CHAPTER: 8

The Peasantry and Peasant Movement in India

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------India is an agriculture based country and a vast section of Indian people
belong to a class engaged in agriculture. More than two-third of the people of
India are dependent on agriculture. Most of them are farmers and connected with
agricultural marketing. This vast population cannot be considered as a universal
homogeneous class. Various provincial and traditional diversities as well as
different circumstances exist in this class. Apart from that it belongs to various
subclasses. Peasant movements in India have created magnificent tradition of
history against exploitation. Historians mention these peasant movements which
have been occurring since ancient times. The history of revolts against extreme
exploitation of British imperialist and colonial power may shake us. Such revolts
in many numbers took place in different forms in between 2 nd half of the 18th to
mid of 19th century. The peasant class and rural people of India raised protest
against the colonial rule and land system through Sannyasi-Fakir Revolt, Choar
revolt. Although these revolts were overcast with religious and caste related
consciousness, still the main cause of those was unbearable economic
exploitation. Actually opposition against imperialism or aspiration for
independence were not visible. These revolts had happened much before the
formation of Indian National Congress. A new phase of peasants revolt occurred
at the 2nd half of the 19th century. Mainly increase of tax-rate came to be the
cause of these revolts. Farmers started the protest against the high rate of tax,
eviction from farming land and the system of using and demanded for
reasonable taxation and possessory right of land. All of the agriculture based
people were involved with these movements. Rich farmers were extremely
conscious about the feudal exploitation; they expected the development of
agriculture and they were more interested for agricultural marketing. This section
of farmers usually led the movements. British rulers made the feudalistic pattern
by introducing the permanent settlement of land system. By the next period
1

some changes took place in land system, yet hangover of feudalism still now in
effect. In many respect for cause of the feudalistic pattern the rich and the poor
farmers has flown through a same stream. But step by step the change of the
social pattern has made differences among various class and subclass of the
agriculture based people.
In Indian history of the tribal farmers revolts have taken a great in
numbers. As an example it can be said about the Santhal Revolt of mid-19 th
century. The tribal farmers had revolted frequently against the landlords, moneylenders and British authorities. These revolts took place in the state of Jharkhand
as well as in a major parts of West Bengal and Bihar. The Santhal Revolt took its
utmost limit in between 1855 and 1856. This was a revolt of the farmers; only
the Santhal farmers had become to be its main force. Except this a revolt led by
Birsa Munda took a prevailing shape in 1895. The government managed this
situation by reverse oppressive measures. After Birsas death due to cholera
infection in Ranchi jail it became easy to bring down the revolt. Added to this the
revolt was not organized with a well-planned way. There is no dearth of
documentaries given by the historians about the peasants movements that took
place in India. Yet for contextual necessity a few of these revolts is needed to be
mentioned. For an example we can say about the Indigo Mutiny of Bengal in
which farmers of all level took important part. Landlords, Talukdars, money
lenders, rich land owners and even the workers of the Indigo farm (Neel Kuthi)
came forth to lead this struggle against the British oppressor. The urban middle
class also stood beside the farmers. Except the region of the eastern India a new
type of peasant movement took place in Maharastra. This revolt was against the
money lenders and their British patrons. It was also same as the Santhal revolt.
In the early period of 20th century when the modern nationalism was growing in
the elite and middle class people, they failed to realize the interest of peasantry
and rural population including peasantry remained isolated from growing
national freedom movement. Later when Mr Mk Gandhi convinced himself as the
leader of the Indian nationalist movement, he inspired the peasants even of the
remotest corner of the country. After 1920 Mr M. K. Gandhi could take the
leadership of national freedom movement, the peasant movement and the
nationalist movements organised by the same platform. Subsequently there
movements became to be major allies of the anti-imperialist national movement.
The previous phase of these movements was against the money lenders and

