INTRODUCTION
British colonial rule in India brought
about major transformations in virtually every area of Indian social and
economic life. Its impact on the agrarian society was very decisive. It divided
the agrarian society into the proprietors, working peasants and labourers.
After Independence, the Indian government attended to some of the problems
caused by the colonial rule, while other problems have persisted, at least some
areas. Can trace the roots of exploitation and misery of majority of people in
agrarian society to the land tenure systems introduced during the colonial
period. The emergence of the peasant movements during that period may be
considered as outcomes of the misery and hardship experienced by the people.
This unit will give an overview of some of the major movements and their impact
on the society and polity.
AGRARIAN
STRUCTURE IN THE COLONIAL PERIOD
The agrarian structure that emerged from
the changes in land relations introduced by the British was very different from
the preceding period. There were also considerable differences in the agrarian
structure in different parts of the country. As pointed out by Bipan Chandra
(1979) it would be difficult to make valid generalizations at an all India
level about the agrarian structure. However there were similarities in the
structure which is discussed here. The agrarian structure contained the
characteristics of being both capitalist and feudalist.
The colonial agrarian structure had the
zamindars on the top and the landlords who owned large tracts of land and were
also revenue collectors. Many of them were absentee landlords who in turn
appointed others to collect the revenue. This led to sub-feudation and increase
in the number of intermediaries leading to rack renting and increasing
pauperization of the cultivators. Moneylenders, traders, speculators and the
parasite sections took advantage of the situation leading to increasing land
alienation. Till Independence, around 70 percent of the total cultivated land
was owned by the zamindars class in the permanent settlement areas and in the
ryotwari areas 30 percent to 50 percent of the land were owned by the
landlords, who often doubled up as moneylenders and made of most of the sources
of the rural credit.
However, the situation was not good for
the landlord class. The stagnant economy resulted in the sharp differentiation
within the landlord class. With each economic crisis, many of the cultivating
owners and tenants joined the ranks of agricultural labourers. Thus, the
society was divided into two major categories with number of both
non-cultivating landlords and agricultural labourers increasing, while the
number of cultivating owners actually declined. According to A.R. Desai (1948)
even in just one decade (1921-1931) in British India, the number of
non-cultivating landowners increased from 3.-7 millions to 4.1 million and the
number of agricultural labourers increased from 21.7 million to 33.5 millions,
while the cultivating owners/ tenants declined from 74.4 million to 65.5
million. The Bengal province alone saw the landlord class increase by 62
percent and the agricultural labourers increase by 50 percent and the
cultivating owners and tenants decline by 35 percent.
The result of this differentiation was
the landlord class did not have any interest in land development and
cultivation and looked only for surplus extraction and speculation. There was
little interest in investing in land or using the latest innovations to improve
agricultural productivity. Due to these factors Indian agriculture remained a
low productive activity, which prevented any capitalist transformation and
remained semi feudal country.
The wealth of the zamindari class was
built on the misery of the cultivating class. In 1951 only 27.8 percent of
rural agricultural families consisted of peasant proprietors while tenants and
labourers made up the remaining families (Chandra, 1991). Many of these
peasants and labourers were in a state of indebtness: the total rent and
interest burden on the peasants amounted to 14,000 million rupees or nearly
5,000 million dollars per year.
the peasantry was increasingly joining
the ranks of the agricultural labourers and many of the cultivating owners
owned no or little land. Their numbers kept increasing with ruined peasants,
artisans joining them. According to the Agricultural Labour Enquiry in 1951: 19
per cent of the rural families had no land. Among the landowning class-38.1
percent had less than 2.5 to 5 acres of land constituting 5.6 percent of the
total land while 21 percent of the families owned 2.5 to 5 acres of land
constituting 9.9 percent of the area. The first category can be called small
peasants and the latter can be termed as small and middle peasants. 16.2
percent of the families held 10 to 25 acres of land constituting 32.5 percent
of the area and they are the middle and rich peasants. 4.2 percent of the
families held 25 to 50 acres of land which constituted 19 percent of the area
and they can be called the rich peasants. 1.4 percent of the families held 50
or more acres of land and controlled 15.4 percent of the area. These were the
big landowners and the zamindars. (Chandra, 1979)
This situation had several consequences.
However for the better understanding of our study of social movement we can
summarise the situation in the following way: (i) British agricultural policies
resulted in the impoverishing of the majority of the Indian peasantry except
for a small number of landlords and zamindars; (ii) their adverse conditions
especially for the small peasantry and the agricultural labourers could have
been fertile soil for the emergence of social movements; (iii) extreme
differentiation among the various sections itself resulted in the formation of
diverse class interests; (iv) Caste and religious affiliation -at times
retarded and at times helped in the mobilization of the peasants; and (v) there
was hardly any scope for meaningful change within the existing systems of
zarmndari and ryotwari and the only real alternative was its replacement.
