Several Indian sociologists have analyzed the changes in India's agrarian class structure, highlighting how rural life has been reshaped by factors like land reforms, the Green Revolution, migration, and economic liberalization. Here are the perspectives of some notable Indian sociologists on these changes:

1. A.R. Desai – Class Structure and Agrarian Relations

• Perspective: A.R. Desai, a Marxist sociologist, examined the agrarian class structure in the context of class conflict and exploitation. He argued that land reforms were inadequate in dismantling feudal structures and that new capitalist relations were emerging in rural India.
• View on Land Reforms: Desai was critical of land reforms, asserting that they were half-heartedly implemented and ultimately failed to achieve true redistribution of land. He believed that the agrarian structure continued to reflect class exploitation, with wealthy landlords adapting to maintain control over resources.
• Industrial Capitalism in Agriculture: Desai pointed out that capitalist influences were transforming the agrarian economy, as landowners began investing in commercial crops and mechanization, leading to a new class of rich farmers. He emphasized that this led to further marginalization of landless laborers and small farmers.

2. André Béteille – Caste, Class, and Power

• Perspective: Béteille focused on the intersection of caste and class in rural India, observing how social and economic power intersected with traditional caste hierarchies in agrarian communities.
• Shift in Caste-Class Alignment: Béteille noted that caste and class were closely aligned in pre-modern rural India, but modernization and land reforms had begun to disrupt this alignment. He observed that, increasingly, economic class (landownership and wealth) was becoming more significant than caste in determining one’s social status in rural areas.
• Emergence of Middle-Class Farmers: Béteille highlighted the emergence of a "middle farmer" class—small and medium farmers who benefited from the Green Revolution and rural development policies. These farmers began to influence rural politics and challenge traditional landholding elites.

3. Gail Omvedt – Caste, Agrarian Struggles, and Dalit Mobilization

• Perspective: Omvedt, a sociologist and activist, focused on the role of caste and gender in agrarian class structures, particularly concerning Dalit and marginalized communities. She argued that traditional rural hierarchies were being challenged by Dalit and backward caste movements demanding land rights and social equality.
• Dalit Mobilization and Land Rights: Omvedt pointed out that land reforms had largely excluded Dalits, who often remained landless and dependent on upper-caste landlords for wages. She highlighted the mobilization of Dalit groups and the assertion of their rights to land as a significant transformation in rural India.
• Impact of Capitalism on Marginalized Communities: Omvedt argued that while capitalism in agriculture created new opportunities, it often reinforced inequalities by favoring wealthier farmers. She saw the Green Revolution as beneficial for dominant castes, while marginal farmers and landless Dalits continued to suffer from exploitation and exclusion.

4. D.N. Dhanagare – Green Revolution and Class Conflict

• Perspective: Dhanagare studied the socio-economic impact of the Green Revolution, especially its effect on rural class dynamics and conflicts. He argued that the Green Revolution intensified rural inequality, as larger farmers disproportionately benefited from technological advancements.
• Emergence of Rural Elites and Increased Inequality: Dhanagare noted that wealthier farmers who could afford modern agricultural technology grew even wealthier, forming a new rural elite class. In contrast, small farmers struggled to keep up, often falling into debt or selling their land, which led to increased landlessness.
• Class Conflict and Agrarian Unrest: Dhanagare highlighted the rise of rural class conflicts due to unequal gains from agricultural growth. He observed that marginalized groups, including landless laborers and small farmers, began mobilizing to demand better wages, land rights, and debt relief, resulting in agrarian unrest in several regions.

5. Sociologists from the Subaltern Studies Group – Peasant Resistance and Rural Subalternity

• Perspective: Sociologists and historians from the Subaltern Studies Group, such as Ranajit Guha and Dipesh Chakrabarty, focused on the experiences and resistance of marginalized agrarian communities. They emphasized “history from below” by examining peasant resistance, often overlooked by mainstream sociologists.
• Subaltern Perspectives on Land and Class: This group argued that rural class structure could not be understood only through a lens of class or caste; instead, it should include the voices and agency of the subaltern, including small peasants and landless laborers. They highlighted instances of rural rebellion and emphasized how marginalized communities resisted exploitation by landlords or the state.
• Role of Caste in Class Dynamics: Subaltern scholars argued that caste was intertwined with class struggle in rural India. They saw agrarian conflict as deeply connected with issues of caste, asserting that Dalit peasants and lower castes faced distinct forms of exploitation in addition to economic inequality.

6. M.N. Srinivas – Sanskritization and Changing Rural Hierarchies

• Perspective: M.N. Srinivas explored how caste and social status were evolving in rural India, notably through processes like Sanskritization, where lower castes adopted the rituals and behaviors of higher castes to improve their social status.
• Caste Mobility and Economic Class: Srinivas argued that land reforms and the rise of a market economy allowed lower castes who gained economic power to challenge traditional caste hierarchies. He noted that in some cases, these groups could move up the social ladder by adopting behaviors associated with higher castes.
• Agrarian Transformation and Status Seeking: Srinivas pointed out that as lower-caste groups gained economic resources, they often sought greater social acceptance and political power. He argued that changes in economic status could thus shift social dynamics, although traditional hierarchies persisted in many rural areas.

7. Jan Breman – Bonded Labor and Rural Inequality

• Perspective: Jan Breman’s research focused on the plight of landless laborers, particularly bonded laborers, in rural India. He examined how the Green Revolution and capitalist agriculture led to greater exploitation of landless laborers.
• Continued Exploitation of the Landless: Breman argued that capitalist transformation in agriculture did not benefit landless laborers, who continued to work under exploitative conditions with limited access to land or resources. He highlighted how debt bondage and lack of employment options kept these laborers in a cycle of poverty.
• Migration as a Survival Strategy: Breman also noted that seasonal migration to urban areas became a survival strategy for many landless laborers. Migration allowed them to escape local hierarchies temporarily but often came with new forms of urban exploitation.

Indian sociologists have provided diverse perspectives on the changing agrarian class structure in India, from Marxist critiques of capitalist exploitation to analyses of caste dynamics and the rise of rural elites. While some changes have empowered marginalized communities and created new opportunities for upward mobility, inequalities remain entrenched. Landless laborers, small farmers, and marginalized castes continue to face systemic challenges, despite shifts in rural class structures. Collectively, these sociologists emphasize that economic liberalization, caste, and political mobilization all play a crucial role in shaping the complex and evolving agrarian class structure in India.