landlords and during the next period its character took shape as anti-state
struggle.
Among these movements Barodoloisatyagraha in Gujrat was famous.
The government of Bombay became bound to bow head owing to the movement
led by Mr M. K. Gandhi. In this movement rich farmers named Patidarrayat
played the main role. There were so many peasant movements had organized
and all are left to flow of anti-imperialist anti-British struggle. Such types of
movement were also organized by the farmers of Uttar Pradesh in 1920. At the
same time Swami Vidyananda and Swami Sahajananda led such movements in
Bihar. In the 20s peasant- revolts commenced in Bengal which stood beside the
non-cooperation movement. From the decade of 1930 peasant uprising started
to be organized by the leftists who were ideologically communists. The Moplah
rebellion of south India was anti-British and anti-landlords and to some extent it
had communalistic character as it was mainly led by the Muslims. This rebellion
started in 1934 and took an overspreading shape in 1935. Except the Moplah
rebellion farmers uprising took place in many parts of South India. Some of them
took place in Guntur and Andhras Godavari district. During the 30s such an
uprising occurred in Madras also. Poor farmers also supported these rebellions.
In 1936 BharaterKishansabha led by the leftists took some time of
actions. In spite of that the agricultural revolution could not come out of its darkfuture. In the manifesto of Kisansabha the main target was to save the
agricultural community from the economic exploitation and to grab the economic
and political power of them. The aim of this demand was to abolish the feudal
system which was established by the British and their allies like landlords,
zamindars, talukdarsetc and to handover the farming land to the farmers.
Among these leftist movements were famous Adhia and Tebhaga movements of
Bengal. Nearly in the same time peasants revolt against the feudal system of
Nizamshah in Telengana created vastness and a country wide influence, though
its leaders were intellectuals and middle class people. Land to the fillers this
was the famous slogan of the leftist to organized the peasantry against feudal
system and its remnants. Actually its main target was to abolish the Zamindari
system (Which means the system of hegemony of the landlords) and redistribute
lands among the peasantry. These movements and other various agrarian
revolts led by the leftists. BharaterKishan Sabha (Indian Peasants Association)
became to be the largest peasant organization. In post-independence era
3

central government of India made some rearrangement in the land system in

India. The government abolished the zamindari system. The peasantsrelation
with the government regarding the taxation of land became a direct process.
The government also took step to determine the upper limit of land that one can
own. Central government passed few acts in regards of upper limit of ownership
of land though there were many loofaultsin these acts. Among the problems
which remained unchanged in the question of irrigation of land, the differences of
land owning system among the provinces, differences among barren fertile lands
orchards etc. As a result the determination of the upper limit of land owners has
been left solely upon the provincial government.
European bourgeois class took the responsibility of establishing
democratic revolution through land reforms in the consecutive countries of that
continent. But the Indian bourgeois class came out from the womb of
international imperialists when it turned to be an exploiting ruling system and
got a shape of capitalist character. But there capitalists of India being crippled
by its birth are always opportunistic and compromising in character which was
noticed In the time period of pre and post-independence era the representatives
of feudal class got entry into the Indian National Congress which was led by
Indian bourgeois class and its representatives. As a result most of the policies
have been taken and implemented in the post independent state system this
compromising character of the national bourgeois class has come to be clear. As
an example we can take an opinion of Mr MK Gandhi. In this context during an
important discussion between Gandhi and Luis Fisher he had given the opinion to
give no compensation to the landlords and feudal lords for land reform in the
objective of redistribution of land to the toiling peasantry and change of tax
collection rules. But in independent India the question of giving compensation to
land owners and feudal lords were strongly manifested in Indian parliament by
the representatives of the feudal class who have already infiltrated in Indian
National Congress and other political parties when the government wanted to
take measures by put forwarding the bill at the aim to determine the upper limit
of land ownership, (Land ceiling), complete abolition of feudal and royal system
to takeover of surplus land under state ownership, abolition of feudal
intermediary class system for tax-collection and to introduce direct tax collection
by state bureaucratic system. As a result the government have to spend a major
portion of its financer of budget of whole second Fifth year plan to give
compensation for the above mentioned caused.
4

