The peasantry consists of small agricultural producers who with the help of simple equipment and the labour of their families, produce mainly for their own consumption and for the fulfilment of obligations to the holders of political and economic power. If the production in peasant societies is simple and small, one might ask the question does peasantry form a class? In India, peasantry has always been a part of broad historical processes. Their position in the organisation of production has altered tremendously in these historical processes. Hence, in examining the agrarian class relations in India, we should begin with the nature of organisation of production in agriculture and the broad historical processes that have affected the organisation of production in Indian agriculture.

One can delineate at least three distinct approaches to the definition of agrarian classes. The first approach focus on categories indigenous to the society being studied. While the appeal to the indigenous categories derives its strength from the assumption that they are indeed  “the categories in terms of which he (the villager) thinks and acts”, the problem arises because of the ideological nature of the people’s images of their society which often distort the underlying structure of their relations.

In the distributional approach people are assigned to different classes depending on the association between people and things and on the basis of quantitative differences in the distribution of things. Since classification remains arbitrary and ad hoc in this approach it does not contain within itself any explicit directives for the historical analysis of class dynamics.

Structural studies on the other hand focus on relations between different groups of people i.e., on social relations, particularly as these relations are themselves related to differential control of the means of production. Along with landed property, labour contribution is the  other basic feature that Structuralist use to differentiate agrarian classes. Their theoretical orientation also assumes that major classes are opposed to one another in a relationship of conflict. In empirical terms class can be conceptualized according to self-employment along with the criteria of possession of means of production and economic viability. On the basis of such criteria generally five classes, viz., landlord, rich peasant, middle peasant, poor peasant and agricultural labourers are proposed.

Generally agrarian classes are understood in the context of these approaches, but not sticking to a particular approach for analytical purposes.

Classes in Pre-British Period

The class dimension of Indian society, in the pre British period was less pronounced than it turned out to be during the British period. Village community produced only that was required for the consumption needs of the village. There was hence, little surplus and therefore, little differentiation among the village population. Class dimension, was overshadowed by the caste component. In fact, the only sphere where class dimension showed itself rather more sharply was in the nature of interaction between the rulers and the ruled.

The king and his courtiers represented a class quite different from the subjects over whom they ruled. The courtiers comprised the Zamindars, Jagirdars and several others. They along with the king lived on the revenue collected from the village community under their jurisdiction.

Besides these classes there were also classes of administrative officers of various ranks, of merchants, artisans and specialists of various kinds.

The period after 100 A.D. saw the growth of classes of traders, artisans, etc. in cities.  In the Mughal period too, since a large share of village produce was taken to the urban market, the dynamism of the class structure of both the cities and villages but also a stable class of merchants, middlemen and bankers in towns and cities.

The socio-economic relationships of the rural areas were governed by traditional norms and values and by the customary patterns and conventions of great antiquity. According to Thorner, under this system the villagers inherited their traditional occupations. The artisans and craftsmen were also dependent on agriculture. They received a regular stipend from the crops of the village. The state had overall control over these village communities. In fact, the state was at the top of the agrarian hierarchy of landownership acting as the super landlord. Immediately below the state there were the jagirdars who in due course had become unquestionable owners of the lands allotted to them by the king. Then there were the zamindars. They were in fact the rent receivers. Below the zamindars were cultivators who also enjoyed hereditary occupancy rights. However, it is significant to note here that in those days, there was no concept of the sale and purchase of land, no market for the sale and purchase of agricultural produce, no private property rights in land and no employed and employee relationship in the modern sense of the term which were necessary for the emergence of class relations in agriculture.

These situations and relationships emerged for the first time in Indian agrarian society under the British rule.

British rule and class formation in India

The agrarian society in India became highly stratified in the British period. Various agrarian classes emerged as fallout of the implementation of the colonial policies in India. Here to further their interest, the Britishers, besides introducing new land tenure system, took effective steps for opening up of road and railway communications, promotion of export trade in certain agricultural commodities within the framework of the free trade policy of the colonial power. The developments during British rule which were responsible for the change in class relation include Changes in Agriculture, trade and commerce , Development of Railways and Industry, State and Administrative System.

The British administration revolutionized the existing land system. It created individual ownership rights in land by introducing several land tenure systems[1] during the 18th century, With this, land became a commodity in the market. It could be mortgaged, purchased or sold. Method of fixing land revenue at a specified portion of the year’s actual produce was replaced by a system of fixed money payment irrespective of crops. The payment of revenue in cash gave way to production of cash crops in place of food crops. And with expanding railway and transport system production for market became fairly well established. This commercialization of agriculture, in turn, stimulated the growth of trade and commerce in India.

