Caste & class in rural india
Agricultural land is the single most important resource and
form of property
in rural society. But it is not equally distributed among people
living in a
particular village or region. Nor does everyone have access to
land. In fact, the
distribution of landholdings in most regions is highly unequal
among
households. In some parts of India the majority of rural
households own at
least some land – usually very small plots. In other areas as
much as 40 to 50
per cent of families do not own any land at all. This means that
they are
dependent on agricultural labour or other kinds of work for
their livelihoods.
This of course means that a few families are well-to-do. The
majority live just
above or below the poverty line.
In most regions of India, women are usually excluded from
ownership of
land, because of the prevailing patrilineal kinship system and
mode of
inheritance. By law women are supposed to have an equal
share of family
property. In reality they only have limited rights and some
access to land only
as part of a household headed by a man.
The term agrarian structure is often used to refer to the
structure or
distribution of landholding. Because agricultural land is the
most important
productive resource in rural areas, access to land shapes the
rural class
structure. Access to land largely determines what role one plays
in the process
of agricultural production. Medium and large landowners are
usually able to
earn sufficient or even large incomes from cultivation (although
this depends
on agricultural prices, which can fluctuate greatly, as well as
other factors
such as the monsoon). But agricultural labourers are more
often than not
paid below the statutory minimum wage and earn very little.
Their incomes
are low. Their employment is insecure. Most agricultural
labourers are
daily-wage workers. And do not have work for many days of the
year. This is
known as underemployment. Similarly, tenants (cultivators who
lease their
land from landowners) have lower incomes than owner-
cultivators. Because
they have to pay a substantial rent to the landowner – often as
much as 50 to
75 per cent of the income from the crop.
Agrarian society, therefore, can be understood in terms of its
class structure.
But we must also remember it is also structured through the
caste system. In
rural areas, there is a complex relationship between caste and
class. This
relationship is not always straightforward. We might expect
that the higher
castes have more land and higher incomes. And that there is a
correspondence
between caste and class as one moves down the hierarchy. In
many areas this
is broadly true but not exactly. For instance, in most areas the
highest caste,
the Brahmins, are not major landowners, and so they fall
outside the agrarian
structure although they are a part of rural society. In most
regions of India,Change and Development in Rural Society
59
the major landowning groups belong to castes that belong to
the ‘Shudra’ or
‘Kshatriya’ varnas. In each region, there are usually just one or
two major
landowning castes, who are also numerically very important.
Such groups
were termed by the sociologist M.N. Srinivas as dominant
castes. In each
region, the dominant caste is the most powerful group,
economically and
politically, and dominates local society. Examples of dominant
landowning
groups are the Jats and Rajputs of U.P., the Vokkaligas and
Lingayats in
Karnataka, Kammas and Reddis in Andhra Pradesh, and Jat
Sikhs in Punjab.
While dominant landowning groups are usually middle or high
ranked
castes, most of the marginal farmers and landless belong to
lower caste groups.
In official classification they belong to the Scheduled Castes or
Tribes (SC/
STs) or Other Backward Classes (OBCs). In many regions of
India, the former
‘Untouchable’ or dalit castes were not allowed to own land and
they provided
most of the agricultural labour for
the dominant landowning groups.
This also created a labour force that
allowed the landowners to cultivate
the land intensively and get higher
returns.
The rough correspondence
between caste and class means that
typically the upper and middle castes
also had the best access to land and
resources, and hence to power and
privilege. This had important
implications for the rural economy
and society. In most regions of the country, a ‘proprietary
caste’ group owns
most of the resources and can command labour to work for
them. Until recently,
practices such as begar or free labour were prevalent in many
parts of northern
India. Members of low ranked caste groups
had to provide labour for a fixed number of
days per year to the village zamindar or
landlord. Similarly, lack of resources, and
dependence on the landed class for economic,
social, and political support, meant that many
of the working poor were tied to landowners
in ‘hereditary’ labour relationships (bonded
labour), such as the halpati system in Gujarat
(Breman, 1974) and the jeeta system in
Karnataka. Although such practices have
been abolished legally, they continue to exist
in many areas. In a village of northern Bihar,
the majority of the landowners are
Bhumihars, who are also the dominant caste.
BOX 4.1 There is a direct correspondence between
agricultural productivity and the agrarian structure.
In areas of assured irrigation, those with plentiful
rainfall or artificial irrigation works (such as rice-growing
regions in river deltas, for instance the Kaveri basin in Tamil
Nadu) more labour was needed for intensive cultivation. Here
the most unequal agrarian structures developed. The agrarian
structure of these regions was characterised by a large
proportion of landless labourers, who were often ‘bonded’
workers belonging to the lowest castes. (Kumar 1998).
ACTIVITY 4.2
¾ Think about what you have
learned about the caste
system. Outline the various
linkages between the
agrarian or rural class
structure and caste. Discuss
in terms of different access
to resources, labour,
occupation.Social Change and Development in India
60
4.2 THE IMPACT OF LAND REFORMS
THE COLONIAL PERIOD
There are historical reasons why each region of India came to
be dominated by
just one or two major groups. But it is important to realise that
this agrarian
structure has changed enormously over time, from the pre-
colonial to the colonial
and after independence. While the same dominant castes were
probably also
cultivating castes in the pre-colonial period, they were not the
direct owners of
land. Instead, ruling groups such as the local kings or zamindars
(landlords
who were also politically powerful in their areas, and usually
belonged to
Kshatriya or other high castes) controlled the land. The
peasants or cultivators
who worked the land had to hand over a substantial portion of
the produce to
them. When the British colonised India, in many areas they
ruled through
these local zamindars. They also granted property rights to the
zamindars.
Under the British, the zamindars were given more control over
land than they
had before. Since the colonisers also imposed heavy land
revenue (taxes) on
a