Through there evidences we can realize the character of Indian bourgeois

class which is appeared as a malnourished, crippled and dependent nature.
There were much drum beating by the central government regarding the passing
the bill of land question and making some act in Indian parliament. But this land
act was not implemented in most of the provinces due to many obstacles and so
many excuses were put forwarded by landlords and feudal class. As already this
feudal class infiltrated in congress and other political parties and also in the state
system hey were able to maintain their opportunistic position and hierarchy in
most of provinces of India. In some provinces like West Bengal Kerala,
AndhraPradesh where leftist movements were active, the central Land policy
were implemented to some extent. This became possible mainly for two causes
one for making the peasants conscious about the issue of the ownership of land
and other was strong protest and movement led by the leftists. The leftists could
make it possible in some cases where they won assemble election and in the
other hand they started a strong movement.
During the pre and post independent India the abovementioned slogan
Land to the Tillers inspired many agrarian revolts led by the leftists and
communists. A great number of agriculture based people like share croppers,
middle peasantry, marginal peasantry and agricultural labourers had participated
with these movements. Among these movements the landless peasantry were
weak to some extent as the number of the share croppers was apparently vast.
The All India Organization for Landless Peasantry organised many
movements along with BharaterKishansabha in most of the provinces with a
programme to capture the surplus land for the demand of distribution of this
surplus land among the landless peasants. The movements of landless labourers
regarding increase of their wages was not so strong as other movements as the
organisation of the landless labourers was weak because they didnt have able,
educated and experienced leaders.
In post independent era some communist came out of CPI(M) and took the
path of arm revolution. Naxalbari of North Bengal became the centre of storm
and some of the communist Party of chine defined this movement as an out bust
of springs thunder so it can be said that the Naxalite leaders got a great
influence setting support of the Chinese Communist Party. Later middle class
youth of urban areas were attracted greatly by this movement They followed
blindly the path of the Chinese revolution and to take free some areas of rural
5

region of Bengal and other states of Bihar and Andhra from the clutches of Indian
Capitalist state system.
This is traditional weakness of Indian communists to follow a model of
successful revolution of other country without considering the ground reality of
Indian state system, its class character and objective and subjective condition of
revolutionary struggle. By long run they are following the Russian model of path
of revolution. Now they have put forwarded Chinese model of revolution shifting
centre of revolutionary activity form urban to rural areas. In this struggle a
fraction of the communist party formed another Party name CPI(ML) more
popularly known as Naxalites, under leadership of Mr CharuMajumdar, Mr
KanuSanyal, Mr Sushital Roy Chowdhyury etc. They wanted to imitate and
translate the path of Chinese revolution in Indian soil by giving the famous call to
capture state power by encircling urban areas with villages. But those leftist
leaders did not try to search out an independent unique methodology suitable for
Indian ground reality for successful revolutionary struggle so, to get a rapid
success they attracted in the petty bourgeois deviation which compelled them to
take ultra-leftist line. Though they have organized some peasant movements in
Dobra, Gopiballavpuretc., but there are very scanty and scattered and they did
not try enough to unite peasantry with the movement of working class. So they
are isolated very quickly from toiling masses of this country without doing these
necessary revolutionary works, they began to adopt arm- struggle As a result
militancy, killing the people either political opponent or some landlords, taking
line of terrorism, they developed various group among themselves and a total
system of violence erupted as a volcano. As they became successively isolated
from general mass the state power has taken this opportunity to crush this
revolutionary effort by introducing severe oppressive measure to them.
Thousands of life of young students and other revolutionaries were sacrificed,
even murdered by state sponsored terror. A big number of remaining
revolutionary activists were put into the jail for indefinite period In this way this
revolutionary effort decreased since 1972 and onwards and became remain a
history in later days. Later a group of Naxalites changed themselves by giving
up the unprepared arm struggle. But their vote in the national polities became
to be a marginal force. Though we have noticed that a legal Naxalite
organisation to some extent has been working in Bihar. Other fractions of the
Naxalite group, now popularly named as CPI(ML Maoist), are still active in Bihar,
West Bengal, Jharkhand, Andhra and Orissa tribal based region which are mainly
6

