(a) Agrarian Class Structure

Class is an economic phenomenon. Before British rule, agrarian society was considered as a classless society and that is why Marx called it “Asiatic society” and Witt Fogel called it “Oriental society”.

Traditionally Indian society, particularly rural society in India was seen as divided among caste lines rather than class lines. How do we make difference between class and caste? Briefly stated, caste based stratification is firstly a closed system of stratification. Because membership in a caste is based upon birth and thus ascriptive. Even the occupation associated with caste groups is an inherited one. Unlike caste, class based stratification is supposed to be open. Achievement determines location in class based groups.

In India, caste groups are seen as cooperative groups creating a spirit of interdependence on each other giving rise to integration and solidarity among castes. Caste based groups in India are characterized by cooperation rather than competition. In addition to this caste based stratification is competitive for seeking greater mobility in hierarchy for seeking political power. This in essence is Marxian concept of class in society. Marx says both bourgeoisie and proletariat would compete for power. This is what is happening even in caste based groups in India. The basis for legitimacy of a caste based hierarchy lies in religion. It is characterized by religious notions of sacred and profane.

On the other hand class based hierarchy is entirely secular. It is mainly access to political and economic power that determines class. That is how class and caste are seen as mutually exclusive and contrasted models. Indian villages were seen as characterized by caste based hierarchy. In fact Weber was responsible for this notion. He pointed that class based hierarchy emerged out of market and monetization. Traditional societies in India belonged to pre-capitalistic stage. So, there were no characteristics of market economy. Also an Indian personality as fostered by family, village and caste was a collective person rather than an individual person which is a character of caste based society.

However, orthodox Marxists maintained that except for most primitive stage, all other societies are characterized by class divisions. Marx made a distinction of because of absence of the institution of private property in India that traditional villages were characterized by ‘Asiatic mode of production’ and class divisions didn’t crystallize. But later day scholars and historians, influenced by Marxism say that, even if we treat Indian society as characterized by Asiatic mode of production, this mode existed only in Mauryan period. Feudalization of Indian society has resulted by Gupta period. Even though institution of private property didn’t develop, class divisions did crystallize beneath edifice of caste divisions. These does lie a nexus of class relations beneath the edifice of caste based society. Upper class section of both upper and lower castes have nexus, and similarly lower caste section of upper and lower caste.

However in post-independence period, entire mode of production under agriculture

underwent transformation. The change had begun in British period upon the initiation of Permanent settlement, Ryotwari system. Due to these schemes, land came to be privately owned by Indians. And even monetization and linkage of rural economy to urban economy did develop. The process of transformation towards ‘capitalistic mode of production’ was hastened after independence because of different measures adopted by government - like abolition of intermediaries between cultivator and state, because of introduction of green revolution etc.

In fact green revolution is an euphemism for poor countries. It is nothing but introduction of technology in agriculture where seed technology and fertilizer technology along with pesticide is used. These new seeds have special character. These seeds are genetically modified so that the entire nutrient goes to fruit without going to other parts of plant. Wheat and rice are important sources of carbohydrate in India for diet. By adding fertilizer to soil, and by using seed technology, a high yielding variety was developed. There was also increase in output.

In addition to this certain policy measures were adopted to encourage capitalist production like minimum support price, subsidized fertilizer, subsidized pesticides, procurement price etc. There were attempts to bring capitalist transformation in Indian agriculture and a consensus developed among social scientists. By 1960’s agrarian relations had transformed into class relations.

Caste as a system was gone and what existent from then was Caste consciousness. It no longer had significance as a hierarchy. From then on, hierarchy became class based. As a result of this there were many studies conducted to identify the agrarian structure.

Marxian view of class divisions doesn’t hold good as far as rural communities in India

are concerned. India is a society of continental size; a huge society. And in such a large society, there are many geographical and climate variations which are quite natural. Marxist criteria i.e. ownership of land as determinant of class position doesn’t hold good entirely at Pan-Indian level. There are different kinds of soils in India with various irrigation practices, canals, tube wells and wells etc. Areas where soil and irrigation is good will have huge levels of profits in a small area of land.

But there are also areas where land is barren, infertile, and dry and lacks soil nutrients. To add up to the problem there is also no irrigation facilities, so low output.

Green revolution worked only in pockets. Only 40% of land is irrigated in the entire

cultivable land. So, when assured irrigation is not there, green revolution technology can’t be used. That is why parts of Telangana, Vidharbha, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan are still undeveloped.

