Abstract
The contemporary agrarian economy of rural West Bengal is characterized by distinct division of the farming community along caste and class lines. Unlike the belief that the communist regime in the state has significantly reduced instances of caste and class inequalities, the present article based on a fieldwork in Paarhaati village of Memary II block of Purba Bardhaman district argues in favour of the persistence of such inequalities till date. With the help of narratives collected and instances captured in a year-long fieldwork in the village, the present article attempts to bring forth the existence of domination of economically and politically powerful castes of landowners, deprivation of agricultural and landless labourers, formation of factions at the local party level, lack of initiative from the panchayat and increasing intervention of merchants, traders and middlemen that is hindering social, economic and political developments in these regions. The article argues that the ‘change’ proclaimed by the new regime has done nothing exceptional for the contemporary rural economy than the previous regime.
Introduction
Rural life has transformed, although not drastically, but significantly, to an extent where one cannot find people only staying in mud houses or working solely in farming occupation (Gough, 1989). Some of the social practices still remain prevalent in the village, like denoting the munibs or the local landlords in the villages as Babus and not referring to them by their surnames by the agricultural labourers or the khetmajurs and even by the members of the dominant castes of sadgops and goalas, and form a part of village cultural pattern. Similarly, celebrating nabanno, the festival celebrated with the newly harvested paddy, is also a cultural pattern seen among the dominant caste families in the village. The living standards and the expectations of the tribal groups and the groups working as agricultural labourers are much different from the aspirations and profit-making motive of the village landlords or the munibs and Babus.
There is a gamut of literature on the traditional, social and economic structures of the villages in Bengal (Ahmed, 1970; Bandyopadhyay, 1990, 1994, 2004; Beteille, 1965, 1974; Bose, 1958, 1975; Dasgupta, Togawa, & Barkat, 2011; Day, 1970; Desai, 1948; Sanyal, 1971, 1981; Sarkar, 1987; Singh et al., 1966; Roy, 2011; Ruud, 2003). From the pre-colonial period to the post-colonial to the modern period, Bengal has been in the limelight of the history of agricultural and rural development in India. Even before the colonial expansion, agricultural conditions in Bengal had been at par with countries like China in the production of world’s best silk and also in making a mark in the market for raw jute and jute textile (Bandyopadhyay, 2004; Chowdhury, 1964; Frank, 1998; Raychaudhuri, 1988). The transformation in the rural economy from the traditional zamindari system to the introduction of the Permanent Settlement to the changes in landownership pattern through the land reform policies during the colonial and the post-colonial period has brought about significant ‘structural transformation’ (Bandyopadhyay, 1981, 2004; Bose, 1985; Guha, 1982; Leiten, 1992; Sengupta, 1981). The discussion of this expanded history of agricultural development and land relations is definitely beyond the scope of this article. However, the most intriguing and complex question during the post-Independence period is over the long-standing foothold of the Left regime and the developmental initiatives taken by it. The three decades of rule which mainly avowed to provide land to the landless and distributing landownership among the masses of the peasant society came to a halt in 2011 with the inception of a newer political agenda (Hore, 1991). This political agenda, as the masses believed, will be a relief from the long-standing corruption and inefficiency of the previous regime (Samaddar, 2013). It sought for a changing Bengal or ‘poriborton’ for every individual in the state. However, five years down the line, the promises for this change have come into question.
Looking ‘inward’ in the rural society of the state which has been the locus of debate and discussion and major political agenda in both the present and the previous regimes, it can be pointed out that there has not been a complete transformation in the socio-economic and political conditions of the Bengal rural economy. There are 71.23 lakh farm families of which 96 per cent are small and marginal farmers. Given its agricultural viability, it still holds the second position in potato production after Uttar Pradesh. With 68 per cent of the population residing in the rural areas and agricultural labourers constituting an overwhelming 29.32 per cent of the total workers and cultivators only 14.72 per cent, there is an impending necessity to bring back the ‘agrarian question’ in the new regime. In the current article, the focus has been to understand the social construct of a rural economy in a village, namely Paarhaati of Memary II block in Purba (East) Bardhaman district of West Bengal. Bardhaman district has been bifurcated into Purba (East) and Paschim (West) Bardhaman districts from 7 April 2017. This article is an ethnographic account of the different caste and class groups of farmers who form an important part of the rural economy in the state. With the help of qualitative data collected through long sessions of in-depth interview and narratives gathered, the author has made an attempt to paint a picture of the complex social milieu of the Bengal rural economy. Factionalism of the dominant caste groups with the local landlords forming an important part in the village administration, economic distress of the landless and agricultural labourers, and distinct separation on the basis of caste lines in the villages are still evident even after the long haul of the Left regime. What has been the nature of change, if the caste and class equations of the peasant groups still remain the same? What are the perceptions of the farmers towards the functioning of the new regime? In what way the socio-economic and political context has been impacted upon due to this change in the regime? Has there at all been any form of agricultural development or change which was claimed for by the new government? These are some of the intriguing questions which have laid the pace for this research.