THE NATURE OF EXPLOITATION OF PEASANTS IN THE COLONIAL
PERIOD
The British introduced two major land
revenue and tenure systems - the zamindari system and the ryotwari system.
There were two major reasons to introduce these systems. The British found the
existing land revenue system very complicated and difficult to comprehend with
its different systems and sub systems. The zamindari system delegated the
responsibility of calculating land revenue and its collection to the zamindars
and theirs agents, sub tenants and other middlemen. The British government had
only to obtain the revenue from the zamindars, which greatly simplified the
process of land revenue. Another important reason was the need for the British
to create a powerful class of people who would be their loyal supporters and
serve as a link between them and the general population. The zamindari system
did create such a class as the zamindars owed their existence to the British
and therefore acted as collaborators. The zamindari system did help the British
attain their aims of subjugation of the vast population and continue their
exploitation. However, for the peasants the result was the opposite, as they
had to suffer greater hardships.
Peasants as a social category were an
important component in any agrarian society. They had survived through a number
of political, social and economic changes in the society. However, the
imposition of the tenure system by the colonial rulers brought a different
degree of hardship to the peasants. The pre-colonial system was also
exploitative and oppressive towards the peasants. But there existed a few
safeguards in form of customary rights and practices, which imposed some rules
and obligations on the landowners' conduct towards the peasants. The British
superimposed on the existing system their own tenure system leading to greater
exploitation without the safeguards which had protected the peasants. The
result was greater misery for the peasants in. form of increased rack-renting,
sub infeudation and insecure tenures. While for most of the time the peasant
tolerated and adjusted to these unfavourable conditions, there were times when
fellow peasants got mobilized and organized movements to revolt against the
worsening situation. The British government's reaction to the peasant movements
differs from case to case mainly on the basis of the methods used by the
peasants, the seriousness of the situation, response of the zamindars and the
administrative contingencies. The ultimate objective of the British, of course,
was the self preservation and continuance of their rule in India, and all other
considerations were secondary.
Kathleen Gough (Desai (ed) 1979)
summarizes succinctly the condition of Indian peasants and the nature of
agrarian movements during the 200-odd years between the beginnings of British
rule and the Indian Independence. She denies that the Indian peasant was
passive or fatalistic in nature and hence did not participate in movements. She
also contradicts the opinion of many scholars, both Indian and foreign, that
the caste system and different religious background of the Indian
Land Tenure Systems and peasants prevented them from uniting into common movements
and challenging the colonial state. There were at least 77 revolts during
the period many of which had thousands of participants. Caste system and
religious affiliations often helped the peasants organize and rally against
their oppressors. It was the colonial government which labeled some of these
legitimate peasant movements as religious or caste based to deny the just
demands of the peasants.
Gough lists out the prevalent conditions
of the agrarian situation during the 200-year rule of the British.
-The early period of British rule under
the East India Company was characterized by blatant exploitation of the Indian
peasants mainly by high land revenue taxation which at times was twice the
rates imposed by the Mughal rulers. In the later years, the nature of
exploitation changed with the rates being reduced. However much of the peasant
surplus was taken by the moneylenders, landlords and other intermediaries.
-The British rule was known for increasing encroachment of
tribal lands and the exploitation of forests and other natural resources by the
government and, government supported agents like businessmen and contractors.
-British policy of promoting British
industries at the cost of Indian industries which were mainly handicrafts,
destroyed the industrial base of India and forced the erstwhile weaving
communities to join the already swollen ranks of the landless.
-Cultivators were often coerced into
producing cash crops like tea, coffee, rubber, indigo, cotton etc.
-Other means of plundering India was the
export of capital to Britain by the way of repatriation of profits and
salaries, debt services and home charges.
-Speculation and investment in land by
businessmen, especially absentee landlords, contributed to the replacement of
traditional paternalistic way of life, which though exploitative gave some
security to the peasants, by a more aggressive and exploitative system having
profit as the sole objective.
-Population increase and the slow growth
of industrialization retarded the capacity of industries to absorb the
increasing labour force resulted in the increasing fragmentation of land and
the lower productivity.
-The introduction of railways increased
the movement of goods, especially food grains, within the country. This, in
many cases, destroyed the largely self- sufficient villages, making it
vulnerable to famines. It, however, needs to be mentioned that in many cases
improved transportation resulted in better supply of food grains to needy
areas. Further, it also helped the peasants in different regions to connect
with each other and with the leadership, leading to better organization of the
peasantry.
