28 Peasant Movement in India

Contents

1. Objective

2. Learning Outcome

3. Introduction

4. Typology of Peasant Movements

5. Issues raised by Peasant Movements in Colonial India

6. Peasant Movements in Independent India

7.  Ideological Diversity in Peasant Movements

8. Forms of Protest

9. Conclusion: An Assessment of Peasant Movements

1. Objective

The objective of this module is to make students aware of the different critical aspects of the peasant movement, the range of issues raised by them and the changes within. The chapter also provides a historical overview and emphasizes the importance of situating peasant movement in particular socio-historical contexts. This chapter will also enable students to think of the different dimensions of social movements.

2. Learning Outcome

The chapter will enable critical thinking. It will encourage students to think historically about processes of social transformation like social movements. It will initiate students to think of social movements in terms of multiple actors, agencies and practices.

3. Introduction

Among social movements in India which have attracted attention historically, for their intermittent yet widespread struggle are the peasant movements. In fact peasant movements in India have a long history going back to the colonial period which belies commonly held doubts regarding the revolutionary potential of Indian peasantry. But before referring to that debate, it is necessary to elaborate what the term ‘peasant’ stands for. 

Ghanshyam Shah (2004) finds the term ‘peasant’, misleading and an inadequate translation of the term Kisan or Khedut normally used for cultivators of land in local parlance. Rural people are differentiated in terms of their relationship to land. The English referent ‘peasant’ attempts to be of an encompassing nature not quite revealing the differentiations within such as agriculturist of a supervisory nature, owner-cultivator, small peasant, share croppers, tenant cultivator and landless labourers. According to Shah (2004), the ambiguity in usage also results because the term peasant is used differently by different authors or variously by the same author in different studies. These categories of people have different kinds of vested interests in land and therefore, different propensities towards mobilisation. While the middle peasant has been known to provide leadership to peasant movements, because of their relative stability in terms of landownership and other resources, the spirit of radicalism and aggression is known to be the highest among the landless peasants. In other words, the term peasant needs to be used and understood in a more nuanced and cautious manner.

Another debate that needs to be recounted here before one launches full-fledged in a discussion of the peasant movement pertains to the revolutionary capability of the peasantry in India. Following Marx who while speaking about the Asiatic mode of production thought of peasants in Asia as ‘potatoes amidst a sack of potatoes’, i.e. without any consciousness, it was assumed by many a western scholar like Barrington Moore Jr (1966) and others like Eric Stokes (1978) that the Indian peasantry is ‘fatalistic, docile, unresisting, superstitious and passive’ and lacked the revolutionary potential. But this has been proved to be without any foundation as many scholars have shown how agrarian mobilisations have been persistent phenomena in rural countryside over a long period of time (Gough 1974, Dhanagare 1983, Mukherji 1978, Desai 1979, Guha 1983). But this should not lead us to believe that peasants were active only during the colonial period. In contemporary times, large scale agrarian mobilisations continue to make their presence felt under varied organisational identities. In fact ‘political parties, sabhas, sanghas, sangathans and unions have become the organisational expressions of contemporary unrests and mobilizations’ (Mukherji and Sahoo 1992). In other words, contemporary agrarian movements do not present a uniform picture as they have different objectives, goals, strategies, vastly different ideologies and nature of leadership. In fact the above authors feel that these contemporary manifestations have two kinds of goals: i) to identify conflicting structures of power towards which their conflict is directed, and ii)  to project new loci of power (pressure groups) in the regional and/or national/political scene.

4.  Typology of Peasant Movements

Peasant movements have been studied and classified in different ways in social movement literature. Classification and formation of typologies has been understood as a way of making sense of the enormous diversity that prevails in society. But there are several limitations of typologies too.

Scholars who have studied peasant movements in India have classified these movements along several lines. According to Ghanshyam Shah (2004) peasant movements have been grouped according to those in the pre-British, British or colonial period and in the post-independence period. Peasant movements in the post independence period again, have been classified as pre-Naxalbari and post Naxalbari or pre-green revolution and post green revolution. The latter has been further subdivided into movements occurring in the pre and post Emergency period. Movements occurring in the post green revolution period are termed as farmer’s movements, as they mainly dealt with the issues and demands of the middle and big farmers who emerged more strongly in the post Green revolution period. The shift in nomenclature is indicates the differentiation in the nature of actors. They have been studied by Dipankar Gupta (1997) Tom Brass (1995) among others. Gail Omvedt has classified the peasant struggles into ‘old’ and ‘new’, whereby the former is known by the term peasant movements, and the latter as farmers movements.