Trade and commerce were centered around two things. Supply of raw material for industries in Britain was one. Procuring of the British manufactured goods for consumption in India was another. Village and town handicrafts could not stand the competition brought about by import of goods from Britain and got disintegrated. Meanwhile there was lack of sufficient industrial development. The result was that the emerging industry could not absorb the displaced population, which eventually fell on an already stagnant agriculture.

Alongside the growth of trade and commerce, there was rapid development of the transport system in India from the middle of the 19th century. These developments were undertaken with a view to meet the raw material requirements of industries in Britain. The construction of railways and roads also gave scope for investment of British capital in India. It led to better mobility of troops and for establishment of law and order. Investment of British capital found an outlet initially in such spheres as plantations (indigo, tea), cotton, jute and mining industries. This was the beginning of the industrialization process in India. By then, there was accumulation of sufficient savings on the part of Indian traders and merchants. This served as capital and made possible the creation of Indian owned industries.

Even before these developments, the British government had organized a huge and extensive state machinery to administer the conquered territory. A large number of educated individuals were required to staff this machinery. The foreign rulers felt that there was a need for the introduction of Western education in India and to cater to the needs of the expanding economy and growing state machinery. As a consequence of the impact of British rule in Indian society experienced an uneven growth of social classes.

Emerging agrarian classes 

In response to the factors mentioned above, the agrarian society of India became highly stratified. Class-differentiation[2] was sharpened among various agrarian categories. The Zamindari system had three main agrarian classes; zamindars, tenants, and agricultural labourers.  The Ryotwari system had tow main classes: ryot-landlords and the ryot-peasants.  The Zamindars (i.e. non-cultivating owners of land) were tax-gatherers, the tenants were real cultivators (often without security of land tenure), and the agricultural labourers had the status of bonded labour.  In the Mahalwari areas as well classes of big landowners and cultivating peasants began to dominate in the agrarian society.

The following broad agrarian classes of the British Period in India can be identified

Landlords

The British land system gave enormous scope to the landlord class to exploit the poor peasantry and to make agriculture market-oriented. They were the owners of vast plots of land. However, there were various categories of landowners within this class viz., intermediary landowners (like the Zamindars, Talukdars, Patnidars etc.), the absentee landowners, the rich farmers etc. They employed mostly either the tenants, sharecroppers or the agricultural labourers for the purpose of cultivation of their land. They were the non-cultivating rentier class. This landlord class emerged at the cost of the decay of the poor and medium cultivators who transferred their land to this new stratum. The high rates of interest varying from 400% to 500% made it impossible for the peasant to repay the loan. Thus he ended up transferring his land to the money-lenders. Money lenders also joined the amy of landlords.

Tenants

They were holding leases under the landlords of various categories. Many of the tenants also employed under-tenants for the purpose of cultivation of a part of their land.

Peasant Proprietors

They were the cultivators of small plots of land with or without occupancy rights. They were mostly the subsistence cultivators and were dependent on family labour for the cultivation of their land. Small peasants and under-tenants belonged to this class.

Agricultural landless labourers

They mostly worked in the field of others for the mainstay of their livelihood. The agricultural labourers and sharecroppers belonged to this category. For subsistence many of the sharecroppers, worked as agricultural labourers seasonally, while the landless agricultural labourers sold their labour throughout the year. The destruction of traditional village and cottage industries led to significant section of the village artisans and craftsman joining the army of agricultural labourers since no other avenue of employment was left for them.

The British period has resulted in  a phenomenal growth of the sharecropping system of land cultivation both in the Zamindari and Ryotwari areas. The spread of sharecropping system was related to the indebtedness of small peasants. When the peasants lost their land, because of their failure to repay the loan in time, they were resettled on the condition that they would pay half of the produce. The Land Revenue Commission (Bengal) showed that in 1940 of the total land sold and purchased around 12% was brought under sharecropping system of cultivation. They were in this sense incorporated in the category of landless agricultural labourers. Their number also sharply increased in this period. In Bengal their growth rate was tremendous. By 1901 they formed only 17.5% of the rural population of Bengal. Between 1921-31 their number increased to 49%.

Hence relations of production was primarily determined by the privileged section of the rural society and transformed the agrarian society from subsistence to commodity production. Ramakrishna Mukherjee making an in-depth study of Bengal points out that in such a given situation, the functioning of the economic structure of the society laid a basis for the emergence of class I (composed of the landlords and supervisory farmers); and class III (composed of sharecroppers and agricultural labourers) at the expense of the decay of class II (composed of self-sufficient peasantry, artisans and traders).