forest areas. They have created a frightening situation by personal killing and
terrorism during decades of time period. In this way the essence of revolutionary
class struggle has become a bookish word by these ultra-leftists. In a different
line with same fate as occurred by legal leftists. The movement of Naxalbari was
basically organized to establish the rights of peasants on the land, but ultimately
this right demand was dropped by quick changeover of political action in favour
of seizure of power through arm struggle which is a ultra-leftist deviation mixed
with petty bourgeois heroism.
In post independent period leftist led three provincial governments we
established. Among there provinces leftists were being elected in alternative
assembly election in Kerala. But west Bengal set an example by being elected
and remaining in state power 34 years at a stretch. In Tripura another small
state, leftists have managed to be elected for more than 25 years. These leftist
governments led by CPI(M) adopted the limited policy of land reforms by take
over the excess land over the upper limit of land ceiling and distributed to the
landless peasants. Most important administrative measure was taken by leftist
government in West Bengal was named as operation Barga by which the share
croppers were legalised and their right on the land was established to some
extent by implementing law. As a result of this, how far the democratic and
socialist consciousness among the toiling masses wee spread is a matter of
debate, but CPI(M) and their allies got a secured vote bank for some years. In
the context of a step of establishing PanchayatiRaj was taken successfully and
thus decentralisation of power of the state centre system came to be a reality.
All these administrative measures had influenced the people of this state which
was reflected by the success of leftist in both assembly and parliamentary
elections consecutively for 30 years. But still the idea of emancipation of class
consciousness examined as a big question. These dependence on the
bureaucratic measures and administrative steps the leftist parties created many
complication among them, at the same time there were pouring of opportunist
elements and thus formation criminalization and lumpenization of politics made
the leftists become corrupted resulting an isolation from general mass and losing
their popularity and communist character they become to be a mere
parliamentary party as like other pro capitalist parties. In West Bengal the left
governments 34 years rule has become to be so decadent that they lost two
consecutive central parliamentary and provincial assembly elections and now
they have become to a negligible force in the national politics. The decaying
7

process of leftists is still continuing and there is no indication of revival have

been noticed so far after 16th parliamentary election where they got only two WB
seats and total 12 seats in all over India making CPI(m) led leftists as an
irre3valent force in Indian parliamentary politics. They dont have tried any selfcriticism to take positive steps for their revival, though there are mountains of
problems erected in provincial and national politics and social context. At
present in West Bengal a complete lumpenization of politics led by Trinamul
Congress has taken a Social Fascist role. On the other hand in Central politics
extreme rightist force BJP with Hindu fundamentalist flavour has got absolute
majority to form government they have already taken anti people and pro
capitalist stand which will affect the interest of toiling masses and common
people. This extreme rightist force has always a tendency to change their
position form pseudo democratic appearance towards fascist one in the length of
time as happened in the history. So there are ocean of issues and problems for
the leftists to fight for reorganizing people. But they are voiceless, powerless
and eroded in by sterility. So this is a time in one side darkness in leftist political
field, in other side negation to this socio political condition there is a hope that
new dawn of alternative leftism has an opportunity to come forth.
Indian Communist parties and their allies in the field of distribution of land
had taken a policy to handover the land to the tillers. It was that policy by which
Bolshevik Party of Russia could bring the peasants in revolutionary struggle. In
the later phase of post-revolutionary Russia this policy became a great obstacle
for socialization of private ownership of peasants on land by for many collective
farms. In this context the historical lesson is that peasant of any strata has
always tendency of craving for land ownership. So, land to the tillers was
accepted so easily by the peasants, but issue of collectivization of land was not
popularly accepted by them. Rather they wanted to hold this land properly. That
means peasant wants land ownership, but they are not prepared to give up this
ownership for greater cause, even for their personal benefit through
collectivization of land. This is a primitiveness of peasants which make them the
ally force of proletariat according to their class position and class consciousness.
When Soviet Russian Communist party had taken the policy of collectivization of
land by forming collective and state agricultural forms, then this issue brought
lot of debate within the party that how this policy would be implemented.
Ultimately Joseph Stalin and most of the leaders of central committee of CPSU
had taken the steps to apply force to implement this land policy among the
8

