Peasants and farmers' movements | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Understanding Social Movements

People may damage a bus and attack its driver when the bus has run over a child. This is an isolated incident of protest. Since it flares up and dies down, it is not a social movement.

• Sustained Collective Action: A social movement involves sustained collective action over time. It's not just an isolated incident of protest; rather, it requires ongoing efforts.
• Targeting State Policies: Social movements often direct their actions against the state with the aim of demanding changes in state policies or practices. These movements seek to influence government actions.
• Organized Action: Social movements are not spontaneous or disorganized protests. They require a degree of organization, which may include leadership, structures, and decision-making processes.
• Shared Objectives and Ideologies: Participants in a social movement share common objectives and ideologies. They have a general orientation towards bringing about or preventing specific changes.
• Changing Nature: The defining features of a social movement can change over time as the movement evolves. This adaptability is important for their effectiveness.
• Public Issues: Social movements often emerge to address public issues, such as advocating for the rights of marginalized groups or pushing for policy changes.
• Counter Movements: Counter movements can also arise in defense of the existing social order. These movements oppose the objectives of social movements and seek to maintain the status quo.
• Resistance and Opposition: Social movements face resistance and opposition, as they challenge entrenched interests and values. However, change can occur over time despite this opposition.

In summary, social movements are organized, sustained efforts to bring about social change, often involving collective action against the state or other powerful entities. They require coordination, shared goals, and the ability to adapt as they progress. Counter movements can emerge in response to social movements, leading to conflicts over societal change.

Social Movement and Social Change

• It is important to distinguish between social change in general and social movements. Social change is continuous and ongoing process. The broad historical processes of social change are the sum total of countless individual and collective actions gathered across time and space. Social movements are directed towards some specific goals. It involves long and continuous social effort and action by people. Sanskritisation and westernization are examples of social change and the 19th century social reformers effort to change society are examples of social movements.
• Social movements in India have not only been protest and dissent movements but also reform and reaction aryas well as socio-religious and freedom movements. These movements defined as “collective effort to promote/resist change” came into origin only after uniformity in intellectual orientations, social structures, ideological presences, and perceptions of truth came into existence. It is a well-known fact that characteristics of society shape the styles of movements. Therefore, the elements of social structure and the future vision of society provide the focal point of analysis of social movements.

The orientation of social movements

Till the British period, the orientation of social movements in our country was religious, though national liberation movement also emerged after the 1930s which was overtly against the forces of imperialism and colonialism. But, after independence, the new situation that emerged led to divergence in the targets of attack, say political authority, economic exploitation, cultural domination, male domination and humiliation of women and so forth. This led to proliferation of diverse movements.

Classification of Social Movements 

• Social movements have been classified on the basis of numerous criteria. Nature of change intended, organizational mode and strategy, nature of demands, groups and collectivities involved are some of the major criteria used for the purpose, e.g., tribal movement, Harijan movement, women’s movement, peasant movement, student movement, industrial workers’ movement, and on the basis of the nature of collectivities against which they are led, e.g.,anti-Brahminism, anti-leftist, anti-Dalits and so on.
• Yet other basis of classification is their territorial anchorage, e.g., locality in which they originate and operate, e.g., Vidharbha movement, Telangana movement, Chhattisgarh movement, Jharkhand or Vananchal movement, Uttaranchal movement, and so on. Such names indirectly point out the goals pursued
• Movements are also named after the issues they pursue, e.g., Anti-Hindi movement, Anticorruption movement, Movement are named after their initial or top leadership too, e.g., Gandhian movement, Ramakrishna movement, J.R (Jayaprakash) movement, etc. M.S.A.Rao has talked of three types of movement-reformist, transformative, and revolutionary.

All these movements are characterized by five elements

• Collective goal
• Common ideology of widely accepted programme
• Collective action
• Minimal degree of organization and leadership.
• Thus, a ‘social movement’ with above characteristics is different from ‘agitation’ as the latter has no ideology and no organization.
• Ghanshyam Shah holds that some co-active actions termed by some scholars as ‘agitations’ are considered by others as movements; e.g., demand for the formation of linguistic states. Shah himself considers them as ‘movements’ or a part of a social movement of a particular stratum of society. Thus demand for Jharkhand in Bihar, Uttaranchal in Uttar Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh in Madhya Pradesh can be described as social movements according to him.
• Desai held that some movements are caused by the inability of our Constitution to protect the civil and the democratic rights of people. Rajni Kothari is of the opinion that failure of the state in ‘social transformation’ of society in which repression and intimidation of large masses of people has become common compels people to assert their rights through various struggles.
• Gurr and M.S.A. Rao have explained social movements in terms of ‘relative deprivation.’ Rao focuses on the ‘possibility of doing something by the sufferer’ along with relative deprivation.
• Ghanshyam Shah and T.K. Oommen do not accept Relative Deprivation Approach in explaining social movements. Oommen’s argument is that deprivation theorists do not view movements as ‘ongoing process of change’. They also do not deal with the sources of deprivation. Shah holds that deprivation theorist ignore the importance of consciousness and the ideological aspects of the participants.

