Social Classes In India

Introduction
Class as a sociological concept was first explained by Karl Marx. Marxian approach to the study of class does not give enough scope to explain all types of conflict as it only refers to economic structure. Social and cultural perspective are equally important to give a holistic picture of class structure. The concept of class is purposively taken by sociologists to study it from its origin and to understand it from grassroot level. In Europe class conflicts was concentrated to industry and feudal Lords which is not the case in India because here a whole lot of other aspects like wealth, power, caste, occupation and education also becomes important to determine an individual's class position and hence there are not two but several classes present in Indian society. Social classes in India as we see them today, had their genesis during the British rule. This is not to say that the class phenomena was absent in the pre-British Indian society. The class dimension of Indian society was only less pronounced than it turned out to be during the British period. Often it is difficult to draw a sharp line where caste principles of stratification seizes and the class principal begins. Caste and class are two principles of stratification which has persisted in Indian social system in a dialectical relationship. Studies which throw light on class structure and its processes in the traditional Indian society revealed that class structure was related to the modes of production and ownership. Kings, feudal chiefs, traders, artisans, peasants, labourers and the social relationships among these group assumed significance of understanding the Indian class structure.

Agrarian Class Structure

The British in order to facilitate the economic management to suit their own system introduced changes in agrarian system in India. The Zamindari, the Ryotwari and the Mahalwari system were introduced by the British for revenues assessment of land. The Zamindari system had the Zamindars, tenants and agricultural labourers as the main agrarian classes. The Ryotwari system consisted of two type segmentation i.e. the landlord and the peasants. The agrarian class structure everywhere in India had a feudal character; the zamindars collected taxes and were non-cultivating owners of land, the tenants were the real cultivators often without security of land.

Western authors and Indian sociologist studied the Indian agrarian social structure by adopting different theoretical hashish orientations. AR Desai, Daniel Thorner have used Marxian approach while studying agrarian relations whereas Louis Dumont used attribution approach. Daniel Thorner argues that even though there has been land reform measures ,the peasants continue to suffer the most and the Maliks continue to enjoy their dominant position. This relationship to land corresponds to social relationships as well. The lower caste works as landless labourers for the land owning caste groups who belong to the upper caste. PC Joshi highlighted three trends in agrarian class structure and the relationship among them i.e.: The declining feudalistic and customary tenancy. Increasing importance of commercial tenancy based on the rich and middle state of peasantry. Decline of feudal landlords and the rise of commercially oriented landlords. The socio-economic consequences of these commercial peasants. That, it increased the efficiency and productivity of agriculture but conflict between the poor peasantry and agricultural labourers has been on the rise

TK Oommen lists five categories of classes in rural agrarian India: landlords rich farmers middle peasants were peasants landless agricultural workers. Agrarian class structure can be studied from three perspectives i.e. liberals, Marxist,Neo Marxist. Andre Beteille who Is considered to present the liberal point of view with regard to agrarian class structure has put forward the criteria towards the study of agrarian class structure. These criteria are: ownership. Control. Use of land. The big owners of land were living in profit, land for them was a form of industry, they planned what to produce, they were highly enterprising and kept a constant eye on the market. These big owners are also known as Entrepreneurial Landlords found in green revolution belt of the country. For these big owners land is a symbol of family pride and is not considered much about profit and many a times it also happens that these owners live in urban centres. For medium owners or small landlords land is a family property and just for namesake they keep themselves attached to the property; they

