There is no head or tail what you are saying. You are pretending to be "ignorant" and the irony is that you have disregarded all the efforts and achievement of chaudhary sahab from a line!! You even don't deserve that I should indulge in any discussion with you. Just For your comfort, start your home work from here......arr reference bhi aankh khol ke dekh liye......
http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?865-WHAT-WERE-CHARAN-SINGH%27S-CONTRIBUTIONS-AS-A-JAT-or-AS-A-LEADER-FOR-COMMON-PEOPLE&highlight=chaudhary+charan+singh
Chaudhary Charan Singh was a consummate politician, first-rate intellectual, son-of-the-soil, and simply one of the most influential politicians India has produced in the twentieth century.
Given below are some of the principal achievements of his political career, a tour de force in truly inhospitable circumstances, in a rough chronological order. His socio-cultural impact, which is not discussed here, was in all likelihood even more profound and far reaching. These are mostly taken from Byres (1988):
1939: Debt Redemption Bill
Charan Singh introduced the bill to provide relief to heavily indebted farmers in teeth of tremendous opposition from members of his own, Congress party.
His struggle to limit the power of landlords spans the period before Independence and up to the 1960s. As early as 1939, he attempted to introduce a bill in the UP legislative council which aimed at 50% reservation in jobs for those of rural origin. In the same year, he also drafted a resolution that sought to transfer proprietorship of agricultural land to people who actually tilled it (“Land to the tiller”, as opposed to absentee landlords). The draft was approved in the AICC meeting in Calcutta in 1945.
His interventions on behalf of, and vigorous advocacy of the peasantry were not just limited to initiating legislative measures. He also wrote numerous articles in the national dailies (e.g. HT), presenting convincingly the case for the liberation of the oppressed peasantry from a web of exploitative relations. This helped, in general, to mobilize public opinion, and gave voice to a section of population historically absent from debates concerning its own fate.
Zamindara Abolition Act (1952…)
Post-independence, Charan Singh’s long standing resolve to destroy the parasitic class of Zamindars culminated in the passing of “Zamindara abolition act”, perhaps the single most important step to lead to the rise of a robust, assertive and politically influential peasantry. The enactment of the law abolishing Zamindari, it turned out was only the first half of the “mortal struggle against landlordism”, the implementation had to be carried out in face of fierce resistance from large landlords—the traditional constituency of the Congress.
The Consolidation of Holdings Act of 1953
Charan Singh had observed, as early as 1925, the debilitating impact of fragmentation of land holdings on agricultural productivity. Again, consolidation was effected in face of resistance from well-entrenched interests. Both the abolition of Zamindara and Consolidation were greatly facilitated by the dismissal of the notorious ‘patwaris’ who acted brazenly in favor of landlords, often by falsifying records of possession and cultivation.
Opposition to taxation of agricultural land
Beginning in the 1960s, the arena for peasant’s struggles shifted to urban areas. The battle lines were now drawn between the urban and rural interests, rather than between sections of rural interests. One of the first issue to emerge in this regard was that of increase in taxation of agriculture. In 1962, Charan Singh opposed, while being a Congress minister, his party’s attempts to increase land tax by 50%.
His opposition to increase in taxation, in characteristic fashion, was framed as “a combination of intellectual arguments, pleading and political warning” (Byres 1988:157) in a memorandum conveyed to the then UP CM CB Gupta.
Resistance to Compulsory Food Procurement
The consecutive years of drought in 1966-1967 led the Central government to consider procuring food grains directly from farmers at prices which would have been highly unfavorable to them (the govt’s main concern being feeding the urban poor at an affordable price). Charan Singh, then the CM of UP, resisted the procurement initially and proposed that the govt procure from the wholesale traders. When this did not succeed, he modified the central govt’s plan to the advantage of peasants by offering them a much higher procurement price than the prevailing market rates. The infrastructure he put in place for this led in time to the regime of Minimum Support Price for food grains (and other crops), which has provided stability to the prices of food grains and thus ensured that farmers are not exploited by merchants.
