But what about land reform?

Over the past six months, Bangladesh has been promised a flurry of reforms. The interim government, led by Dr Yunus, has established 11 commissions to address various issues.

Regrettably, none have tackled the pressing matter of land ownership for marginal farmers. Significant inequality persists in land distribution within the country's rural agricultural sector, where the majority of farming families remain landless.

According to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 56% of rural households in Bangladesh own no land. Meanwhile, based on income and expenditure, the wealthiest 15% of rural households control 66% of the nation's agricultural land.

With a growing population and shrinking arable land, Bangladesh faces formidable challenges in ensuring food security, reducing poverty, and promoting equitable development.

Land inequality in a nutshell

To understand the current land reform crisis, we must revisit its historical roots. During British colonial rule, the zamindari system created a structure in which a small elite of landlords controlled vast estates, while most of the population worked as tenant farmers or labourers with little to no ownership rights.

Following independence in 1971, Bangladesh inherited this skewed distribution. Early post-independence attempts to redistribute land or impose ownership caps faced resistance from powerful elites and faltered due to weak enforcement. This colonial legacy endures, with land ownership still concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving rural communities vulnerable and underscoring the urgent need for systemic change.

Bangladesh loses 8,000 hectares of farmland annually from its original 13 million hectares of cropland, driven by urbanisation, industrialisation, unplanned rural housing, and infrastructure development.

This rapid decline threatens the agricultural backbone of a nation where nearly half the workforce depends on farming. The shrinking size of farms, rising landlessness, and continuous depletion of farmland pose severe risks to agriculture, exacerbating poverty and trapping the ultra-poor in a vicious cycle.

The statistics are alarming: the average farm size has fallen below 0.6 hectares, and landlessness now affects 58% of rural households. This shrinking land base not only hampers agricultural output but also deepens inequality. Additional pressures arise from the conversion of farmland into shrimp aquaculture and salt production fields, further eroding valuable cropland.

Before independence, in the 1950s, the ceiling on land ownership was set at 100 bighas. However, the West Pakistani government raised it to 375 bighas to serve its interests.

After independence, the limit reverted to 100 bighas, but implementation was lacking—no surveys were conducted, and no land was recovered. "The changes expected after the Liberation War did not materialise for various reasons. In 1972, some reforms related to khas land began, but in a newly liberated country, crafting a detailed and well-structured policy may not have been feasible," said Shamsul Huda, executive director of the Association for Land Reform and Development.

In 1984, the limit was further reduced to 60 bighas, and the land tenure reforms introduced at that time yielded positive results—the only period when land reform was taken somewhat seriously.

"The distribution system back then meant landowners took 50% of the yields, leaving little incentive for farmers to improve productivity. Later reforms adjusted this so that one-third of the yields went towards improving the land, and landowners, now receiving one-third, had more reason to invest," explained Dr Zahid, former lead economist at the World Bank's Dhaka office. He noted that these reforms were driven by necessity, as the agrarian economy would have stagnated otherwise.

However, provisions that once favoured the poor have since been curtailed or weakened, eventually disappearing altogether. Protections for women were also introduced but rarely enforced effectively. Economic incentives now often favour larger businesses, displacing small farmers. Combined with natural challenges like river erosion and flooding, the loss of arable land has created a crisis demanding urgent action.

"The rapid changes in land usage patterns are not being properly understood. This needs investigation. Even among researchers, interest in agriculture has waned, despite the rural economy contributing 23% to GDP," noted economist Dr KAS Murshid in a recent interview.

The limits of land reform

In response to this escalating crisis, the Bangladeshi government has taken steps to preserve farmland, including banning the use of arable land for non-agricultural purposes. A high-level committee has also proposed vertical expansion for factories and educational institutions to reduce horizontal land use. These measures reflect an awareness of the problem and a willingness to explore innovative solutions.

Yet, scepticism persists about their effectiveness. The conversion of arable land into non-agricultural uses continues unabated, hampered by bureaucratic inefficiencies and corruption, which allow illegal land grabs and unplanned development to flourish. Experts argue that without stronger oversight and broader reforms—such as updating land records and cracking down on violations—these policies may fall short.

"The scope for redistribution in Bangladesh is limited. Government khas lands intended for the landless must reach their rightful recipients. Much of this land lies fallow or is held by powerful individuals; it needs to be freed up. We also need to rationally utilise land owned by government entities that remains unused," explained Professor Mustafizur Rahman, Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD).

Political and governance Roadblocks

"We have consistently avoided land reform for two main reasons. First, many in land administration and senior government roles opposed it, as they belonged to a social class that benefited from the status quo. For them, land ownership was key to maintaining influence and privilege," said Shamsul Huda.

Political priorities often prioritise short-term economic gains, such as industrial growth, over the long-term preservation of agricultural land, sidelining land reform.

"Ownership should belong to those who live on and work the land, whose livelihoods depend on it. This is the core aim of land reform. Yet, bureaucrats, wealthy elites, and the emerging capitalist class have been unwilling to relinquish control," Huda added.

Governance challenges, including corruption in land administration and outdated records, further complicate efforts to verify ownership and enforce policies.

Lessons from global land reform efforts

Some suggest Bangladesh could learn from Kerala's experience. In 1969, Kerala's Communist-led government passed an agrarian reform law based on the principle of "land to the tiller."

It limited ownership to eight hectares per family, granted tenant farmers and sharecroppers effective ownership, eliminated intermediaries, consolidated holdings, and involved grassroots institutions in implementation. The programme directly benefited 1.5 million farming families. Critics, however, argue that such reforms require a fundamental shift in attitudes towards land ownership.

By contrast, Zimbabwe's chaotic land redistribution in the 2000s—where farms were seized without planning or support—led to economic collapse. These examples highlight the need for deliberate, inclusive reform paired with practical support. For Bangladesh, a hybrid approach could work: redistributing underutilised land to landless farmers while investing in irrigation, improved seeds, and training to boost output.

What is next?

If the use of arable land for non-farming purposes is not immediately contained, the country is poised to face multiple problems arising from land scarcity and a rising population.

"Khas land which remains fallow needs to be identified. The pieces of land where there are no industries, no services and no agricultural activity need to be marked. Whether they are totally idle or partially idle need to be reformed. If that land is given to the landless, it will be used either as homestead or in agricultural activities," said Dr Zahid Hussain.

And a Marxist style land reform would prove extremely difficult according to him.

"Suppose someone owns eight acres of land but the government declares one can own only three acres of land, takes five acres of land from them and gives it to someone landless. Which law will you use to justify this?" said Dr Zahid Hussain.

Such a move would mean the entire structure of the state would need to be upended.

"That would be a disaster. Stalin tried it, Mao Ze Dong tried it, but they failed. Eventually, those changes were reversed. Doing something along those lines would be going backwards," explained Dr Hussain.

Economists argue Bangladesh must adopt comprehensive measures to update land records, boost agricultural investment, enforce environmental protections, and empower farmers with credit, training, and legal support.

"The advancements in agricultural technology mean there is little justification for redistributive land reform. The rights of tenant farmers are a more pressing issue. We should look into whether there is a need to reform how crops are distributed and whether tenant farmers get a fair share," said Mustafizur Rahman.