are also known as Absentee Landlords. The small owners can't go for self cultivation of land because of cultural bondage therefore they leave their land to someone who can put it to use for the purpose it is meant to. These are known as Cultural Landlords. A controller is one who looks after the land in the absence of actual owner. His job is close to Munshi/Manager who is responsible to the actual owner. One can be owner, controller and user at the same time. So there exist multiple classes on the basis of intensity of control over land. The users of land are those agricultural labourers who simply are working on land. They don't possess any ownership and controlling rights and land is used by them earn livelihood. Therefore Andre Beteille points out to the fact that multiple kinds of competition and combination exist in Indian agrarian structure. Different agrarian class is existing in India carries different names, problems and identity. He finds out that in case of Bengal , land reform systems has expanded the size of small and marginal farmers who earlier worked on the basis of crop sharing. Marxist sociologists divided peasants into two types i.e. Conservative and Radical. Conservative peasants are not practical, non-reflexive, non-adoptive to major changes whereas radical peasants go for self mobilisation posing a challenge to big landlords. They say that only a revolution can bring about change in the social structure which can be brought about only when there is majority of radical peasants. A R Desai classified the agrarian class structure into three segments i.e. Upper-Class, Middle-Class, Lower Class. Utsa Pathnaik studied Punjab and Haryana and classified agrarian class structure as big landlords, rich farmers, middle peasants, small peasants, agricultural labourers. Big landlords are those who have control over 50 acres or more of land in the green revolution belt. There were additional source of income from industry and trade and they have derived all the institutionalised benefits extended to them by the state. The big landlords use mechanical devices to accelerate agricultural production and they are highly organised and politically active. The Rich Peasants controlled over 20 to 40 acre of land, they are highly ambitious, articulating, mostly dependent on hired labourers but at times can also use family labour. The Middle Peasants have control over 10 to 20 acres of land who mostly use family labour and make little surplus. They're not very affluent in life as the first two classes. The Small Farmers having control over 5 to 10 acres of land are also identified as marginalised farmers. Agricultural Labourers are those landless labourers who make wage by working on the land held by others. She identifies that the first two classes are are mainly controlling the means of production, modern technology and are rapidly consolidating their base in agrarian India because of the rise of capitalist agriculture development in the green revolution belt and so the process of polarisation is becoming more prominent.

Daniel Thorner points out that one should understand class structure keeping in mind three factors: what one receives from land. The entitlements attached to land. Application of labour.

The Neo Marxist scholars considered that agrarian class structure cannot be studied in isolation to the non-agrarian class structure. They found out that moneylenders, merchants and traders living in urban centre do have linkages with big landlords of the village. Through these big landlords they lend money to the marginalised and small farmers during the harvest period. When the harvest is gathered they procure from small and medium peasants at a cheaper rate and the profit is shared between them and village landlord. Therefore the upper class is getting consolidated leading to the exploitation of rural poor who are unorganised, voiceless and therefore they either accept exploitation and in some cases when they find out that the exploitation has become too much for them to bear they either go for migration or suicide.

Anand Chakravarty holding the same viewpoint consider that rural poor and landless labourers are under classwho cannot resist the hegemonistic domination of the landlord, police and state and legal courts. Therefore they mostly accept inequality or they start a rebellion against it.

The commission on rural employment the 1996 indicated that lower class in agrarian India has now control over 80% of agrarian land as against 9% during 1991 ,therefore there is minimisation of class contesting to the Marxist sociologist who advocate that in agrarian India class inequality has been glorified which is making inequality more prominent thereby creating a distinction between rural rich and rural poor.

The Liberal sociologists consider that elements of feudalism, semi-feudalism, part capitalism, full capitalism, nexus between caste and class. The nexus between agrarian and non-agrarian class is making agrarian class structure highly complex therefore different voice, different concerns and anxieties are articulated by multiple agrarian classes in rural India therefore we should develop an agrarian policy keeping in mind the divergent needs and exploitation of agrarian class than enforcing uniform stereotype agrarian programme for the people in the form of land reform system, green revolution and of late Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.

Middle classes in India

The concept of middle class explains the debate between Karl Marx and Max Weber. When Marx considered that middle class is transitory in nature and that it highlights the possibility of addressable inequality; to its contrast Weber considered that the rise of middle class is a victory of modernity. In his theory of stratification Weber considered that there has been proliferation of middle class strata. As a result the possibility of class conflict is substantially minimised in modern society. The rise of middle class in modern industrial society is also discussed in detail by Talcott Parson in his analysis of meritocratic society. Various sociologists speak about acceleration middle-class competition with regard upward and downward mobility in caste and class structure.

Modernist, pluralist, liberals used the concept of middle class to celebrate modern industrial society where class relationship is competitive and dynamic and class inequalities are not prominent, polarised and hierarchical. Ordinarily speaking middle class can be identified as a body of people who are exposed to modern education, Carry rational and competitive value, who are more or less secularised in their approach aspiring for the mobility, they are a body of consumerist class who consider that they carry the capacity for social change. A R Desai is the first Indian sociologist to speak about Indian middle class and their role in the rise of Indian nationalism. He writes that the platform for the rise of Indian middle class evolved from out of the caste structure. A large body of non-ritualised, power and wealth conscious middlecaste group in India offered a direction to the rise of Indian middle class. Subsequently Indian middle class played a key role in bringing reforms in culture and religion. He considers that social religious reform movements are middle-class movements in India that question and challenge the upper class, Sanskritic and ritualistic values. Desai considers that British played a significant role in the expansion of the size of Indian middle class. More significantly British introduce printing press, bureaucracy, new kind of land tenure system, trade, commerce and industry, regular Army, policing systems and educational institutions that offered employment opportunities to a large body of Indians.These people got exposure to the rational ideas, democratic values of the Western world and started writing articles in newspapers, developed a political cause and a political organisation, made a presentation to British administration for different kinds of concessions and benefits. As a result Indian middle class offered a solid foundation to the rise of nationalist movement in India.

