LAND REFORMS 47 TABLE I CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP PATIERN OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS IN INDIA (percent) 1954-55 1960-61 1910-71 Size class House- Area House- Area House- Area (acres} holds owned holds owned holds owned {1} {2) (3) {4) (5) {6} Upto2.5 61.24 6.23 60.59 7.32 69.56 9.92 2.5-10.0 25.99 28.49 27.28 31.52 22.32 36.24 Over 10.0 12.77 65.28 12.13 61.16 8.12 53.84 SOURCE : 1954-55: National Sample Survey (NSS^, 8th Round, No 30. 1960-61: NSS, 16th Round, No 159. 1970-71: NSS, 26th Round, No 215. National Sample Surveys (NSS) there was a 13 percent increase in rural households from 69.5 millions in 1960-61 to 78.4 millions in 1970-71. This increase in the number of households reduced the size of ownership holdings in all classes. As a result, some households from the lower echelons of the well-to-do class fell into the category of small peasants. The forced exit of these farmers meant a reduction in area owned by the well-to-do class, on the one hand, and a corresponding increase in area held by the small farmers and poor peasants, on the other. From 1960-61 to 1970-71 the former lost and the latter gained less than 13 percent of agricultural land area. This transfer of area owned by the well-to-do class cannot be attributed to the implementation of land reform policies. The land reforms policy in India is in the nature of pacifying gestures of the ruling class to peasant revolts. When peasant rebellion is on the high tide, meetings are convened by the government (and the ruling party) to press for progressive legislation (and policy resolutions) with the least intention of implementing them. As soon as the peasants are pacified in the hope of getting some benefits, the government gradually but surely dilutes the "progres" sivcness" of its own intentions and laws. This cycle restarts with a fresh peasant revolt. This cyclical behaviour of land reform legislations can be illustrated by a historical review of the agricultural ceilings laws. Immediately after India's independence, the Congress Agrarian Reforms Committee (also known as the Kumarappa Committee) advocated a ceiling on the size of holdings to be three times the size of an economic holding. The latter was defined as a holding which would afford a reasonable standard of living to the cultivator and provide full employment to a family of normal