https://abhipedia.abhimanu.com/Article/sociology/MTAzNjUy/Agrarian-class-structure-Paper--II---Indian-Society---Structure-and-Change--sociology
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.