He further believed that the members belonging to middle-class came from different regions and various castes. Thus, middle-class dissolved regional disparities and inter-caste bringing unity among people of India therefore he concluded that class integrates and caste divides the people of India. DL Seth in his article middle-class in modern India indicates that Indian middle class may be the product of British colonial policy but after India's independence the base of Indian middle class has been constantly expanding. In case of southern and western India large chunk of middle class evolved from out of social protests and cultural mobilisation. Self-respect movement in case of Tamil Nadu, Satya Shodak Samaj movement in case of Maharashtra and SNDP movement in Kerala gave way to the emergence of middle class movement; who wear articulated, non-traditional, anti-Brahmin and demanding for equity, control over power structure. Unlike West, Indian middle class has grown out of soil. Therefore middle class in Europe and middle-class differ in terms of their origin and approach. He further considers that green revolution in different pockets of the country along with cooperative movements gave rise to the origin of Indian middle class who refuse to detach themselves from traditional caste, kinship and culture but still intended to extract the benefits from modern institutions. Therefore Indian middle class is keeping one step on tradition and the other on modernity and trying to extract benefit from both. Andre Beteille in the study of Indian middle class questioned the very genesis of Indian middle class. He considers that middle class in India draw support from different sources at different points of time therefore Indian middle class is not homogenous like middle-class in the West. He points out that in case of India many people are technically joining middle-class because agriculture, trade, commerce has offered economic dividend to the masses in India. Hence the habit of reading newspaper, going for family vacation, spending money on non-consumption items are constantly increasing but interrelationship between a factory worker, a small trader and a junior police officer always takes place in a hierarchical sphere. Therefore Indian middle class has expanded but people still carry hierarchical ideas that largly influence their interpersonal relationship. Hence modernity in India unlike in West has not created a self assertive middle-class who can bring in a complete social change. This view is in contrast to Yogendra Singhs who considers that modernity has replaced caste by class. Indian middle class should be studied in time frame from 1950 to 1980s. Industrialisation, bureaucratization, modern education, green revolution, modern trade led to massive employment report unity in nonagricultural sectors leading to the expansion of middle-class but these middle-class were more concerned about consolidation of their economic position than participating in self-assertion or social protest in a big way. Therefore early middle class in India were mostly self-seeking than being revolutionary. However middle class offered a solid foundation to the peasant mobilisation in India during post independent period, a testimony to that is Naxalite Movement which is supported by intellectuals coming from different spheres of life.

Anti-emergency movement was initiated by Indian middle class including students, teachers, lawyers and at times government officers therefore Indian middle class has not always been timid and non-articulated during the formative stage. After globalisation Indian middle class has expanded its size and speed of articulation of interests therefore middle class in India has initiated environmental probe, women issues, civil rights questions resulting in bringing reforms in different spheres of public life. Therefore activision of Indian middle class strongly corresponds with the rise of civil society in India. This silent change in contemporary Indian society can be considered as a victory upper-class movement in India. Gurusharan Das in his book India Unbound , Amartya Sen in his book Argumentative Indians and Abdul Kalam in his book India 2020 consider that during post liberalisation period the human resource potential of India is mostly being exported leading to Indian scientist, researchers, industrialist achieving miracles and receiving global recognition thereby bringing India into the domain of world community as a rich nation with enough human resource potentials. According to Gurusharan Das globalisation has offered unbound limit for self expression, mobility, prosperity and happiness. Amartya Sen indicate that India's success in the field of literacy campaign is an attempt to convert the ideal mans power into progressive working population which is the foundation to the creation of knowledge society. He considers that education is a prerequisite for the rise of knowledge society and India unlike China is a leader in this Frontier. He expects Indian economy grow to be sustainable because it stands on a solid knowledge base. The Institute of Applied Economic and Research in its report indicated that during India's independence the total percentage of middle class was 12% that increased to 20% during 1951 which reached the figure of 58% in 2001 and it is expected to reach a target of around 70% by the end of 2020. These presumptions drive the point back that India is going to evolve into a society where the middle class is expanded, lower class is squeezed and upper class is not hegemonistic. This will make India more inclusive, highly dynamic and growth oriented society. But sociologists are skeptical whether India can evolve into such kind of inclusive society without any caste-class disparity or any other form of inequality. The gender inequality persist in India both in public and private sphere, hegemonistic domination in rural India, hijacking of modern benefits by dominant class, distinction between literacy and functional literacy, women exploitation, environmental degradation etc. are stumbling blocks in the way of building an affluent India dominated by Indian middle class carrying modern and secular values. This paradox in India is a contest between the pervasive nature of tradition engaged in dialectics with the emergent nature of modernity. As a result social change in India is becoming restrictive than being absolute.