-The most adverse consequence of these
developments was the recurrent famines. Major famines occurred in India in
1866,1896-97,1898 and 1943 and a number of smaller famines took place in
between. Gough calculates that there were at least 20,687,000 famine deaths in
India between 1866 and 1943. Needless to say that the famines resulted in the
impoverishment of virtually every section of the society, but the zamindari
class, the big traders and the moneylenders remained unaffected by the famines.
a) Peasants
Historically peasants have had paradoxical social
identities. In social science literature they have been depicted on the one
hand as reactionary, conservative, awkward, homologous, incomplete-part society
and dependent, on the other as revolutionary, progressive, self-conscious,
heterogeneous and self-sufficient social category with the potential for
autonomous collective action. However, notwithstanding such paradoxes, social
scientists have broadly underlined the subordinated, marginalized and underdog
position of the peasantry in human society. In the sociological and the
anthropological literature peasants have widely been described as culturally
'unsystematic, concrete tradition of many, unreflective, unsophisticated
and the non-literati constituting the mosaic of the "little
tradition" (Redfield 1956), 'incomplete' and a 'part society with part
cultures' (Kroeber 1948). Politically they are found to occupy an
'underdog position and are subjected to the domination by outsiders (Shanin
1984), unorganized and deprived of the knowledge required for organised
collective action (Wolf 1984: 264-65). In the economic term, they are
identified to be the small producers for their own consumption (Redfield 1956),
subsistence cultivators (Firth 1946) who produce predominantly for the need of
the family rather than to make a profit (Chayanov 1966). Historically, peasants
have always borne the brunt of the extreme forms of subordination and
oppression in 204 societies. However the specific socio-economic
conditions of their existence have largely shaped the roles of the peasantry in
social change and transformation.
In the context of the 18th century peasantry in France Karl Marx
highlighted that their mode of production had isolated them from one another.
To him, 'they are formed by simple addition of homologous magnitude, such as
potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes' (Marx 1974:231). To Lenin, however,
the peasantry in late 19th- and early 20th-century Russia was differentiated by
the unequal patterns of landholding, income and by their contact with the
market as well. To him, there was a striking difference between the working
peasant and the peasant profiteers. While the former was a faithful ally of the
working class, the later was an ally of the capitalist (Lenin, 1919rpt, 1972:497-498).
On the other hand Kautsky has highlighted the process of the dissolution of
self- sufficient peasant households in the wake of penetration of capitalist
urban industry, increasing rural and urban divide and the growing indebtedness
and landlessness of the peasantry in Russia (Kautsky 1899 rpt.1988). Antonio
Gramsci has seen the peasantry in the context of Italy as a part of a larger
sociopolitical order and not a discrete entity. Having understood the nature of
peasantry's subordination, Gramsci highlighted that their subordination could
be broken through the alliance of workers and peasants and through the
development of class-consciousness among the peasants (cf. Arnold 1984: 16162).
Frantz Fanon while studying the peasantry in the context of Algeria, points out
that in colonial countries they play a revolutionary role in bringing about
change in the social and political order of society. To him, peasants are
posited to a situation where 'they have nothing to lose and everything to gain'
by way of their participation in the change (Fanon 1971: 47). Alavi highlights
the crucial roles played by the middle peasantry in the Russian and Chinese
revolutions (Alavi 1965). However in his observation on the peasantry in South
Asia, he points out that peasant 'finally and irrevocably takes the road to
revolution only when he is shown in practice that the power of his master can
be irrevocably broken; then the alternative mode of existence becomes real to
him (Alavi 1973: 333-34). Barrington Moore while recognizing the revolutionary
role of the peasantry in the radical movements, points out that such roles are
dependent on the structure of power and the class alignments within a society.
Turning to India, he mentions that because of the passive character of the
Indian peasantry and the specific structural features of Indian society, which
is dominated by caste, religion and ethnic considerations, peasantry has not
been able to play any revolutionary role in the country (1966).
b)
Peasants Caste Interface in India
Peasants in India represent a vast mass
landless agricultural labourer, sharecroppers, tenants, poor artisans and small
and marginal cultivators having a close social interface with the socially
deprived, like the scheduled tribes, scheduled castes, other backward classes
and women. The so-called 'outcastes' of the Varna hierarchy in the real sense of
the term form the core of the peasantry in rural India. In the localized
vocabulary peasants are denoted by the usage like kisan, krishak, roytu, chashi, etc.
more or less indicating cultivators who cultivate land with their own labour,
and also the categories, namely, adhiar and bhagchashi (sharecropper and tenant)
and majdoor,
majur, collie, pait, krishi shramik, etc. agricultural labourers. These
terms signify specific cultural connotations, which are more often than not
used to indicate the marginalized and inferior status of these categories in
the agrarian society as against the superior categories like bhuswami, malik,
jotedar, bhadralok, etc., whose major source of earning is from the
land, but without getting manually involved in the process of cultivation. Thus
peasants are a socially and economically marginalised, culturally subjugated
and politically disempowered social groups who are attached to land to eke out
a subsistence living.
