Bardoli Report

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

Bardoli Report

 

 

 In their report, absolutely pruned of epithets and adjectives, and as closely reasoned and concise as it could be, they addressed themselves to the consideration of four questions: “As the enhancement is based on rents which land-owners demand from their tenants it is of utmost importance to determine whether the table relating to the rents paid by the tenants has been prepared with due care so as to exhibit economic rents only. If it is found to be seriously defective, all conclusions drawn from it must be regarded as valueless. Again, it seems reasonable that before competitive rents are accepted as the foundation of the settlement policy, it should be determined what proportion of the cultivated area is in the hands of tenants paying cash rents. The third question which demands consideration is whether abnormal periods have been excluded in inquiring into the course followed by rents during the currency of the old settlement. Lastly, we have to consider to what extent the Land Revenue Code and the Settlement Manual justify almost exclusive reliance on rental value for the purpose of determining new assessment rates.” And after a study of the Code and the Settlement Manual and after personal investigation and inquiries made in several villages from the people concerned, they found

1. That the table was seriously defective inasmuch as mortgage transactions, or rents not realized in full, or conditional sales had not been excluded, and no allowance was made for rents, charged in consequence of improvements made at the cost of the occupant according to Section 107 of the Land Revenue Code.

2. That the cash-rented area may be taken to be in the neighborhood of 20 per cent and that looking to the fact that “94 per cent of the occupants and owners cultivate themselves” in 1895, even a proportion of 30 per cent as the land cultivated by tenants appears surprisingly large today.

3. That the boom period covering the years from 1918-19 to 1924-25 should have been excluded according to the statement made by the Revenue Member himself. 4. That the Settlement Commissioner relied on insufficient and unscrutinized rental statistics as his “one true guide”, not to check the results of the indirect inquiry, but to avoid having to consider and allow for an increase in the cost of cultivation, and that he used them not “to prevent the enhancement-from going too high” (in the words of Settlement Manual) but to enhance the assessment rates. In view of the foregoing findings Sjts. Kunzru, Vaze and Thakkar came to the conclusion that “the demand for a fresh inquiry is fully justified” and that “recent announcement that revision settlement of the Viramgam taluka will be reconsidered makes the case for the reconsideration of the settlement of the Bardoli taluka unanswerable.” Sjt. Vaze issued an additional statement in which he laid special emphasis on the fact that “the present struggle in Bardoli is a purely economic one; it is no part of a general scheme of mass civil disobedience.

My observation satisfies me that the leaders of the movement are actuated by no other motive in carrying on the campaign than to undo, by using their best endeavours, what they genuinely believe to be a cruel wrong to the peasantry of Bardoli. It would be both inexpedient and unjust for Government to invest the movement with a wider political significance which it does not bear.” The report appealed to leaders of all schools of political thinking, ranged the sympathy of the few remaining waverers among Indian newspapers definitely on the side of the satyagrahis, and was instrumental more than anything else in bringing about a consensus of opinion among all circles including the Liberals about the justice of the people’s demands and the minimum that was due to them.