ABSTRACT
Chapter 1 of the book particularly aims at investigating land grants in the post-1941 period, as one of the impacts of the conquest of Menilek. It is as such entitled “Land Grants in Arssi during the Imperial Era (1941–1974). Sources employed for the reconstruction of this study include the following: archives, literature and oral informants–some of whom had participated in the events or eye witnesses. Above all else, there are large corpora of archives gathered from WMTMAC of IES of AAU. These and other sources had been duly examined, checked and counter-checked following historical research methods to reconstruct the study and draw conclusions. Land grants in the post-1941 period were expanded under the restored imperial regime of Emperor Haile-Selassie (1941–1974). The gradual replacement of the gäbbarnäft’äñña system by tenant–landlord relations was followed. The work shows that persistent land alienation and grants were conducted all along till the eruption of the Ethiopian revolution. But in the north, the rest (hereditary communal right to land) right could limit such practices. This could not happen in the south because, in theory, the land belonged to the emperors. The conquest of the south gave additional momentum to the theory. The Arssi case was special as the resistance put up there took the longest time and was one of the toughest, which tested the Šäwans severely including King Menilek. In the post-1941 period, the list of the grantees is even very long. Groups, individuals and institutions were given land, as well as patriots, exiles, pensioners of the army and police, active military and police staff, civil servants, etc. Position wise, royalty, nobility, ministers and even foreigners were given land in different parts of Arssi. But the local population could get little. They were turned largely into tenants of the grantees. The basic difference between the pre-1941 and the post-1941 grant was that the latter was given on freehold (rest) basis. This was followed by expansion of privatization. Consequently, tenancy had spread and reached 52% in Arssi, which was above the national average. Those who got land disposed of it as they liked. But there was even land purchase deprivation for the native populations when they were forced to buy their own land in some areas. The local population, thus, even lost their own gäbbar land to grantees in many areas. The commencement of agricultural mechanization led to immense eviction. One of the findings of this study is that, even the balabbats, who had already less than one-third of their clans’ land left, the rest was lost to the new grantees, unlike what the government claimed. The baläwuläta (meritorious) were the beneficiaries in more ways than one. There was also what we can call a nominal purchase by higher officials. Forceful or deceitful land seizure was also common. The effect of all these was the marginalization of the local population. The grantees themselves (like the Arbaa Guuguu veteran patriots, Semä-T’eru-Hämassén just to mention few), complained about the grant instead of praising Emperor Haile-Sellassie because those who took the land were non-tillers. Thus, rather than development, land grants and other means of disposing land brought about destitution for the majority of the local population. The main aim of the grant was not development but power (politics centred). However, in the end, land grants could not save the regime. It even led to its deposition and the outbreak of the revolution.
