Sei sulla pagina 1di 76

CHAPTER - III

FARMERS MOVEMENTS IN INDIA

The farmer holds a very important position in the traditional Indian


society and farmers conglomerates have often been helpful in solving their
personal and familial problems. But the farmers, especially the small farmers
have been an exploited lot, both economically and socially. It is such
inhuman treatment which compelled them to come together and bargain to
secure their needs. Moreover, when the state fails to protect them they need
an agency like the farmers association to protect them and their interests.
Today they oppose unnecessary taxations and demand more public
investment in agriculture. The Indian farmers have shrewdly calculated that
their effectiveness is greatest when they work as a pressure group by
remaining outside the framework of established political parties.

India being primarily an agricultural country the agrarian question


remains central to its developmental discourse. All these discourses point
towards the fact that the structure and process of agrarian economy posed
serious problems in the effort to bring about a sense of egalitarianism in the
socio, economic and political realms. The earlier structure was fostered by
the ruling class for extracting exorbitant rent or revenue from the tillers of
the land through various anti-farmer measures. These measures subsequently
led to protest movements by the peasantry in various parts of the country.
With the emergence of the merchant class, the role of peasants as a source of
capital declined. But their primary task of producing food and fibre remained
as such. Peasants always absorbed the dislocations caused by strife and wars
102 Chapter III

which were so common all over India. It was only in the face of unbearable
onslaughts that the farmers rose up in revolt in several places.

3.1 Movements

Civil society organizations and social movements have a critical role


to play in making the state more democratic.1 First, the associational
networks of civic organizations and movements can provide vital
information about social needs as well as the mobilizational infrastructure
that makes continuous and meaningful participation possible. Second, civil
society organizations, by they rotating credit schemes or contentious social
movements help, develop and nurture the democratic and technical capacities
of individuals. They often promote forms of demand-making that are far
more deliberative than those of more hierarchical organizations.

Movements can play a critical role in occasioning such a shift not


only by mobilizing public support for reforms but also by popularizing more
participatory institutions and processes through prefigurative actions.2
Moreover, because democratic decentralization goes beyond legislative acts
and resource reallocations, its effectiveness and most importantly its
sustainability require far more than the capacities of the state.

The distinction between an agitation and a Movement is the same as


between a battle and a war. Agitation forms the operational parts of a
movement but a movement is more than the sum of its agitations. A
movement can also originate from sporadic agitation with no larger
perspectives and goals initially. A movement has a class base and intends to
alter the existing social order or the power structure at least at the regional
level where it takes places. It has also an ideology to justify it.
Farmers Movements In India 103

3.2 Social Movements

It was the German Sociologist Loreng Union Stein who introduced


the term Social Movement, in a book titled ‘History of the French Social
Movements from 1789 to the Present’. At first it conveyed the idea of a
continuous, unitary process by which the whole working class gained self-
consciousness and power. According to Die Gegennart “Social Movements
are in general nothing other than a first search for a valid historical
outcome.”3

Social movements are the most widely accepted form of a series of


agitations. Social movement is a collective, organized, sustained and non
institutional challenge to authorities, power holders or cultural beliefs and
practices. Political action is a paradigm of social action that sheds light on
actions in all spheres of life.

Social movements have a political dimension too. Majority of social


movements are making demands directly. Thus the state is involved as not
only the target, but also the adjudicator of grievances. In this view, which
has come to be known as political process theory, social movements are also
seen as eminently rational. Indeed, they were little more than part of normal
politics that used extra constitutional means. By highlighting social
movements interaction with the state these process theories have focused on
conflict and the external environment of social movements to the extent that
they even explain the emergence of Social Movement as resulting from
opportunities provided by the state. The most important aim of a social
movement is the actualization of a particular political interest.

The paradigm that has concentrated most on social movements


emerged in the political process approach. In this view economic and
104 Chapter III

political shifts occur, usually independently of protestor’s own efforts that


open up a space for the movement. They perceive movements as primarly
political making demands on the state and asking for changes in laws and
policies. They see changes in the state attitude, an important opportunity
which a movement needs. Movements are not made, they are launched or led
by leaders.

According to Charles Tilly, social movements emerged from an


innovative, consequential synthesis of three elements.4

(a) Sustained, organized public effort making collective claims on target


authorities (campaign).

(b) Employment of combinations from among the following forms of


political action - creation of special purpose associations and
coalitions, public meeting, solemn procession, rallies, demonstration,
petition, drives statement to and in public media.

(c) Participants’ concerted representation of WUNC (W – Worthiness –


Unity - Number and Commitment on the part of themselves).

Political scientists had more or less ignored the field of social


movements. The term ‘Social Movement’ gained currency in European
language in the early nineteenth century. This was a period of social
upheaval. The political leaders and authors who used the term were
concerned with the emancipation of exploited classes and the creation of a
new society by changing the value systems as well as institutions and
property relationships. Since the early 1950’s - various scholars have
attempted to provide a through going definition of the concept of social
movement. Paul Wilkinson gives the following definition about social
Farmers Movements In India 105

movements. “A social movement is a deliberate collective endeavour to


promote change in any direction and by any means, not excluding violence,
illegality, revolution or withdrawals into utopian community.”5 So social
movements are clearly different from historical movements, tendencies and
trends . It is important to note that such tendencies and trends, and the
influence of the unconscious or irrational factors in human behaviour, may
be of crucial importance in illuminating the problem of interpreting and
explaining social movements.6

Sometimes, resistance of the people against dominance, direction and


commands of dominant groups in society and the state is treated as a social
movement. It is certainly an expression of protest. But so long as it remains
at an individual level and desists from confrontation involving collective
action, it is not a movement.

Another thing which is connected with social movement is that


political scientists and sociologists do not make a distinction between social
and political movements. Sociologists assume that social movements also
include those movements which have a clear objective of bringing about
political change. Rudolf Heberle (1951) argues that all movements have a
political implication even if their members do not strive for political power.
Political scientists therefore freely use the term social movement.7

3.2.1 The New Social Movements (NSM)

The central message of the new social movement is ‘civil society


against state’. The phrase New Social Movements is in vogue in the
contemporary discourse among social scientists and activists. It is argued that
New Social Movements have occurred in post industrial societies. The doyen
of the NSM theorists is considered to be Alain Touraine who has
106 Chapter III

differentiated the old social movements from the New Social Movements
based on the discursive character of NSM. Unlike the old Social Movements
which opposed domination through meta-social principles, NSMs are
proposed to challenge domination by a direct call to personal and collective
action based on solidarity. According to him New Social Movements are the
works that society performs on itself, and conflict is ultimately about the
control of historicity, the cultural model that governs social practices and a
struggle over normative models of society. Habermas (1981). A Melucci
(1984) and Laclau and Mouff are the other exponents of NSM theories.8
According to them NSM refers to fundamental shifts in the social structure
and the emergence in post industrial societies of different actors, different
issues and loci of action that are different from the old working class
movements. They are social in nature (not class oriented) and located in the
civil society. Based on this analysis of the various NSM theorist, Scott
(1990) delineates the following characteristics of NSM.9

(a) They are pre-eminently social and cultural in character and then only
political. They transcend class boundaries.

(b) They are located within the civil society. NSMs bypass the state. The
aim is to defend civil society against the encroachment from inner
colonization by the society’s technocratic substructure.

(c) NSMS are concerned with cultural innovation, the creation of new
life styles and a challenge to entrenched values. These NSMS are
characterized by a common societal critique that aims at social
change through the transformation of values, personal identities and
symbols. They do so by the creation of alternative life styles.
Farmers Movements In India 107

Fuentes and Frank (1989), Escobar and Alvarez (1992), Guha (1989),
Omvedt (1993), Wingnaraja (1983), Calman (1992) are some of the theorists
who have discussed the relevance of NSM from a developing country’s
perspective.10

According to Fuents and Frank (1989) these NSMS are popular social
movements and expressions of people’s struggle against exploitation and
oppression and strive for survival and identity in a complex dependent
society.11 In such societies these movements are attempts at and instruments
of democratic self-empowerment of people, and are organized independently
from the state; it’s institution and politics and are a reflection of people’s
search for alternatives. According to Guha the NSMS work at two levels
simultaneously.12 At one they are defensive, seeking to protect civil society
from the tentacles of the centralizing state; at the other, they are assertive,
seeking to change civil society from within and in the process putting
forward a conception of the ‘good life’ somewhat different from that
articulated by any of the established parties .

According to Gail Omvedt NSMS are revolutionary in aspiration and


anti-systematic in their impact.13 They are oriented as single-issue efforts to
bring about change. These are social movements in the sense of having a
broad overall organization, structure and ideology aiming at social change.
They have a new ideology which is characterised by the use of non-Marxist
concept of exploitation and oppression (appropriation by the state from
peasants through the market) and a corresponding rejection of class, class
politics and ideology together with the vanguard role of the working class
and political parties. These are movements of socio-economic categories
such as women, dalits and peasants that have been ignored as explained by
108 Chapter III

traditional Marxism or who are exploited in ways related to the new


processes of contemporary capitalism but left unconceptualised by a
preoccupation with private property and wage labour. They have grown in a
period in which the solution of traditional socialism are so overwhelmingly
discredited and they are concerned with the task of reinventing revolution, in
spite of this single issue - orientation, with the task of reinventing
revolution.14

A close look at Indian politics and society from the perspective of


organized social actors - its political parties, mass organizations, labour
unions and non- governmental groups - as well as the social movements
that make up an unusually thriving sector of Indian political and social life
would be quite meaningful here. Without a consideration of their role in the
making of the nation’s success and failures, the picture is incomplete and
distorted. Almost every major Indian policy has been debated challenged or
supported by a show of organized groups of constituents. While political
parties are often assigned their role in India precisely the role of mobilizing
and organizing constituents has been effectively and systematically
undertaken by mass based organizations affiliated with political parties, as
well as by smaller non-profit organizations and collectivities. These
organizations range from Maoist groups operating in the countryside to
established service providers such as the All India Womens Conference
(AIWC) and from the large and messy coalitions around the Narmada Dam
issue to the highly organized labour unions. Social movements, by and large
do not embrace the master frame cynically neither does this frame determine
their agendas in any direct or simple causal form. Movements are not blank
slates on which master frame is imprinted; rather function as a template of
Farmers Movements In India 109

accountability to which movements bring their own histories, distinctive


constituencies and ideologies.

Social movements in India have been themselves defined by a


commitment to ending inequality and economic injustice, whatever the range
of issues they take up. There had been three phrases of social movements in
India.

The first phase was characterised by the influence of Nehruvian


social democracy-dilution, commitment (1947-1964). During this phase,
social movement leaders for the most part seemed to have understood the
political choices they faced in largely binary terms – either falling in with or
standing outside the class and poverty agenda of the Nehruvian state. The
discursive repertoire available to social movements were frame commitment
– a determination to sustain a movement’s redistributive goals; frame
dilution – a dilution of a movement’s redistributive goals; and frame
repudiation – a rejection of redistributive goals.

The second was a transitional phase, one in which the ideological


underpinnings of poverty alleviation programme reigned supreme. Here
emerged a new frame and a number of a new movements such as Dalit
Movement, Environmental Movement and Naxalite Movement (1964-84).

The third phase was influenced by Mandal-Masjid sequence of


events. At the economic level the global-neoliberal agenda influenced this
phase. This phase witnessed the emergence of Farmers Movement and
Biotechnology movement. Farmers became concerned with their material
improvement.
110 Chapter III

Studies on Social Movements broadly follow either a Marxist or


non-Marxist framework of analysis.

Scholars following the Marxist approach are primarily interested in


brining about revolutionary changes in society moving towards a socialist
system. According to them the causes of social movements are to be found in
the economic structure of the society. Antagonistic interests between the
propertied and labour class are inherent in a class based society which
generate contradictions. The former monopolises the coercive power of the
state to maintain their hegemony over the exploited classes. The latter would
resist, protest and occasionally revolt or launch organized and collective
action against the dominance of the propertied class. It is their attempt to
bring about revolutionary political change by over-throwing the dominant
class in power. Even though to the Marxists, structural cause of conflicting
economic interests are central to their studies, a number of Marxists scholars
have begun to pay attention to ethnic, religious and other cultural functions
too. According to many orthodox Marxist scholars, members of the same
class not only have common interests vis-a-vis other classes, but also share a
common consciousness regarding their position in society. This facilitates
their collective action against the ruling class and state.

There is a great deal of variation among the non-Marxist scholars in


their approach to the analysis of social movements. They differ with regard
to the ideological position, the need for social and political change and the
role of movements. William Kornhauser, Robert Nisbet EdwardShils are the
chief exponents of Non-Marxist approach to the study of Social Movements.
They are in favour of excluding the masses from day to day participation in
politics which hampers the efficient functioning of the government. For
Farmers Movements In India 111

example, the Indian scholars who approved of agitation for independence


from foreign rule, do not approve of agitations in the post independence
period. They condemned them outright as dangerous and dysfunctional for a
civilized society. Such scholars advocate political change which would be
confined to change in government and political institutions. A few also call
for revolutionary changes but they differ from Marxist scholars in class
analysis. They lay emphasis on value system, political institution and culture.