A. R Desai (1978) in his study classified the struggles in the colonial period as ‘peasant struggles’ and those in the post independent period ‘agrarian struggles’. The usage of the term agrarian struggles indicates the presence of a broad coalition consisting of peasants and other classes in these struggles. Desai further sub-divides struggles in the post independence period into two categories – ‘the movements launched by the newly emerged proprietary classes comprising of rich farmers, viable sections of the middle peasant proprietors and the landlords and the movements launched by various sections of the agrarian poor in which agrarian proletariat have been acquiring central importance’ (cited in Shah 2004). Kathleen Gough (1974) records 77 uprisings and also classifies peasant movements on the basis of their goal, ideology, and the method of organisation.

According to her, there are five types of revolts namely,

1.      Restorative rebellions to drive out the British and restore earlier ruler and social relations.

2.      Religious movements for liberation of a region or an ethnic group under a new form of government

3.      Social banditry

4.      Terrorist vengeance with the idea of meting out collective justice

5.      Mass insurrections for the redressal of a particular grievance (Singh 2001, Shah 2004).

Ghanshyam Shah is critical of the above classification because he feels it places undue focus on the goals rather than upon the nature of the peasant actors or the strategies that they adopt in attaining their goals. Inspired by the framework of class, D. N Dhanagare believes that the peasant movement in India can be analysed through the model of agrarian classes, though he reiterates in his study that the studies need to be both historical and comparative in nature.

Oommen (1985) observes that there are peasant movements that have continued till today irrespective of the change in political power. These movements started during the pre-independence period but they continue till today, though their goals have undergone change. Ghanshyam Shah (2004) feels that peasant movements differ according to the variability of agrarian regimes or structures and as the latter undergo changes, the nature of the peasant movement also varies. For example, a contrast can be drawn between the actors and the goals of the peasant movements under the British and those during post-independent India where the nature of the peasantry and their demands/goals became more differentiated.

K.P Kannan (1988) divides the rural labour struggles according to the development of class consciousness. Therefore there are,

a)  Protest movements based on caste or religious identity and consciousness but those which are basically a response generated by the emerging capitalist mode of production

b)    Secular movements arising from category (a) that rejects caste identity and consciousness but appealing to the ‘rationality’ and ‘brotherhood’ of man.

c)   Nationalist movement culminating in radical political consciousness, the seeds of which were in category (b) culminating in ‘class consciousness’ and class based movements (cited in Shah 2004: 42-43) .

Often typologizing becomes difficult, because of the significant overlaps between social movements which makes construction of pure categories difficult. For example, Kathleen Gough’s documentation of the innumerable peasant revolts during colonial period largely consisted of tribal revolts over land against the British. Another example of such an overlap is Ramachandra Guha’s study of the Chipko movement in the 1970s, which is popularly understood as one of the earliest articulation of an environmental movement in our country but was also simultaneously raising concerns of protecting and controlling ‘jal, jungle aurjammen‘ as sources of livelihood of peasants in the Uttarakhand region. Similarly peasant struggles today in special economic zones against displacement of cultivators and other landholders no longer represent the interests of peasants only. In this manner it becomes evident that typologies do have their limits.

5.  Issues raised by the Peasant Movements in the Colonial India

Historically, the peasants have come together over myriad issues, though these issues and concerns have changed over time, since the colonial period. Sometimes these movements have even gone beyond the immediate concerns of the peasants. It is interesting to see how peasant movements have got connected with the larger ongoing social movements like the national movement for independence during the colonial period or protests against global capital and land grab in the contemporary period.

In the colonial period, for example, peasants rose up in protest against changes in the property relations and in the land tenure system which evicted and dispossessed them of their rights over land. The peasant economy before the British came to India was based on subsistence economy, oriented towards the satisfaction of basic needs. The British transformed Indian agriculture by creating property rights in land, drawing Indian agriculture into the larger world capitalist system, created land markets, encouraged commercialisation of land and changed the nature of productive relations in land to one of contract. As new classes came into being, profit motive became the most important interest to be sustained for the government as well as the class of zamindars and rentiers that they created. This conflicted with the interests of the peasant cultivators and led to their mobilisation.

