The Persistence of Dispossession: How Nature, History, and Social Hierarchy Entrench Land Inequality Across Rural India

The findings establish that landholding inequality in rural India is extremely high, with the average village land Gini coefficient reaching approximately 71 on a 0–100 scale when including landless households. Currently, about 46% of rural households are landless, while the top 10%, top 5%, and top 1% of households control 44%, 32%, and 18% of total land area, respectively. This disparity is so vast that the diversity of land inequality levels across Indian states is almost as large as that between countries at the global level. The study highlights that agricultural productivity is strongly associated with higher land inequality, as villages with more favorable agro-ecological conditions exhibit greater land concentration, significantly increasing the share of land controlled by large landowners.

Historical institutions continue to leave persistent effects on land distribution, with areas historically governed under landlord-based colonial land tenure systems displaying higher levels of concentration today. Furthermore, villages that fell under the direct-rule of British colonialism tend to exhibit higher land inequality compared to those managed by Indian rulers. Social stratification further shapes these outcomes, as villages with higher shares of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes suffer from higher rates of landlessness, reflecti

ng the enduring role of social hierarchies. Notable exceptions to this trend are found in Kerala and West Bengal, regions long governed by left-wing parties. Even the expansion of market access, through proximity to towns, roads, and markets, appears insufficient to overturn these deeply embedded patterns shaped by nature and history.

The concentration of power is exemplified by the fact that the largest landholder controls, on average, 12% of village land, with some villages seeing a single owner controlling more than half of all agricultural land. This monopoly has direct administrative consequences; while public goods provision may rise with moderate inequality, it falls sharply at very high levels where a single landlord dominates. Ultimately, the paper underscores that despite market forces, the historical and natural conditions of rural India continue to stifle the equitable distribution of its most important asset, leaving millions of livelihoods precariously dependent on a deeply divided landscape.