Click here to join telegram group
The agrarian class structure refers to the pattern of ownership, control, and relations of production in agriculture — essentially, how land, labour, and capital are organized and who controls them.
Traditionally, Indian rural society was structured around feudal or semi-feudal relations, where landlords, tenants, and labourers occupied distinct, hierarchical positions tied to caste and hereditary rights.
However, with modern forces such as land reforms, Green Revolution, industrialization, education, and political mobilization, this traditional agrarian class structure has undergone significant transformation.
2. Traditional Agrarian Structure (Pre-Independence)
- Dominated by feudal relations under Zamindari, Ryotwari, and Mahalwari systems.
- Landlords (zamindars) extracted rent from tenants and sharecroppers.
- Social hierarchy coincided with caste hierarchy — upper castes (Brahmins, Rajputs, Bhumihars) as landlords; lower castes and Dalits as landless labourers.
- Little mobility; dependency and patron-client relations were strong (as noted by Andre Béteille in Studies in Agrarian Social Structure).
3. Modern Forces of Change
(a) Land Reforms (1950s–1970s)
- Abolition of Zamindari and tenancy reforms redistributed ownership to cultivators.
- In theory, weakened the feudal landlord class; in practice, created a new class of rich peasant proprietors (as observed by A. R. Desai and D. N. Dhanagare).
- Ceiling Acts led to fragmentation but not complete redistribution — large landowners retained control through benami holdings.
(b) Green Revolution
- Introduced modern technology, high-yield seeds, irrigation, and fertilizers.
- Created a new capitalist class of farmers in Punjab, Haryana, and Western UP — mainly from middle castes (Jats, Yadavs, Kurmis, Patidars).
- Transformed traditional caste-based landholding into class-based differentiation — a process Rudolph and Rudolph called the “rise of bullock capitalists”.
- Agricultural production became market-oriented, with labour hired on wage basis rather than customary ties.
(c) Industrialization and Urbanization
- Rural labour migration to cities reduced dependency on landlords.
- Cash income and remittances diversified rural economy, loosening feudal bonds.
- Emergence of non-agricultural occupations blurred old class boundaries.
(d) Political Mobilization and Democratization
- Expansion of Panchayati Raj, reservations, and party politics gave rural classes a voice.
- Political power shifted to intermediate castes — what M. N. Srinivas called the “dominant caste phenomenon”.
- Rich peasant castes converted economic power into political hegemony (e.g., Jats in Haryana, Reddys in Andhra, Marathas in Maharashtra).
(e) Commercialization and Market Penetration
- Agriculture increasingly linked to global and national markets.
- Agrarian relations now shaped by agribusiness, contract farming, and corporate land acquisition.
- Labour relations more contractual and less tied to caste — showing transition toward capitalist agriculture.
4. Changing Agrarian Class Structure — Summary of Transformation
| Traditional Phase | Transitional Phase | Contemporary Phase |
|---|---|---|
| Feudal landlords, tenants, and bonded labourers | Rich peasant farmers and smallholders | Agrarian capitalists, contract farmers, agricultural labourers |
| Caste-based hierarchy | Economic class differentiation | Market-oriented class stratification |
| Patron-client ties | Cash-based tenancy and wage labour | Capitalist labour relations |
5. Theoretical Perspectives
| Thinker | Contribution | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| A. R. Desai | Marxist analysis of Indian peasantry; Peasantry and National Integration | Change in class relations reflects capitalist penetration of agriculture |
| Andre Béteille | Empirical study of Tanjore; class and caste interlinked | Agrarian hierarchy now defined more by class than caste |
| Daniel Thorner | Phases of agrarian change — from “Feudalism” to “Semi-feudalism” to “Capitalism” | Modernization and technology have shifted Indian agriculture toward capitalist mode |
| K. Balagopal & D. N. Dhanagare | Peasant movements reflect growing class consciousness | Agrarian conflicts now revolve around wages, prices, and land rights |
| Yogendra Singh | Modernization of tradition | Old caste-based system transformed within the framework of tradition |
6. Contemporary Evidence of Change
- Emergence of capitalist farmers engaging in mechanized, market-linked agriculture.
- Landless labourers forming unions (e.g., Punjab Khet Mazdoor Union) — indicating class consciousness.
- Women’s participation as labourers and self-help group members (SHGs) redefining class and gender relations.
- Decline of Jajmani system and rise of wage labour markets.
- Corporate farming and FPOs (Farmer Producer Organizations) marking a new phase of agrarian capitalism.
7. Continuities Amid Change
Despite modernization, continuities persist:
- Land concentration still high — 45% of rural households are landless (NSSO data).
- Upper castes still control disproportionate land resources.
- Labour exploitation and debt bondage continue in pockets of Bihar, Odisha, and Telangana.
→ Thus, agrarian transformation is uneven, combining feudal residues with capitalist tendencies — a process of “combined and uneven development” (Marxist view).
8. Conclusion
In sum, the agrarian class structure in India has undergone major transformation under the influence of modern forces — land reforms, Green Revolution, market expansion, industrialization, and political mobilization.
However, this change is partial and layered — traditional hierarchies coexist with emerging capitalist relations, producing a hybrid agrarian system.
As A. R. Desai observed, India’s countryside reflects a transition from semi-feudalism to semi-capitalism — a process in which modern forces transform old structures while retaining traces of continuity.