The exploitation of the small peasants, tenants, under tenants, sharecroppers and agricultural labourers by the landlord class created underneath tension and conflict of interest between them. This situation also generated enormous discontent among the peasantry and this discontent was manifested in the form of peasant movements and organized mobilization of the peasantry in the national movement in various parts of the country.

While understanding agrarian classes in British India some other dimensions need to be kept in mind

1.         Regional variations : The process of the rise of new social classes was an uneven one. It did not develop uniformly in different parts of the country and also among various communities. This was due to the fact that the British rule spread both in time and tempo unevenly[3].

2.         Caste angle : The process of the rise of new social classes among different castes was also uneven. This was due to the fact that certain communities were already engaged in define economic, social or educational vocations in pre-British period. For example, Baniyas were traders by vocation in our traditional social structure. Hence they were the first to take up modern commerce, banking and industrial enterprises, Brahmins were the first to take up modern education and enter the professional classes. In some cases, these coincided with each other but in some they did not.

3.         The nationalist movement also affected the feudal class structure.  The national leadership raised voice against the exploitation of the peasants and led various kisan movements in various parts of the country

Thus on the eve of Independence the agrarian society emerged as an extremely poverty-ridden, stratified and disintegrated sector. It was reeling under the social and economic bondages. Hence, the agrarian society was characterised by extreme inequality, subinfeudation in the landholding, high concentration of the land in the hands of rural rich, landlessness and land hunger of the peasants, racketing and tenurial insecurity of the tenants and small peasants; destruction of the traditional village and collage industries, penetration of market and money economy in backward agriculture. Besides there were the subsurface tensions of conflict of interest between the agrarian classes which were manifested in the peasant movements and large-scale participation of the peasantry in the national movement.

Agrarian class structure in the post-independence period

After Independence, restructuring the rural economy was a must for putting it on the path of progress and accelerated development. Comprehensive land reform and rural development programmes have been introduced. The abolition of zamindari system took away the powers of the zamindars. 

The rural society in India experienced a phenomenal change in the mid-sixties with the adoption of a new strategy of agricultural development, which is widely known as the Green Revolution.  These helped generate substantial growth in the agrarian economy along with significant improvement in the structural arrangement of organisation of production in many parts of the country. After liberalization in 1991, the New Agricultural Policy, 2000 aims at bringing major changes in the agrarian economy through private participation, technological upgradation and transformation of agriculture into an industry.

Changing Class Structure in Agriculture

While writing in the 1950s Daniel Thomer noted : “Some parts of India, as for example Andhra, Tamil Nadu and Bihar, have to this day large absentee landlords, whose holdings are let out to tenants. In Bengal there are known to be several layers of tenants and subtenants between the zamindars and the men who actually till the soil. The former princely states still contain a great variety of jagirdars, inamdars, and other holders of large estates under especially privileged tenures. He described India as having a ‘unique agrarian structure’ which represented a blending of remanants from the pre-British economic order together with the modern western concepts of private property.

Agrarian reforms and rural development strategies like green revolution[4] , which aimed at bringing economic development with social justice in its agrarian society, in turn brought regional disparities and sharp inequalities among the agrarian people. Thus the process of class formation has not been a uniform one all over the country. Examining the emerging class inequalities in the rural society , scholars have identified various agrarian classes. To Kotovaky, in the stratified rural social structure in India there have been the bourgeoisie landowners, sharecroppers and agricultural labourers. Daniel Thorner (1973) referring to agrarian classes after independence has talked of three main classes: malik, Kisan, and mazdoor. To Alavi (1974) the rural society of India has been highly stratified in the process of agricultural development and commercialization of agriculture. He pointed out that rural economy of India has been a part of colonial capital. To him the major agrarian classes in India are the bourgeoisie landowners, colonial landowners, sharecroppers and agricultural labourers.

In the agrarian society of West Bengal, Chandra (1975) identified, the upper class landed families (including landlords, jotedars, rich peasants, marginal peasants) and the lower class (including landlords, jotedars, rich peasants, marginal peasants) and the lower class (including poor peasants and the agricultural labourers) to be the conflicting agrarian classes. Andre Beteille points out that agricultural development has produced a class of ‘progressive farmers’ in Punjab who invest significantly in agriculture and use all modern means of cultivation and have nexus with the wide markets. Ashok Rudra (1981) suggests that agricultural development has brought polarisation in the rural society.

