• 001_Krishnakath.jpg
  • 002_Vividhangi-Vyaktimatva-1.jpg
  • 003_Shabdhanche.jpg
  • 004_Mazya-Rajkiya-Athwani.jpg
  • 005_Saheb_14.jpg
  • 006_Yashodhan_76.jpg
  • 007_Yashodharshan.jpg
  • 008_Yashwant-Chintanik.jpg
  • 009_Kartrutva.jpg
  • 010_Maulik-Vichar.jpg
  • 011_YCHAVAN-N-D-MAHANOR.jpg
  • 012_Sahyadricheware.jpg
  • 013_Runanubandh.jpg
  • 014_Bhumika.jpg
  • 016_YCHAVAN-SAHITYA-SUCHI.jpg
  • 017_Maharashtratil-Dushkal.jpg
  • Debacle-to-Revival-1.jpg
  • INDIA's-FOREIGN-POLICY.jpg
  • ORAL-HISTORY-TRANSCRIPT.jpg
  • sing_3.jpg

Speeches in the State Legislatures : 1946-62-15

Part I

Assembly Debates

Fragmentation of land -a disaster
On 12 February 1947, Shri Morarji R. Desai, Minister for Revenue, moved * in the Bombay Legislative Assembly Bill No. XVII of 1946 to provide for the Prevention of the Fragmentation of Agricultural Holdings and to provide for the Consolidation of Agricultural Holdings for the purpose of better cultivation thereof.
On 14 February 1947, Shri Y. B. Chavan, then Parliamentary Secretary, rose to speak in support of the Bill.

He brought to the notice of the House that not many of the speakers might have tried to touch even the fringe of the problem of poverty in India which has no relevance to the Prevention of Fragmentation Bill. He expressed the view that the real problem was to improve Indian agricultural economy. After tracing the history of agricultural reforms in western countries in the last century, he quoted the statistics of land in Bombay Presidency for the year 1936-37 and said that there was no case for the redistribution of land in this Province. Here be related how in Russia, the Communist Party tried to collectivise agriculture and how they met with disastrous results. He spelled out three principles on which the redistribution of land in foreign countries was based and concluded that the agrarian reforms as suggested in the Bill of Prevention of Fragmentation was the best solution.

(‘Consolidation of holdings’ means the amalgamation and where necessary the redistribution of holdings or portions of holdings in any village, Mahal or Taluka or any part thereof.)

Mr Speaker Sir, of course I rise in support of the Bill. I was hoping to hear some relevant criticism from the hon. Leader of the Opposition, but let me tell you frankly that I am completely disappointed. I must, however, try to confine myself to the actual facts and the real case of the Bill. Many of the speakers who opposed the Bill have tried to touch the problem of poverty of India. Everybody tries to see the problem of poverty from his own point of view. This reminds me of an old story of six blind men and their efforts to see what the elephant was like.
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Bombay Legislative Assembly (BLA) Debates, Vol. 10, Part V, Feb.-April 1947, 14 February 1947, pp. 282-85.