PEASANT MOVEMENT

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).