A number of reasons can be cited for the origin of Social Movements


in India. The parliamentary form of government as a political institutional
device, has proved to be inadequate to continue or expand the concrete
democratic rights of the people. It either operates as a shell within which the
authority of capital perpetuates itself, obstructing or reducing the
opportunities for people to consciously participate in the process of society
or is increasingly transforming itself in to a dictatorship, where capital sheds
some of its democratic pretentions and rules by open, ruthless dictatorial
means. The movements and protests of people will continue till adequate
political institutional form for the realization and exercise of concrete
democratic rights are found.

As A.R. Desai says, ‘the civil and democratic’ rights of the people are
not protected by Constitution.’15 As a result the movements for their protection
have increased. Democracy in India has become a playground for growing
corruption, criminalization, repression and intimidation of large masses of the
people. The role of the state in social transformation has been undermined. As
a result, people have started asserting their rights through various struggles. He
continues: “There is discontent and despair in the air still highly diffuse,
fragmented and unorganized. But there is a growing awareness of rights felt
112 Chapter III

politically and expressed politically and by and large still aimed at the state”.16
Kothari feels that mass mobilization at the grassroots level is both necessary
and desirable.17 Of late the civil society led by Anna Hazare a Gandhian has
been leading a mass protest called ‘India Against Corruption’ which has
attracted the attention of people all over the world.

According to Partha Chatterrjee, social movements are accumulative


alternative and transformatory.18 Any social movement will naturally be
subjected to the dynamic processes going on in the society and such
dynamism will transform the movement itself. In the words of T.K. Oommen
the movements will neither have the potentialities to root out the Ganashyam
existing system completely nor will they succumb to the traditional structure
entirely. He provides another typology i.e., movements as charismatic,
ideological and organizational.19

But these typologies do not explain the dynamics of the movements


which undergo changes in course of time. They do not take into
consideration those movements whose objectives change during the
development of the movement. Some movements do not have clear
objectives in terms of the maintenance or the transformation of the system.
Besides, the overt objectives and theorization of the leaders of the movement
and the perception of the participants at various levels about the struggle and
their own purpose for involvement may not be always the same.

Social Movements may be classified on the basis of their objectives


or the quality of change they try to attain. Ghanshyam Shah classifies
movements as revolt, rebellion, reforms, and revolution to bring about
change in the political system.
Farmers Movements In India 113

The most reasonable classification of movements may be on the basis


of participants; because in many cases the participants and issues go
together. So according to Ghanshyam Shah social movements maybe
classified in to the following nine types on the basis of the Socio-economic
characteristics of the participants and the issue involved. (1) Peasant
Movement, (2) Tribal Movement, (3) Dalit Movement, (4) Backward Caste
Movements, (5) Women’s Movements, (6) Industrial Working Class
Movements, (7) Student Movements, (8) Middle Class Movements,
(9) Human Right and Environmental Movements.20

3.2.2 Farmer Movement as a New Social Movement

According to Omvedt and Lindberg farmers movement is a new


social movement. These claims for newness derive largely from what are
perceived to be a combination of novel actions, objectives, organizational
forms and ideology. There are five reasons for this argument.21

(a) The farmers movement has passed from the subsistence - oriented
peasantry to the commodity producing farmers. While the earlier
agrarian movements fought for land and better leasing arrangements
against the land lords and the colonial state, the new movements see
the state as the enemy and focus on agricultural prices which are
largely determined by the state.

(b) They profess that they have invented new methods of agitation.

(c) They are characterized by their independence and new ideology


which is anti-state, anti-urban and anti-capitalist.

(d) Several of the earlier agrarian movements were organized by political


parties, mostly by the left. Unlike these, the agitational form and
114 Chapter III

organizational style of the farmer’s movements is non-partisan now.


According to Omvedt the farmer’s movements have an anti-party
thrust, and these are free from all political parties and their control.

(e) In a limited sense, by incorporating and associating with the


environmentalists (greens) women, and the tribals, the farmers
movements are part of the new democratic vision embracing a new
set of post-material values.

The following criticisms are levelled against the claims of new


farmers movement.

a. Land continues to be on its agenda, albeit in a different form. The


farmers have demanded the abolition of ceilings on land ownership.
Opposition to the state is not new in India. There are historical
continuation between the Gandhian led agrarian movements and the
contemporary farmers movement.

b. The claims of employing novel and distinctive agitational methods


are questionable. They were actually old tactics employed by farmers
in Maharashtra and women in the anti-famine agitations.

c. The ideological discourse also is not new. Infact, important


components of the discourse and the structuring principle of an
urban-rural divide have prefigured and is symptomatic of the politics
and ideology of populism. Agrarian populism has a historical lineage
that can be traced back to the moral economy arrangement, the
middle peasant thesis. In India-neo-populism can be traced back to
Gandhi before independence and in the post independence period to
the mobilization of Charan Singh.
Farmers Movements In India 115

d. The claim of being apolitical, non-party and non-electoral is not


verifiable. Until 1989 the farmers movement had no interest in
capturing political power. However, as a part of electoral strategy,
they have at different times extended support to different political
parties regardless of the political ideology of political parties. For
example, Shetkari Sangathan aligned with the Congress in 1984 and
1985 during the parliamentary and Assembly election and then in
1987, it supported both the B.J.P and the Republican party.22 At the
national level, the S.S has attempted to counter the ruling party by
aligning itself with V.P. Singh (The Janatha Dal) during the
parliamentary elections in 1989. On the other hand the farmers
movement have claimed to be concerned only with grassroots
democratization and not state power; on the other the farmers
movement in Karnataka, Maharashtra have contested elections and
organized themselves as political parties. It is also a fact that in 1994,
Sharad Joshi launched the Swantantrya Bharat Party.

Farmers movements are not anti-state in their orientation. The


antagonism towards the state is only partial and class specific farmers
movements definitely do not want to do away with the state but only want to
change the relation between the rural economy and the state. With the
commoditization of agriculture they have actively collaborated with the state
on many occasions. In 1991 Joshi became the Chairman of the standing
Advisory Committee on Agriculture with the status of a Cabinet Minister.

e. The support for women’s issues, Dalits and environmental issues,


which used to corroborate their claim of being new and progressive
are not valid. Some of the earlier agrarian movements had also
116 Chapter III

incorporated these kind of issues, like gender by Tebbage or


Telengana movement and ecological issues by Chipko movement.

Since 1970s the new farmers movement have become one of the most
important non-parliamentary political forces in India. The main target has
been the state which intervenes in the agrarian economy by supplying
agricultural inputs and regulating the markets. The farmers demands include
lower tax, debt relief, higher procurement prices by the government, greater
subsides on inputs like fertilizers, seeds, electricity, water and pesticides.
They argue that the governmental policies are increasingly favouring
industry as against agriculture. Their central message is symbolized in a
simple but a powerful slogan - ‘Bharat against India’. The former
corresponds to rural society, economy and culture and latter to urban
industrial society. As per Joshi the real contradiction is not between the
village and the town and difference is not between the big and the small
farmers and the landless but between the agrarian society and rest of the
society. The rural people argue that conditions of farmers are deteriorating in
the face of growing prosperity of the urban world. They feel that there is a
need to invest more in agriculture which receives much less attention.

The two major frameworks so far as in use for the understanding of


the agrarian structure in India is caste on the one hand and class on the other.
Caste is an all India phenomenon in the sense that these are hereditary
endogamous groups which form a hierarchy and that each of these groups
has a traditional association with one or two occupation. The importance of
caste in Indian political scenario in expressed by a maxim which says ‘In
India people do not caste vote rather they vote caste.’
Farmers Movements In India 117

The class structure is made up of categories defined primarily by


economic criteria, such as ownership, control and use of land, amount of
wealth and income and type of work performed. In the Indian context there
may be three groups as far as agriculture is concerned

(a) Rural elites who compose land lords, rich commercially oriented
farmers, money lenders and village traders.

(b) Farmers who cultivate their own lands with their own family labour,
occasionally hiring labour during peak agricultural seasons.

(c) Peasants or rural poor with little or no land, agricultural labour, share
cropper and tenant and marginal or small owner farmer. (Peasants
would also include most rural artisans who generally work part time
in agriculture).

3.3 Typology of peasants in India

Peasants in India broadly represent a vast mass of landless


agricultural labourers, share croppers, tenants, poor artisans and small and
marginal cultivators having a close social interface with the socially
deprived, such as the scheduled tribes, scheduled castes, other backward
classes and women. The so called ‘outcastes’ of the Varna hierarchy in the
real sense of term form the core of the peasantry in rural India. In the
localized vocabulary, peasants are denoted by terms like Kisan ‘Krishak’
‘roytu’, ‘chash’ more or less indicating cultivators who cultivate land with
their own labour,23 and also the categories namely ‘adbiar’ and bhagchashi
(share cropper and tenant) and majdoor, majour, collie, pait, Krishi shramik
etc. These terms signify specific cultural connotations to indicate the
marginalized and inferior status of peasantry in Indian society. The age-old
118 Chapter III

association between this lowest ritual status and low economic position has
always provided a basis for their socio-economic marginalization and
political disempowerment. Thus peasants are a socially and economically
marginalized, culturally subjugated and politically disempowered social
group who are attached to land to eke out a subsistence living.

Daniel Throner has outlined the following model of agrarian class


structure in India.24

(a) Maliks whose income is derived primarily from property rights in the
soil and whose common interest is to keep the level of rents up while
keeping the wage level down. The Maliks can be sub classified as
follows: (i) Big land lords holding rights over large tracts extending
over several villages; they are absentee owners with absolutely no
interest in land management. (ii) Rich land owners, with considerable
holding, but usually performing no fieldwork for the improvement of
land if necessary.

(b) The Kisans are the working peasants who have a property interest in
the land. They are below the Maliks. (i) Small land owners having
holdings sufficient to support a family who cultivate land with family
labour and who do not either employ outside labour or receive rent.
(ii) Substantial tenants: Tenants holding leases under either big land
lords or either Rich land owner; tenurial rights fairly secure; size of
the holdings usually above the sufficiency level.

(c) Mazdoors: They are earning their livelihood primarily from working
on others land or plots. (i) Poor tenants having tenancy rights but less
secure; holdings too small for family maintenance and income
derived from land often less than that earned by wage labour.
Farmers Movements In India 119

(ii) Share croppers are tenants at will, leases without security;


cultivating land for others on share cropper basis. (iii) Land less
labourers

Although these sub categories are nearer to the realities of the Indian
Agrarian Social structure it does not relate the specificity of the internal
differentiation within Indian agrarian social structure. Therefore there is a
need to readjust or regroup this subcategories in a broader and
comprehensive model such as:25

(I) Land Lords

(II) Rich peasants

(III) Middle peasants - land owners of the medium size holdings.

(IV) Poor peasants; land owners with holdings that are not sufficient to
maintain a family, and therefore forced to rent others land.

(V) Landless Labourers.

While using the model of agrarian class in the Indian context some
caution is necessary. First, all the five class situation and their subcategories
are regionally specific.

Second, more often rich middle, poor peasant categories can be


distinguished from each other only in qualitative rather than quantitative
terms. Adjectives like substantial, medium or small that are often used to
differentiate between holdings cannot be defined with precision and accuracy
in terms of acreage etc, partly because of the regional variations and partly
because of lack of uniform data and statistics on different regions of India in
different periods.
120 Chapter III

Finally, although the class categories of the model are analytically


separable, their boundaries are sometimes blurred in reality. There is
considerable overlapping between categories of III and IV and also between
IV and V, but there is no satisfactory way of resolving this problem
particularly at macro level analysis.26

What is the relative strength of these classes during the period which
we concerned with i.e., 1990-2010. The question is very difficult to answer
on account of these interrelated factors. Census categories such as cultivating
owners, tenant cultivators, agricultural labourers and non- cultivating
owners, have been frequently subjected to redefinition over the years with
the result that the social elements of one category at a census enumeration
have not remained the same at the next census. Similarly, the census
categories and their definition do not match in toto with the five categories in
the above model.

The data broadly suggest the pyramidical nature of India’s agrarian


structure. Thus those who hold vast tracts of land and superior rights were
few in number while those peasants who actually tilled the lands had few or
no rights, and were numerous in the agricultural population.

