The history is that India missed the bus on land reforms in the immediate post-Independence period. Indeed, Congress claims on being forever for the aam aadmi is most glaringly exposed when one looks back at Congress state governments’ record at that time of colluding with anti-modern rural landed classes. Marxists in Bengal attempted land reform, with some positive results. But, as problemsof unregistered share-croppers showed during Singur agitations, more complications were created. The large point is that there may be a case for redistribution in some local cases but giving land rights nationally as a way to increase economic security is a non-option. This is because economic, social and agricultural dynamics are different now. Farming desperately needs efficient exploitation of very large holdings. Average land-holding size is very small and inefficient. And agriculture as it is now cannot support the number of Indians not in secondary and tertiary sectors. So whatever seems to be the apparent moral basis for ‘universalisation’ of pattas in rural India, as a policy it will not help intended beneficiaries.

As has been argued in these columns, India needs to radically expand the scope of low-cost manufacturing that requires semi-skilled or low-skilled labour. Given the appalling state of our primary education, factory work that can provide on-job basic training is the best guarantee of creating jobs outside cities and towns. Among the many policy quirks that prevent an expansion is the rule on industrial employment that makes labour flexibility extremely costly for employers. That’s why there was a proposal that SEZs be spared usual labour laws and of course there were howls of protest. As our columnist argues today it is not that reforms are not creating jobs. But a massive shift to industrial employment has not happened because policymakers can’t or won’t admit the fundamental economic history lesson: general economic security is always born on factory floors. If you can’t give them jobs, promising them land is almost cruel.