Page 128 - DSOC202_SOCIAL_STRATIFICATION_ENGLISH

Unit 7: Class

Caste has inhered in class and class has inhered in caste for centuries in the Indian context, and Notes
Indian society continues to have this inseparable mix even today. Role of caste and class in
elections is an evidence of this mix. However, caste operates as a ‘marriage circle’ in a different
way from the way it functions in other arenas. Hypergamy explains the role of status and wealth
within caste. Class-like distinctions within caste and caste-like styles within a class are part of the
people’s life situations. ‘Class’ has been an in-built mechanism within caste, and therefore, caste
cannot be seen simply as a ‘ritualistic’ system, and class cannot be seen as an open system as it has
often been influenced by the institution of caste. In order to go deep into such a phenomenon the
structural-historical perspective becomes inescapable.

7.2 Class as a System of Stratification

The usual and universalistic way of describing social structure has been through institutions
based on birth such as family, kinship and caste. Another way of describing it is through class.
Thus, the agrarian class structure may be used to understand the power structure and class
stratification in Indian rural social structure. However, both caste and class are necessary to
describe the agrarian social structure in India. It also explains the power structure in rural India.
In this way when we talk of agrarian class stratification we get a better view of rural India which
was, traditionally, viewed through caste stratification only. K.L. Sharma (1980) putting the whole
issue in proper perspective makes the incisive comment by saying that caste incorporates the
element of class and class has a cultural (caste) style, hence the two systems cannot be easily
separated even analytically.
Broadly speaking, the modern agrarian class structure in India evolved during the British colonial
rule. It was the outcome of the land revenue system evolved and enforced by the British rule.
There were three classes :
(i) land owners
(ii) tenants
(iii) agricultural labourers
Daniel Thorner (1973) in his classical work describes these three classes as
(i) proprietors
(ii) working peasants
(iii) labourers
In vernacular language he uses the terms maalik, kissan and mazdur for these three classes
respectively. The landowners or proprietors traditionally belonged to the upper caste groups.
They were tax gatherers and non-cultivating owners of land. Thorner (ibid) understands that the
category of proprietors or maalik refers to families whose agricultural income is derived primarily
(although not necessarily solely) from property rights in the soil. That is to say that whatever
other sources of family income may exist, such as from a profession or business, the main
agricultural income is derived from a share of the produce of lands belonging to the family.
Typically, this share will be realized in the form of rent. Usually, the rent will be taken in money,
but it may be in kind also on crop sharing basis. Instead of renting out his lands, however, a
proprietor may hire labourers to cultivate them for him. He may manage these hired labourers
himself or he may hire some one else as manager. He may actually go into the fields and perform
some of the work along side of his hired labourers. The main determinant should be his mode of
income—if his agricultural income from that part of his holdings which he cultivates with his own
hands is less than the amount he receives from renting out the rest of his lands, or having them
tilled by hired labourers. Within this group or class of proprietors, it is possible to separate out
two subgroups. One consists of large absentee landlords, who typically have holdings in more
than one village. The second consists of smaller proprietors who reside personally in the village in

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 123