3.4 Farmer’s Movements

Peasant movements or farmers movements are important variants of


social movements. The Chinese Revolution and the series of agrarian
movements in Latin American countries led western political sociologists and
anthropologists to initiate studies on farmers movement.27 As far as India is
concerned, intellectual stimulation on the one hand and the Naxalite
movement in the late 1960s on the other provided impetus to Indian scholars
to study various farmers movements. Farmers Movement is a social movement
Farmers Movements In India 121

involved with agricultural policy. Anthony Pereira, a political scientist, has


defined a peasant movement or farmers movement as a “social movement
made up of peasants (small landholders or farm workers in large farms)
usually inspired by the goal of improving the situation of farmers in a nation or
territory.28 Early peasant movements were usually the result of stresses in the
feudal and semi feudal societies and resulted in violent uprisings. More recent
movements, fitting into the definitions of social movements are usually much
less violent and their demands are centered around better prices for agricultural
products, and increasing the agricultural production. It is scholars like D.D.
Kosambi and R.S. Sharma together with Daniel Throner who brought peasants
in to the study of Indian history for the first time.

Barringtone Moore Jr. in his celebrated work “Social origin of


Dictatorship and Democracy; Lord and peasant in the making of the modern
world questions the revolutionary potential of the Indian peasantry. He
observes that the landed upper class and the peasants played an important
role in the bourgeois revolutions leading to capitalist societies in England
and France, the abortive bourgeois revolutions leading to fascism in
Germany and Italy and the peasant revolution leading to communism in
Russia and China. But peasant rebellion in pre-modern India were relatively
rare and completely ineffective. According to Moore Indian farmers are
traditionally docile and passive.29

As far as Eric Stokes is concerned peasant rebellion look strangely


absent in Indian history. This situation is attributed to the peculiar Indian
social structure in caste system and the village structure.30

Moore says that “cultivation was lackadaisical and inefficient over


the wide areas partly due to Mogul tax on farming and partly because of the
122 Chapter III

peculiar structure of peasant society, organized through the caste system. In


providing a framework for all social activity, quite literally from conception
to the after life, at the local level of the village community, caste made the
central government largely superfluous. Hence peasant opposition was less
likely to take the form of massive peasant rebellion than it had taken in
China.31

It is a fact that the peasant movement in India can be understood only


within the background of caste system. In the caste system the individual’s
duty to the caste was emphasized, not his rights within the society. The lower
castes were taught to accept their place in social order, so as to obtain a
better position in the next life through religious ceremonies and rituals. So
the revolutionary potential of a particular class hinges largely on the structure
of power alignment and class alliances in a given society at a particular time.

Moore’s conception regarding the passive and docile character of


Indian peasants has been criticized by different peasantologists like
A.R. Desai, D.N. Dhangare, Kathleen Gough, Ranajit Guha. They are of the
opinion that peasantologists have overestimated a number of peasant
rebellions before and during British Rule. As far as K. Gough is concerned
peasant revolts have been common during the last two centuries in every
state of present day India. She has counted 77 such peasant revolts.32
A.R.Desai observes that the Indian rural scene during the entire British
period and thereafter has been bristling with protests, revolts and even large
scale militant struggles involving hundreds of villagers and lasting for
years.33 They are of opinion that agrarian disturbances of different forms and
scales were endemic throughout the first three-quarters of British Rule i.e.,
Farmers Movements In India 123

until the very end of the nineteenth century. There were no fewer than 110
known instances of revolts during the last 117 years.

3.4.1 History of Farmers Movement in India

After the non-cooperation movement of 1919, peasant organizations


began to be formed in the country. A riot’s association was formed in
Andhra Pradesh in 1923 and Kisan Sabha was organized in Punjab, Bengal
and UP in 1926-27. In 1928-29 Sardar Vallabai Patel organised a farmers
movement at Bardoli District in Gujarat.

After the end of civil disobedience movement of 1930’s, the need


was felt for forming a separate organization for Kisans. The need for forming
such association was stressed by the congress socialists and left nationalists
led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose. Nehru had said:
“Peasantry turned to the Congress and gave it its real strength.”34 Between
1935 and 1938 diverse associations of riots and agriculturalists were formed
in Madras and Bihar. As early as 1927, a Bihar Kisan Sabha had been
formed and by 1934, it had developed in to an extensive organization mainly
because of the drive and organizing ability of Swami Sahajand Saraswathi.
The Bihar Kisan Sabha became an important unit of All India Kisan
Congress that was subsequently formed in 1936 in Lucknow. The first
congress was held at Fazipur in December 1936, the same time as that of the
Indian National Congress. Indian National Congress adopted its agrarian
programme thus showing its solidarity with the peasant. In 1937 the Kisan
Sabha dropped the word Congress and renamed itself as the All India Kisan
Sabha and adopted Red flag, then the symbol of all leftist groups in India. In
1938 when Congress was in power in a majority of provinces big peasant
struggles took place in various provinces and in many cases won practical
124 Chapter III

success against attempted rent increase, against eviction, against forced


labour and illegal exaction and also for reduction of rent. Gradually the All
India Kisan Sabha came to be dominated by communists, non-communist
deserting it one after another. During the Quit India Movement launched by
the Congress, the Sabha membership was packed by communists in the
absence of Congress workers who were then in jail.35

After independence the interests of agriculturaists found expression


in three types of organizations viz.

(a) Party Front Organizations

(b) Semi-official Organizations

(c) Non-political Interest Organizations

Almost all the national and regional political parties have their Kisan
wings. But so far only the communists and socialist parties had taken the
organization of peasantry seriously. The All India Kisan Sabha before split
was a formidable peasant organization of communist party of India. The non-
communist parties have tried to articulate the agriculturalist interests more
through party apparatus than by their kisan fronts. In some states the peasant
dominated political parties became quite strong. For eg: Kisan Mazdoor
parties organized by Acharya Kripalani and N.G. Ranga in Bombay state and
Charan Sing’s Bharatiya Kranti Dal and to Bharatiya Lok Dal and now Lok
Dal are peasant oriented parties. The Akalidal in Punjab is almost
exclusively a party of farmers.

The second type of farmers group is illustrated by Bhart Krishak


Samaj Farmers Forum, India, with its head office in Delhi. It is a semi-
official organization, the Union Minister for Food and Agriculture being its
Farmers Movements In India 125

ex-officio president. But it does not always support official policy in


agriculture. It had opposed governmental policies often.

There are a good number of independent non-party organizations


existing at national and regional levels in India. In 1950’s some of the
leading agriculturalists set up the “All India Agriculturalist Federation”. The
federation stands for economic, social, educational and spiritual
advancement of rural people in general and farmers in particular. It promises
to adopt “a non-communal, non sectarian policy and not to align itself with
any political party. The East Indian Cotton Association, the United Planters
Association of India are also important non-party farm groups in India.

Apart from these farm groups which function within the


constitutional framework, some peasant movements have taken to violent
guerilla methods. They were inspired by the communist ideology of social
change. The first such movement was in Telengana near Hyderabad. In this,
the peasants of Telengana, led by communists, sought to end Zamindari
system by force and distribute land among the landless peasants. The
movement was forcefully suppressed by the Government of India. Later this
path was again adopted by the peasants at Naxalbari and in the neighbouring
districts of Darjeeling in 1967. The so called extreme communists led the
poor peasants to mount attack on landlords, planters and government
authorities to sieze land with arms and to set up a parallel government as the
centre of revolutionary resistance.

The movement had its echo in other parts of India involving lot of
bloodshed. It was ruthlessly suppressed by the government. These
movements made their impact in as much as they could draw the attention of
the government and other political parties to farmer’s problem.
126 Chapter III

After independence a peaceful programme of solving the land


problem was launched by Vinoba Bhave. His Bhoodhan Movement (later
Gramdan) which started with enthusiasm had not met with much success.
However the movement started by Vinobaji underlined the importance of
land redistribution in India.

In August 1969, some of the left parties of India including the CPI,
the SSP and the PSP started a landgrab movement with the objective of
forcibly occupying lands belonging to the big landlords and for distributing
the same amongst the landless tillers. The movement, eventhough, it did not
bring about immediate success could, however, highlight the pitiable
condition of poor landless peasants.

Now for more than a decade the fronts of the Kisan movements are
dominated by non-political organizations. Shetkari Sangathan in
Maharashtra, Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS) in Karnataka,
Vivasayigal Sangam in Tamil Nadu, Dibati Adhka Raksha Samati in
Haryana, Bharathi Kisan Union of Punjab are the major instances of such
organizations.

In a broad sense farmers movement can be defined as those which


organize rural producers of all classes and sections. They differ from
traditional peasant movements in that they are involved in production for the
market to some degree or are affected by the various developmental projects
of the capitalist era.

3.4.2 Why Farmers Movement?

The objectives of peasant movement are determined by dual


considerations-the political needs of the sponsoring party to mobilize
Farmers Movements In India 127

peasantry in its favour, and the social and economic demands of the
peasantry, to which it must respond to win their support. As most peasant
organizations are being fostered by political parties political goals of the
sponsoring party constitute a dominant element in the objectives of peasant
movement. Thus the objectives of a peasant movement may be divided into
two broad categories.

(a) General and distant

(b) Specific and immediate

The former may include as in the case of associations promoted by


the CPI or CPI (M), establishment of a socialist society, abolition of the
prevailing exploitative system of corrupt bureaucracy, and landlordism, the
promotion of basic changes in the socio-economic structure etc. In brief they
amount to the propagation of communist ideology and strengthening the
party. The more specific and immediate objectives were to protect their
rights-to work, to secure land and homestead for the landless, to develop
class consciousness among them, to educate them about their rights and
obligations, to train them in the art of collective bargaining, to facilitate their
participation in decision making process which affect their lives etc. In the
case of Kisan Sabhas, composed mainly of small and marginal farmers, the
objectives were as in the case of Kerala Kisan Sabha to provide a lobby for
them by representing peasant needs and interests to the concerned authorities
so as to secure special benefits such as irrigation facilities and subsidized
agricultural inputs for small and marginal farmers. It tries to ensure adequate
prices for agricultural produce, fight against soaring prices of non-
agricultural goods, and work for a graduated system of taxation and in
general to work for the progress and development of peasants. Besides, it
128 Chapter III

also works for the unity of agricultural labourers and small and marginal
farmers.

The perception regarding the objectives of the union leaders varies


depending upon the level at which they operate. The leadership at the higher
levels view union as an instrument of revolution and the grassroot leadership
considering it as an agency which helps them in solving their problems. A
problem really arises when parties with conflicting ideologies operate in the
same area and fight to destroy each other to the neglect of common social
and economic objectives.

Immediately after independence several progressive land reform


legislations were introduced by the state governments to abolish the
intermediary landlordship to provide tenurial security to the tenants, to
distribute the surplus waste lands among the poor and to consolidate land
holdings. However due to the unquestioned domination of the landed class,
lack of the political will of the state, lack of awareness and organization of
the rural poor except for the abolition of the zamindari system, land reforms
were not sincerely implemented. The Government of India formulated a
‘national guidelines’ for land reform in 1971 so as to radicalize the land
reform programme. Land reforms have furthered the process of emergence of
peasant cultivators in different parts of the country. As there had not been
significant improvement in the economic position of the vast section of the
peasantry, because of landlessness, semi-landlessness, semi-marginal
holding, non-availability of alternative avenues of employment in rural areas,
peasants looked for benefits from various development schemes for their
livelihood. All these have provided the required background for a sustained
mobilization of peasantry by various political groups, emergence of a new
Farmers Movements In India 129

structure of domination on the peasantry and emergence of new identities


and resistance against domination.

In India, the rural poor have often been left out of the mainstream of
the development process. Several factors have been identified which
impeded their participation in development. They are lack of motivation,
socio economic constraints, oppressive agrarian structure, inadequacy of
programmes and administrative arrangements and lack of appropriate
institution and organization. In developing countries too much emphasis has
been laid in the past on peasant’s backwardness, apathy, passivity and
resistance to change as dominant factors impeding their participation.
Oppressive agrarian structures have often impeded participation especially of
tenants, share croppers and agricultural labourers. Their dependence on the
rural elites restricts their option to participate. Agrarian reform is thus a basic
condition for participation of the vast number of the rural poor in rural
development. Once the defects in the agrarian structure are removed a major
hurdle to participation in development will be eliminated. Attempts in the
past at agrarian reform, especially at tenancy reform, ceiling and land
redistribution and regulation of wages and conditions of work have not been
very successful due to lack of political will on the parts of elites and the
absence of pressure from below. The rural poor will need a network of their
own organization. However, even a successful programme of agrarian reform
may not automatically lead to participation by the rural poor in development
unless the development programmes are devised in accordance with their
needs. Therefore, planning from below at the grass root level with people’s
participation through their organization is thus essential to the development
of realistic programmes responsive to people’s needs.
130 Chapter III

In a developing country, with scarce capital and abundant man


power, the strategy for development must lie in mobilizing the vast under
employed human resources for rural development. Large potentialities exist
in the countryside in which millions of rural people could be employed such
as development of agricultural infrastructure, mixed farming combined with
livestock development, land improvement scheme, rural housing and
communication. To develop the potentialities for the benefit of the weaker
sections with minimum of capital investment requires a major effort at re-
organizing the rural institutions at grass root level which may facilitate
people’s participation. Thus a network of peasant organizations is required to

(a) Function as a lobby for poor peasants and generate pressure from
below for agrarian reforms.

