The continuing controversy over property rights, which began with efforts at land reform in the constituent assembly, has gone on at two levels: that of the battle between government policy-makers and legislative draftsmen on the one hand and the bar and courts on the other; and that between shifting political forces in India—those pressing for reform and those resisting. The initial struggle, in writing the Constitution, centered on the fate of the traditional rights of zamindars and similar intermediaries (often absentee landlords) whose holdings were sometimes very lucrative and drew protest from the exploited tenants. The main questions at this time were: should there be compensation and if so how much; should this decision be left to the state legislatures or should it be justiciable; what safeguards should be created to prevent extreme legislative action; should other kinds of property receive full compensation if taken by the state; should there be a distinction between major social reforms and property takings for public use? Article 31 of the Constitution was the compromise formula and its ambiguities left the issue quite open.