The peasant societies in India have widely been affected
by the broad process of social transformation caused by the introduction of
land reforms, rural development initiatives and new agricultural technology and
the rejuvenation of the Panchayati Raj Institutions. However, studies conducted
in several parts of the country (SinghaRoy 1992, 1995; Rogaly 1999; Mukherjee
and Chattopadhyay 1981; Byres 1981 and many others) show that such changes have
only partially altered the core issue of livelihood security of the peasantry
who have still remained economically marginalized, predominantly becoming
either landless, semi-landless, marginal or small cultivators without
possessing advanced means of cultivation. The age-old association between this
lowest ritual status and low economic position has always provided a basis for
their socio-economic marginalization, political dis-empowerment and collective
mobilization in the peasant movements and in various struggles against their
oppression in society
c) Peasant Movements
Peasants refer to all those people who directly
participate in agricultural production. Peasant movement is defined by Kathleen
Gough as an attempt of a group to effect change in the face of resistance and
the peasant are people who are engaged in an agricultural or related production
with primitive means who surrender part of their or its equivalent to landlords
or to agents.
An
important dimension of a social movement is its life history and the process of
transformation it undergoes. The movement may emerge to be routinized
accompanying a decline in support for the movement. The movement may also
acquire a reformative character. In Indian context there has been the processes
of transformation of social movements from that of the intensive phase of
radical action to institutionalization (SinghaRoy 1992, Oommen 1984).
Peasant
movements are important variants of social movements(Dhangare 1983). These
movement can be categorized in terms of their ideological orientation, forms of
grassroots mobilization, and orientation towards change as 'radical' and
'institutionalised' to analyze their dynamics. A 'radical peasant movement' is
viewed as a non-institutionalized large-scale collective mobilization initiated
and guided by radical ideology for rapid structural change in peasant society.
A 'institutionalised' peasant movement', on the other hand, is one where
institutionalized mass mobilization is initiated by recognized bodies for a
gradual change in the selected institutional arrangement of society. It has
been observed that peasant movements, however, are not discretely radical or
reformative, rather one may be an extension of another through transition over
a period of time (SinghaRoy 1992: 27), that the process of mobilization and
institutionalization do coexist and that institutionalization provides the new
possibilities of mobilization (Oommen 1984: 251) and that the process of transformation
of these movements from 'radical' to 'institutionalised' directly affects the
process of new collective identity formation of the peasantry.
Moplah
Uprising 1921
The Moplahs movement had been suppressed
earlier using brute force. But the conditions had not changed for the Moplahs.
Lack of security, high fees, and illegal levies were some of the major problems
faced by the peasants. The discontent increased and in 1921 when the movement
reached its apogee. The peasant's cause was given support by the Malabar
district Congress Conference held in Manjeri in April 1920. Finally the tenants
association was formed in Kozhikode and later in other areas. The Khilifat
Movement was also influential in these areas, but only among the Muslims. The
Hindus distanced themselves from the movement which later affected the
movement. But major leaders like Gandhi, Shakuat Ali and Maulana Azad gave
support to the movement.
The incident that precipitated the
rebellion was when in August 1920 district magistrate of Earnad, E.F. Thomas
led the police to raid a mosque to arrest a Kilowatt leader priest. The
situation further worsened when the leaders of the community appealed peacefully
to the British officers to release the persons arrested during the raid. But
the crowd was fired upon by the police and many were killed. The crowd
retaliated by attacking the policemen and the public persons. The violence soon
spread to other areas in Malabar. Attacks continued to take place on public
property and increasingly on the Hindu landlords. Often Hindu peasants and some
landlords were 72 spared if they had not harmed the peasants.
The British were alarmed by the violent
mass protest of the Moplahs and declared martial law to suppress the movement.
Many Hindus were also opposed the Moplah rebellion because of the religious
ideology of the Moplahs and instances of forced conversions and increasing
attacks on Hindus. Further, the support from outside leaders and organizations
ended when the Moplahs used violent methods. By December 1921 the movement was
totally suppressed by the government. The rebellion had cost more than 2000
lives while some accounts put the figure above 10,000. The rebellion
undoubtedly was the one of the most serious challenges to the government,
though being guided by fundamentalist religious ideology, its support base
could not extent beyond the Muslim community, which was its weakest feature.