(b) Promote participation of the people in the planning and


implementation of agrarian reforms and rural development
programmes especially at the grass root level.

(c) Assure their access to the production of resources.

(d) Secure them due share in fruits of development by improving their


bargaining power through group action.

(e) Mobilize the vast human resources potential for improving the living
conditions of the rural poor and total rural development.

3.4.3 Classification of Farmers’ Movement

Farmers movements in India are generally classified in a


chronological basis into pre-British, British or colonial and post-
independence. The post independence period is again classified by some
scholars into pre-Naxalbari and post Naxalbari periods or pre and post-green
Farmers Movements In India 131

revolution periods. The post-green revolution period is further divided into


pre and post emergency period. Kathleen Gough classifies peasant
movements on the basis of their goals, ideology and method of organization.
So according to her there are five types of peasant movements or peasant
revolts.36

(a) Restorative rebellions to drive out the British and restore earlier
rulers and social relations.

(b) Religious movements for the liberation of a region or an ethnic group


under a new form of government.

(c) Social banditry.

(d) Terrorist vengeance with the idea of meting out collective justice.

(e) Mass insurrections for the redressal of particular grievances.

K.P. Kannan divides the historical process of rural labour struggles


based upon classlines into three phases. They are

(1) Protest movements based on caste or religious identity and


consciousness, but basically a response generated by the emerging
capitalist mode of production and hence directed against repressive
social and cultural practices.

(2) Secular movements arising from category (1) but rejecting caste
identity and consciousness and appealing to the rationality and
brotherhood of men.

(3) The nationalist movement culminating in radical political


consciousness – the seeds of which were in category (2) culminating
in class consciousness and class based movements.37
132 Chapter III

Pushpendra Surana classifies farmers movement in to five types


mainly based on issues.

(a) Movement against forced cultivation of a particular type of crop.

(b) Exploitation by money lenders.

(c) Movement against price rise.

(d) Movement against outside invaders.

(e) Movement against dynasties.38

According to Gail Omvedt farmers movements can be classified into


four categories.

(1) The autonomous, non-party farmers organization which sprang up in


the 1970s and came to be a prominent influence in the 1980s.

(2) Rural environmental movements including movements of dam


evictees, of farmers of drought prone areas; though some of these
(like the Narmada Bachao Andolan – NBA) have been depicted as
primarily organizing tribals. In fact the large majority of people they
have organized have been farmers or peasants. This movement does
not oppose big dams but rather seeks equal water distribution and just
rehabilitation for evictees in the command area of the dam.

(3) The official farmers organization of political parties (most important


of these have been the Kisan Sabhas of the CPI and CPM and
Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) of the BJP. Today the left parties
generally have separate agricultural labourers organizations, though
their, Kisan groups include all classes of farmers. It might be noted
that the BKS has been emerging as the most effective and largest of
Farmers Movements In India 133

these party linked organizations. It can also be noted that unlike the
communist parties, the BJP does not try to organize agricultural
labourers separately.

(4) Unorganized struggles which have sprung up here and there, on all
kinds of issues, including protest against displacement for
developmental projects or urban expansion.39

Another notable classification of farmers movement is the division


between old farmers movement and new farmers movement.

3.4.3.1 Old Movement

This movement was a movement of landless peasants against the land


lords. According to Steffan Lindberg “a look at the history of peasant
movements in India brings out an important feature which can be interpreted
as a historical shift in the pattern of alliance. The slogan of farmers
movement was “Land to the Tiller”. Thus the old movements were focused
on abolishing the system of landlordism and to establish a new social system
which would provide the poor peasants and landless farmers more political
power.40

3.4.3.2 The New Farmers Movement

Beginning in the 1970’s new farmers movement has become one of


the most important non-parliamentary political forces in India. They are new
because cognitively they draw on a plurality of traditions, are
organizationally anarchic or post-modern, and lack a set of fixed criteria for
membership.

These movements started in Tamil Nadu and Punjab in the early


1970’s and later spread to Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana and
134 Chapter III

Uttar Pradesh. The most important movements are Shetkari Sanghatana in


Maharashtra led by Sharad Joshi and Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) in UP
led by Mahendra Singh Tikait.

3.4.3.2.1 Issues of Farmers Movement

The most important issue that paved way for the creation of farmers
movement is religious sentiments. According to Partha Chatterjee peasant
community in Bengal was united by religion.41 There was a consciousness of
communal rights and communal solidarity among the members of the same
religion. The communal mode of power exists where individual or sectional
rights, entitlements and obligations are allocated by the authority of the
entire social collectivity i.e., the community. The very nature of peasant
consciousness, the apparently consistent unification of an entire set of beliefs
about nature and about men in the collective and active mind of peasantary, is
religious. Religion to such a community provides ontology, an epistemology as
well as practical code of ethics, including political ethics. When this community
acts politically, the symbolic meaning of particular acts - their significance –
must be found in religious terms. However, as the mode of production
undergoes changes over a period of time, class differentiation within a
religious community take place undermining communal solidarity.

It is argued by many writers that the peasants revolted against


exploitation and oppression when their economic condition deteriorated.42
These changes may be classified under three heads.

(a) Deterioration of their economic condition due to price rise, famine etc.

(b) Structural changes, which cause an increase in the exploitation of


peasants, consequently deteriorating their condition.
Farmers Movements In India 135

(c) Rising aspiration of peasants to improve their condition.

Most of the studies on the peasantry carried out during post and pre-
independence periods assert that at a given point of time when the peasants
revolted, their economic condition was deteriorating.

According to Majid Hayat Siddiqi, the rise in prices of inferior food


grains consumed by the tenants and agricultural labourers, was one of the
factors underlying agrarian unrest in north India during 1918-22.43
Deteriorating conditions were an important factor for the Telengana
(1946-51) and Tebhage (1946-47) movements in Andhra and West Bengal.
A series of revolts by agricultural labourers and tenants in the late 1960s and
1970s were also partly due to the rise in the prices of essential commodities.

However, some scholars feel that the relationship between high prices
and some peasant struggles do not have a significant correlation; at best a
relationship between the two can be established in very general terms.

Famine was another important factor that caused the emergence of


peasant revolt in the country. It was almost a regular feature of pre-
independence rural India and it has continued to be so to some extent even
after independence, though it is now called ‘drought and not famine’. Poor
people live in conditions resembling famine as they are unable to buy food
which is at times scarce and expensive. Some peasenthologist are of the
opinion that Indian peasants did not revolt against authority even at the time
of severe crisis in which their very survival was at stake. N.G. Ranga and
Swami Sabajanad Saraswati observe: “It is a sad commentary on the political
capacity of our people that despite such terrible suffering of the masses and
mass death of workers and peasants and the outbreaks of Cholera and other
epidemics, in the wake of starvation and consumption of horrible things
136 Chapter III

(ending in Cannibalism also) no real and effective mass protest was


organized by anyone or any organization against such inhuman state of
things.”44 Nevertheless a number of studies on peasant uprisings mention
that famine, has remained a contributory factor in rural unrest and
disturbances. It produces a deepening division between rayiats and labourers.
Such a division reflect their separate class interests. In famine situations
agricultural labourers and other subaltern groups including women join
together for collective action which often turn into a riot. David Arnold’s
paper on famine explores collective action by peasants in famine situation.
During the early period of famine the poor peasants and labourers acted
collectively in small bands against rich villages, money lenders and traders.
But as the drought intensified and the effects of famine became more
widespread subaltern collectivity began to break down still further until
appropriation and violence became expression of individual frustration,
desperation and despair.45

Forced labour (Begar, Veth or Vethi) was widely prevalent in the last
century. It is still prevalent, even now though in different forms. According
to Surana, begar was performed by peasants including the members of upper
castes, for the rulers of Mewar in Rajastan. The agricultural labourers and the
members of the lower caste were compelled to do all kinds of jobs including
supplying water to the ruler’s family, constructing buildings, roads, carrying
dead and wounded soldiers to their destination during and after war.46

The persons doing begar were very often beaten, they were not given
adequate food. Women doing the begar were insulted and molested, there
was no consideration of rough weather and no time limit was fixed for it. The
poor peasants and labourers of Telengana revolted against the begar system.
Farmers Movements In India 137

The poor Rajputs of Banaskantha in Gujarat launched a movement against


forced labour in the early fifties. The custom continued in eastern India in the
late sixties against which the peasants fought. This movement is popularly
known as the Naxalite Movement.47

Excessive taxation imposed by the rulers is another important cause


of agrarian uprising. The landlords or rulers imposed various kinds of taxes
on the peasants to meet the expenses of the royal families. Thus taxes were
customary and new taxes were invented as and when the rulers required all
kinds of whimsical needs. In one district in U.P the landlord imposed a cess
scalled ‘Gramophoning’ when his son desired to buy a gramphone,48
excessive taxation imposed by the Nizam can be cited as one of the causes of
the Telengana Movement.

Eviction of tenants as cultivators by money lenders, land lords or


government officers was another important cause of widespread agrarian
disturbances in the country. According to S.B. Chaudhari: “The public sale
of land not merely uprooted the ordinary people from their small holdings
but also destroyed the gentry of the country, and both the orders being
victims of British civil law were united in the revolutionary epoch of 1857-
58.49 He further argues that it was not so much the fear for their religion that
provoked the rural classes and landed chiefs to revolt. It was the question of
their rights and interests in the soil and hereditary holdings which excited
them to a dangerous degree. Eviction of tenants along with other factors,
created tension in agricultural sector which caused the Moplah uprising in
Malabar in Kerala. In post independence India tenants, share croppers and
agricultural labourers asserted their rights over the land that they had
cultivated for a long period. Distribution of equal land to all cultivators was
138 Chapter III

one of the central issues in the Telengana movement in late forties and
Tebbaga movement in Bengal, the Pardi satyagraha in Gujarat, the Land
Grab Movement, the Naxalite movement, Bhoomi Sena Movement and the
Shramik Sanga Thana Movement in Bombay. The Bhoodan Movement
launched by Vinoba Bhave in early fifties to counter leftist movements, also
focused the issue on the distribution of land.50 It followed a peaceful non-
violent path of acquiring land from those who had more, and distributing it
among the poor cultivators and landless labourers.

Changes in the mode of production in agriculture have disturbed the


traditional agrarian relationship which also led to farmers movement. During
the time of British rule, land became a marketable commodity and
commercialization of agriculture developed during the late nineteenth
century. Barrington Moore argues that wherever large scale commercial
agriculture has resulted in proletarianization of peasantry, and consequently
in snapping off the old traditional bonds of caste etc., the possibilities of
insurrection are much greater.51 Majid Siddiqi observes that with an
increasing commercialization of agriculture, the landlords who used to
collect rent in cash started collecting rent in kind, the price of which was
high. The Eka movement was necessitated by this factor. The middlemen
whether, money lenders, traders, or local businessmen and rich peasants
made fortunes by skimming off increasingly larger share of the produce for
marketing, sometimes even by resorting to forms of usury of exploitation and
tyranny. Where the burden on the farmers grew enormously as a result of this
peculiar development of commercial agriculture (for example in Malabar,
Bengal and Andhra) peasant revolts occurred. Thus the lag between
development of market relations and the capitalist mode of production in the
country side seemed to be conducive to peasant mobilization.
Farmers Movements In India 139

The demand for higher wages has been a central issue in the struggle
of farmers in the last as well as this century. Farmers and agricultural
labourers in Travancore, Kerala resorted to strikes as early as 1907,
demanding an increase in wages. And they went on strike several times since
then on the same issue. It was one of the issues in the Telengana uprising
also. The demand for higher wages became sharp in the sixties and seventies
which mobilized agricultural labourers leading to Naxalite movement in
West Bengal, Bihar and Andhra. Agricultural labourers of Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and other states
launched several struggles in the 60s and thereafter demanding a rise in their
wages and implementation of minimum wages. They also revolted against
sexual discrimination, humiliation and sexual violation perpetuated on
women by men and officials of upper castes and classes.