Charan Singh’s rally of Dec 23, 1978
One of the biggest rallies ever to be held in Delhi, the demonstration of the might of Indian peasantry--its coming of age--became evident to all: the anti-farmer government, condescending intelligentsia, and the urban elite who were oblivious to the silent revolution-of-sorts that was brewing in the countryside. The emergence of farmers as a vocal, powerful political constituency owes a great deal to this unprecedented show of strength.
Charan Singh’s budget of 1979
Reduced duty on chemical fertilizers by half. Reduced or abolished taxes on mechanical tillers and other inputs, established NABARD (rural credit)
Charan Singh’s intellectual contributions
Terry Byres (The School of Oriental and African Studies, London), one of the most prominent and astute political economists to have studied Indian agriculture for over half-century sums up Charan Singh as an intellectual, thus:
“My judgment is that on the most rigorous definition Charan Singh was clearly an intellectual; and not only that, a most unusual one” (1988:167).
Moreover Charan Singh is no run-of-mill intellectual: He is an “organic” intellectual.
Again Byres (quoting Gramsci, a Marxist theorist) defined an “organic intellectual” (by the way an influential concept in the social sciences):
“The thinking and organizing element of a particular fundamental social class. These individuals are distinguished….by their function in directing the ideas and aspirations of the class to which they organically belong”
Charan Singh left behind a corpus of work remarkable for its clarity, consistency and penetrating insights (See list below for a sample). A large part of Charan Singh’s intellectual life was devoted to wrestling with the so-called “Agrarian question”. In other words, what is the most appropriate path for a mass of subsistence peasantry to be ushered into capitalism. Methodically, in his numerous writings, he dealt with the various alternatives; collectivization (“there is nowhere in the Indian literature that the case against collectivization is better presented”) and unbridled capitalism. Ultimately, he settled on the principle of “peasant proprietorship”/family farm in the American literature.
Examining the Russian collectivization experience in detail, he offered a devastating and prescient critique on pragmatic, psychological, and social-historical grounds. In addition, he demonstrated the historical relationship between individual peasant proprietorship and emergence of democracy. The analysis and prescriptions are particularly important because of their stubborn independence of prevailing favorable sentiment towards cooperative agriculture among certain sections of the Congress party and the bureaucracy. Brass places Charan Singh’s thinking, his ideology, on economic issues squarely in the neo-populist tradition (which, in very simple terms, argues for the primacy of the people over the corporations or the cooperatives as means to economic transformation). In fact Charan Singh propounded the famous “Urban bias” thesis and its role in perpetuating poverty in the underdeveloped countries, which was later picked up by the well-known political-economist Michael Lipton. In terms of the cogency, influence, sheer output and the remarkable continuity in his arguments over a span of half century, he is often likened to the famous Russian neo-populists like Chayanov, who defended the “family farm” in face of the relentless capitalist onslaught.
From 1947 onwards, Charan Singh used the famous “inverse relationship” between land holding and productivity to buttress his argument against cooperative agriculture. In his writings, he was a prolific but discriminating user of data and statistics. Fully conversant with the current agricultural economic research, he deployed findings to both support his arguments, and to guide his political practice.
Let’s now turn our attention to concerns that have been raised here: the “mistakes” of Charan Singh:
“Not taking the community in a new direction”: so freeing the community from the clutches of blood-sucking Zamindars was not a new direction. I guess if he had taken them over a cliff, it would count!
Not building concrete structures. Hmmmm…. What has that great institution the “Sarv Khap”, of which we have heard many a wonderful tale, left us with, and how about that great emperor Harshvardhan “Virk”? But wait, maybe, we will soon find out that they built the Taj Mahal!
ctd.......................
) just like Devilal bhawan in almost every district of haryana but why there is not Jat dharamsahala or jat bhawan when there are dharamsala of other caste (ab ye mat bolna ki dusri jatiyon ki nahi hai)??? 
)who always get sentimental or laudatory when he see anything written about Ch Chran singh without understanding the intent, i dont know why they do so? might be they try to impress anyone on JL. So i thought lets take factual view instead of perceptive views, that is all me trying to do.