Top 10% Own 44% of India's Land: Study

New Delhi: Land has long been more than just an economic asset in India, encompassing complex dimensions like identity, power and security. Inequality in access to and ownership of land is rooted in social hierarchies. This inequality is stark, a new study has found: "The top 10%, top 5%, and top 1% of households own 44%, 32%, and 18% of total land area, respectively."

A new study by the World Inequality Lab, titled “Land Inequality in India: Nature, History, and Markets” and authored by Nitin Kumar Bharti et al, elucidates how deep land inequality runs, bypassing simple economical analysis to incorporate a range of historical, agricultural, and sociological factors. 

Drawing on data from 2,70,000 villages and covering nearly 650 million individuals, the paper paints an unsettling image of land ownership in rural India — ownership is highly concentrated, with 46% of households owning no land at all. The report states, “The mean share of land held by the largest landholder in the village is 12.4%, while in 3.8% of villages the largest landholder owns more than 50% of the land.” Thus, the average level of inequality is staggeringly high, placing many Indian regions at par with the most unequal places of the world. 

The findings reveal that land inequality in India is deeply entrenched in historical and structural institutions, having far-reaching implications for development policy and economic transformation. 

Fertile land fuelling inequality

One of the study’s most important insights is that more fertile land, better for agricultural purposes, often leads to worse inequality. Regions with higher agricultural stability — fertile soil, regular irrigation, and favourable climate — tend to have more concentrated land ownership practices. 

At first glance, the claim may seem counterintuitive. However on closer inspection, it accentuates the deep-rooted ramifications of productive land on social and economic hierarchies. As land becomes more valuable, it prompts consolidation, leading to large landowners expanding their shares while small farmers get systemically pushed out, often becoming landless. 

Even government-led initiatives like irrigation facilities can have unintended consequences if not implemented properly, with large landowners disproportionately accruing gains. The study analyses this relationship by looking at the impact of being within a “command area,” or an irrigation scheme associated with an increase in agricultural productivity, on inequality. The report finds that “the land inequality (Gini coefficient) increases by close to 1 percentage point due to being within a command area.”

Therefore, growth in agriculture does not automatically convert into shared prosperity for all socioeconomic classes. 

Continuing aftershocks of colonial rule

The paper argues that areas shaped by colonial land systems continue to exhibit different patterns of inequality today. Regions that were once governed by the British, under administrative structures such as the zamindari system, experience higher inequality. These systems, working to consolidate power within the hands of a few prosperous landlords, perpetuated class hierarchies that persist decades after the end of colonial rule. 

Moreover the study finds that villages in former “princely states,” where local rulers retained some control as opposed to direct British rule that edged out small farmers, face lower inequality with fewer households being completely landless. It claims, “analysis reveals that land inequality is approximately 2–3 pp lower within princely states and 3–4 pp higher in places featuring the zamindari system.” 

Despite years of modernisation, economic change, and land reforms, these variations persevere, evidencing the durable imprint of harmful colonial institutions on land distribution. 

Gini Distribution by State, Photo: Land Inequality in India: Nature, History, and Markets.

An unequal social structure

The aforementioned aspects are further exacerbated by India’s social structure, especially caste-based discrimination. 

The paper shows that regions with higher proportions of Scheduled Caste communities are more likely to have higher land inequality. The immense scale of historical landlessness among marginalised groups reinforces these trends. 

For centuries, these communities have been excluded from land ownership practices, relegated to the vestiges of low-paying agricultural and employment opportunities — providing sparse opportunities for upward mobility and empowerment. 

Although there has been progress, Indian society remains socially fragmented and plagued by inequality, augmenting woes. 

Impact of markets 

The strategic location of land in relation to markets also plays a vital role. “The villages which are in closer vicinity to towns, large highways, and railroad stations have greater inequality.” The study adds, “villages with a bank or an agricultural market (mandi) have higher inequality, but there is no relationship in nearby villages.” 

Greater access to markets drive land prices, making it more attractive for consolidation. Individuals with greater wealth are better positioned to secure these opportunities, hiking inequality. 

On a more constructive note, the paper finds that in the regions where the economy has diversified beyond agriculture — reducing land dependence — there is a lower causal link between land productivity and inequality. 

The paper provides an intriguing and comprehensive view of how historical, social, economic, and market-related factors can impact land inequality, with the potential for increased inequality if the underlying structures remained unaltered. 

Land inequality in India is a product of years of institutional structures, social systems, and economic dynamics. Hence, addressing land inequality requires targeted interventions that go beyond economic expansion, accounting for inclusive land reforms, protection of marginalised communities, and a dismantling of ongoing archaic hierarchies. 

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.