unwilling peasants for collectivization of the land, a policy which made

socialization of private ownershi8p towards the goal of socialist reconstruction.
But later excessive dependence on bureaucracy and failure to change the level
of consciousness among the peasants Soviet Communist Party became slowly
isolated form general mass of peasantry. In place of communist ideology and
guidance the bureaucratic hierarchy became more powerful in ground reality and
they had started to erode the communist party by infiltrating within Communist
Party with their bourgeois ideology. In this context this bureaucracy took upper
hand in all level of production unit, even in industrial sector also later this
bureaucratic hierarchy with their bourgeois ideology penetrated in all level of
society, state and communist party and making soviet Russia towards state
capitalism. As a result working class, peasantry and toiling mass slowly isolated
from the state system. This was discussed briefly in Chapter-3. Taking lesson
from the history of Russian revolution in agrarian problem Ma-tse-Tung led
Chinese communist Party had taken policy of collectivization of land through
cooperative farming and formation of commune which became a social
ownership in land question from its beginning inste4ad of land to the tillers in the
revolutionary process of long term revolutionary struggle of chine. In postrevolutionary period by abolishing private property turned to be a social property
and the effort of forming commune system was tried and it was successful.
Though this system was how much deep rooted it remains debatable question
bill today. The Indian communist party and its allies cannot be able to take
lesson from the history and have not adopted better land reform and land policy
so far. As Indian leftists gave a more stress in electoral fight, they did not able to
bring revolutionary consciousness among the oppressed exploited peasants for
changing the society by adopting a revolutionary land policy flourish class
struggle in the peasantry for socialist revolution.
During the post independent period in Indian economic system with the
rest of the world has become to be changed gradually. For this change since
present time the agrarian revolts were organized by the rich and middle rank
peasants. With this, in colonial system, the interest of the small marginal and
share croppers were linked and due to it Indian agrarian community along with
the tribal based peasants also stood side by side with most of these movements.
There were many contradictions among them, but all of them were against the
colonial and zamindari system and that is why they took part in these
movements. After independence during 50-60 years the characteristics of Indian
9

land system has been changing very slowly in course of time. The feudal system
through zamindaris as intermediary tax collectors was abolished by
implementing governmental act, the social position and power successively
decreases through the feudal exploitation is continued by their remarks like
sotedars ( big land owners) and Mahajan (Money lenders). In place of feudal
lords the rich and middle farmers became more powerful in agrarian economy in
their social position. Thus the direction of dialectics was changing. Opposite to
this the rich and middle sized farmers, the landless agricultural workers, small
farmers, marginal farmers and the share croppers took their position. The old
feudal remnants became the ally force of rich farmers. Middle sized farmers
started to take part in the movements with the rich farmers for their
opportunistic class position. The spectrum of peasants struggle continued to
change slowly in different route. This time state subsidy in agricultural sector,
development of irrigation system, the decrease of price of seed and pesticide
and on the other hand for getting high price of agriculture based commodities
some movements were mounted up by the rich farmers and it led to take a
shape against the government. With the contradiction in the opposite side were
not much well organized movements in their interest taking place and leftists
failed to do this most important task of class struggle in agrarian sector. In this
regards Indian communist parties and leftist could not take programme and
strategy adopting the changing ground reality. Their conception about the
abolition of feudalism takes a shape of paper tiger which is not parallel to
changing agrarian reality.
In India there are many provincial and geographical differences and added
to this there are socio economic religious culture and caste related problems. So
it is very difficult to get together the exploited peasants in mass movements
according to following a general pathway of action. But as the agrarian class and
the agricultural economy are the spine of Indian socio economic structure, so
peasantry should be united through mass movements to develop their
consciousness for building revolutionary class struggle by uniting their interest
with the interest of working class and other toiling people. Otherwise, there is no
hope for a successful revolutionary struggle. To handover the land property to
the farmers and to safeguard their rights of private ownership on land were
taken by the leftists and communists, in brief the implementation of the popular
demand land to the tillers taken by leftists is from basically a petty bourgeois
and opportunistic tendency. Through this it is not possible to spread socialist
10

