Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agrarian Social Structure PDF
Agrarian Social Structure PDF
The dictionary meaning of ‘agrarian’ means anything related to land, its management or
distribution. Related to land distribution is also the aspect of ‘equitable division of land’. It refers
to the political movement in favour of change in conditions of propriety in land. It is called
‘agrarianism’.
Agrarian system also includes land tenure system. Beteille has defined agrarian social structure.
To him agrarian system does not mean only peasantry.
He observes:
Something more specific than the study of peasant societies and cultures, as this is generally
understood by anthropologists… The term ‘peasantry’ has variety of referents. But it is most
meaningfully used to describe a more or less homogeneous and undifferentiated community of
families characterised by small holdings operated mainly by family labour.
The agrarian system is related to:
(i) land and its utilisation; and
(ii) productive purposes. He observes:
The study of agrarian systems will centre round the problem of land and its utilisation for
productive purposes.
Beteille, to refer to him again, it would be said that the land problem in India and for that
matter the study of agrarian social structure revolves round two major issues as under:
1. Technological arrangements, and
2. Social arrangements.
Technological arrangement means the management of land. It includes landownership, control
and” use of land. Technological arrangement is discussed in relation to variations in ecological
conditions. In other words, land is looked in terms of the geography which surrounds the land.
The ecological setting of agriculture in India is highly variable. The diverse nature of ecological
conditions in India has been described by Beteille as under:
There are areas of heavy rainfall and areas with hardly any rainfall. There are irrigated and
unirrigated areas. Irrigated areas themselves differ according to the dependability of irrigation….
The different regions show different patterns of diurnal and seasonal variations in humidity,
temperature and sunlight. All these factors have a direct bearing on the kinds of crops that can be
cultivated and the technology employed in their cultivation.
The technological arrangements, thus, include ecological conditions along with the new
agriculture technology, such as water pumps, thresher, chemical manure, improved seeds, etc.
Another aspect of agrarian system is that of social management.
It includes land control and landownership. It is found that the Indian agricultural communities
have recently been highly stratified. It shows that there is close relationship between the system
of stratification and the division of work.
For instance, the census figures show that in Punjab and Haryana the proportion of agricultural
labourers in the total agricultural population is relatively low, whereas in West Bengal,
Tamilnadu and Kerala, it is high. In the three states the prevalence of sharecropping is also high,
but this fact is not easily recorded in the censuses and large-scale surveys.
K.L. Sharma has discussed the problem of agrarian stratification and argues that agrarian
structures in India have always been uneven. Fie observes that despite the abolition of
intermediaries not much substantive change in agrarian relations has come. The uneven
structures of landholdings have also resulted in ‘diverse land tenure systems’. The land tenure
system, according to Sharma, has greatly affected the social structure. He writes:
The variations in the relationship between land tenure system and social structure created an
uneven feudal order in the pre-British and British periods. The shadow of the colonial and feudal
inequality is still seen by us in various aspects of society.
Sociologists and anthropologists, who have recently studied agrarian system, have very strongly
argued that changes in land relations have affected the stratification pattern of villages. The
crucial aspect of agrarian structure is the control over land.
It is the basis of agrarian stratification. When agrarian social structure is discussed invariably we
refer to landownership, land control and use of land. Such an approach to land helps us to find
out agrarian hierarchy. What has happened so far is that the dominant castes who, have control
over major portions of land, suppress and exploit the subordinated classes.
Oliver Mendelsohn and Marika Vicziany, who have discussed the rural land reform with
reference to untouchables, argue that the subordinated people have gained nothing out of land
reforms. The present social stratification of the village is due to our failure to settle land reforms.
The authors observe as under:
Land control is the basis of the agrarian hierarchy and, therefore, the means by which the
dominants have subordinated untouchables the village. Small resources like a home site of one’s
own and even a very small plot of productive land can effect a powerful liberation of the
subordinate untouchables from total and arbitrary dependence on their oppressor.
Yet, another aspect of rural stratification is the pattern of cultivation adopted by the peasantry. If
the cultivators take to crops which require hard labour, naturally it would require larger number
of agriculture labourers.
In the states of Punjab and Bihar where paddy is grown, larger number of labourers is hired.
Even landless labourers migrate from Bihar to Punjab for transplanting paddy. The agrarian
hierarchy, therefore, is the resultant of the crops grown by the peasantry.
Beteille has discussed the rural stratification pattern in terms of land control and land
management. The productive organisation of land consists of three main patterns: the first is
based on family labour, the second on hired labour and the third on tenancy conceived in a broad
sense.
He observes:
For in talking about production based on family labour, wage labour and tenancy, we are talking
also about landlords, owner-cultivators, tenants, sharecroppers and the agricultural labourers.
These categories and their mutual relations constitute the heart of what may be described as the
agrarian hierarchy… the most crucial features of India’s rural social system and unless we
understand its nature and forms, our understanding of caste itself will remain incomplete.
The rural India’s basic problem today is the understanding of agrarian system. Control over land
determines the rural hierarchy. What is interesting is that the state does not impose any incometax on the far product
on.
As a result of this state policy, those who control larger portions of land, benefit the most. The
rural agrarian hierarchy has today become more complicated owing to the land policy adopted by
the state. But the state land policy, as we have in India today, has not evolved overnight.
