IGNOU MSO-004 Assignment Answers 2025: : Sociology in India Solved Part 3
Question 5: Describe the agrarian class structure in India with examples.
Answer: The agrarian class structure in India refers to the pattern of social and economic relationships among different groups involved in agricultural production. In sociological terms, it represents the distribution of power, ownership, and control over land and resources in rural society. The structure of agrarian classes has evolved through historical phases — from the feudal and colonial periods to post-independence India — shaped by land tenure systems, state policies, and social hierarchies like caste. Understanding this structure is essential to analyzing rural inequality, social change, and patterns of economic exploitation in Indian society.
- Conceptual Background: Class and Agrarian Structure
In sociology, class refers to a group of people who share similar positions in the economic system, particularly in relation to the means of production. When applied to agriculture, agrarian class indicates groups that differ in their relationship to land — such as landowners, tenants, laborers, and cultivators.
According to Karl Marx, class divisions emerge from ownership of and control over means of production. In the rural context, this translates into land ownership, which determines who exploits and who is exploited. In India, land has always been the primary means of livelihood, so agrarian class relations are central to rural social structure.
- Historical Roots of Agrarian Class Structure
The Indian agrarian class system has deep historical roots. During the pre-colonial period, the land was controlled by kings and feudal lords, with peasants and artisans forming the working class. The colonial land revenue systems introduced by the British — namely the Zamindari, Ryotwari, and Mahalwari systems — formalized class inequalities in rural India.
- Zamindari System (Bengal, Bihar, parts of U.P.): Under this, landlords or zamindars collected rent from peasants on behalf of the British government. The zamindars became a dominant landed class, while peasants turned into tenants and sharecroppers.
- Ryotwari System (Madras, Bombay): Farmers (ryots) directly paid revenue to the state but were often burdened with high taxes, leading to indebtedness.
- Mahalwari System (Punjab, parts of U.P.): Villages collectively paid taxes, strengthening the position of village elites.
These colonial policies transformed traditional agrarian relations into a semi-feudal system, creating a hierarchy of landlords, tenants, and landless laborers that persisted long after independence.
- Post-Independence Agrarian Class Structure
After 1947, India introduced land reforms aimed at abolishing intermediaries, redistributing land, and protecting tenants. However, these reforms achieved limited success. The result was the continuation of agrarian inequality, with rural society divided broadly into the following classes:
(a) Landlords (Big Landowners)
This class owns large tracts of land and often leases it out to tenants or hires laborers for cultivation. They control local politics, credit networks, and access to resources.
Example: In parts of Bihar and eastern U.P., upper-caste landlords (e.g., Rajputs and Bhumihars) traditionally dominated rural society. In Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, Reddys and Vellalas held similar positions of power.
Landlords are typically absentee owners, living in towns but maintaining control through intermediaries or hired managers. Their economic and social dominance gives them political influence in rural governance.
(b) Rich and Middle Peasants
These are cultivators who own medium-sized holdings and rely primarily on family labor but may also hire workers during peak seasons. They are economically self-reliant and often benefit from modern agricultural technology and state subsidies.
Example: In Punjab and Haryana, the Jat and Sikh peasants represent this class, owning between 10–25 acres of land. They played a key role in the Green Revolution, adopting high-yielding varieties and mechanization.
Middle peasants form the backbone of rural production and are crucial to agricultural development, though they also perpetuate local inequalities through control of markets and credit.
(c) Poor Peasants
Poor peasants own small plots of land that are often uneconomical to sustain their families. They combine self-cultivation with wage labor on others’ fields. Many are indebted to landlords or moneylenders.
Example: In eastern U.P., Odisha, and Madhya Pradesh, small farmers cultivate marginal lands with little irrigation, surviving on subsistence farming.
(d) Landless Agricultural Laborers
This is the most exploited class in the agrarian structure. They do not own land and survive by selling their labor to landlords or rich peasants. Their wages are low, employment is seasonal, and working conditions are poor.
Most of them belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, reflecting the overlap between caste and class.
Example: In Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, Dalits like Paraiyars and Malahs constitute the bulk of agricultural laborers. In Bihar, Mushahars and Chamars are landless laborers.