consciousness among the peasantry. Recently at Singur and Nandigram in West

Bengal the Left Front Government actually snatched agricultural lands from the
farmers by the name of industrialization has created a blood shed and black
mark in the history of communist Party and leftists. In this context we may
remember the severe contradiction between state apparatus and peasantry for
collectivization of land by forming state and collecting forms as the policy taken
by Stalin led CPSWin post-revolutionary period of Soviet Russia. It is clear that
turning the private property to the social ownership or handover the lands in the
hand of industrialists none of these plans cannot be acceptable to the land owner
farmers. In brief either small or high and rich farmers are not ready to handover
their land property to others or state for the cause of welfare of their own state
and society. This is the primitiveness of peasantry as a whole except landless
labourers in the consciousness comparing to industrial proletariat. So by
classical concept of Marxism they are the most common ally force of
revolutionary struggle, but not the class leader of a socialistic revolution.
Though these movements, as seen before, now also are led by the rich and
middle sized formers. On the other hand the political parties, especially antigovernment section, support these movements to make it a political issue and
try to fulfil their target of taking hold of the parliamentary power. As a result
class struggle, enhancement of class consciousness and spreading of
revolutionary socialist ideology all are fading.
In India all over peasant movements has a big obstacle of racial
differences also co-exist. In one side upper and lower caste differences and in
the other differences between the Hindus and Muslims have come to be weapons
to find political advantage in Indian Political activities and at present there are
the main issues for electoral fight which is showing that Indian politics is
circulated for last 50 60 years for these issues. For changing the political
scenario and grabbing parliamentary power, various national and regional
parties are using these differences.
Even the communists and leftists are also not out of this practice. Every political
party is creating various types of theory for supporting or opposing this pathway.
Its main aim is to in the name of reservation of the backward section of the
society to provide some help and religious issue of Hindutva and any
fundamentalism all are to confuse the people and to get mass base for
electoral gain. By this they are destroying the class struggle and provoking
racial and religious conflict to capture the parliamentary power. The BJP, at
11

present the biggest political force in Indian electoral politics, has been using the
issue of Hindutva as their main political thesis and grouwing as an alternative to
congress party in the central politics and as well as provincial electoral process.
By combining their ideology of Hindutva with neo liberal economic policy they
are able to get the support of monopoly capital and corpo9rate houses along
with the mass supp0ort they are able to create themselves as the most
dominating political party which is reflected in recent 16 th parliamentary election
on May 2014. They got absolute majority by capturing 283 seats alone and
Indianpolitics is changing to form coalition government towards single party
dominated central power. This ideology of religious content of Hindutva
combined with neo liberal capitalist economy may bad towards neo fascism in
future if we take lesson form history. Racial and religious problem are very
touchy in India and there are deep rooted in the mind of common people. This
problem is easy to create, but if cannot be solved easily. The communists and
the leftists are not able to organize the popular and courageous movement
against this opportunistic reservation and religious issue based politics.
In alternative to those issues of reservation for backward and scheduled
caste and tribes or minority and religious issues each are the greater base of
most of the parliamentary political party of India leftists and communists may
build a strong movement on the basis of economic ground by demanding the
economic back up; and reservation for economically awkward population of India
for their socio economic upliftment. Though there are some problems in this
context. As example we can see that some of the upper caste people, though
economically poor, but are much ahead culturally and socially than the lower
caste people. So, these poor upper caste people get better access to utilize the
state support for their upliftment. It is very difficult to introduce a grand
narrative and master discourse to solve their problem of differences in classism,
racism and fundamentalism. Much of Multi-dimensional discourse with many
micro movements are required to solve their socio political issues combined with
master discourse to change these non-antagonistic contradiction in favour of
solving major contradiction for revolutionary change of the state and society.
Rural peasants class struggle will be take new dimension as peasant movement
and in that place communists and leftists should take realistic and creative policy
and activity. The demands of the rich farmers like subsidies in the fertilizer,
pesticide, irrigationetc.along with price of agricultural product which were
reflected by the movement of ShetkhariSangathan under the leadership of
12