Among other reasons for peasant mobilisation during the colonial period were the experience of begar or forced labour, which was widely prevalent in different forms in our society. Begar was performed for the rulers as well as for the upper castes. The agricultural labourers and members of the lower castes were compelled to do all kinds of work including supplying water to the ruler’s family, constructing buildings, roads, dams, carrying load from one place to another. Terrifying atrocities are part of the system, even leading to the death of a few peasants. In fact poor peasants rose up against this exploitative system in several places like Oudh, Telengana in the colonial period and in Banaskantha district of Gujarat and Naxalbari region in the years after independence.

Rise in prices of inferior foodgrains consumed by the tenants and agricultural labourers led to several agrarian unrests in North India in between 1918-22. Kapil Kumar (cited in Shah 2004) found that tensions in the rural society of Oudh were because of the rise in prices of essential commodities especially during the war period. Hardiman (1981, cited in Shah 2004) mentions how peasants of Kheda district in Gujarat joined the satyagraha in 1918 because of their deteriorating conditions during World War I, which resulted because of the failure of the Kharif crop, rise in prices of various commodities including the wages of labourers. Famine was a recurrent feature of rural life in the colonial period during 18th and 19th centuries, though a section of social scientists feel that no effective mass protest was witnessed during famine despite the extreme suffering which the people endured. This was because of the ‘reciprocity’ of peasant proprietors and labourers and the acceptance by the former of the moral responsibility for the latter. Though the reciprocity thesis has been challenged by a section of scholars who felt that famine caused a deepening division between landowners and labourers, as it reflected their separate class interests. Ghanshyam Shah (2004) mentions that in the early days of the famine, the poor peasants, agricultural labourers and other subaltern groups including women participate in collective action against the rich villagers but subsequently as the drought conditions worsen, there is a fragmentation in the subaltern group mobilisation and often appropriation and violence takes the form of a riot.

Eviction of tenant cultivators by money lenders, landlords and government officials was one of the causes for widespread disturbances which involved peasants. The auctioning of land for the collection of land revenue by the East India Company and the emergence of new owners of land namely the government officials and traders led to the eviction of common people and cultivators from land. These new owners raised the rent and evicted the cultivators on the pretext of getting more rent. The revolt of 1857 was a rebellion against the collusion between the British officers and moneylenders. Though occupancy rights were conferred on tenants in Bengal by the Rent Act X of 1859, agrarian movement continued in Pabna and other areas of Eastern and Central Bengal who wanted their tenancy rights to be secured and saw in this act an opportunity to do so.

In some cases religious issues got implicated with economic issues as in the case of the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar where conflict between Moplahs (Muslim peasants) and upper caste Hindu landlords in the late 19th-early 20th century and in the cases of Wahabi Faraizi uprisings in Bengal in the 1930s. The peasant protests were against the exploitation and oppression perpetrated on them by the landlords who were from the Hindu community. Religion provided a sense of solidarity and unity to the protesting peasants.1 Doing away with the rights of occupancy which was conferred on tenants of Bengal was the central issue in the peasant struggle, as landlords did not want to honour the Act. Their control over the tenants was so strong that they succeeded in evicting from their land, dishonouring their inheritable rights of occupancy. Such a situation created tensions and led to uprisings in Oudh in the decade of the 1920s and 30s. Similar issues led to peasant movements in Rajasthan in early 20th century and the Telengana movement during the late 1940s and early 50s.

6. Peasant Movements in Independent India

In the post independence period, some of the issues and problems of the peasants continued to be raised in the peasant movements though the nature of these movements underwent a change. The nature of the peasant questions in the post independence phase was characterised by a dramatic shift.

Studies of peasant movements generally point towards the existence of structural contradictions in the system of land relations and movements as the creation of those contradictions. The peasant struggles were earlier directed towards the zamindars and jagirdars at a micro level and towards colonialism at a macro level. Rajendra Singh mentions that ‘the agrarian contradictions now begin to be located mostly around a) the civil society versus the state and b) the emergent, aggressive middle peasantry versus the rural poor and the landless. The swollen middle class peasantry constitutes the rising new kulaks of rural India at present’ (Singh 2001: 238). It is they who confront the state for achieving more gains as is evident in the farmer’s movements. One of the most enduring impacts of the Green Revolution has been the emergence of the class of middle peasant who now confront the state above them and the landless and the rural poor located at the lowest level of the socio-economic hierarchy. The landless, rural poor in turn are also defiant rather than passive, in this fight which involves them, the state and the middle peasant.