3.4.3.2.2 Participants

Studies on farmers movement in India are centred around two


questions regarding the participation. Firstly, who among the farmers
participate in the movement? Secondly, which class of peasants has the
greatest potential to bring about revolutionary or radical changes in the
agrarian structure? The scholars who were active in the nationalist
movements treated peasants as one class of people engaged in agriculture
and allied activities irrespective of ownership of land. They are of the
opinion that the peasant movements in 1920s to 1940s were a part of
nationalist movement and national consciousness was shared by the peasants
irrespective of their position. The Congress party which led the nationalist
movement, was primarily interested in developing the national movement
against British rulers. It opposed any effort which divided the peasants.
140 Chapter III

The Kisan sabha, the leading leftist farmer’s organization, believed


that the interests of the agricultural labourers and the Kisan were the same.
According to them in majority of movements rich as well as poor peasants
should be mobilized to capture state power, though one class was more
active than the other. Similar efforts have been made by Sharad Joshi and
Naidu in mobilizing rich peasants and labourers in peasant movements in
Maharashtra, Punjab and Tamil Nadu.

Farmers have already been classified in to different groups. The most


basic division may be the division put forward by Hamza Alvai - poor
peasants, middle peasants and capitalist peasants. The first category is that
where the land is owned by landlords who do not undertake cultivation for
themselves. Their land is cultivated by landless tenants, mostly share
croppers who are classed as poor farmers. The second class consists of
independent small holders who own more land than they can cultivate
themselves. They do not exploit the labour for others, nor is their labour
exploited by others. They are middle class peasants. A third class is that of
capitalist farmers or rich farmers who own a substantial amount of land and
whose farming is primarily based on exploitation of wage labourers,
although they may participate in farm work by themselves. Alvai makes a
significant distinction between the middle peasants on the one hand and rich
and poor peasants on the other. On the basis of above analysis Alvai argues
that the middle peasants, who are economically somewhat more independent
have greater potential than other peasant class to play a revolutionary role.
He argues that the poor peasants are initially the least militant class because
of their dependence on landlords or rich peasants. The poor peasants because
of their economic dependence on rich peasants seldom respond even in times
of crisis. But when in extreme and exceptional cases, the exploitation and
Farmers Movements In India 141

oppression are carried out beyond the point of human endurance, there is a
possibility of revolutionary response. The backwardness of the poor peasants
rooted as it is in an objective dependence, is only a relative and not an
absolute condition. In a revolutionary situation, when anti-landlord and anti-
rich peasant sentiment is built up by the militancy of middle peasants, their
morale is raised and they are more ready to respond to a call to action. Their
revolutionary energy is set in motion. The middle peasants on the other hand,
are initially the most militant element of the peasantry and they can be a
powerful ally of the proletarian movement in generating the initial impetus of
the peasant revolution.52

On the basis of his study of Kerala, Robin Jeffry suggests that it is the
middle peasants who are most likely initially to become active participants in
such a movement, though poor peasants may be involved later in villages
where the movement acquires a firm hold.53 It can be found that most of the
leaders of Kisan sabha in Kerala belong to middle peasant category.

But D.N. Dhanagare challenges the argument of Alavi and says that
middle peasants are weaker than other agrarian classes. Their landed interests
are more heterogeneous than those of rich and poor peasants. Besides
historically speaking middle peasants have always been a transitional and
fluid social category.54 According to Aravind Das there was no significant
difference between the middle peasants and the rich peasant in India.55

But according to Jacques Pouchepadass, the main leaders of


Champaran Satyagraha belonged to middle or rich peasants.56 A study on the
Eka movement in UP by Siddiqui also suggests that the rich peasants played a
predominant role in the revolt.57 According to Stephen Henningham six major
peasant movements were developed in North Bihar between 1917-1962, under
142 Chapter III

the direction of rich peasants and small holders.58 After analyzing various
peasant movements in India, Sunil Sen argues that the rich peasants played a
leading role in the abolition of feudal system or they were interested in
improving farming and selling foodgrain and cash crops in the market.59

But according to Kathlin Gough poor peasants and agricultural


labourers have the potential for organizing revolutionary movements in
India.60 Dhanagar also takes the same position. Robert Hard Grave in his study
on the Moplah Rebellion of 1921, shows that the poorest tenant cultivators of
Kerala were more militant than the middle and rich peasant owner
cultivators.61 T.K. Ommen also observes that peasant mobilization in Malabar
was first identified among Verumpattomdas who can be described as small
peasants, and only at the second stage the Kanmodars who may well be called
middle peasants enter the struggle. He further asserts that in independent India
the poor peasants and agricultural labourers play a leading role in peasant
movements.62

As a conclusion it must be said that much depends upon the


circumstances which produce a particular peasant movement. Every peasant
movement is composed of different classes of peasants. A number of peasant
movements in India are multi-class in nature, involving rich, the middle as
well as poor peasants. T.K. Ommen argues in his study on Kerala, while there
is every possibility of the peasantry and agrarian proletariat combining their
might against the feudal or landed interest at the initial stages, once the
disabilities of the peasants are removed either through legislation or through
movements it is extremely unlikely that they continue to remain allies. In all
probability the newly prosperous owners or cultivators may come to view the
Farmers Movements In India 143

agrarian proletariat as their enemies, if the latter make organized efforts to


demand better working conditions.

According to Kapil Kumar there would be different sources of peasant


mobilization and political action. As a section of the peasantry succeeds in
meeting its own demands, it is possible that it either withdraws from the
agitation or curbs the agitation of those who are poorer than them. During the
pre-independence period, the tenants or middle peasants joined various
struggles, but they withdrew as soon as the tenants got occupancy rights or
rich and middle peasants improved their conditions. In several cases rich
peasants or zamindars succeeded in seeking the support of poor peasants and
labourers to meet their own class interests. The story of Telegana movement,
the Land grab movement and the Bhoomi Sena movement reveal the fact that
the better off strata acquired land as a result of the movement and then
withdrew from the struggle. Recent studies on the Naxalite movement also tell
the same tale.63

Another fact relating to the participation of peasant movement is


that leftist parties and groups have formed an alliance between peasants and
industrial workers in the agrarian movement. It is a fact that the urban
industrial trade union workers in some parts of Kerala have extended their
support to agricultural labourers in their struggle. The studies on Telengana
and Naxalite movement also depict the attempts at forming alliances
between the industrial workers and agricultural labourers. But the alliances
do not last long.

The role of women in peasant movements has been minimised by


male scholars. Regarding women’s participation in the Telengana struggle,
P. Sundarraya one of the leaders of the movement noted: “the story of their
144 Chapter III

heroic and stubborn resistance in defending their personal dignity against


molestation, torture and rape was an inspiring one. Their awakening to new
social equality, to a moral and cultural life, their stubborn fighting quality,
gave a glimpse of that tremendous revolutionary spirit and energy,
smouldering in our economically and socially oppressed womenfolk.64 In
this context K.P. Kannan points out the women participation at the
organizational leadership and decision making was constrained by an
implicit and traditional view of their limitation.65

3.4.3.2.3 Leadership

In peasant movements leadership is very much crucial and leaders are


responsible for translating objective causes into subjective consciousness and
also for mobilizing peasants. It is the contention of some scholars that the
peasants by themselves cannot lead any revolutionary movement. According
to Kapil Kumar “peasant leadership on its own part, failed to articulate
coherently the demand for the abolition of feudalism.66 Their lack of a clear
cut ideology failed them when they needed it most in the face of crisis. The
educated intelligentsia provided leadership to most of the peasant movements
during the nationalist period. Their role was significant in the Champaran
movement. Those urban intellectuals could not create the rebellion, since
they were as unable as ever to stir up the peasants from the top. According to
Partha Chatterjee “the middle class intelligentia which had lost its ties of
material interest with the land, provided the organized cadres of the new
parties of mass mobilization.67 Their intervention provided a radical edge to
the anti-landlord demands of the mass of the tenancy, but it continued to
display an ambivalent attitude towards the progressive historical potentiality
of the new contradictions. The urban leadership really exploited peasant
Farmers Movements In India 145

discontent to further its own political and party ends. The leadership of
Naxalite movement rested with the youth who belonged to the urban
educated middle class. Partha Chatterjee was of opinion that the urban
leadership which was cloaked in a more sophisticated ideology claimed
superior knowledge and status with regard to the manner in which the
movement should be conducted.68 They would insist that the others follow
the direction they gave and assured that the predicted outcome would ensue.

Religious leaders too played a key role in a number of peasant


uprisings. According to Banerjee and Kapil Kumar, babas, Fakirs and
Sadhus played the role of militant rural intelligentsia in peasant
movements.69 Banerjee calls some of the movements as sannyasi peasant
movements. They had mobility, were full timers and unlike the urban leaders
they did not indulge in sophisticated category or complicated double faced
political propaganda for the purpose of mobilization.

3.4.3.2.4 Organization

Majority of the studies on the peasant upsurge ignore the


organizational aspects of the movements; the organization which formulates
programmes and take decisions, brings about the effective coordination
between the units. Most of the studies give an impression that the farmers
movements were spontaneous and did not have any organized structure.
Even though this statement is true, in such revolts, an informal organizational
structure, is essentially required to be formed for mobilizing the peasants,
communicating messages and planning strategies and programmes. Till
today different political parties have been mobilizing the farmers and
launching their struggle. In order to have a mass based party the Congress
started involving peasants in nationalist movements from the early 1920’s.
146 Chapter III

The Congress mobilized the peasants and linked some localized peasant
movements. However the Congress discouraged any movement which
sharpened the conflict between landlords and tenants. The reason was that it
was the aim of Congress to form an alliance of all classes of rural society for
the purpose of conducting a united struggle to achieve Swarajya. The
Congress did not allow the poor peasants to participate in direct action
beyond a point so that they remained under the control of rich and middle
peasants.

Hanningham finds that the Bihar Congress managed to keep the


nationalist struggle distinct from agrarian conflicts and to discourage
agrarian reform movements.70 The Congress did not support Swami
Vidyaand when he led the movement against Darbhanga Raj. The leaders of
the Congress were of the opinion that the sectional struggles led by tenants
and peasants against landlords were hindering the larger struggle which
called for national unity. The Congress which was responsible for mobilizing
peasants in mass movements was equally responsible for holding them
down. T.K. Ommen observes that the strategy of class collaboration was a
natural corollary and a logical necessity of a peasant movement which
operated within the orbit of nationalist liberation movement.71

The role of leftist parties in farmers movement is significant. The


Telengana movement, the Tebhaga movement, the Naxalite movement, land
grab movement and the agricultural struggle in Kerala reveal the
predominant role of leftist parties in the mobilization of the peasants. The
Telengana movement became extensive and continued for a long time
because of the political intervention of the leftist parties.
Farmers Movements In India 147

At the same time, many studies point out that like the Congress, the
leftist parties also obstructed peasant struggles in many parts of the country.
It is a proved fact that though the left parties organized agricultural labourers,
they did not pay much attention to these for strategic reasons. According to
them agricultural labourers do not have the potential to lead the revolutionary
movement.72 As a result, the non-party groups organized agricultural
labourers in different parts of the country and launched their struggles though
these struggles remained localized and led to limited gains.

3.4.3.2.5 Role of Caste and Religion

Many peasantologists are of opinion that traditional socio-religious


institutions and rituals – bhajans, kathas, folk dance, and dramas were used
in various peasant movements during the colonial period as also in the post
independence period, for arousing consciousness and articulating grievances
against an authority or when there was a crisis of relations.73 The role of
religion and caste in peasant movements is a much debated issue. As per the
observations of Barrington Moore the caste system and Hindu religion
obstructed peasant movements in India.74 K.E. Sarkar is of opinion that there
was lack of unity among the peasants because of the rigid caste structure.75
The land grab movement received an immature death because of caste and
communal factors.

But there are a number of evidences which emphasise the positive


role of caste and religion in peasant movements. In the Kheda and Bardoli
satyagraha caste organizations were used to invoke unity within and among
the various castes. Ghanshyam Shah observes, that in a nutshell the language
of both the direct and indirect communication media during Bardoli
satyagraha political movement was highly indigenous and full of familiar
148 Chapter III

references.76 Political issues were conveyed to the people through social and
religious symbols which appealed to the tradition-bound masses. Siddiqui
also finds that “the existence of caste helped the peasant movement to
proceed with greater cohesion and speed and that the supposed
irreconcilability between caste and class did not exist in the rural society of
Oudh.77 Ramayana was used by peasant leaders for drawing on religious
symbols for the mobilization of the masses.