It is the result of the colonial land policy which we have inherited and have carved it in postindependent India in suc
a way that it has taken a capitalistic mode of production instead of
minimising the hiatus between the big farmer and landless labourer. We have intensified the
social inequality. We now trace the land policy adopted by the colonial rulers and later, the
nationalist government.
Formal definitions
Land reforms mean:
#1 Improving land tenure and institutions related to agriculture.
#2 redistribution of property rights For the benefit of the landless poor.
#3integrated program to remove the barriers for economic and social development Caused by
deficiencies in the existing land tenure system
Tenancy:
Tenancy in derived from the word ‘tenure’ = ‘to hold’.Tenancy= Agreement under “tenant” holds
the land/building of the original owner.
#for British
gave financial security for the British administration.
Cost of running administration decreased. Because British had to collect Revenue from only a
few Zamindars instead of lakhs of farmers.
British got new political allies (Zamindars). They would keep their own militia to suppress
peasant revolts, and act as ‘informers’ and remained loyal to British rule.
#learning from mistake
Permanent settlement system led to many agrarian revolts.
Government’s income declined over the years, Because Revenue was permanently fixed +
number of intermediaries kept increasing.
Hence, British learned from the mistake and did not extent this permanent settlement/Zamindari
system to the whole of India. Instead, they established Ryotwari and Mahalwari systems in the
remaining parts.
#Farmers lose bargaining power
Textile industry was the driver of industrial revolution in Britain. = raw cotton imported +
finished textile exported to India.
To prevent any ‘competition’ from Desi textile industries, the British imposed variety of taxes
and tariffs on them=>desi textile business collapsed. Lakhs of weavers became unemployed,
migrated to villages in search of work.
Since they did not own any land, they had to become tenants at will for Zamindars.
Now Zamindars had the monopoly of controlling livelihood of thousands of people. They
extorted more and more taxes.
Moreover, the “begar”, unpaid work which the tenants were forced to perform on the zamindar’s
land, took larger proportions. On the average, it amounted to 2025 % of the lease.
Western Bengal: Farmers got divided into two categories i) Jotedars (Rich farmers)
ii)Bargadar (Sharecroppers)
Eastern Bengal: Jute cultivation. Independent farmers with small to middlesize land holdings
#More outsourcing
Permanent settlement system created landed aristocracy for the first time in India. Zamindars
used to chow down part of the land Revenue collected. Thus they became wealthy and lazy.
They ‘outsourced’ their work to more intermediaries / subtenants.
It became quite common to have 10 to 20 intermediaries, more or less without any specific
function, between the government and the farmers, And they all had a share in the cultivation
yield + other illegal taxes.
As a result, 7080% of farmer’s produce went to just Revenue and commissions only=> poverty,
debts.
None of these middlemen or Zamindars invest money in agricultural improvement or new
technology. They just kept increasing rents. Hence traditional agriculture did not shift to
capitalist agriculture, unlike other economies.
Ryotwari System
By Sir Thomas Munro at first in Madras State and then adopted in Bombay, and Assam. But
Why?
1. In permanent settlement areas, land Revenue was fixed. But over the years, agriculture
prices/exports should increase but government’s income did not increase. (Because middlemen
zamindars chowed it down)
2. Zamindars were oppressiveleading to frequent agrarian revolts in the permanent settlement
areas.
3. In Bihar, Bengal, there existed Zamindar/feudal lords since the times of Mughal
administration. But Madras, Bombay, Assam did not have Zamindars / feudal lords with large
estates. So, hard to ‘outsource’ work, even if British wanted.
4. No middlemen in tax collection=> farmer has to pay less taxes=>increased purchasing
power=>will improve demand for readymade British products in India.
Consequently, all subsequent land tax or revenue settlements made by the colonial rulers were
temporary settlements made directly with the peasant, or ‘ryot’ (e.g., the ryotwari settlements).
This model was based on English yeomen farmers.
Mahalwari System
Location: Gangetic valley, northwest provinces, parts of central India and Punjab. But why?
In North India and Punjab, joint land rights on the village were common. So, British decided to
utilize this utilize this traditional structure in a new form known as Mahalwari system.
at independence India was faced with an acute food shortage nearfamine conditions in many
areas.
Between 1946 and 1953 about 14 million tonnes of foodgrains worth Rs 10,000 million had to be
imported = this was nearly half of the total capital investment in the First Five Year Plan (1951–
56).
Farmers shifted from food crop to Cash crops. But cash crops need more inputs in terms of
seeds, fertilizer, and irrigation, hence farmer had to borrow more.
This brought moneylenders, Shroff, Mahajan, Baniya, into limelightthey were in control of
village land without any accountability.
Thus British land revenue system transfered ownership of land from farmer to moneylender.
towards about the end of the colonial period, The total burden on the peasant of interest
payments on debt and rent on land could be estimated at a staggering Rs 14,200 million
According to RBI’ss survey in 1954:
Serfdom
Before: slavery/bonded labour/Begari almost nonexistent.
But During British raj
Zamindars gave loan to farmers/laborers and demanded free labour in return.
This practice prevented farmers/laborers to bargaining wages. Begari, Bonded labour, or debt
bondage became a common feature in large parts of the country.
Even in ryotwari areas, upper caste controlled the land. Lower caste was reduced to
sharecroppers and landless laborers.