; the visible pages end with John’s request for clarification and do not show a reply to that note beyond the typed letter.

Key points

• Raju rejects the idea that opposition to land ceilings is necessarily anti-social, describing it instead as pragmatic.
• He links the collapse of the joint family system to the fragmentation of landholdings.
• He argues that small plots can become more productive through intensive cultivation and modern agricultural inputs.
• He maintains that equal redistribution of all Indian land would not provide enough land for everyone in rural areas.
• He directs the recipient to the Swatantra Party’s Statement of Policy and its 1968 Bhubaneshwar Convention resolution.
• He presents the 1968 resolution as more realistic and more just to landless people than land-ceiling schemes.
• The accompanying handwritten note records Reju John’s uncertainty about the political and social meaning of opposing land ceilings.