Describe the agrarian class structure in rural India.

 With this background of agrarian structure, let us now analyze agrarian relations. The relations may be classified as

(a) those which are defined and enforced by law,

(b) which are customary, and

(c) which are of fluctuating character. 

Daniel Thorner rejected the often described classification of cultivators in rural areas in three categories: landlords, tenants, and labourers. If we analyze class structure in rural India in the post-independence period, we find four classes: the three classes in the agricultural field are of land owners, tenants, and labourers, while the fourth class is of non-agriculturists According to A.R. Desai (1959), landowners constitute about 22 per cent, 7119 tenants about 27 per cent, agricultural labourers about 31 per cent and nonagriculturalists about 20 per cent.

A large majority of the cultivators (60%) are marginal cultivators with less than 2 hectares land, followed by small cultivators (16%) with 2 to 5 hectares land, medium cultivators (6%) with 5 to 10 hectares land, and big cultivators (18%) with more than 10 hectares land. The available land per family in villages is less than one acre (or 0.4 ha). About 75 per cent of the total sown area is under food crops. About 35 per cent of the total produce is sold by cultivators. In about 65 per cent of these sale transactions, commodities are sold to the trader in the village itself.

The marketing of agricultural produce in the mandis (markets) is largely in the hands of intermediaries who represent private interests and who control both credit as well as disposal of the produce.  Thus, a large number of agrarian proletariat, a large number of uneconomic holders of land, and a small number of artisans and self-employed people in villages reveal a miserable economic life lived by these people. This was on the ground that one and the same man can belong simultaneously to all three of these categories.

A person can himself cultivate a few acres of land he owns, give some land on rent, and in emergeney may work on other’s field as labourer. He has analysed agrarian relations by using three specific terms: Malik for agricultural landlords, Kisan for working peasants (including tenants), and Mazdoor for agricultural labourers. The Malik derives his agricultural income primarily (although not necessarily solely) from property rights in the soil, i.e., from a share of the produce of lands possessed by him. The share is realised in cash as well as in kind (percentage of produce). He may give his land either to tenant(s) or may cultivate it by hiring labourers. He may manage the hired labourers himself or through a manager. The Malik may also have subsidiary income from business, profession, etc.

The Maliks are of two types: those who are absentee landlords and those who reside in the village in which they own land Kisans are the working peasants, who may be small landowners or tenants the difference between the Malik and the small Kisan is the size of the land held. The Kisan himself and one or more members of his family actually perform the field labour. Sometimes the income of the Kisan is so low that he himself or his family members(s) work as agricultural labourers.  Mazdoors are those landless villagers who earn their livelihood primarily from working on other people’s land. They receive wages in cash and sometimes in kind also.

When they are not able to find work in villages, they migrate to other states either for working as agricultural labourers (as Biharis migrating to Punjab) or as construction or industrial labourers. While Daniel Thorner has analysed agrarian social structure in terms of three classes on the basis of three criteria, viz.,

(a) Income obtained from the soil (i.e., rent, own cultivation, or wages),

(b) The nature of rights (i.e., ownership, tenancy, sharecropping and norights at all), and 

(c) The extent of fieldwork actually performed (i.e., doing no work, doingpartial work, doing total work, and doing work for others). 

D.N. Dhanagre (in Desai, 1983) has suggested a different model of agrarian classes. He has proposed five classes: landlords, who derive income primarily from land- ownership by collecting rent from tenants, sub-tenants and share croppers; rich peasants, i.e., small landowners with sufficient land to support the family and who cultivate land themselves, and rich tenants who have substantial holdings and have to pay a nominal rent to their landlords; middle peasants, i.e., landowners of medium size holdings and tenants with substantial holdings and paying higher rent; poor peasants, i.e., 

(a) Land-owners with holdings insufficient to maintain a family, and therefore forced to rent others’ land,

(b) Tenants with small holdings,

(c) Sharecroppers, and

(d) Landless labourers.

The rich peasants and the trader moneylenders exploit the poor tenants and the landless labourers so much that relations between them are always sour. The former two classes wield considerable economic, social, and political power. The emergence of cooperative and credit societies in the villages have no doubt affected the power of the Maliks, yet they continue to be strong. Two things are to be noted here: one, cooperative societies have not been much successful in villages, and two, private trader continues to operate successfully. People with vested interests want to maintain the status quo. Even land reforms have not reduced the power of Maliks and moneylenders.

Unless economic, social and political progress takes place in the countryside, unless a movement is born which leads to more even distribution of productive resources, greater economic strength on the part of the smaller units leading to ability to withstand pressures from either the top cultivators’ strata or the moneylender trader classes, no great success can be achieved in improving class relations. The problems of landless agricultural labourers are more economic than social.

We do not deny that their place in the social structure is of great importance but we hold that the problem of employment opportunities to them, and the problem of their wages are more crucial.  Employment opportunity is related to the growth of agricultural economy and incentives to artisans in the villages. In the Agricultural Labour Enquiry, an agricultural labourer was described as a person who worked as an agricultural labourer for more than one-half of the total number of days on which he actually worked during the year.

On the basis of this definition, about 30 per cent workers were identified as agricultural labourers, one-half of them being without land and the rest being in possession of a little land (say one bigha or so). As many as 85 per cent of agricultural labourers get only casual work during times of harvesting, weeding, preparation of soil, and ploughing. Today, the S average wage of an agricultural labourer varies from Rs. 30 to Rs. 60 per day. The extent of employment varies under different conditions in various parts of the country, the average being about 200 days.

Thus, there is work for wages for about six months in a year, total unemployment for rather more than three months, and some kind of self employment for less than three months. In this way, their (agricultural labourers) average income is hardly about Rs. 10,000 a year. They, thus, live below the poverty line. The Agricultural Labour Enquiry was concerned primarily with certain economic aspects but the social disabilities and low social position of the bulk of agricultural labourers are in themselves no small part of the problem. The vast majority belong to SCs, STs, and OBCs. Some of their social handicaps might have diminished because of the 110 government’s discriminatory and reservation policies, yet their economic and social status has not much improved. They are not considered a part of social life in a village.

Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)