Drawing on their respective ethnographies of urbanisation in Gurgaon (now known as Gurugram) and thwarted industrialisation in Singur, the authors argue that plots of land owned by smallholders are intermittent commodities. Following Igor Kopytoff’s lead, they focus on commoditisation as a process and adopt a biographical approach to consider the social life of land. The article contends that individually owned plots potentially go in and out of circulation but never get fully commodified, nor do they remain fully non-commodified. With the rising speculative value of land, neither market price nor monetary compensation fully substitutes land ownership. Hence, the landholders express regret and even resentment on having to part with their land. The ambivalence speaks, in part, to the complex attributes of land and the relations of authority, distinction and status associated with it. To maintain their caste-based status, the landowners use land as leverage. They hold on to land or demand better compensation to reiterate the land–caste–power nexus spatially.
BalagopalK. (1987). An ideology for the provincial propertied class. Economic and Political Weekly, 22(36/37), 1544–1546.
2.
BalakrishnanS. (2019). Shareholder cities: Land transformations along urban corridors in India. University of Pennsylvania Press.
3.
BardhanP., & MookherjeeD. (2007). Ideology vs. competition in redistributive politics: Land reforms in West Bengal [pp. 1–49]. http://people.bu.edu/dilipm/ec722/papers/bmookideolcomp.pdf
4.
BhattacharyaN. (1985). Agrarian change in Punjab 1880–1940 [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
5.
BoseS. (1994). A typology of agrarian social structure in early twentieth-century Bengal. In LuddenD. (Ed.), Agricultural production and South Asian history (pp. 267–301). Oxford University Press.
6.
BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Harvard University Press.
7.
BridgeG. (2009). Material worlds: Natural resources, resource geography and the material economy. Geography Compass, 3(3), 1217–1244.
8.
Government of India. (2001). Census of India. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner.
9.
ChowdhuryP. (2011). Political economy of production and reproduction: Caste, custom, and community in north India. Oxford University Press.
10.
DhanagareD. N. (1987). Green revolution and social inequalities in rural India. Economic and Political Weekly, 22(19/21), AN137–AN144.
11.
FrankelF. R. (1978). India’s political economy, 1947–1977: The gradual revolution. Princeton University Press.
12.
GoldmanM. (2011). Speculative urbanism and the making of the next world city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(3), 555–581.
13.
GururaniS. (2013). Flexible planning: The making of India’s ‘Millennium City’, Gurgaon. In RademacherA. & SivaramakrishnanK. (Eds.), Ecologies of urbanism in India: Metropolitan civility and sustainability (pp. 119–143). Hong Kong University Press.
14.
GururaniS. (2020). Cities in a world of villages: agrarian urbanism and the making of India’s urbanizing frontiers. Urban Geography, 41(7), 971–989.
15.
GururaniS., & DasguptaR. (2018). Frontier urbanism: Urbanisation beyond cities in South Asia. Economic & Political Weekly, 53(12), 41–45.
16.
HallD. (2013). Land. Polity.
17.
HallD., HirschP., & LiT. M. (2012). Powers of exclusion: Land dilemmas in Southeast Asia. National University of Singapore.
18.
HamidN. (1982). Dispossession and differentiation of the peasantry in the Punjab during colonial rule. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 10(1), 52–72.
19.
JodhkaS.S. (n.d.). Caste and power in the lands of agriculture: Revisiting rural north-west India. https://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/5649/1/AHRC_1_Jodhka_Northwest_Caste_and_Rural_Power._Shimla.pdf
20.
JodhkaS. S. (1995). Agrarian changes, unfreedom and attached labour. Economic and Political Weekly, 30(31–31), 2011–13.
21.
JodhkaS. S. (2012). Agrarian changes in the times of (neo-liberal) ‘crises’. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(26), 5–13.
22.
JodhkaS. S. (2014). Emergent ruralities: Revisiting village life and agrarian change in Haryana. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(26), 5–17.
23.
IslamM. M. (1985). M.L. Darling and the Punjab peasant in prosperity and debt: A fresh look. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 13(1), 83–98.
24.
KopytoffI. (1986). The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. In AppaduraiA. (Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 64–91).
25.
LevienM. (2018). Dispossession without development: Land grabs in neoliberal India. Oxford University Press, 2018.
26.
LiT. M. (2014a). Land’s end: Capitalist relations on an indigenous frontier. Duke University Press.
27.
LiT. M. (2014b). What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39(4), 589–602.
28.
MajumderS. (2018). People’s car: Industrial India and the riddles of populism. Fordham University Press.
29.
MukherjeeM. (1980). Some aspects of agrarian structure of Punjab 1925–47. Economic and Political Weekly, 15(26), A46–A58.
30.
Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/11125
31.
PatnaikU. (1987). Peasant class differentiation: A study in method with reference to Haryana. Oxford University Press.
32.
PaulS. (1990). Green revolution and poverty among farm families in Haryana, 1969/70–1982/83. Economic and Political Weekly, 25(39), A105–A110.
33.
PolanyiK. (1944). The great transformation. Beacon press.
34.
SampatP. (2013). Limits to absolute power: Eminent domain and the right to land in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 48(19), 40–52.
35.
SinghK. P. (2011). Whatever the odds: The incredible story behind DLF. HarperCollins.
36.
UpadhyaC. (2020). Assembling Amaravati: Speculative accumulation in a new Indian city. Economy and Society, 49(1), 141–169.
