Agrarian Social Structure: What is Agrarian Social Structure?

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 ones
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 Indias rural social system and unless we
understand its nature and forms, our understanding of caste itself will remain incomplete.
The rural Indias 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 production.
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 such 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.

LAND REFORMS DURING 1947-70

Agrarian social structure - evolution of land tenure system, land reforms
The main characteristics of the agrarian structure which independent India inherited were
a) absentee land ownership;
b) exploitation of tenants through high rents and insecurity of tenure;
c) unequal distribution of land;
d) tiny and fragmented holdings; and
e) lack of adequate institutional finance to agriculture.
On this agrarian structure was imposed a situation in which bulk of the cultivators were short of
fixed as well as working capital. This resulted in low investments and thereby low yields in
agriculture.
Agrarian structure, as you know, is a broad concept comprising land tenure system as well as
credit, marketing, etc.

NEED FOR LAND REFORMS

Before Independence, there were three major systems of land tenure, namely Zamindari System,
Mahalwari System and Ryotwari System. The Zamindari system was introduced by Lord
Cornwalis in 1793 through permanent settlement that fixed the land rights of zamindars in
perpetuity without any provision for fixed rents or occupancy rights for actual cultivators. Under
the permanent settlement, zamindars were found to be more interested in higher rent than in
agricultural improvement. During the early nineteenth century, efforts were made to undo the
adverse effects of permanent settlement and to provide for temporary settlement as a matter of
policy. Regulation VII of 1822 Act provided for temporary settlement with provision for periodic
settlement in parts of the United Provinces. In the provinces of Madras and Bombay, ryotwari
system was prevalent. Each ryot was recognised by law as the proprietor with the right to
transfer or mortgage or sub-let his land. Moreover, in parts of United
Provinces and Punjab, Regulation VII of 1822 Act and Regulation IX of 1833 Act provided for
Mahalwari Settlement with the entire village community. This required each peasant of the
village to contribute to total revenue demand of the village on the basis of the size of holding. In
1885, the Bengal Tenancy Act was passed with a view to conferring occupancy rights upon ryots
who were in continuous possession of land for 12 years. The tenant could not be evicted by the
landlord, except by a decree of court. Similarly, the Bihar Tenancy Act of 1885 and Orissa
Tenancy Act of 1914 granted occupancy rights to tenants. Besides, the Madras Tenancy Act of
1908 provided for protection of ryots from eviction as long as they paid the rents. Nevertheless,
since majority of actual cultivators were unrecorded tenants-at-will, these legal measures could
not bring much relief to the tiller of the soil. Although the adverse effect of landlordism on
agricultural production was most profound in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and
Orissa, other states that were under Ryotwari and Mahalwari Systems also witnessed the growth
of a large number of intermediaries with all its adverse impact. The leased-in area constituted
nearly 35 per cent of the total operated area in 1950-51. Most of the leases were unwritten and
tenants did not have legal security of tenure. The rents varied from 50 per cent to 70 per cent of
gross produce. In addition, tenants were often asked to provide free labour to landlords. After
Independence therefore, it became necessary to undertake some land reforms measures for
removing the feudal character of the agrarian economy and paving the way for rapid agricultural
growth with social justice.
Broadly speaking, the objectives of agrarian reforms are as follows:
i) To change the unequal and unproductive agrarian structure;
ii) To remove exploitative agrarian relations, often known as patron-client relationship in
agriculture,
iii) To promote agriculture growth with social justice.

What is land reform?

Similarly land reform involves taking away land from rich and redistributing among landless.
Although land reform involves not just about redistribution of land. It involves many other
reforms, example:

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.

Land Tenure System: British Legacy

In the initial years, East India company faced following problems:
1. Demand for British goods in India=negligible. (Because East India company was yet to
destroy our handicraft and artisans)
2. Under the Mercantilism policy of British: one countrys gain required another
country/colonys loss. Therefore, British Government prohibited East India company from
exporting gold and silver from England to pay for Indian goods import.
3. Company needed truckload of ca$H to maintain an army for defeating and subjugating native
rulers.
East India company came up with following solution:
1. start collecting revenue from Indians
2. Use that Revenue to buy Indian raw materialexport to England
3. Import finished goods back to India=> make profit.
But this solution had a problem: the revenue system under Mughals and Native rulers=too
complex for the British to understand.
Lord Cornwallis comes with a novel idea: just outsource the tax collection work to desi
middlemen: Zamindars, Jagirdar, Inamdars, Lambardar etc. Consequently, British introduced
three land tenure systems in India:

Permanent Settlement: Features

1. Cornwallis + John Shore. In Bengal + Bihar. 1793
2. All the land belonged to the state and was thus at their disposal.
3. British designated zamindars (local tax collectors) , as owners of the land in their district.
This system was adopted in several forms such as Zamindari, Jagirdari, Inamdari, etc.
4. These zamindars had to collect revenue from farmers and deliver to the British.
5. Converted Zamindars into landlords. The right to the land conferred on the zamindars
6. Revenue amount was fixed at the beginning and remained the same permanently.
7. Zamindar were given freedom to decide how much to demand from the cultivators. Stiff
penalties on defaulters.
8. there was a provision of keeping a portion of taxes for the zamindar himself.