The post independent period saw a change in the nature of agrarian classes and interests resulting from the state policies. Accordingly, two categories of rural struggles could be identified by A. R Desai (cited in Singh 2001): a) the movement launched by newly emergent proprietary class comprising of rich farmers and middle peasant proprietors, and b) movements launched by various sections of the agrarian proletariat. The rural poor consisting of the poor peasants, women, a rapidly rising agrarian proletariat belonging to the lower castes and from a varied ethnic, linguistic and religious faiths wanted to establish a radically different and qualitatively new type of society where a decent, dignified existence could be ensured.

These contradictions are said to be a consequence of the sweeping developmental policies of the state, democratic participation of the people in the sharing and shaping of power in the making of the state, the new production technology, the heightened sense of rural-urban exchange, the rise of the dominant class of rich peasants, the relatively unchanged conditions of the rural poor and the lower castes, accelerated process of social mobility, migration and communication etc. Though the Bhoodan and Gramdan movements attempted to address the issue of inequality of land ownership in the decade of the 50s by acquiring land by peaceful means and redistributing it amongst the landless and poor, the attempt was not long lasting. Vinoba Bhave’s successors were not charismatic enough to secure land from the landed. The land that had been secured were not of good quality and hence unfit for cultivation in some cases and lastly the management of land which had been collected was also not carried out efficiently. In other words the agrarian questions were not resolved following independence. These unresolved questions themselves sowed the seeds of severe agrarian tensions subsequently.

Anand Chakravarty (1986: 229) makes an in-depth study of one such struggle the Santhal Bataidars (share croppers) of Purnea district which took place in the 1970s. He highlights the nature of the failure of the land reform policies, the persistence of land domination by traditional landlords and maliks of the oppressed sections, the struggle and uprisings of the oppressed against the oppressing sections of the maliks (owners), the listed scope the success of the struggles of the oppressed and the nature of the persistence of the conflict-core in the countryside keeping alive the agrarian conditions for peasant revolt.

Thus, peasant mobilisations have been regarded as an unfinished struggle; they emerged due to the failure of land reform policies in India. Change in the mode of production in agriculture did not disturb the traditional relationships in any significant manner in that the exploitative, feudal, hierarchical relations continued. Further commercialisation of agriculture was not accompanied by modernisation of agriculture. One of the most significant rebellions which took place during the decade of the 60s, whose implications were far reaching was the Naxalbari Movement of 1967-68. The movement demanded the abolition of the zamindari system and land to be restored to the tiller, protesting against tenant eviction, land alienation, cultivators’ rights to go on cultivating without surrendering and so on. It enjoyed the support of rich peasants (who had undergone a downward mobility due to loss of land over the years) as well as the sharecroppers and poor, landless agricultural labourers but it was fragmented. It was found that as a section of the peasantry succeeded in meeting its own demands it withdrew from the struggle, though there was a worker-peasant alliance in the early part of the struggle. Later on the movement was overtaken by the urban youth and it gradually lost its goals of peasant upliftment and lapsed into acts of violence.

The peasant movements in independent India have become more internally differentiated. The class interests of the rich peasants and landowners have diverged from those of the small cultivators, sharecroppers and landless labourers. Since the green revolution which was accompanied by capitalist agriculture, a deeper penetration of the market economy and globalisation, peasant struggles have undergone a change. Subsequently in this period farmers’ have been demanding remunerative prices of their produce, concessions and subsidies in the prices of agricultural inputs, lowering of water, fertilizer, electricity and irrigation charges and betterment levies, easier terms for agricultural loans etc. Farmers’ organisations like the Shetkari Sangathana in Maharashtra, Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) in Uttar Pradesh, Khedut Samaj in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Punjab have come to wield a lot of political importance and clout (For details on Farmer’s Movement, read module 23). ‘Farmer’s movements have been quite content staying outside national parties and have found that they were most effective when they work as a pressure group outside established structures’ (Gupta 2002: 197). Although some farmer’s movements like Shetkari Sangathana have given rise to a dichotomy between ‘Bharat versus India’, in a study Dipankar Gupta (1997) has shown how the Bhartaiya Kisan Union has tried to win over the urban areas by the call of ‘Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan.’ These movements primarily see themselves as concerned with economic issues and its enemy is the state, not the local overlord or exploiter. In other words they do not absolve the government of its alleged apathy towards rural issues.