To him there has been a class of landowners who occupy not only the vast areas of cultivable lands, but also possess all the modern means of cultivation. This class of big landowners reinvests a significant portion of their capital in agriculture to further their economic interest. Here he identifies two broad classes in the agrarian society of India viz. the class of big landowners and the class of agricultural labourers. Hayami (1981), after examining the major facets of the agrarian transformation in contemporary India, points out that there has been the emergence of upper and the middle strata of the peasantry.

Against this backdrop we can present a broad outline of the agrarian class structure in India. This is as follows:

Rich Farmers

They own and control substantially big areas of cultivable land. However, they do not involve themselves in the process of cultivations directly. They employ mostly agricultural labourers to get their land cultivated. Since the sharecropping system of land cultivation has been reduced substantially because of the eviction of the sharecropper by the landowners, the supervisory farming is getting more and more importance in the contemporary agrarian society. The economic position of the rich farmers has been strengthened enormously in recent years with the introduction of modern tools and techniques of cultivation by them. They reinvest a substantial amount of their profit in the process of commercial and cash crop cultivation. Indeed they give priority to commercial crop cultivation. The spread of co-operative credit societies, land development banks, sugar co-operatives, government’s assurance of substantial price support for farm products, subsidized inputs like water, power, fertilizer, diesel, tractors, etc. and institutional credit helped the  consolidation of the rich farming class. That the rich farmers were able to claim an increasing share of government resources for itself especially after 1965 is shown by a number of studies.

Middle Farmers

They also own and control substantially large areas. However, their operational areas are smaller than the rich farmers, which can be cultivated entirely by the family members. If they have excess lands they may lease them out to the sharecroppers. They themselves are not labourers. Like the landlords they also introduce modern technology and cash crop cultivation in their lands and they are left with a marketable surplus after meeting their household consumption requirements. In the agriculturally development regions of the country they have got prominence in recent years because of the command they acquired over modern technology and local market.

Poor Peasants

They own and control small and marginal areas of cultivable land. They cultivate it by employing family labour mostly. However, they cannot meet their household subsistence requirement from the produce of the land. Hence they are to hire themselves out in the labour market. If available they also lease in small areas of lands. Though usually they do not hire in labourers, in the peak season of agricultural operation they may have to hire in a few labourers. The poor peasants are mostly the subsistence producers.

Landless Labourers

They belong to the bottom of the agrarian hierarchy. They sell out their labour power for the maintenance of their subsistence. Various types of labour relations emerge in the agrarian society based on the duration of the work contract, basis of payment, frequency and medium of payment, interlink with the landowners in terms and credit etc. According to Bardhan and Rudra there are broadly two types of agricultural labourers: Unattached and attached labourers.

Unattached Labourers belong to the category of casual labourers. They come into, day-to-day contract with employers. Their wage rates vary seasonally depending on the seasonal demand of agricultural operation.

1. Attached Labourers belong to the category of casual labourers. They come into, day-to-day contract with employers. Their wage rates vary seasonally depending on the seasonal demand of agricultural operation. Attached Labourers have continuity of association with a particular employer. However, there are various types of attached labourers.
2. Extremely Attached: They are bonded labourers. They have continuity of association with a particular employer for generations. They are indebted to a particular employer and have no freedom to deny the terms and conditions of work imposed on them by the landowner. Though bonded labour system has been abolished by law, in some areas of the country this system is still practised, though not openly.
3. Fully Attached Labourers: They have usually contract duration of around one year. They receive payment partly at the end of the year or partly in regular installments over the years.
4. Semi-Attached Labourers: They have continuity for more than just a few days and they have the freedom to work for other employers for a major part of the year. However, continuity of association with a particular employer also leads to the development of back and call relationship. Many a time poor labour household take advance loan in the loan seasons of agricultural operation from a particular landowner. The landowner, while giving loan to the labourers imposes a condition that the labourers would be obliged to work in their field whenever they need it at a stipulated wage, whatsoever may be the market price. Usually this wage rate is much lower than the prevailing market rate. However, in those days when the landowner has no work for them, the labourers are free to work in others field at the prevailing wage rate of the market.

Irrespective of the categorization, agricultural labourers are extremely insecured economically. They do not get assured employment throughout the year. Since they don’t get full employment , they are to resort to seasonal out migration towards the agriculturally developed regions to earn the subsistence requirements of the family. However, agricultural labourers don’t get even the minimum wage prescribed by law in most parts of the country. Indeed in the absence of legal protection and political commitment for their betterment they suffer from existence economic insecurity, unemployment, poverty and ignorance. The benefits of growth have not reached this class.

