What is it about?
why this paper is relevant in context with This paper presents a comparative study on agrarian reforms in India and Indonesia, focusing on their constitutional foundations, legislative mechanisms, and judicial approaches. Agrarian reform has been central to the socio-economic transformation in both countries, where land ownership and rural livelihoods remain deeply significant.
Featured Image
Photo by Parvez Akther on Unsplash
Why is it important?
This paper is relevant because it addresses a core constitutional and developmental issue shared by India and Indonesia: how democratic states reconcile private property rights with social justice through agrarian reform. The relevance emerges along several dimensions: (a) Persistent contemporary problem Land inequality and rural poverty remain politically and economically significant in both countries. The paper engages with an ongoing challenge rather than a historical curiosity. (b) Constitutional and policy debates It links agrarian reform to: constitutional text and amendments (India: Ninth Schedule, Art. 300A) constitutional ideology and state authority (Indonesia: Pancasila, Art. 33 of 1945 Constitution) This makes the study relevant to constitutional law scholars, policymakers, and debates on judicial review. Comparative value By contrasting: India’s judicially mediated reform legitimacy Indonesia’s executive-led, centralized authority the paper shows two different democratic pathways to distributive justice. Such comparison helps understand alternative models for similar socio-economic goals. (a)Evolving governance challenges In both jurisdictions, contemporary issues (corporatization, land acquisition for development, indigenous rights, compensation disputes) keep the question of land reform highly relevant.
Perspectives
Understanding manual scavenging through a constitutional and moral lens is crucial because it reveals the limits of formal legal reform in dismantling caste oppression and restoring human dignity. This area of inquiry exposes how ostensibly progressive legislation can coexist with practices that deny the most basic constitutional promises of equality and bodily integrity. The continued deaths and degrading conditions of sanitation workers demonstrate that legal prohibitions alone are insufficient when deep social hierarchies, economic vulnerability, and state neglect persist.
Varun Chhachhar
University of Lucknow
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Agrarian Reforms vis-à-vis Constitutionalism in India: A Comparative Analysis with Indonesia, Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies, December 2025, Department of Drama, Dance and Music, Semarang State University,
DOI: 10.15294/jils.v10i2.31841.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