Secondly, government was too strong to be challenged by violent methods.
PEASANT
MOVEMENTS in 1940s
The
World War II (1939-1945) was the most important factor that influenced the
country's political and social life. The War brought with it price rise,
shortage of essential commodities and market fluctuations for agricultural
goods. The national independence movements under Gandhi launched the Quit India
Movement in the Country to which the British government responded with
repression and mass reprisals. The energy of the leaders and the public was
focused on these issues After the War the situation changed and peasants
demands again became important The most important of the peasant movements were
Tebhaga, Telegana and Punnapra Vayalar.
The Tebhaga movement was initiated by the
Bengal provincial Kisan Sabha. The Flood Commission appointed by the Government
to study the conditions of the tenants and sharecroppers recommended that
Tebhaga, meaning two third was the share of the crop to be given to the
sharecroppers and the rest be retained by the landowner. In practice only half
or less was given to the sharecroppers who actually cultivated the land. The
famine of the preceding years had resulted in the loss of land for the many
cultivators forcing them to become sharecroppers. The demand for the Tebhaga
system brought about this movement which was largely led by the communists. The
movement was severely dealt by the government and police firings were
frequently used to control the situation. A number of peasants including many
tribals died in the firings. The movement peterred off due to this, and also
because of the growing communal situation.
Another more known peasant struggle was
that which took place in Telegana in Andhra Pradesh, where the most significant
armed struggle was conducted. More than three million population in 3000
villages spread over 16,000 sq. miles was affected. Hyderabad was a princely
state where a small Urdu speaking Muslim minority dominated a large Hindu
population. The feudal order was an oppressive one where forced labour and
illegal extractions were frequent. This had led to great discontentment among
the peasants and communists had used this discontentment to built a strong
organizational base in Telegana. The Telegana movement also opposed the
Hyderabad Nizam's attempt to preserve its independence by not joining the
Indian Union. The government let lose the Razakars who indulged in plunder,
creating mayhem in the state.
The beginning of the movement can be traced
to the murder of a peasant activist by a landlord which aroused the anger of
the peasants. The movement was strongest in Nalgonda, Warangal and Khammam.
Bands of peasants armed with lathis, country rifles, knives, swords and even
chilly power, attacked the bazaars. The liberated areas enforced several
measures which benefited the peasants.
The movement continued even after the
police action to liberate Hyderabad to join the Indian Union. The police under
the free Indian government continued to repress the movement, using massive
force. This was done largely because the movement was led by radical communist
cadres and government feared a communist takeover. The police action cost a
number of lives and the movement came to an end. However communist influences
remained in the areas for quite some time.
The most militant movement in the 1940s was
in the princely states which reveal the conditions there. Both these movement
were lead by the communists which gave it a radical ideology. The response of
the government whether of the princely state or of the Indian government were
alarmed by the use of violence by peasants and the ideology which led to use of
state violence to suppress these movements.
Radical Peasant Movement in India
To highlight the diversified facets of
the peasant movements we shall discuss some aspects of the peasant movements in
India, since India has been the hotbed of several peasant movements. Peasant
movements, however, are not episodic. These undergo a process of transformation
along with the broad social, economic and political transformation of the
society. Many of these peasant movements have retained their continuity with
the past, by maintaining legacy of the celebrated peasant movements in one way
or the other. However, the contemporary peasant movements have undergone
substantial changes in the ideological orientation, leadership, organisation,
and significantly in the forms of collective mobilisation and the tactical line
of action. All these have affected the process of gross-root mobilization,
process of new identity formation and transformation of radical peasant
movements into an institutionalized one. Peasant movements, however, are not
discretely radical or reformative, rather one may be an extension of another
though transition over a period of time (SinghaRoy 1992: 27) The process of
transformation of the peasant movement from 'radical' to 'reformative' directly
affect the process of new collective identity formation of peasantry. Is the
process of new identity formation of the peasantry autonomous of the issues,
aims and ideology of a given social movement? Do they acquire an autonomous
identity in the process of transformation of the movement from radicalization
to institutionalization?
The process of transformation of the peasant has affected
not only the form and extent of their participation in these movements, but
also the very essence of their collective identity formation, the nature of the
autonomy of these mobilizations and the new identity formed therein. However,
the direction of transformation of the peasant movement and their consequent
implication for the peasantry has not been the same across the country because
of the diverse patterns of economic development and social and political
formations in the peasant societies.