According to Henningham pouchespadass, Dhanagare and


Hardgrave, the role of caste and religion should be seen as a double edged
weapon.78 They could maintain the status quo and they could as well be the
agents of change, depending upon how they were used. Another group of
peasantoligists point out that peasants became united as tenants or poor
peasants or agricultural labourers irrespective of their caste and religion.
According to L. Natrajan “Hindu and Muslim tenants stood together
shoulder to shoulder against the planter’s oppression in the 1860s Indigo
cultivators strike in Bihar.79

Sukhbir Chaudhary holds that caste differences faded into the


background when the movement developed in Oudh in the 1920s.80 Barry
Pavir observes regarding Telengana Movement “there is no evidence from
any source whatsoever that caste played any role at all in the movement.81
While researching about the agricultural insurgencies Swasti Mitter observes
that the tenants and Jatedars belonging to the same caste fought against each
other on economic issues.82 As a conclusion it is to be stated that at some
places caste hindered and elsewhere it accelerated the process of
mobilization.
Farmers Movements In India 149

3.4.3.2.6 Political Consciousness of Farmers Movement

It is important to study the level and extent of the political


consciousness of these farmers movements. Majority of peasant struggles
had no political consciousness of their own. The political consciousness
among the peasants was developed by political parties and public leaders.
Political consciousness is believed to be primarily a function of stimulus and
response to the elite and outside forces. Partha Chatterjee argues that the
peasants have specific subjectivity in the political process which bring about
change.83

This subjectivity must be restored to the peasantry, to look at its


political actions, not as primordial pre-political, irrational and hence
inherently inexplicable spontaneous acts but as actions informed by its own
consciousness, shaped by centuries of its own political history structured by
distinct conception of power and morality, and attempting to come to terms
with and act within wholly new contexts of class struggle. It is an approach
such as this which will give more reliable clues to an understanding of both
the strengths and weakness of peasant resistance in the context of modern
politics. It also helps to understand about the opportunities for mobilization
of peasantry or section of peasantry by other classes or groups in a historical
context.

3.4.3.2.7 Gandhiji the Father of Farmers Movement in India

In 1917, Gandhiji embarked upon the mobilization of riots in


champaran. He made direct contact with peasants. The essence of Gandhian
ideology is summarised in the following words by P.C. Joshi, “it can be said
that the nationalist ideology was not merely a means of detaching the peasant
from colonial ideology.84 It also represented a greater approximation to truths
150 Chapter III

about social reality than the colonial ideology. And within the nationalist
ideology the radical nationalist or the Marxist ideology was not merely a
means of detaching the peasants from the conservative nationalist ideology.
It should be noted that the radical nationalist ideology derived its initial
stimulus from a blending of radical liberal thought and classical Marxism.
Indian Marxist ideology was based on an adaptation of classical Marxism to
Indian conditions. Neither the radical nationalist nor the Marxist ideology,
however, could make a fullfledged transition from an intuitive to an
innovative phase.

As a result, their groupings of the specificities of the Indian society


and its dynamics remained inadequate from the point of view of an analysis
of peasant questions. The Gandhian ideology however raised all the basic
problems of the Indian peasant and the answers were provided to them.

Gandhiji initiated a three fold transition in Indian life. The transition


which he envisaged was as follows “from partial to total confrontation with
imperialism, from urban to rural orientation of Indian politics and from main
preoccupation with the interests of the upper classes of the town and the
village to encompassing the interests of the masses in the course of political
mobilization.85 The earnest effort of Gandhiji to enter into the vital problems
of India, with a view to reaching somewhere made him realize that the rural
problem is at the root of the matter. And he also identified the local peasantry
as the most important part of the society to be tackled with a long range
policy. According to him, the following are the basic issues of Indian polity.
Farmers Movements In India 151

(a) The village is the backbone of Indian society.

(b) The rural-urban cleavage in the context of foreign rule and the
critique of conception treating the rural economy as a hinterland of
urban areas.

(c) The need for a new type of town-village interdependence.

(d) A synthetic view of rural economic backwardness and the need for
innovation for rural uplift.

(e) The emphasis on the human factor and manpower mobilization for
development.

The grassroots remaining restless in the local areas struck the


attention of Gandhiji who had returned to India from South Africa in 1915.
He was able to recognize the discontentment in different sectors of the Indian
society. He had already developed a unique technique of agitation,
satyagraha. He arrived in India when Home Rule Movement was in full
swing. It is in such a historical situation that he could identify the peasantry
in the country. His early encounter with the peasantry is described by
Ravindra Kumar as follows: “The manner in which an obscure peasant from
Champaran chased Gandhiji for a full year before he persuaded him to visit a
district that had been repeatedly erupting into violence is well known to
students of Modern Indian Society”.86 The peasants of Champaran and
workers of Ahmedabad had reacted in different ways during the period of
Home Rule Movement. Gandhiji was learning the situation in India with his
experience in South Africa. There was a ferment in the country and Gandhiji
was able to have his first glimpse of this ferment. The light which dawned on
Gandhiji is described by K. Kumar as follows: “It soon dawned upon Gandhi
152 Chapter III

who had led small-scale movements among the peasants of Kheda and
Champaran and the workers of Ahmedabad with a substantial measure of
success, that the true task confronting nationalism was the fusion of two
distinct political streams; one consisting of the middle classes and the petty
bourgeoisie, and the other drawn from the working classes and the
peasantry.”87 At the very moment Gandhiji recognized the restlessness of the
workers and the peasants he also sensed the social linkages, – the bonds
between the lawyer and his rural clientele or the ties between the sower and
the cultivators or the urban networks of the cultivating class which had
commenced reaching out to the professions. Here lay the raw materials for
mounting a powerful populist movement against the British raj. This task
posed the kind of challenge which brought about a flowering of Gandhiji’s
political genius. Gandhiji had a sensitive appreciation of the unrest that was
affecting the working classes and peasantry. Gandhiji was able to stir the
peasantry and also to organize them against the alien rule; the rural protest
which took shape in the country had to undergo a process of eminent
transformation. Rural protest is the resistance which the peasants offer to the
expropriation of their surplus by their social superiors. The triumph of
Gandhiji lies in the fact he was able to develop into the full significance of
the role of the peasantry more than any other leader in the country. His
immediate objective was the independence of the country, and he found the
strength of peasantry in the fulfillment of the goal before him. Understanding
the importance of peasants in the country, he said that the soul of India lies in
villages and the independence of India would be a dream without the active
involvement of peasants. The Champaran Movement (1917), The Kheda
Satyagraha (1918), Ahmedabad Mill Workers Strike (1918) are the chief
landmarks in Gandhiji’s preparation for a massive but non-violent anti-
Farmers Movements In India 153

imperialist struggle through the length and breadth of the country. The most
important feature of these movements is that these are all connected with
agricultural sector and thereby with peasants. So to a certain extent in the
heart of hearts, Gandhiji was also a peasant leader, not only a nationalist
leader. Nationalist Gandhi was nothing but an evolution of peasant Gandhi.
So it may be said that Gandhiji is the father of peasant movement in India.
The most important point to be noted is that Gandhiji did not completely
alienate the poor sections of the peasantry and the landless.

3.5 Constraints in developing Peasant Organizations

3.5.1 Economic dependence and backwardness

The economic dependence of poor on elite is a major constraint in


developing peasant organizations. The social backwardness also serves as a
constraint to peasant consciousness. This can be removed by the practice of
generating employment.

3.5.2 Ecological Factors

Ecology of agriculture is another factor which acts as an obstacle in


the way of peasant movement. Peasants usually have little or no opportunity
of working together. Only if they work together can they share ideas. But in
industry there is the possibility of joint work or group activity.

3.5.3 Class Heterogeneity and Caste Division

Majority of peasants are extremely heterogeneous in its class and


caste composition which introduces another hurdle in organizing them into
an association. Some have landed property and others do not. Caste is
another divisive influence. There are emotional barriers between the high
154 Chapter III

caste and outcaste. To bring them together within a single organization will
require a high degree of politicization.

3.5.4 Lack of Leadership

Lack of efficient leadership among farmers is another important


problem. Leadership is required to promote consciousness for group action
among peasants to protect their rights and improve their bargaining power
and to help them to organize. Leadership is required to manage the day to
day affairs of the organization. Leadership is badly needed to provide
support in facing upto the elites in the event of a conflict with the rural elites.

3.6 Important Peasant Movements of the World

3.6.1 La Via Campesina

La Via Campesina is a Spanish word which means the ‘peasant way’.


It is an international movement which coordinates peasant organizations of
small and middle scale producers, agricultural workers, rural women and
indigenous communities from Asia, Africa, America and Europe. It is this
group that first coined the term “food sovereignty”.88 The organization was
founded in 1992 by farmers organization from Europe and Latin America
and it had its original headquarters in Belgium. The headquarter office of Via
Campesina is now in Jakarta, Indonesia.

3.6.2 Movement of National Liberation (MNL)

It is a Mexican Peasant Movement which is composed of numerous


socialist, Marxist and peasant activist groups. This was founded by Lazaro
Cardenus. Municipal autonomy for union and peasant organizations is the
most important aim of the movement.
Farmers Movements In India 155

3.6.3 National Peasant Federation (NPF)

It was founded under President Lazaro Cardeneus to support interests


of the peasants. NPF is Mexico’s largest peasant union.

3.6.4 Peasant Guerilla - Mexico

This is another important International Peasant Movement which has


its roots in Mexico. This was founded by Emiliano Zapata.

3.6.5 Peasant Federation - Peru

This is another important peasant movement of Peru. This is founded


by Hugo Bolasco.

3.6.6 Peasant Union Movement - Japan

This is the most powerful and influential peasant movement in Japan.


This peasant movement is now functioning in different parts of Japan.

3.6.7 Indonesian Peasant Front

Indonesia is blessed with a powerful peasant movement by the name


Indonesian Peasant Front

3.6.8 Huk Movement

This was founded by Luis Tarau. This is the most powerful peasant
movement in Philippines. It is mainly composed of peasants drawn largely
from tenant organizations.

3.6.9 Peasant Gurilla

It was Zapata who led the peasants of Southern Mexico in the


Mexican Revolution. The slogan raised by Zapata was that “Land and
156 Chapter III

Liberty”. He wanted the land that the huge lacienda owners had snatched
from the peasants to be restored to them.

3.7 Important Peasant Movements of India

Attempts have been made by some scholars to provide an all India


picture of peasant movements. Kathelen Gough, Sunil Sen, A.R. Desai, D.N.
Dhanagar are the important peasantologists who have studied important
peasant uprisings in India. The following are the important peasant
movements in India-Indigo moment in Bengal and Bihar, Moplath rebellion
in Malabar, Kerala, the Tebhage movement in Bengal, the Telegana
movement in Andhra Pradesh and the Naxalite movement in West Bengal,
Bihar and Andhra Pradesh.

3.7.1 The Tebhaga Movement (1946-47)

It is one of the most important peasant uprisings which arose in India


in midforties immediately after II World War. The movement arose in North
Bengal and included the districts of Dinajpur and Ranypur in East Bengal.
The movement was for the reduction in the share of the produce from one
half to one third, that is the rent, which they used to pay to the jotedars who
possessed superior rights on land.89 It was revolutionary in character in terms
of the demands raised and was consciously organized by the Kisan Sabha. So
it was a departure from the pattern of the movements noticed in the country
under the leadership of the Congress influenced by the Gandhian ideology.

In Bengal where the revolt took place, the permanent settlement was
introduced in 1793 and this had inaugurated a new arrangement in the pattern
of landholding in the region. Between the Zamindars and direct peasant
producers, there came into being a number of intermediaries such as jotedars.
Farmers Movements In India 157

These jotedars inturn used to sublet their land to the bargardars or share
croppers who cultivated the land and they used to pay a part (one half) of the
produce known as adhiorbhag to the jotedars. The jotedars were not the only
exploiters in the rural economy but there also existed the Mahajans or money
lenders who used to provide credit to the Bargadars. Thus the exploitation of
the Bargadars by the jotedars and the Mahajans was complete.