Post 1970s also saw a change in the nature of peasant struggles, which led to the forging of peasant-workers alliance initially during the Naxalbari movement and later on in political groups like Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathana which calls itself a non party people’s movement of the landless and rural poor striving for issues like the redistribution of land, and minimum wages. Having found a niche in Rajasthan, the MKSS went beyond the issues of peasant cultivators, and raised concerns about certain basic rights like the workers’ right to work and receive minimum wages under the NREGA program which they were denied in the absence of records. This led to the demand for ‘right to know’ in view of people’s right to freedom of speech under Article 21 of the Constitution and even right to life and liberty.

Another trend in the contemporary peasant movements is the forging of transnational networks by certain farmer’s organisations like Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangh (KRRS), who agitate against farmer’s distress due to drought, pest attack and price fall. Farmers organisations have been protesting against the introduction of genetically modified seeds, marketed by companies, bought at a huge cost, leading farmers debt ridden when crops fail, often resulting in their suicides in different parts of the country.

7. Ideological diversity in Peasant Movements

Peasantry consists of a large, substantial section of Indian society. Being the most numerous group it is characterised by enormous social and structural contradictions and hence it is also said to be ‘the natural site of ideological mobilisations’ (Singh 2001: 231). Studies of peasant movements generally tend to express two different approaches to achieving the goals and objectives of peasant struggles. The first set of studies drawing from radical Left views present the peasantry as a revolutionary category. Examples of this type are the Telengana and Tebhaga movements which were inspired by the Communist ideology and were violent in nature. The role of Naxalite ideology in violent peasant uprisings during late 60s-early 70s is also well known.

The second group comprises of pacifist, non-violent resistance movements such as Satyagraha, Sarvodaya and Bhoodan Gramdan movements. These studies articulate the Gandhian model of peaceful and non violent action on peasant issues and social reconstruction. They moved away from the use of force or violence in the method of distribution of land and tried to bring about a change by adopting peaceful means.2 Through Bhoodan, Vinoba Bhave aimed to show the peasantry that there was an efficient alternative to the Communist programme. The Sarvodaya Movement inspired by the Gandhian philosophy which was advocated by both Vinoba Bhave and Jayprakash Narayan subsequently, also emphasised the redistribution of land along with other forms of upliftment of people. In fact Bhoodan and later on Gramdan became a very important focus of Sarvodaya movement. Land and other means of production were to be collectively owned by the village community and were to be under the control of the users, the movement also emphasized a limit that the owners could possess.

In some studies like that of Krishnarajulu (cited in Singh 2001) the concept of the peasant movement has been treated as the peasant’s search for identity. The study on peasant movement in the state of Karnataka, adopts the identity oriented framework adopted by Alan Touraine and refers to the collective actions of peasants to produce a sense of solidarity and identity leading to acts of self reproduction. During the period of 1980s and the 90s the ideological orientations changed as peasant movements gave way to the farmer’s movements against big capital.

8.  Forms of Protest

Closely related to the idea of ideological diversity is the manner in which peasant protests took place. In fact protests by peasants took many forms. In his study of 5 peasant movements namely Dhanagare (1983) mentions that in many cases peasant rebellions took on the character of peaceful, constitutional agitation as in the case of the no-rent, no-tax campaigns, satyagraha and social boycott etc. His study also posited a broad interdependence between two aspects, namely, between the type of movement and

2 The inspiration for Bhoodan came to Vinoba Bhave when he was touring the strife torn Telengana region, Hyderabad in 1951, which had witnessed violent clashes between the local peasants (who were helped by Communists) and the landlords in the wake of a revolutionary peasant uprising in 1947, which had led to a loss of both land and lives. Bhoodan-gramdan began as an experiment of a radical recasting of the Indian social order using a nonviolent method. strata of peasantry. In other words, he found that the poor peasant class generally participated in the insurrectionary and the millenarian movements, whereas the rich and the middle class peasantry would generally involve itself in the nationalist, non-violent resistant movements.