Since
the middle of the last century the peasant societies of Indian experienced
three vehement peasant movement. The poor peasantry of undivided Bengal
revolted for the peasant societies of Indian experienced three vehement peasant
movement: The poor peasantry of undivided Bengal revolted for Tebhaga
(two-third of the share of the produce from land) 1946-47. Peasantry of the
Telengana regious of Andhra Pradesh revolted against the landlords,
moneylenders and the state for the abolition of forced labour, forced
collection of high rate of interest and for their indignity in the society in
1948-52; and the peasantry of Naxalbari of the West Bengal revolted against the
local landlords money lenders and the state in (1967-71).
Though the Tebhaga, Telangana and the
Naxalite movements took place in different geographical places and in different
period of time, there are some striking similarities among these movements:
-Increasing landlessness, poverty, under employment and various
types of social and economic deprivation of the backward classes Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and their exploitation by the upper caste landowners
and money lenders were the major issues involved in this movement
-All these movements were organised under
the auspice of the organisation and leadership of the Communists(of different
political establishments)
-All these movements were ideologically radical in nature.
These movements challenged the normative and the pre-existing institutional
arrangements of the society.
-Uninstitutionalised collective
mobilization and action were sponsored in these movements.
-These movements were immediately directed against the
traditional landlords, police administration and other apparatus of the state
-These movements looked for a radical
change in the pre-existing agrarian arrangements of the society
-Though the leadership of these movements came mostly from
the urban intellectuals and the higher caste groups, the poor peasantry
especially from the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, were the main
driving forces in these collective mobilizations
-All these movements experienced the
phenomenal participation of women in all phases of progression of the
collective mobilization; and exploitation of women by the upper caste
landowners had become a prominent issue in these movements.
The
Tebhaga Movement (1946-47)
The
Tebhaga movement was manifested in the undivided Bengal in mid 1940s centering
around a demand for tebhaga (two-third shares) by sharecroppers of their
produce for themselves, instead of one-half traditionally given to them by the jotedars—a
class of intermediary landowners. This movement grew against the backdrop
of the flourishing interest of the intermediary class of landowners on the one
hand and that of the deterioration of the economic status of the agricultural
labourers, sharecroppers and poor peasants on the other. The deteriorating
economic condition of the lowest strata was reflected in the rapid expansion in
the number of the sharecroppers and agricultural labourers in the Bengal
agrarian society of the time. Report of the Land Revenue Commission in 1940
observed that of 8,547,004 inquired acres all over the Bengal Province
undivided Bengal 592,335 acres were transferred, of which 31.7 per cent was
turned over to barga (sharecropping) and 24.6 per cent to under-tenants
(LRC 1940, Vol. 2: 120). The traders, moneylenders and intermediary landowners
exploited to the hilt the poverty of the poor peasant and lent him money at
usurious rates of interest. When the poor peasant was unable to repay the debt
and lost his land to the creditor, he was resettled on the same land on
condition that he handed over half of the produce to the creditor. The peasants
who were not settled on it as sharecroppers became agricultural labourers. The
Land Revenue Commission pointed out in 1940 that agricultural labourers
constituted 22.5 per cent of the total number of families of Bengal (LRC 1940,
Vol. 2: 117-20).
The
exploitative intermediacy systems of land tenure which was introduced through
the Permanent settlement, had furthered the process of downward mobilisation of
the peasantry of Bengal. The emerging patterns of exploitation and social
oppression, impoverishment and pauperization of the peasantry got
institutionalized during the British rule (Rasul 1974). Questions pertaining to
the deteriorating economic condition of the peasantry received organised focus
since early 1920s with the formation of the Communist Party of India (CPI)
1921, the Workers and Peasants Party (WPP) 1922 and the Krishak Praja Party
(KPP) in 1929. The Bengal Kisan Sabha (VKS), a provincial branch of the All India
Kisan Sabha (AIKS) was formed in 1936. The KPP won the provincial election with
promise to abolish the intermediary system of land ownership. In alliance with
the Congress it formed the first popular Ministry in Bengal and subsequently
appointed the Land Revenue Commission in 1938 to look in to the agrarian
issues. This commission recommended in 1940 that "All bargadars should
be treated as tenants, that the share of the crops legally recoverable from
them should be one-third, instead of half" (Vol. I, 1940: 69). However as
the KPP did a volte-face on agrarian problems the government showed no urgency
for implementing the recommendation of the Land Revenue Commission the AIKS
began to radicalize its agrarian programme. In November 1946 the BKS passed a resolution
in Calcutta for ' Tebhaga' (two thirds share of the produced crops) for
the sharecroppers and 'langal jar janin tar' (land to the tiller).