That is why an alternative criteria was thought which can be a more accurate, index ownership criteria is misleading. The need is to locate distribution of economic and political power in class based societies which can’t be seen in terms of ownership. The first systematic attempt in this direction to identify class structure in rural India was made by Daniel Thorner. He has taken hired labor as index.

In India there is practice of intensive agriculture and Indian agriculture is also labor

intensive degree of hired labor is more accurate. Generally there are three principles of class based categories in the country side. They are (a) Malik (b) Kisan (c) Mazdoor.

According to Thorner, Malik is a land owner, his resource level is so high that he doesn’t existentially participate in agriculture and thus relies on hired labor. The labor may be either shared croppers, tenants or wage labors.

Kisan - a land owner who has enough land to feed his family and that at the same time he needs hired labor for short periods like at times of harvest. Otherwise he manages farm through family labor.

Mazdoor - their land is too small in size, or they may have large land but infertile. As they don’t have adequately opportunities to work on their farms, they sell themselves out.

The problem with this model was that:

(1) No distinction was made between different kinds of laborers like tenants, share

croppers, wage laborers etc. They were all merged as Mazdoors.

(2) No distinction was made between capitalistic farmer in India and those who still

persist with semi-feudal practices as enterprising capitalist farmers.

Utsa Patnaik made a slight modification of Thorners criteria. She said that criteria should be the ratio between hired labors to family labor which would be a better indicator of class positions of farmer.

She talked of four class based categories:

(1) Land lords: Relied on hired labor and mechanized means of cultivation.

(2) Rich peasants: Have sizable land. Live largely by hired labor, contributes some family labor also at time of harvest to supplement hired labor.

(3) Middle peasants: They live mainly by family labor at time of intensive agriculture

activity, they take help of labor.

(4) Small peasants: Use family labor to manage own forms. As, production is inadequate to sustain family they periodically hire themselves. Small and marginal farmers constitute 80% of land owning group and thus are miserable. In lean seasons, small and poor peasants migrate to cities or work on big farms.

(5) Full time laborers: They don’t have land. They survive entirely by hiring themselves. They constitute about 30% of rural households. They don’t have any resources. They constitute vulnerable section of rural society to others and live by supplementing wage earnings with work on family land or by hired labor. Perhaps, no index can be perfect to accurately describe class positions of any particular land owner. She presented a slightly elaborated version of model of class structure then

that of Thorner: Terrorists were drawn from marginal and small farmers who were exploited by Arthiyas i.e. money lenders, small and marginal farmers committed suicides due to harassment and exploitation of Arthiyas. These dimensions, according to Djurfeldt and Lindberg were not looked by both Thorner and Utsa Patnaik.

Remedy for this is to provide institutional credit, which the government is looking into

presently. Agricultural insurance, agriculture incentive etc. are to be brought out to

mitigate this problem.

Industrial Class Structure

Industry is a modern phenomenon in Indian society which emerged during British period. Before British invasion, Indian industries were largely small scale and cottage based on the caste system or traditional occupation. But British realized the cheap human resources and raw materials and established industries in India.

Later, Indian industrialist also joined the process and this led to gradual development of industrial hubs like Ahmedabad, Calcutta, Bombay, Madras in India. Initially, two economic classes emerged in industrial society:

1) Capitalist

2) Industrial workers

But as the industrial setup started becoming complex, a technical and managerial class emerged in Industrial society known as middle class. Initially during British period, the shape of industrial class structure was very narrow on the top and very broad based at the bottom.

Shape of the industrial class structure in the British period — narrow at the top, broad at the base.

But after independence, especially after second Five Year Plan industrial development took fast paced and modern education, occupation, technical education like medical, engineering, CA/CS, Law became popular which gave birth to strong middle class.

Presently, industrial class structure can easily be identified with three economic classes:

1) Capitalist or rich upper class – Investors, entrepreneurs, industrials and other

those who earn through their investments and do not work for themselves.

2) Middle class – This is basically a white-collar class and has expertise and control

over the management and techniques and found between rich and lower class.

3) Lower class – Unskilled class who earn their livelihood through their manual efforts.

Though the industrial class structure is not uniform in Indian society, because those industrial societies which are old and complex like Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Calcutta all the three classes can be identified but those industrial societies which emerged due to the PSU (Private Sector Unit) like Rowrkela, Bokaro, Raipur, etc. only middle class and lower class is found.

Emergence of Middle Class in India

The definition of Middle Class has been a debatable issue among the economic sociologist. The concept of Middle Class emerged during industrial revolution and onwards because with the urban growth and industrialization, a technical and managerial class emerged in industrial society.