Industrial Class Structure

Under the British rule, production in India became production for market. As a result of this, internal market expanded and the class of traders got engaged in internal trading. Simultaneously, India was also linked up with the world market. This led to the growth of class of merchants engaged in export- import business. Thus there came into being and industrial/commercial middle-class in India. With the establishment of Railways, the accumulation of savings on part of rich commercial middle-class larges investment took place in modern industries. Subsequently they also diversified the sphere of their industrial activity and thus both economically and socially this class turned out to be the strongest class in India. With the attainment of independence, emphasis was laid on rapid industrialization of country. In response to that state was to play a very active role. It evolved economic and industrial policies, which clearly indicated the role of commercial and industrial class as a catalyst of administration in India. It also actively assistance is classes towards augmentation of production. The dominant element in the ruling class combine is the industrial bourgeoisie, which emerged and grew under the long shadow of British colonialism. Accumulating capital through merchant and trading activities related to the colonial economy, this class gradually diversified into industrial activities, beginning with the textile industry in an around colonial Bombay. Significant portions of the industrial bourgeoisie has been, and continues to be, organized along family lines, with the Tatas and the Birlas being the most prominent historical examples. Three characteristics of the Indian industrial bourgeoisie demand further analysis and comment: its attitude towards other elements, especially the semi-feudal landlords, of the ruling class combine; the evolution of its internal structure and its relationship with the State; and, its relationship with the center of the global capitalist system. The Indian bourgeoisie has, because of its historical origins, always had an ambivalent attitude to the whole gambit of semi-feudal interests in the economy. Even though it hesitantly supported the nationalist leadership of the Indian National Congress, it was never strong enough to push for its hegemony either in the nationalist movement or in the post-colonial State. It never fought a frontal battle with feudal interests, the biggest indicator of which is the half-hearted nature of land reforms in independent India. As a result, it could neither fashion an independent capitalist development path for the country based on the home market nor consistently democratize the polity. If the nationalist struggle for independence is, therefore, understood as the beginning of the bourgeois democratic revolution in India, then it largely remains unfinished even 60 years after political independence from British colonialism.

Even though the Indian bourgeoisie has not initiated and led a broad-based capitalist development, which could have improved the material conditions of the vast masses of the country, it has nonetheless managed to significantly widen and deepen the industrial structure of India. Starting with consumer goods industries like textiles, it has diversified into the production of basic capital and intermediate goods, and consumer durables. This has been largely possible because of the protection and patronage of the State, with which this class has had a complex relationship. On the one hand, it has resisted all attempts at disciplining by the State for larger development programmes; on the other, it has utilized industrial, tax, credit, export and import policies of the State to further its own narrow class interests. At the time of political independence, the industrial structure in India was very concentrated at the top, with a few large monopoly business houses controlling large swathes of the market. Three trends have emerged, slowly at first, since then. The first trend has been the differentiation of the economy into an organized and an unorganized sector, roughly coterminous with large and small scale industries; policies of the Indian state helped in this differentiation. The second trend has been the relative growth and proliferation of the small scale sector, i.e., relative to the large-scale, organized sector. The third trend has been the slow but steady growth of a regional bourgeoisie, different from and often competing with the established large business houses. Thus, concentration and centralization of capital has proceeded in several branches of the organized sector; but this has also been accompanied by increased regional and sectoral competition and growth of the small scale sector. Note: For further reading referred to the chapter In Industrialisation And Urbanisation In India