Though the Bargadars constituted around one fifth and quarter of the
small population, the movement encompassed the entire rural population.
The condition of rural peasants became very much pathetic with the Bengal
Famine of 1943, and it is estimated that 3.5 million peasants perished in the
Great Bengal Famine. The Tebhaga movement began as a movement of the
middle peasants on their own behalf but later on drew on the share
croppers.90 The movement which started in 1946 gathered momentum in the
years since 1945. In 1946 Communist Party provided open support to the
movement and as a result it took a revolutionary turn. The main struggles
were fought during the time of the harvest season when the share croppers
refused to provide the amount of paddy to the jotedars. But the jotedars in
turn got the support of police, the Congress and the Muslim league and
finally the jotedars were successful in suppressing the movement. The
movement eventually collapsed and was officially called off in the summer
of 1947. Though the movement failed, it had important implications for the
entire history of agrarian struggle in India. This movement gave strength and
inspiration for the succeeding peasant uprisings in India and so it can be
called as the ‘Mother of Peasant Movements in India’.
158 Chapter III

3.7.2 The Telengana Peasant Movement

The Telengana Peasant Movement started in mid 1946 and continued


till the October 1951. The movement engulfed the whole of the Telengana
region of Hyderabad state and the adjoining districts of Andhra Pradesh. It
has been regarded as the most revolutionary of all the movements in India; in
its character and political objectives. The Kisan Sabha, the peasant wing of
CPI launched the movement.91

The movement began in Nalgonda in 1946 and then spread to the


neighbouring Warangal and Bidar districts and finally engulfed the whole
of the Telengana region. The objective of the movement was a broad one
and was concerned with the whole of the peasantry against illegal and
excessive extraction by the rural feudal aristocracy. The most powerful
demand was that all peasant debt should be written off. The second stage of
the movement began when inorder to counter the oppression let loose by
the aristocracy, the peasantry launched the armed struggle. Thus the
movement entered into its revolutionary phase. At this stage, 2000 villages
set up their own people committees. These committees took over land,
maintained their own army and administration. The rule of the peasants in a
large part of the region and the armed resistance continued until 1950 and
was finally crushed by the Indian army. It was an agrarian struggle in
which many peasants were killed by the army of the landed gentry. The
demands raised were broad ones and the nature of the struggle itself makes
this movement one of the most revolutionary agrarian struggles of India
unmatched so far in the Indian history.
Farmers Movements In India 159

3.7.3 The Naxalbari Peasant Uprising

The Naxalbari peasant uprising that occurred in the northern part of


West Bengal is another important peasant movement that India has
witnessed. It took place in the post-colonial India and was led by a faction of
the CPI (M). The two most prominent leaders of the CPI (M) who disagreed
with the official position of the party and led the movement were Kanu
Sanyal and Charu Mazumdar. It is in Naxalbari, Kharibari and Phansidewa,
the three police station areas where the movement took a militant turn. The
region is different from that of the whole of West Bengal because within it,
there exists numerous tea plantations, and a large proportion of tribal
population. Tea plantations have developed along the lines of plantation
economy whereas the tribal population in this region include the Santhals,
Rajbansis, Oraons, Mundas and small number of Terrai Gurkhas.92 It is
because of these two factors that the whole region has a history of land
disputes in West Bengal. The landless peasants in this region had since long
claimed that their land were being encroached by the tea estate holders and
also by rich peasants. Thus it is because of this peculiarity that the Naxalbari
area witnessed a number of peasant disputes led mainly by an indigenous
peasant leadership and not by the outside middle class leaders.

The agrarian uprising was launched in the month of April 1967 after
the formation of the new Government in West Bengal in which the CPI (M)
was a major partner.93

The high point of the movement was reached in the month of May.
Forcible occupation of land by the peasants took place and according to
government sources there were around 60 cases of forcible occupation, looting
of rice and paddy and intimidation and assaults.94 The leaders of the
160 Chapter III

movement claimed that 90% of peasants of siliguri subdivision supported the


movement. The uprising came to a halt, when, under central government
pressure, the West Bengal police entered the region and swept the area. Cases
of killings of landlords were carried on later as a part of the annihilation
strategy. The movement spread to other areas of the state and elsewhere in
Bihar and Andhra, later in the form of Naxalite movement. The Naxalbari
peasant uprising had far reaching consequences in independent India.

3.8 New Farmers Movement in India

The following are the two prominent movements of the rural rich in
contemporary India.

3.8.1 Shetkari Sangathan (S.S)

Sharad Joshi is the founder of this movement in Maharashtra.


‘Shetkar’ as a term means ‘those who work on land, owner or non-owner’.
The S.S in Maharashtra launched its first agitation in 1979-80. The
increasing agricultural productivity and at the same time declining prices of
crops were adversely affecting the fortunes of all classes of farmers.

The farmers responded to the organization’s call for Raasta Roko in


Nasik region for getting remunerative prices during September, November
1980. Shetkari Sangathan launched its agitation against government’s milk
pricing policy because the primary producers of milk were being denied
remunerative prices for milk that they supplied to the dairies. The demand
for remunerative price for cotton was taken up by the organization in 1985-
86. Thus it may be said that the organization started its activities by
protesting against fall in onion prices. Later on it acted on behalf of sugar
cane cultivators, tobacco cultivators, cotton growers and milk producers. But
Farmers Movements In India 161

in all cases it gave paramount importance to the issue of remunerative prices


which it thought would revolutionize the rural sector. Shetkari Sangathan
never became an on-going movement. It became active only in critical times.
Many a time it had to withdraw its agitation either due to state repression or
other reasons. Thus at a later stage it shifted its tactics from confrontation to
negotiation and compromise with the state authorities. The Shetkari
Sangathan and Sharad Joshi rose to national prominence with the rasta roko
(block roads) agitation in 1980 when thousands of farmers in the state of
Maharashtra blocked important roads connecting Bombay and other cities
and the most important issue which Shetkari Sangathan raised was the issue
of low prices of sugar cane and cotton and demanded that the prices of these
products be raised.

In early 1980’s Joshi entered the Gujarat scene. His novel


contribution in Gujarat lay in his emphasis on the fact that the farmers
movement would not succeed unless and until the agricultural labourers and
poor peasants associated closely with the movement. With this emphasis he
was able to attract the rural poor into the fold of the farmers movement
(Khedat Movement).

Shetkari Sangathan has introduced a division between ‘India’ and


‘Bharat’. According to Joshi India stands for the urban rich people while
‘Bharat’ stands for the rural poor farmers. So he naturally preferred the term
‘Bharat’.

The Shetkari Sangathan movement was the movement of rich


farmers, though it voices for the demands and interests of the rural poor also.
Another crucial point regarding Shetkari Sangathan is that the movement
aims at reducing the role of the state; the state is considered as the greatest
162 Chapter III

enemy of farmers. It is because of this position, that it has embraced


liberalization, open market and even the Dunkel draft partially.

Sharad Joshi is also a founder of the largest organization of rural


women Shetkari Mahila Aghadi (SMA) famous for its work for women’s
property rights notably for the Lakshmi Mukti programme that has conferred
land titles on lakhs of rural housewives.

Shetkari Sangathan advocated special economic zones for the farm


sector, Sezs in areas of Indian comparative advantage, notably organic
farming, aromatic and medicinal plants. Joshi also voiced his opinion on the
need to establish credible certifying agencies for organic farm products and
also suggested exclusive zones for growing a variety of onion popular in the
western countries. Thus the domestic market could be insulated from the
international market and shortages could be averted even while earning
foreign exchange.

3.8.2 Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU)

Bhartiya Kisan Union which came into existence in 1980 launched its
first struggle in Maharashtra. It is mainly active in Punjab and WesternUP.
Mahendra Singh Tikait took over as the chief of Bhartiya Kisan Union in
1986. In 1987 BKU emerged as a spontaneous movement against increase in
electricity tariffs imposed by the government. The movement took up
peaceful method of satyagraha against the state policy. Tikait tried to win
over the farmers in Western UP especially those from Jat and Rajput
communities. It became equally popular among Hindus and Muslims. The
farmers rallied behind Tikait and withheld payment of electricity bills for
seven years. Agitations were led against the state. Thus the new exploiter
Farmers Movements In India 163

now was the state and not the landlord. Its agitation was against state policies
and mainly centered around economic issues.95

The organization has its own constitution, symbol, flag and also
fullfledged offices in different areas including Delhi. It fought for ending
zonal restrictions on movement of food grains, lowering electricity rates,
writing off government levies payable by farmers of Punjab for using canal
water. In most of the cases government made concessions. It also aims at
familiarizing farmers with latest farming techniques, equipments, methods,
tries to get adequate compensation from government incase of natural
disaster, inspires farmers to start small scale agro industries and asks the
government to take up the responsibility for selling the produces. It appeals
to farmers to keep away from communal riots and tries to inculcate
brotherhood among them.

From the very beginning Bhartiya Kisan Union took a conscious


decision to keep away from party politics, did not align itself with any
political party as it would negatively affect farmers unity. Thus Bhartiya
Kisan Union is an apoliticised, secular, non-violent organization. Traditional
leftist mobilization patterns do not appeal to them. They lay emphasis on
homogeneity and multi class mobilization. They resist merging with any
political party. Working outside the party formations they are more like
pressure groups working for the benefit of their members.

3.8.3 Tamil Nadu Vivasavingal Sangam (TNVS)

It first became active in the Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu in


1966. It’s main demands were development of rural infrastructure and
services, minimum wage for men and women. But the mass agitation of
farmers first took place in 1973 under its leader Narayana Swami Naidu.
164 Chapter III

They challenged the agricultural policies of the state government and


demanded reduction of electricity tariffs, timely remission of all types of
agricultural loans, extension of credit facilities and remunerative prices for
crops produced.

3.8.4 Karnataka Rajya Ryathu Sangh (KRRS)

The hike in the prices of fertilizers and other inputs and the growing
discrimination of state towards farmers led to widespread discontent among
the farmers of Karnataka. It was at this time that Karnataka Rajya Ryathu
Sangh, a non-political organization emerged in different parts of Karnataka
in 1980. It took up ‘Rasta Roko’ agitation in 1980 and raised demands for
subsidized inputs, remunerative prices and exemption from land revenue. It
believed in class conciliation instead of confrontation and its ideal was social
welfare. Nanjunda Swamy was the most important person connected with the
origin and development of Karnataka Rajya Ryathu Sangh. They are in the
forefront of fighting against the multinational companies like Monsonto
company which try to sell monopoly seeds.

3.9 Party Affiliated Peasant Organizations

Majority of the political parties of India have got their own peasant
wings. Some peasant organization are active while others are not so.

3.9.1 Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS)

It is an Indian farmers representative organization affiliated with the


B.J.P. It is one of the well known sangh parivar organizations. The BKS was
established by Dattonpantgi Thengadi on March 4, 1979 at Kota in Rajastan.
It has units in all states of India with nearly five lakhs of members by 2009.
Farmers Movements In India 165

The stated aims and objectives of the organization are to unite and
organize the peasantry for the betterment of their financial, social, cultural,
educational conditions and cottage industrial activity by making available
stable avenues of livelihood and survival, to make available information and
other related literature in respect of new innovation improvements, etc. The
organization also emphasises the importance and suitability of age old
agricultural techniques and appeals to farmers to combine the same with
modern inventions so as to have ecological security of fertile soil, adequate
water, seeds cattle, plants and biodiversity.

3.9.2 All India Kisan Sabha

The All India Kisan Sabha was the name of the peasant front of the
undivided communist party of India. It was formed by Swami Sahajanad
Saraswathi in 1936, and it later split into two organizations by the same
name.

The Kisan Sabha Movement was started in Bihar in 1936 under the
leadership of Swami Sahajanad Saraswathi who had formed the Bihar
Provincial Kisan Sabha (BPKS) to mobilize peasant grievances against the
zamindari attacks on their occupancy rights.

Gradually the peasant movement got intensified and it spread across


the rest of India. The formation of the Congress Socialist Party in 1934,
helped the communists to work together with the Indian National Congress.
In April 1935, noted peasant leaders N.G. Renga and EMS Namboodiripadu
suggested the formation of an all India farmers body. All these culminated in
the formation of All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) at the Lucknow session of
Indian National Congress on April 11, 1936 and Swami Suhaganad
Saraswathi was elected its first President. The Kisan Manifesto released in
166 Chapter III

August 1936, demanded abolition of zamindari system and cancellation of


rural debts. Soon its leaders became increasingly discontent with the
Congress and repeatedly came in confrontation with Congress government.

In the subsequent years, the movement was increasingly dominated


by socialists and communists and it moved away from Congress. By 1938 at
Haripura session of the Congress, under the presidentialship of Nethaji
Subash Chandra Bose the rift became evident and by May 1942, the
Communist party of India which was finally legalized by the then
government in July 1942, had taken over AIKS all across India. It took on
the Communist party’s line of people’s war and stayed away from the Quit
India Movement which started in August 1942, though this also meant it was
losing its popular base. But many of its members defied party orders and
joined the movement and prominent members like N.G. Ranga, Indulal
Yagnik and Swami Sahajananda soon left the organization. The Communist
Party of India (CPI) split into two in 1964, and the AIKS also was split into
two factions each affiliated to one of the Communist parties.

The farmers movements have been able to create massive


mobilization in India. It is to be specially stated here that farmers movements
have today become the spokesmen for an alternative economic development
strategy in which capitalism or market relations as such are not questioned.
This new approach gives emphasis to agriculture and the rural economy. The
message is that if more surpluses are left in the rural areas and with rural
households, they will be invested in agriculture and industry creating
employment and development for all. There is another interpretation that can
be made of the significance of the farmers movement. Recent theories of
institutional economics have started to stress the role of agriculture in
Farmers Movements In India 167

capitalist economic development. The conventional view that agriculture


should produce cheap food, raw materials and feed urban areas with cheap
labour, earn foreign exchange and be relegated to a dwindling role in the
overall economy is being challenged in a major way. Development of
agriculture in itself may play a crucial role. This view has been very much
stressed by ILO policy makers also.96

In recent years the most important institutional change has been the
mobilization and organization of the farmers from the bottom level. The
removal of the landlords had left a lacuna with regard to land management
and rural credit. If this problem had not been resolved, the land reforms
would not have been successful. A farmer’s movement is an independent
financial association with local management which organizes credit and
marketing and helps with the introduction of new technology. Through land
reforms and its accompanying institutional reforms, the marginal cost of land
has been reduced, and it has facilitated investment in new technology.