Trends in agrarian class structure

Yogendra Singh has referred to several trends in agrarian class structure after independence.  According to him there is a wide gap between land-reform ideology projected during the freedom struggle and even thereafter the actual measures introduced for land reforms. This gap is the result of the class character of politicians and administrative elite. The economic prosperity of the rich peasantry has increased but the economic condition of the small peasants had deteriorated.  The feudalistic type of tenancy has been replaced by the capitalistic type of lease-labour or wage labour agrarian system.  Agricultural workers have not received the benefits of land reforms.  Therefore the sociological process dominant in the current class transformations in the village involves ‘embourgeoisiement’ of some and ‘proletarianisation’ of many social strata. 

P.C. Joshi (1971) referring to the trend in agrarian class structure has pointed out the decline of feudalistic type of tenancy and its replacement by more exploitative lease arrangements and the the rise of commercially-oriented landlords.  Andre Beteille has referred to change from ‘cumulative’ to dispersed’ inequalities due to changing social stratification.

Scholars have noted that in rural areas tensions and conflicts have been intensified between the upper strata and the lower strata of the agrarian hierarchy. According to A.R. Desai this process of development in fact created a setting wherein large sections of the people belonging to various categories of poor, particularly in rural areas become poorer, as they were caught in the growing network of market relations, losing old securities and getting trapped more and more in the rapidly accelerating price rise. This has created enormous tensions in rural areas.

Agrarian classes in India have been a part of a long historical process. In this historical process the lowest section of the agrarian society has been subjected to utter poverty, insecurity, and unscrupulous exploitation. A large section of the rural population has been pauperized in this process. Many of the sharecroppers were evicted from the land; village artisans and craftsmen also lost the traditional avenues of their employment. They joined mainly the army of agricultural labourers for their livelihood. On the other hand, the upper strata of the peasantry also consolidated their economic interest. In this process of class formation, each class in the agrarian society has a common objective position against the others. There also has been a good amount of subjective consciousness of each class against the other classes. This consciousness has been manifested in the agrarian movements in various parts of this country.

Caste and Agrarian classes

Organisation of production of a society is closely interlinked with the social framework within which the organisation of production operates. In India caste, kinship and ethnicity provide the very basis of its social framework. Hence the social organisation of production is closely related to the system of caste, kinship and ethnicity. The economic inequality of the rural society has its close relationship with the inequality inherent in the caste system.

Studies conducted in several parts of the country show that traditional the upper castes have occupied the top of the agrarian hierarchy, while the lower castes have been concentrated at the bottom of the same. Traditionally in Bengal the Brahmins, Rajputs, Kayasthas, in Bihar the  Rajputs, Bhumihars, in Western U.P. the Jats, Gujars, Tyagis, the Muslim high castes (Saiyads and Pathans) in Eastern and Central U.P. the Rajputs, Brahmins and Bhumihars, in Punjab the Jats, in Haryana the Jats and the Ahirs, in Andhra Pradesh the Reddy and the Kammas, in Tamil Nadu the Iyers and Iyengars have been the landowning castes. The castes like the Yadavas, the  Kurmis, the Lodhas etc. who belonged to the middle and lower middle strata of the caste hierarchy have been the tenants of various categories.

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have been the sharecroppers and agricultural labourers.

Due to the changes like monetisation of the rural economy, agricultural modernisation, implementation of the land reform laws and the introduction of the new development strategies, economic condition of a section of the lower middle and lower strata ofthe caste group has improved significantly. Their participation in the village level decision-making bodies has also increased considerably. But the traditional caste hierarchy has not broken down. The lower caste people have not been able to take maximum advantage of the rural development programme.

Though land reform measures have delivered a severe blow to the traditional caste-cum-class hierarchy in some parts of the country, within the given rural social structure the upper castes could retain their superior economic position.

The upper castes have been widely benefited by the new techniques of  cultivation. Since these castes are already economically well-off and have already access to modern information network  they have easily adopted the new method of cultivation. Again they could get maximum benefit of the new development strategies.

The upper caste people also influenced the local administrative machinery for not implementing the land reform laws rigorously. The low caste people are mostly devoid of knowledge of modern tools and techniques of cultivation. Again, since they are economically backward it has not been possible for them to introduce modern means of cultivation. In many areas technology has strengthened the economic position of the upper caste landed gentry and have trapped the lower caste people in an extreme dependency relationship with the former.

However, it is significant that due to the impact of agricultural development a middle strata of the peasantry has emerged. There has been considerable representations of the middle and the lower middle strata caste members in the class of the middle peasantry. The  trend has been that this middle strata is gradually emerging as an affluent section in the agrarian society. They have significant control over the power structure. They have been benefited widely by the modern tools and techniques of cultivation. They have also emerged as an important political force in the national arena.