Peasant and Farmers Movements

• Importance of Peasant Movements: Peasant movements have become an essential area of study in the context of social movements in India. Given that India is primarily an agrarian nation, the examination of agrarian issues has become central to sociological research.
• Complex Agrarian Structure: The patterns of landownership, tenancy, land use, and land control reflect the intricate nature of the agrarian structure in India. This complexity is further evident in the class structure within the agrarian context.
• Agrarian Class Structure: Daniel Thorner's classification identifies three major agrarian classes in India: Maliks, Kisans, and Mazdoors.
  • Maliks: This category includes big landlords and wealthy landowners.
  • Kisans: Kisans are self-cultivating owners of land, including small landowners and tenant farmers.
  • Mazdoors: This category encompasses landless laborers, poor tenants, and share-croppers who earn their livelihood by working on others' lands.
• Caste Hierarchy: The agrarian class hierarchy often aligns with the caste hierarchy prevalent in different regions of India. Wealthy landowners and moneylenders tend to belong to upper castes, while middle and small peasants come from traditional peasant castes, and landless laborers primarily belong to lower castes. However, this is a generalized pattern and may not hold true in every rural area.
• Nature of Peasant Movements: D.N. Dhanagare's study of peasant movements defines the term 'peasant movement' broadly. It encompasses all collective efforts by various strata of the peasantry, aimed at either changing an exploitative system or seeking redress for specific grievances, even without aiming to overthrow the entire system. These movements can take various forms, including both violent and non-violent, organized and specific actions.

Issues Involved in Peasant Movements

• Some were related to conflicts between tenants and landlords; some were because of the oppression by zamindars of majority religious community (Hindus), and
• Some were because of the factors like communal outburst, provocation by government officials and police etc., for improving economic conditions, demands for higher wages, forced labour (beggar) and so on.
• It is held by some writers that Gandhi mobilized the peasantry for the cause of national freedom and not for fighting against zamindars and money lenders.
• There are other writers who suggest that the relationship between peasant movements and the national movements was one of reciprocity, i.e., give and take. The tasks of taking up peasants class demands as well as fighting against imperialists were dealt with simultaneously In any case peasants specific needs and interests of security of tenure, debt relief and cheap credit etc., could not be emphasized strongly by the nationalist leaders.

After independence, however, the leaders tried to mobilize peasantry against zamindars and landlords. The exploited peasantry was not a united group as they were vertically aligned with the masters through factional ties. Initially, the poor peasants were least militant but as the anti-landlords and anti-rich peasant sentiment was built up by the middle peasant, the revolutionary energy of the poor peasant was transformed into a revolutionary force. But peasants taking up revolutionary action were not on all India basis. It was only in some regions.

Six different viewpoints of the agrarian movements in India have been studied by sociologists

• Different Viewpoints on Agrarian Movements: Sociologists have studied agrarian movements in India from multiple perspectives, including their functioning at micro-level associations, their relationship with political parties like Congress and communists, their connection to social structures (caste, class, and power), their response to the green revolution, their interaction with agrarian legislation, and the relationship between mobilization and organization of movements.
• Historical Context: India has a long history of peasant movements, with significant events dating back to the 19th century. These movements often had localized and specific grievances. For example, the Indigo Revolt of 1859-60 in Bengal and the Deccan Riots of 1875 in western Maharashtra were directed against oppressive landlords (zamindars).
• Role in Freedom Struggle: Peasants' grievances became intertwined with India's freedom struggle during the early 20th century. Movements like the Champaran Movement (1917), Kheda Satyagrah (1918), and Bardoli Satyagrah (1928) were non-violent anti-British struggles led by Mahatma Gandhi. These movements focused on major agrarian issues and contributed to political awareness among the masses.
• Peasant Organizations: Peasant organizations and movements emerged in Bihar and Bengal between 1920 and 1946. The Bihar Provincial Kisan Sabha and the All India Kisan Sabha were founded during this period. These organizations aimed to address the economic exploitation of peasants, workers, and other exploited classes.
• Regional Movements: Several important peasant movements took place in different regions of India, including the Tebhaga Movement, Telangana Movement, and Naxalite Movement. These movements often sought to address the plight of middle and poor peasants.
• Gandhian Agrarian Movements: Some agrarian movements, such as the Bhoodan and Sarvodya movements, were associated with Mahatma Gandhi. They focused on peasant interests but were initiated by leaders like Vinoba Bhave and Jayaprakash Narayan rather than the peasants themselves.