NarendranathTikayet in late 80s became one of the biggest peasant movement

in post independent India for representing the interest of rich peasants. But this
movement was getting support from middle even marginal farmers for their
common interest thus gaining broad mass base. These issues should not be
avoidable. Leftists and communists should require to organize such movements
which are the burning problems of a major portion of peasants movement
demanding land reform with formation of cooperative farming by accumulating
the surplus land over land ceiling involving the landless peasants, marginal
farmers and smallcroppers should be incorporated with the movement for
agrarian subsidies and price re-modulation of agricultural products. The ideology
of working class should be combined with these new forms of peasant movement
by changing the traditional and classical class ideology to beacceptable for the
changing ground reality in the era of neo liberalism. At present the rich peasant
and the feudal remnants like big land owners (Jotedars) and money lenders
(Mahajans) are the main obstacle for revolutionary class struggle in rural India as
they are citing themselves as the enemy of any progressive and revolutionary
change of society being the target of major antagonistic contradictory position
against all toiling agrarian mass. On the other camp in agrarian sector the sub
classes starting form landless peasants, marginal farmers, small peasants are
the most of the revolutionary elements. Along with this, small agricultural
traders and the traders of agro based industrial products like fertilizer,
pesticides etc. also have the common interest revolutionary peasant classes. So,
broad mass movements have to be organized to unite these class and sub class
based on their common demands. Though there are many contradictions remain
within these sub class which re considered as non-antagonistic one. This can be
solved through many micro movements and regional movements along with the
major class struggle in agrarian sector. The level of consciousness and low
literacy rate are being a major problem for the revolutionaries to convince this
peasantry to unite them in revolutionary struggle. In between these two
antagonistic class groups there are the middle peasantry who are usually follow
of rich peasants. But according to literacy rate and consciousness they are much
in higher position in present rural society. So there is another task for
revolutionaries to isolate this socially strong peasant sub class form the
reactionary camp and unite them with the struggle of exploited peasantry in
revolutionary outlook. For changing ground reality the programme of land to the
tillers become obsolete, so the surplus land above the land ceiling should not be
13

distributed to the landless peasantry rather to form cooperative land farming

organized and managed by the representatives of farmers by forming farmers
council with revolutionary political ideology. As the collectivization of the land
and forming collective farms and stat farms are not possible without the radical
change of state system so there are need to take some programmes to unite the
landlesspeasantry, share croppers, small marginal farmers, even the middle
peasantry. This may be possible by forming the farmers councils which look after
the rights and interest of there all sub classes. For implementing various
programmes in rural areas the decentralized power of village Panchayat should
be utilized as a supplementary role and turning this Panchayat as a democratic
revolutionary unit future socialist society form the smallest unit o0f present state
system which is based on capitalist and other oppressor class exploitation. In
later chapters we shall discuss the alternative methodology and programmes to
unite proletariat and peasantry middle class, pet bourgeois intellectuals and
other all toiling people for higher and greater cause of uplifting the society in a
changed socio economic reality. In present period of globalization the mass
struggle and class struggle should be developed both in economic, cultural and
political field by uniting for only proletariat and peasantry, but all other toiling
oppressed people along with intellectuals. So, the economic, political and
cultural movement and struggle should be organized and developed
continuously for the goal of revolutionary change which may be a continuous
process and dialectically acting on each other and one of them may be dominant
with the changing conditions of society during the period of social progress.

14