9. Zamindars right over land was

1. Alienable: meaning British could take it away and give it to another Zamindar, if first
Zamindar did not meet the Revenue collection targets.
2. Rentable: meaning Zamindar himself could further outsource his work among more
smaller zamindars
3. Heritable: meaning Zamindar dies, his son/brother etc would get it.
10. Farmers became tenants. Two types
1. Tenants at will: farmers who cultivated on Zamindars land. They had no rights. They
could be evicted as per whims and fancies of Zamindar.
2. Occupancy Tenants: farmers who owned land. Their occupancy rights were heritable
and transferrable and were not tampered with as long as they paid their taxes.

Permanent Settlement: Consequences

#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.
Governments 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 zamindars
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 farmers 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 governments 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.

Ryotwari System: Features

1. government claimed the property rights to all the land, but allotted it to the cultivators on the
condition that they pay taxes. In other words, It established a direct relation between the
landholder and the government.
2. Farmers could use, sell, mortgage, bequeath, and lease the land as long as they paid their
taxes. In other words Ryotwari system gave a proprietary rights upon the landholders.
3. IF they did not pay taxes, they were evicted
4. taxes were only fixed in a temporary settlement for a period of thirty years and then revised.
5. government had retained the right to enhance land revenue whenever it wanted
6. Provided measures for revenue relief during famines but they were seldom applied in real life
situation.

Ryotwari System: Consequences

Farmers had to pay revenue even during drought and famines, else he would be evicted.
Replacement of large number of zamindars by one giant zamindar called East India Company.
Although ryotwari system aimed for direct Revenue settlement between farmer and the
government but over the years, landlordism and tenancy became widespread. Because textile
weavers were unemployed= they started working as tenant farmers for other rich farmers. In
many districts, more than 2/3 of farmland was leased.
Since Government insisted on cash revenue, farmers resorted to growing cash crops instead of
food crops. And cash crop needed more inputs=>more loans and indebtedness.
After end of American civil war, cotton export declined but government didnt reduce the
revenue. As a result most farmers defaulted on loans and land was transferred from farmers to
moneylenders.

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.

Mahalwari System: Features

1. unit of assessment was the village.
2. taxation was imposed on the village community since it had the rights over land.
3. The village community had to distribute these tax collection targets among the cultivators
4. Each individual farmer contributed his share in the revenue.
5. Everyone was thus liable for the others arrears.
6. Farmers had right to sell or mortgage their property.
7. The village community did not necessarily mean entire village population. It was a group of
elders, notables of high castes.
8. A village inhabitant, called the lambardar, collected the amounts and gave to the British
9. British periodically revised tax rates.

Mahalwari system: Consequences

Since Punjab, Northern India = fertile land. So British wanted to extract maximum Revenue out
of this region. Land Revenue was usually 50% to 75% of the produce.
As generations passed fathers would divide land among sons=> fragmentation=>farms became
smaller and smaller and productivity declined.
But still British demanded Revenue in cash. So, farmers had to borrow money to pay taxes in the
case of crop failures.
As a result, more and more farms passed into the hands of moneylenders. When farmer failed to
repay debt, Moneylender would take away his farm but he has no interest in self cultivation so
hed leasing it to another farmer.
Thus, subleasing, indebtedness and landlessness became more and more common in Mahalwari
region
Why is it called Modified Zamindari system?
Because in Mahalwari areas, the Land revenue was fixed for the whole village and the
village headman (Larnbardar) collected it. Meaning theoretically Village itself was a
landlord/zamindar.
Other names for this system: Joint rent, joint lease, brotherhood tract (mahal) holding and
gram wari etc.
Result of British Land Tenure system: Perpetual indebtedness, exploitation. When we gained
independence, picture was following:

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 RBIss 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.

Lack of Capitalist Agriculture

In most economies, the evolution is traditional farming=>capitalist farming methods. But in
India, it did not happen, why?
1. Large landowners in zamindari and ryotwari areas leased out their lands in small pieces to
tenants.
2. Small tenants continued to cultivate them with traditional techniques= low productivity.
3. Rich farmers/ zamindars lacked the risk bearing mindset for capitalist mode of production (i.e.
invest more money in seeds, fertilizer, animal husbandry, contract farming, large scale capitalist
agriculture using hired wage labour under their direct supervision. etc).
4. Even if they wanted to take risk, government did not give any agricultural support, credit,
insurance etc. yet demanded high taxes.
5. It is not surprising, therefore, that Indian agriculture, which was facing longterm
stagnation, began to show clear signs of decline during the last decades of colonialism.