North
Bengal, especially the Dinajpur district became centre of the BKS activism
because of the high intensity of the sharecropping system of land cultivation
there. The poor peasantry of Khanpur village, who were mostly from the
scheduled castes (Rajbansi, Polia, and Mali), the scheduled tribes (the Oroan,
Colkamar Santal) and ex-tribes (Mahato) responded spontaneously to this
movement. When the movement escalated into mass action, the sharecroppers began
to harvest paddy and carry it to their own kholan (courtyard) under the
instructions of the local leaders. In a surcharged situation of heightening
tension the local (landowner filed a FIR against the sharecroppers. Early on
the morning of 20 February 1947 police entered the village and arrested a few
sharecroppers. This news spread like wildfire all over the village, and an alarm
was raised by the beating of drums, blowing conch shells and beating gongs and
utensils by the peasant women. The village and its environs reverberated to the
sounds of drums, tin jars, gongs and conch shells. A vast mass of poor peasants
and sharecroppers from both Khanpur and its neighbouring villages, armed with
bows and arrows, lathis and axes, surged on the police. They demanded
the release of their sharecroppers. But the police were adamant and ended up
firing 119 rounds, injuring hundreds and killing 22 sharecroppers, including
two women.
The
episode of Khanpur triggered off the Tebhaga movement very quickly in most part
of Bengal. Poor peasants ignoring their conventional ties with the landowners
declined to share half of their produce with the landowners. Protest, firing,
killing became part of this agrarian society in 194. However the colonial
rulers used all possible repressive measures to crash this movement by
introducing a reign of terror in the rural areas.
31.6 The Telangana Movement (1946-52)
The
Telangana Movement (1946-52) of Andhra Pradesh was fought against the feudal
oppression of the rulers and local landowners. The agrarian social structure of
Hyderabad emerged to be very oppressive in 1920s and thereafter. The process of
the sub-infeudation in the landholding accentuated the insecurity of the
tenants and the poor peasants. In rural Telangana's political economy, the jagirdars
and deshmukhs, locally known as dora, played a dominant role.
They were the intermediary landowners with higher titles cum moneylender scum-village
officials and were mostly from the upper caste or influential Muslim community
background. Because of their privileged economic and political status they
could easily subject the poor peasantry to extra-economic coercion through the vetti
(force labour) system. At the bottom of the agrarian hierarchy were the
untouchable castes and tribal groups, such as the Konda, Reddy, Koyas,
Chenchus, Lambodis and Banjaras. The lower strata of the agrarian hierarchy had
a sub-human level of existence. The Harijans and the tribals were the worst
sufferers under this system (Dhanagare, 1983). Besides the unbridled feudal
exploitation, the Muslim ruler also maintained the utter isolation of from the
vast masses of his Hindu subjects (Sundarayya, 1985).
The
Indian National Congress, Andhra Jana Sangam and Andhra Maha Sabha (AMS) raised
the issue of poor condition of the peasantry of Telengana since late 1920s.
Several resolutions were passed against the jagirdari and the vetti system
by the AMS. Under the auspices of the AMS the Jagir Ryotu Sangham was formed in
1940 to bring pressure upon the government to solve the problems of the jagir
peasants working under the jogirdars. Significantly the Andhra Communist
Party was established in 1934. After the ban on the Communists was lifted in
1942, they captured the leadership of AMS. They raised the issues of 'abolition
of vetti', 'prevention of rack-renting and eviction of tenants',
'reduction of taxes, revenue and rents', 'confirmation of occupancy (patta) rights
of the cultivating tenants', and so on. All these processes of mobilisation of
the peasantry increased tensions in the rural areas of Telengana, which
ultimately culminated into the political consciousness of the peasants, and
gradually there was a new awakening (Kannabiran, V., Lalitha, K. et al. 1989.) It
was against such forced labour and illegal exaction and against eviction of the
poor tenants that the peasantry of the Telangana region of Hyderabad State,
waged innumerable struggles. The beginnings of the Telangana armed struggles
were against the atrocities of Vishnur Ramchandra Reddy, the deshmukh in
Jangaon tehsil of Nalgonda district, in 1946, when his goondas attacked and
murdered Doddi Komarayya, the local Andhra Mahsabha worker, in Kadivendi
village on July 4 (Sundarayya, 1985:13-14). This incident intensified the
struggle between the landlords openly supported by the Nizam's government and
the poor peasantry organized by the CPI in the disguise of the AMS.