Pradhan Prasad (cited in Shah 2004) notes how in some parts of Bihar, the organised movement of the poor peasantry mounted pressure on landlords and rich peasantry successfully. They resorted to strikes for higher wages, public meetings and demonstrations to protest against unlawful and exploitative actions of the rural rich. They even took to armed intervention to prevent the eviction of sharecroppers. David Hardiman mentions that in the Kheda satyagraha, on several occasions middle peasants pressurised the rich peasants into joining nationalist agitations. They launched a satyagraha which also received support from the subsistence peasants because they had endured a lot of hardship in the early decades of the 20th century.

In the early years of independence when the Telengana and Tebhaga movements raged, many acts of protests even led to violent outcomes. In the case of the Tebhaga movement where a substantial number were Rajbansi share croppers, Santal landless labourers and Oraon tribal peasants, they cut crops and defied custom by taking away paddy to their own threshing floors. The peasant’s interests were confined to retaining two-thirds share of the produce to themselves, the bargadars did not attempt to seize lands or to set up a parallel administration or government. In some places they were even willing to give one third of their produce to the jotedars, but the latter gave the names of Kisan Sabha workers and turbulent bargadars to the police for repressive action. This led to clashes between the police and the sharecroppers which were often violent.

The forms of protests adopted by the movements also vary according to the different phases. For example, as one witnesses in Dhanagare’s account of the Telengana movement (1946-51) that in the first and the second phase the peasant insurrection had a reformist orientation, but in the last phase when the peasant leadership deserted the movement, the poor tenants started to seize lands. Lands seized forcibly were distributed among the agricultural labourers and evicted tenants. Village soviets were set up especially in about 4000 villages in the districts which were communist strongholds namely Nalgonda, Warangal and Khammam. Police action by the Government against the peasants and the communist dalams were also equally strong and harsh in these regions. T. K Oommen (1985) has observed that protest studies in India are marked by a relative neglect of individual protests and micro mobilisations. Both left wing and liberal theorists of revolutionary political action give a privileged position to organised movements. The underlying assumption is that these are unorganised, unsystematic and individual acts and have no revolutionary consequences. But following James Scott, we now know that collectively these small events of everyday resistances may add up to a large event. Acts such as pilfering, foot dragging and false compliance among peasants cannot be sustained without a high level of cooperation among those who resist.

The state response to peasant uprisings and revolts resulted in the implementation of various land reform measures. These measures reflected the response of the state to the various peasant struggles of the 1940s and the 50s and led to the abolition of the zamindari and the jagirdari system, fixation of ceilings on landholding size etc. These land reform measures in turn produced a number of historically ‘new’ conflictual forces in the countryside. The large scale pauperisation of the rural poor, and consequent scaling down of the importance of erstwhile zamindars and jagirdars, the rise of an aggressive and entrepreneurial middle caste-class peasantry and finally the generally unchanged socio-economic conditions of the rural landless, the poor and wage earning sections gave rise to new social contradictions and forces in the countryside.

9. Conclusion: An Assessment of Peasant Movements

Peasant movements in India therefore go far back in history. Though it is hard to say whether the peasant movements and revolts contributed substantially to the larger and more distant goals of complete restructuring of the social order, yet their significance lies in raising fundamental issues about land, lives and livelihood. The state responded to their agitations by initiating land reforms, imposing the land ceiling act, abolishing the zamindari system though these reforms remain unfinished as yet. 

A significant aspect that is being recognised today is the existence of a considerable overlap of concerns and interests of the peasant movement and the environmental movement as we can find in the Chipko movement or between the interests of the peasant-cultivators and landless labourers dependent on land or in the farmers and others protesting against displacement in anti SEZ movements in the context of globalisation in different parts of our country. Therefore the presence of intersectionality is a persistent, ubiquitous phenomenon in all peasant movements today.

In addition these movements have also effectively challenged several myths prevalent in literature, regarding the revolutionary potential of the peasant. In the Indian subcontinent we find that contrary to the dominant theoretical understanding in the West, the agricultural labourers and the small and middle peasants have always engaged in persistent struggles and revolts against the king as well as against the colonial authorities. Secondly, another conjecture that has been falsified concerns the vanishing category of the peasant itself. Despite modernisation, the peasant cultivator is here to stay, though in the contemporary context of huge land grab all across the world and even in India, their existence is in peril. But as long as land continues to be the source of our sustenance, peasants will remain significant a category.