There are three dimensions being considered to define Middle Class:

1) Attitude or ideology – A class which always looks for a change

2) Consumption pattern – Those who always spend more than their earning.

3) Occupational structure – indulge into the white-collar or skilled jobs for their

livelihood.

The emergence of middle class in India took place during British period. Industrialization, government job, new professions like advocates, doctors, engineers etc. and other such professions gave birth to the middle class in India. B.B. Mishra in his book “The Indian Middle Class- Their Growth in Modern Times” wrote that even before the British period, there was great potential for emergence of middle class in India but due to the rigid Caste System and authoritarian state it could not develop. He believed that middle class in India emerged due to the economical and educational policy of colonial regime. Dipankar Gupta always objected that Indian middle class should be analyzed on the basis of their modernity and change rather than their consumption pattern. He believed that this class has introduced logic, science, secularism, freedom, justice, equality etc. Middle class in India can be categorized in following groups:

The middle class groups comprised of

(a) Body of merchants

(b) Civil and public servants including judicial officers.

(c) Hotel and Shopkeepers

(d) Primary and Secondary school teachers.

(e) Professional

(f) Managers and superiors in banking and trade.

(g) Salaried executives etc.

A.M. Shrill divided middle class of India into two categories:

1) Traditional Middle Class – Those who developed during British period like

doctors, advocates, teaching professionals, managers, etc.

2) New Middle Class – Technicians, IT professionals, contractors, shopkeepers,

progressive farmers, etc.

Shashi Tharoor in his essay “Who is the Middle Class?” accepted that there are almost 300-350 million Middle Class in India, whereas the orthodox definition estimates around 200 million which is almost equal to total population of US.

Suddenly, Middle Class of India expanded because of multinational and national

companies who took the opportunity of investment and expansion in the Indian market. Initially, during British period those who spoke English were considered as Middle Class, lived in urban towns and cities. Lord Macaulay education Policy 1835 expanded which led to fast development of Middle Class in Calcutta, Bombay, Madras etc. This Middle Class later gave the leadership to the socio-religious reform movement and freedom struggle. Parth Chatterjee in his book “A Religion Urban Domesticity” wrote that during British period the emergence of Middle Class was somewhat homogeneous in nature because the upper caste transformed into Middle Class. They came out of the villages, took the advantages of industrialization, modernization, education etc. and became urban Middle Class.

In 1960s first time ever agrarian reforms and green revolution gave birth to Middle Class in rural area. Zamindari abolition, land reforms, Land ceiling Act, etc, led to further emergence of Middle Class in rural India. Various allied professions of agriculture like sugar mill, transport, brick Kiln, fishery, poultry, organized animal husbandry led to strengthening the concept of Middle Class. This rural Middle Class later in 1970, become politically very active, especially in Western UP, Haryana and Punjab and led to formation of Janta Party government in 1977.

In 1980s Dalit Middle Class emerged in India. Traditionally, these depressed classes were landless farmers but as reservation, land reforms, protective discrimination and other benefits reached to them, an elite class emerged out of them. Sacchidanand in his study of six Dalit castes of Shahabad, Bihar, found that modern education, reservation has led to formation of “Harijan elites and ST elites” who can be easily placed under the category of Middle Class. This Middle Class later politically mobilized itself in the form of BAMCEF (All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees' Federation) which became later a political party called BSP in 1984.

But the most important expansion/emergence of Middle Class took place in India during the era of LPG (liberalization, privatization and globalization) in 1990s. IT revolution developed the human potential and first time ever the issue of population explosion became irrelevant because human resource and large market of India emerged as strength of it.

According to NASSCOM and Mckinsey in 2005 almost 65% of total outsourcing and

46% of total BPO is represented by Indians. In these two professions, directly and

indirectly 2.5 million Indians work, which can be easily called as Middle Class. Apart from this every year around 1 lakh Indian professional migrate to foreign countries For example, 25% of Silicon Valley companies employees are Indians.

Hence, it can be concluded that the emergence of Middle Class can easily be traced in the economy and education policies of Britain but later India developed its own potential after independence and after 1990 the Middle Class of India emerged and expanded at great volume.

Asith Sen said that by keeping this class in mind the then NDA government gave the slogan of “India Shining” and as D.L. Seth said the potential of the expansion of Middle Class is still very much in India which has forced US and Europe to look towards India for their own economic development.

Consequences of Middle Class

• It has facilitated the process of modernization of Indian society.

• Political modernization through institution of Democracy

• Social modernization through spread of education, social justice etc.

• Economic modernization through institute of private property