Dynamic development of agriculture needs strong organization,


cooperative institutions, and other actors. The most important part of that
process is the organization of farmers movement which addresses
developmental issues, pressing for more efficient administration, credit,
infrastructure and diffusion of knowledge.

With the introduction of New Economic Policy since the 1990’s the
entire world has become a village. As a result, the relevance of the state has
been diminished considerably. Upto the advent of globalization the state had
acted as the redeemer and protector of agriculture and thereby the farmers
too. The farmers need an agency which stand in favour of farmers. Here lies
the relevance and importance of farmers movement during the post-reform
168 Chapter III

period. To a certain extent the vacuum created by globalization has been


filled by the so called farmers movement.97

The farmers movement on its own potentially represents a very


powerful collective identity and its actions are bound to reduce the intensity
of communal mobilization in contemporary India.

Again, the farmers movement can be seen potentially both as a


promoter of a rural bias in development and at the same time as a hindrance
to an efficient implementation of agricultural development policies. The
farmers movement must take the right step from agitation to a more positive
type of action. It must push forth the reforms in economic, social and cultural
fields.98

To conclude India has witnessed many farmers movements as well as


pro-poor legislation over the years and yet the results they reaped had only
partial impact on improving of conditions of the farmers. This is because
Indian farmers do not present a united front and they are differentiated by
class, caste, religion, language as well as regional feelings. It is a fact that
even now caste and communal feelings permeate their consciousness in a
powerful manner. If in Bihar the struggle is for minimum wages,
implementation of land ceiling laws, in Gujarat the struggle is against high
power tariff levied by State Electricity Board. If the Maoists and people’s
war group punish class enemies directly farmer leaders like Charan Singh,
Tikait, Sarad Joshi, Nanjunda Swamy prefer action against state
functionaries for protecting their interest. Farmers and farmers movement in
India are not docile, but fragmentation has made them and their movements
weak and dependent on other forces. Farmers movements differ in terms of
locality, issues raised and composition of peasantry. During the colonial
Farmers Movements In India 169

period and later there were dominant caste groups in many parts of rural
India. Some of these dominant castes were Jats, Rajputs and Gujars in North
India, patidars, Rajputs and Kanbis in Western India, Naidus and Vellalas in
South India. In many of the peasant movements leadership was provided by
the dominant castes. Mobilization of peasants in rural areas cannot ignore
castes. It seems that during the independence struggle, the nationalist leaders
effectively mobilized the dominant peasant caste in their ‘no tax campaign’
as a part of their strategy of enlisting the support of these peasants for the
nationalist cause. In many peasant movements including the Champaran
movement, movements among tribals such as amongst the Warlis and
Gandim Rampa and farmers movement organized by the Communists,
leadership was provided by upper caste or elite class elements. Marxist
literature has largely contributed to the debate regarding peasant
consciousness According to it consciousness is not something, temporary or
transient. It is a historical consciousness generated by long-term class
exploitation of peasantry.
170 Chapter III

End Notes

1. Peter Evans, Looking for Agents of Ur an Livability in a Globalized Political


Economy, University of California Press, 2002, P.95.

2. Raka Ray and Mary Jainsod Katzer Stein, Social Movements in India,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2009, P.96.

3. Jeff Goodwin, Op. cit., P.4.

4. Charles Tilly, Social Movement, Paradigm Publishers, London, 2005, P.21.

5. Paul Wilkenson, Social Movements, Pall Mall, London, 2007, P.5.

6. Ghanshyam Shah, Social Movements in India, Sage Publications, New


Delhi, 2004, P.20.

7. Rudolf Heberly, Social Movements, An Introduction to Political Sociology,


Appleton Century Crafts, 1951, P.47.

8. Vidha Arora, ‘Politics of Class in the Farmers Movement in India’s Validity of


the New Social Movement’, Sociological Bulletin, 50(1), March 2001, P.85.

9. Ibid, P.86.

10. Ibid, P.87.

11. Fuentes M. and A.G. Frank, ‘Tretise on Social Movements’, World


Development, Vol. 17, No. 2, P.62.

12. Ramachandran Guha (ed), ‘New Social Movements’, Seminar No. 355, 1999,
P.41.

13. Ibid, P.137.

14. Gail Omvedt, Reinvesting a Revolution; New Social Movements and


Socialist Tradition in India, Armonk, M.E. Sharpe, 2007, P.XV.

15. A.R. Desai, Public Prolist and Parliamentary Democracy, Studies in Indian
Democracy, Allied Publication, Bombay, 1965, P.323.
Farmers Movements In India 171

16. Ibid, P.324.

17. Ibid, P.325.

18. Partha Mukharji, ‘Social Movement and Social Change; To a Conceptual


Clarification and Theoretical Framework’, Sociological Bulletin, 2004,
P.26.

19. T.K. Ommen, Charisma, Stability and Change, An Analysis of Bhoodan-


Gandhian Movement in India, Thomson Press, New Delhi, 2005, P.27.

20. Shah, Op.cit., P.30.

21. Vidha Arora, Op.cit., P.104.

22. The Times of India 26/2/1985, 26/3/1986, 26/3/1986, Decon Herald


21/12/1987.

23. Debel K. Single Roy, ‘Peasant Movement in Contemporary India’,


Economic Political Weekly, December 2005, P.565.

24. Daniel Thorner, The Agrarian Prospect in India, Oxford Press, Delhi, 2007,
P.4.

25. D.N. Dhanagare, Peasant Movement in India (1920-50), Oxford Press,


Delhi, 2001, P.28.

26. Ibid, P.29.

27. Eric Rwolf, Peasant Cliffs, NI: Pre Adice Hall, 1966, P.45.

28. Ibid, P.46.

29. Barrington Moore Jr., ‘Social origin of Dictatorship and Democracy’, ‘Lord
and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World’, Seminar Aril 1967, P.45.

30. Eric Stokes, The Peasant and the Raj, Studies in Agrarian Society and
Peasant Rebellion in Colonial India, Vikas Publication House, New Delhi,
2003, P.46.
172 Chapter III

31. Barrington Moore, Social origin of Dictatroship and Democracy, op. cit.,
P.315.

32. Kalbtus Gongh and H.P. Sharma, ‘Imperialism and Revolution in South
Asia’, Monthly Review Press, P.125.

33. A.R. Desai, Peasant Struggle in India, Oxford University Press, Delhi,
1974, P.XII.

34. A.R. Desai (ed), Peasant Struggle in India, Oxford University Press, Delhi,
1983, P.197.

35. A.R. Desai, op. cit., P.97.

36. Kathlen Gough, ‘Indian Peasant Uprising’, Economic and Political Weekly,
9(32-34) 1974, Special Number, August 1974, P.98.

37. K. P. Kannan, Off Prolitarian Struggles, Mobilization and Organization of


Rural Workers in South West India, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2003,
P.90.

38. Puspendra Surana, Social Movements and Social Structure, Manohar, Delhi,
1983, P.48.

39. Runka Roy, Social Movements in India, Oxford University Press, Delhi,
2001, P.185.

40. Staffan Lindberg, ‘New Farmers Movement in India as Structural Response


and Collective Identity Formation’, Journal of Peasant Studies 21(2),
January - March 2009, P.131.

41. Partha Chatterjee, The Colonial State and Peasant Resistance in Bengal
1920-1947, Past and Present, New Delhi, 1984, P.123.

42. Ganashyam Shah, op.cit., P.46.


Farmers Movements In India 173

43. Majid Harayat Sidiqui, Agrarian Unrest in North India, the United
Provinces, 1918-32, Comparative Studies in Society and History 28(3),
July, P.48.

44. N.G. Renga and Saraswathi Swami Sahajanand, Agrarian Revolts Edited by
A.R. Desai, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1979, P.48.

45. Ganashyam Shah, op.cit., P.49.

46. Pushpendra Surenu, op.cit., P.34.

47. Ganashyam Shah, op.cit., P.50.

48. Ibid, P.51.

49. S.B. Chandhari, Civil Revellion in the Indian Motives, 1853-1854, Calcutta,
1979, The World Press, P.21.

50. Ganashyam Shah, op. cit., P.52.

51. Barington Moor, op. cit., P.53.

52. Hamsa Alvai, Peasant and Revolution: In Imperialism and Revolution in


South Asia, Monthly, Review Press, 1973, P.333.

53. Jaffery Robin, Peasant Movements and Communist Parties in Kerala in


Peasant and Politics, St. Martin Press, New York, 1984, P.148.

54. Dhangare D.N, Peasant Movements in India, 1920-50, Oxford University


Press, Delhi, 1993, P.219.

55. Das Aravind, Agrarian Unrest and Socio Economic Change in Bihar 1900-
1930, Delhi, Manohar 1983, P.15.

56. Jacqus Pouchepadass, op.cit., P.62.

57. Siddiqui, op.cit., P.48.

58. Stephen Henning Ham, Peasant Movement in Colonial India, North Bihar
1917-42, Australian National University, Canberra, 1994, P.48.
174 Chapter III

59. Sunil Sen, Peasant Movement in India - Mid - Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries, Calcutta, 1982, P.89.

60. Kathalen Gough, op.cit., P.45.

61. Robert Hard Geave, The Mopilla Rebellion, 1921, Peasant Revolt in
Malabar, Modern Asian Studies, 1985, P.41.

62. T.K. Ommen, op.cit., P.48.

63. Kapil Kumar, Peasant in Revolt, Tenth, Landless, Congress and the Raj in
Oudto, Delhi, 1985, Manohar, P.134.

64. P. Sundarraya, Telengana People’s Struggle and its Lesson, Communist


Party of Marxist, Calcutta, 2005, P.45.

65. K.P. Kannan, op.cit., P.46.

66. Kapil Kumar, op.cit., P.47.

67. Partha Chatterjee, The Colonial State and Peasant Resistance in Bengal
1920-1947, Past and Present, op.cit., P.202.

68. Partha Chatterjee, ‘Naxalite Movement and the Peasant Revolt in North’, In
Social Movements in India, Edited by M.S.A Rao, Delhi, Manohar, 1988,
P.75.

69. Samen Banerjee, In the Wake of Naxalbari, Subarnarekka, Calcutta, 1984,


P.67.

70. Hanningham, op.cit., P.126.

71. T.K. Ommen, op.cit., P.16.

72. Ganashyam Shah, op.cit., P.69.

73. Ibid, P.70.

74. Barrington Moore, op.cit., P.79.


Farmers Movements In India 175

75. Krishna Kanta, Sarkar, Tebhaga Movement, In Peasant Struggle in India,


Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2001, P.48.

76. Ganashyam Shah, Traditional Society and Political Mobilization; The


Experience of Bardil, Satyagraha, 1920-28, Popular Prakashan, Bombay,
1974, P.104.

77. Siddiqui, op.cit., P.48.

78. Ganashyam Shah, op.cit., P.49.

79. L. Natrajan, Peasant Uprising in India, Oxford University Press, Delhi,


1953, P.48.

80. Sukhbir Chaudhary, Moplah Uprising 1921-23, Agen Prakashan, Delhi,


1979, P.121.

81. Barry Pavier, ‘The Telegana Armed Struggle’, The Economic and Political
Weekly (32-34), 1978, P.250.

82. Swasti Mitter, Peasant Movements in West Bengal, Cambridge University


of Cambridge, 1977, P.140.

83. Partha Chatterjee, op.cit., P.202.

84. P.C. Joshi, Peasant Revolt in India, Oxford Press, Delhi, 1993, P.63.

85. Ibid, P.62.

86. Ravindra Kumar, Gandhi, The Reformer, Oxford University Press, Delhi
1984, P.47.

87. Ibid, P.48.

88. Walden Bello, La Via Campesina, University Press, Manila, 2007, P.18.

89. Ibid, P.47.

90. Ranga K. Rao, ‘Peasant Movements in Telengana’, Social Movements in


India, Vol. 1, Delhi, Manohar, 1979, P.15.
176 Chapter III

91. Moitree Bhatta Chatarjee, Peasant Movement in India, Oxford University


Press, Delhi, 1983, P.430.

92. Ibid, P.4431.

93. Ibid, P.437.

94. Ibid, P.438.

95. Vidha Arora, ‘Politics of Class in the Farmers Movement in India, Validity
of the New Social Movement, paradigm’, Sociological Bulletin, 50(1),
March 2001, P.42.

96. Moitree Bhalla Charya, op.cit., P.437.

97. Ibid, P.438.

98. Ibid, P.439.

Potrebbero piacerti anche