The
movement took a new turn with India attaining independence in 1947, and the
subsequent refusal of the Nizam to join the Indian Union. The CPI openly called
for a guerrilla struggle against the razakars (state paramilitary wing)
and the government forces by forming village defence committees and by
providing arms training to the dalams (armed squads). The administrative
machinery of the Nizam came to a standstill in nearly 4000 villages. In its
place were established gram rajyas (village administrative units). Vetti
was abolished, and some 1.2 million acres of land was redistributed very
quickly. Unpaid debts were cancelled, tenants were given full tenancy rights,
toddy tappers got back rights over trees, untouchability was abolished and a
new social awareness became visible. Armed women defended themselves against
the razakars (K. Lalita, V. Kannabirn et.al. 1989: 14). With the Nizam
refusing to merge with the independent Indian Union, the Indian government
initiated army action against the Nizam, and subsequently against the CPI in
September 1948. The CPI adopted the path of a protracted struggle. They planned
for a liberated area and intensified their struggle. However, it was very
difficult for the communist cadres in Telangana to withstand the Indian Army.
Several hundred peasant rebels were killed. Many died for lack of shelter and
support. With the Nizam already overthrown by the Indian Army, the logic of the
movement was -e-thought by the leaders and the common peasantry of Telangana.
In 1951 the politbureau of the CPI called off the struggle.
Sundarayya
(1985) presents an overall balance-sheet of this peasant uprising: 'As many as
4000 communists and peasant militants were killed; more than 10,000 communist
cadres and people's fighters were thrown into detention camps and jails for a
period of 3-4 years; no fewer than 50,000 people were dragged into police and
military camps from time to time, there to be beaten, tortured and terrorized
for weeks and months together. Several lakhs of people in thousands of villages
were subjected to police and military raids and to cruel lathi-charges; the
people in the course of these military and police raids lost property worth
millions of rupees, which were either looted or destroyed; thousands of women
were molested and had to undergo all sorts of humiliations and indignities'
(Sundarayya, 1985:4).
Naxalite Movement (1967-71)
The agrarian society of independent India
experienced a new epoch in the history of peasant movements with the peasant
uprising of May 1967 under the Naxalbari thana of Darjeeling district of
West Bengal. Immediately after the country's independence, the Govt. of West
Bengal enacted the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act (1953) to abolish the zamindari
and other intermediary systems and the West Bengal Land Reform Act (1955)
to put a ceiling on landholdings, to reserve for the sharecroppers 60 per cent
of the produced share, and to put a restriction on the eviction of
sharecroppers. However due to the lack of the political will the progressive
provisions of these acts remained in the statute book only. Moreover eviction
of the tenants and the sharecroppers, sharp downward mobility of the peasants,
their economic insecurity and unemployment emerged to be the integral part of
the agrarian society of that period. The sharecroppers who constituted 16 per
cent of the rural households in 1952-53 came down to 2.9 per cent in 196162.
Though because of malafide land transfer proportion of the marginal and the
small cultivators increased among the rural population, in real term poor
peasantry was under going a desperate situation caused by their livelihood
insecurity. This was clearly visible from the phenomenal increase of the
agricultural labourers from 15.3% in 1961 to 26.2 in 1971 and the decline of
the category of cultivators 38.5% to 32 % during the same period (Census of
India 1961, 1971). Significantly the All India Credit Committee in its report
of 1968 pointed out to the 'emergence of sharp polarization between classes in
the rural areas' (Govt. of India: 1968)
In this backdrop while the economic
condition of the poor peasantry was deteriorating, the political happenings in
West Bengal took a new turn. In February 1967 the United Front (dominated by
the communal parties viz. CPI, CPI (M) RSP etc.) came to with the promise like
'land to the tiller', 'proletarian rule', etc. The United Front pledged to
implement the land reforms, promising land to all landless households and
invited more militant initiatives from the peasantry as an organized force
(Banerjee 1980: 105). The Left political parties had initiated rigorous
mobilisation of the peasantry in the Naxalbari areas since the early 1960s when
the landowners of the Naxalbari region started large-scale eviction of
sharecroppers.The CPI-M Darjeeling district committee started to organize the
peasants on a militant footing after the United Front Government was formed. .
The
Naxalite movement spread rapidly in may parts of the country, protracted arm resistance,
declaration of liberated area, killing and arrest became a regular phenomena in
the agrarian society of West Bengal. By the end of June 1967 the CPI-M
leadership came out against the Naxalbari leaders, calling them 'an organized
anti-party group advocates an adventuristic line of action'. Nineteen members
were then expelled from the party. The rift was complete. Moving through the
stages of the Naxalbari Peasant's Struggle Aid Committee and a Coordination
Committee, the CPI-ML was finally formed in May 1969 by the organized militant
groups (Chatterjee 1998: 89).