This class faces chronic poverty, indebtedness, and social discrimination. Sociologists like A.R. Desai and Andre Béteille have highlighted how the persistence of landlessness reproduces both economic and caste hierarchies in rural India.
- Regional Variations
The agrarian class structure is not uniform across India. It varies depending on ecological, cultural, and political factors:
- In Punjab and Haryana, large and medium farmers dominate due to mechanized agriculture.
- In Bihar and eastern U.P., semi-feudal structures persist, with powerful landlords and landless laborers.
- In Kerala and West Bengal, land reforms have reduced landlordism, though inequalities remain in productivity and income.
- In Tribal regions of central India, land alienation and forest displacement have created new forms of rural inequality.
- Changing Trends: Capitalist Agriculture
Since the 1970s, especially after the Green Revolution, India’s agrarian class structure has shown tendencies of capitalist development. Rich and middle peasants have accumulated capital through mechanization, commercial crops, and access to markets. This has created a rural bourgeoisie, while small peasants and laborers continue to face marginalization.
Sociologists like Daniel Thorner described this transformation as the rise of “bullock capitalists”, while others like A.R. Desai viewed it as the emergence of rural capitalism within a framework of persistent inequality.
Conclusion
The agrarian class structure in India is a complex interplay of land ownership, caste hierarchy, and economic relations. Despite efforts at reform, rural society remains stratified into landlords, peasants, and laborers, with class relations overlapping with caste and regional identities. The persistence of landlessness, unequal access to credit and technology, and dependence on wage labor reveal that agrarian inequality remains deeply entrenched.
From a sociological perspective, this structure reflects both continuity and change — continuity in the dominance of landed elites and dependency of laboring classes, and change in the form of growing commercialization, mechanization, and the rise of new rural elites. Understanding this structure is essential for addressing rural poverty, social justice, and sustainable development in contemporary India.
Question 6: What are the village commons? Discuss its significance.
Answer: In the study of rural sociology, village commons refer to the shared natural resources and spaces within a village that are collectively owned, managed, and used by the community. These include common lands, water bodies, forests, grazing fields, ponds, wells, pathways, and cremation grounds, which serve as essential resources for the livelihood and social life of villagers. The concept of the village commons is deeply rooted in India’s traditional rural social structure, where community cooperation and collective responsibility formed the basis of resource management.
Village commons are not merely economic resources; they represent a social institution reflecting the values of cooperation, mutual dependence, and community governance. The management and use of commons have always been influenced by customary norms, caste hierarchies, and local power structures, making them a vital subject for sociological inquiry into rural life, social relations, and development.
- Meaning and Types of Village Commons
The term “commons” originates from the idea of resources that are held in common for collective use rather than private ownership. In the Indian context, village commons are referred to by various regional names such as “Gram Sabha lands,” “Gochar” (grazing lands), “Oran” (sacred groves), “Pokhar” (village ponds), or “Charagah” (pasture land).
Sociologically, they can be classified into different types:
- Grazing lands (pastures): Used for feeding village cattle and livestock, vital for agrarian economies dependent on animal power.
- Forest lands: Used for collecting fuelwood, fruits, fodder, and medicinal herbs.
- Water bodies: Such as tanks, ponds, and wells used for irrigation, drinking water, and fisheries.
- Village pathways and public spaces: Used for fairs, religious gatherings, and as routes connecting different parts of the settlement.
- Sacred or cultural commons: Temples, sacred groves, and cremation grounds that serve religious and ritual functions.
These resources are collectively managed through customary norms under the supervision of village councils, elders, or panchayats. Historically, the management of commons was guided by principles of collective responsibility, reciprocity, and community welfare.
- Historical and Sociological Background
In traditional Indian villages, commons were central to the subsistence economy. Before the commercialization of agriculture and privatization of land, villagers relied on common property for essential needs such as fuel, fodder, grazing, and water. The management of commons was embedded within the caste and kinship structure of the village.
For instance, upper-caste groups often exercised control over decision-making regarding common resources, while lower-caste and marginalized communities depended more heavily on them for survival. Despite this inequality, commons functioned as a social safety net for the poor, providing access to basic resources without private ownership.