Peasant Movement After Independence

• Tebhaga Movement (1946-47): This movement was influenced by various factors, including the 1943 famine, opposition to landlords (jotedars), social solidarity among tribal groups, and increased bargaining power of share-croppers. However, it was limited in its reach and failed due to factors like communal politics and caste-class conflicts.
• Telangana Movement (1946-52): The Telangana movement in Andhra Pradesh was a struggle against feudal oppression by rulers and local landowners. It aimed to address issues like subinfeudation and oppressive social structures. The movement involved the Communist Party of India (CPI) and led to significant social and economic changes in rural Telangana.
• Naxalbari Movement: The Naxalbari movement began in West Bengal in 1967 and later spread to other states like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh. It was characterized by militancy and armed struggle. The movement aimed to protect the interests of peasants and laborers, with a focus on land redistribution and radical change in rural society. It was marked by non-institutionalized means and violence.
• Factors Contributing to Naxalbari Movement's Failure: The Naxalbari movement faced challenges due to its anti-national stance, denunciation of Indian national leadership, support for violence, and factionalism among leftists.
• New Farmers' Movements: In the 1970s, new farmer's movements emerged in Punjab and Tamil Nadu. These movements were regionally organized, non-party, and involved farmers (market-involved commodity producers and purchasers). They focused on demands such as subsidies for agricultural inputs, taxation, and non-repayment of loans. These movements also broadened their agendas to include environmental and women's issues, aligning with the "new social movements" trend worldwide.

The important characteristics of Naxalbari peasant uprising in West Bengal were 

• Mobilization to protect the interests of the peasant and the labourer classes and covering all ethnic (including tribes) and caste groups;
• The means adopted were non-institutionalized and violence was encouraged;
• Leadership was provided by communist party leaders;
• It aimed at downward mobility of jotedars and upward mobility peasants and labourers. Sarvodya movement and Naxalbari movement was different than the former aimed at replacing individual ownership of land with communal ownership while the latter aimed at individual ownership.

The factors which had contributed to the failure of this movement were 

• Its anti-national slant as manifested in the Chinese support for it,
• Its vocal denunciation of the Indian national leadership and acceptance of Chinese leadership as source of its aspiration.
• It’s declared intention to capture state power its open support to violence and factionalism among the leftists.
• R.K. Mukherjee has analyzed this movement in terms of relationship between social structure and social change. He argues that although the declared intention of the movement was capturing state power, in reality, the revolt was not directed against the system but against its excesses. It was the exchange of goods between the peasant and the owner landlords that was sought to be properly regulated.

The so called ‘new farmer’s movements began in the 1970s in Punjab and Tamil Nadu. These movements were regionally organized, were non-party, and involved farmers rather than peasants (farmers are said to be market-involved as both commodity producers and purchasers). The basic ideology of the movement was strongly anti-state and anti-urban. The focus of demand was subsidy for agricultural inputs, taxation and non-repayment of loans. Novel methods of agitation were used for blocking of roads and railways, refusing politicians and bureaucrats entry to villages, and so on. It has been argued that the farmers’ movements have broadened their agenda and ideology and include environment and women’s issues. Therefore, they can be seen as a part of the worldwide ‘new social movements’.

Overall Nature of Peasant Movements

• That these movements originated only after independence and that these are purely social and cultural in nature;
• Moore Junior (quoted by Ghanshyam Shah), writing about the peasant movements in India has not accepted the revolutionary potential of the Indian peasantry. According to him, Indian peasants are traditionally docile and passive because of which cultivation remained lackadaisical and inefficient during the Mughal and the British periods. Hence, there were no widespread peasant movements.
• But Moore’s contention has been challenged by A.R.Desai, Kathleen Gough and D.N. Dhanagare. They argue that a number of peasant revolts have been overlooked by historians.
• Gough has talked of 77 revolts in the last two centuries, the smallest of which engaged several thousand peasants in active support.
• A.R. Desai has also observed that the Indian rural scene during the entire British period and thereafter had been bristling with protests, revolts and even large scale militant struggles involving hundreds of villages and lasting for years.
• Ranjit Guha has said that agrarian disturbances of different forms and scales were endemic until the end of the nineteenth century. There were no fewer than 110 known revolts during117 years of the British rule.
• Dhanagare has argued that Moore’s generalizations are questionable because there were various peasant resistance movements and revolts in India.

Classification of Peasant Movements

• Time Period Classification:
  • Pre-British and post-independence periods.
  • Post-independence period further divided into pre-Naxalite and post-Naxalite periods, as well as pre and post-green revolution periods.
  • Post-independence period further divided into pre and post-Emergency periods.
• Agrarian Structure-Based Classification:
  • A.R. Desai's classification considers the nature of peasant movements in different agrarian structures:
    • Ryotwari areas under British territory.
    • Zamindari areas under princely authority.
    • Tribal zones.
  • Post-independence agrarian struggles categorized into two groups: those launched by rich farmers and those by poor farmers, reflecting the diversity of agrarian structures in the country.
• Kathleen Gough's Classification:
  • Peasant revolts categorized based on their goals, ideology, and methods of organization into five types:
    • Restorative rebellions aimed at driving out the British and restoring earlier rulers.
    • Religious movements with a strong religious or spiritual foundation.
    • Social banditry, which often involves individuals or groups challenging oppressive social norms.
    • Terrorism for collective justice, where violent means are used to achieve specific goals.
    • Mass insurrections aimed at addressing particular grievances affecting a larger community.

These classifications highlight the diversity of peasant movements in India, each with its unique characteristics, goals, and historical contexts. Peasant movements have played a significant role in India's history, addressing various issues related to land ownership, economic exploitation, social justice, and political change.