During the British colonial period, the introduction of private property rights and land revenue systems (like the Zamindari and Ryotwari systems) eroded traditional rights over commons. Large areas of common land were classified as “wasteland” and taken over by the state for taxation and forestry. This led to the gradual alienation of communities from their common resources, creating ecological and social distress.
- Significance of Village Commons
The village commons have immense economic, social, ecological, and cultural significance in rural society. Their importance can be discussed under the following dimensions:
(a) Economic Significance
The commons provide essential livelihood resources to landless and marginal farmers. They supply fodder, fuelwood, water, fish, and raw materials needed for agriculture and daily life. For poorer households, these resources often constitute a significant part of their income and sustenance.
For example, in arid regions of Rajasthan and Gujarat, common pastures and village ponds are critical for cattle rearing and water supply during droughts. Thus, commons reduce rural poverty and support subsistence economies.
(b) Social Significance
The commons foster collective life and community bonding. The use and management of these resources often involve collective labor, mutual trust, and shared responsibility, reinforcing social solidarity — a concept emphasized by Émile Durkheim as vital for maintaining social cohesion.
Commons also serve as spaces for social interactions, rituals, and community gatherings, such as fairs and festivals. They symbolize the cooperative spirit of rural life and form the foundation of community self-governance.
(c) Ecological Significance
From an ecological perspective, village commons play a key role in environmental sustainability. They help maintain biodiversity, regulate groundwater, and prevent soil erosion. Forest commons, for instance, provide ecological balance by preserving local flora and fauna.
Sociologist M.N. Srinivas and ecologists like Madhav Gadgil have shown how traditional village communities practiced forms of sustainable management long before modern environmental laws.
(d) Cultural and Moral Significance
Village commons often have religious and cultural meanings. Sacred groves, temples, and ponds are associated with local deities and rituals, symbolizing a moral obligation to protect nature. The commons thus connect people to their cultural heritage and collective identity.
- Decline and Challenges of Village Commons
Despite their importance, the village commons in India have been shrinking due to several factors:
- Privatization and commercialization of land for agriculture, industries, and infrastructure projects.
- Encroachment by local elites or political actors.
- Weakening of traditional institutions like the panchayat and erosion of community responsibility.
- Environmental degradation due to overexploitation and population pressure.
Studies show that the area under village commons has declined drastically since independence. The loss of commons disproportionately affects the poor, women, and marginalized groups who rely on them the most.
- Contemporary Relevance and Community Management
In recent decades, there has been renewed interest in reviving and managing commons through participatory approaches. Government initiatives like Joint Forest Management (JFM), Watershed Development Programs, and Panchayati Raj reforms have sought to involve local communities in resource management.
Organizations like Gram Sabhas and Self-Help Groups have successfully revived degraded commons in many regions by enforcing community norms and equitable sharing. Sociologists see this as a revival of collective social capital, promoting both ecological sustainability and rural democracy.
Conclusion
The village commons are much more than shared lands or resources — they are a social institution that embodies the interdependence of people, nature, and community life. Their sociological significance lies in how they promote cooperation, equality, and sustainability within the rural social structure. However, the ongoing processes of privatization and market expansion threaten to erode this collective heritage.
From a sociological perspective, the study of village commons highlights the tension between traditional community-based resource management and modern capitalist development. Protecting and revitalizing the commons is therefore not only an environmental necessity but also a step toward restoring social justice, community cohesion, and ecological balance in rural India.
Describe the socio-economic background of emergence of sociology.
Why did the major focus of sociologists and social-scientists became the village studies in India during the nineteen fifties? Discuss.
Describe the ‘Brahminical’ perspective on caste system in India.
Discuss the different views of Ambedkar and Lohia on Indian Society.
Describe the agrarian class structure in India with examples.
What are the village commons? Discuss its significance.
Discuss the debate between Verrier Ellowin and G.S. Ghurey regarding the tribes in India.
Discuss the different roles that religion plays in Indian society with suitable examples.
What is urbanisation? Discuss its role in transforming the urban areas in India.
What are the difference between old social movements and new social movements? Discuss with examples.
IGNOU MSO-004 Assignment Answers 2025: : Sociology in India Solved Part 3