Agrarian Ecology and Caste Identity in Paarhaati
Bardhaman has been an agriculturally productive district since long. The district has been in debate and discussion of many social scientists, considering its strong position in agricultural production as well as in the political front (Day, 1970; Leiten, 1992; Ruud, 2003). One of the most agricultural productive districts, Bardhaman was also called as the ‘red bowl’ of the state denoting its political inclination towards the Left front and now it has equally become a strong seat for the new regime. Initially, paddy was the only food grain being cultivated in the district (see Table 1). From the 1970s, potato as a major vegetable was also cultivated in the villages. Small tracts of land are used for production of pulses and other vegetables as well. The district holds first and second rank in the production of rice and potato, respectively, compared to other districts in the state.
Production of Rice and Potato in Bardhaman (in Thousand Tonnes)
Memary II block comprises completely rural population. Paarhaati is a village with approximately 400 households and major portion of its total workers, 46.37 per cent, are agricultural labourers (see Table 2). A major portion of these labours is used for the production of potato and paddy in three seasons. Aman and Aus paddy crops are grown along with potatoes in the land where aman paddy is grown. Mostly, when there is extra land left after potato plantation, it is used for bodo or mustard plantation. Bodo cultivation is possible only for the big farmers who can avail water pumps or can use extra labour to draw water from the nearby canal of the village. Bodo, aman and aus paddies, potato in excessive amount, mustard to some extent and a few other vegetables are grown in the form of agricultural production.
Demography of Paarhaati Village
By middle of December, when the fieldwork had begun in 2017, aman paddy was already being cut from the field and taken away for threshing and making it ready for the market. Simultaneously, bukomara or grinding the soil into grain form is taken up to sow the seeds for the potatoes. The expense of cultivating 1 bigha or 0.33 acres of land with potato ranges from ₹22,000 to ₹24,000. Cultivation and threshing processes for paddy ranges approximately from ₹8,000 to ₹10,000 for the same size of land. Due to the use of fertilizers, the cultivation process for potato is more expensive than the cultivation of paddy. History of Paarhaati dates back to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Paresh Ghosh, a well-known story writer who was born and brought up in the village and has resided in the village for last 50 years, stated that the village is located on the bank of two rivers, namely, Baka and Behula. Goalas and Sadgops are the largest caste groups with maximum population in the village. This caste group is followed by the Muslim population; groups of Vaishnavites; Mahishyas, which constitute the group of Jeles or Jelia Kaibartya; Brahmins; few people who belong to the Kayasthas, mostly the Dutta family of the local landlord and businessman; limited number of families belonging to the Sahanis who are originally from Bihar; and there are several tribal groups, the adivasis, who have migrated from the districts of Purulia and Bankura 40 to 50 years back. Like Beteille (1965) pointed out, this village is distinctly divided into segments of different households from different caste and class groups. Typically, it is seen that there is an overlap of the caste and class condition of the households in the village. All these segments are locally called as paras. Para in urban Bengal refers to different localities. Each of the castes is found in separate paras or these small localities. There are 10 paras in the village, namely, Kaibartyapara, Baishnabpara, Paschim adivasipara, Purba adivasipara, Sarkarpara, Ghoshpara, Muslim para, Das para, Bhattacharya or Brahman para and Hospital para. Out of all these paras, only Hospital para is the one which has a mixture of several caste groups. Other paras are specifically meant for the members of particular castes.
The Vaishavites are among the first families which have come and settled in the villages. The Dutta family, with Bijoy Krishna Dutta as the zamindar of the village, was the core administrating unit in the village which looked after the public affairs of the village, the agricultural production and also developed the village as an important trading centre. The Dutta family and the descendants of the Miya family or the Muslim landlord form the biggest landlords in the village. Presently, the zamindari has been discontinued and the Dutta sons are looked down upon by most of the villagers for their misbehaviour and irresponsible attitude towards the villagers. Most of the land of the zamindari households are vested and are currently under legal dispute.
Land Relations in the Village
Unprofitable agriculture, increasing indentured labour, lack of proper wages at the right time, lack of storage facilities and lack of opportunities for marketing outside the state are some of the important problems faced by the farmers in the villages. Although Bardhaman, in totality, is engaged in agricultural occupation and is quite affluent in different types of agricultural condition because of its alluvial soil and sources of water, not all blocks and all the villages in these blocks perform equally well. Paarhaati village, where the survey has been taken up, is one among those villages where agriculture takes place in 2 to 3 seasons for the production of ‘aman’ and aus paddies and potato production. To some extent, there is production of rapeseed and mustard too. Since most of the farmers are not big ‘capitalist’ farmers who would indulge in capitalistic investment, bodo paddy cultivation is absolutely not found in the village fields. Mostly, there are four classes of rural population found in the village who deal with agricultural occupation. These can be categorized as the following:
Landlords
In the village, there are only two families, the Dutta family of Bijoy Krishna Dutta, who was once upon a time a landlord as well as a businessman and had helped in bringing about different forms of economic development in the village by building cemented roads, one government school which caters to the children of the village and also a hospital with the financial help provided by the family. However, most of their land during the land reforms programme were declared vested and are currently distributed to many small and marginal farmers of the village. A similar story goes with the Miya family who are the descendants of the Muslim landlords in the village. Both of these families owned more than 60 to 100 acres of land and are currently left with approximately 20–30 acres of land in and around the village.
Landowners but Not Landlords
These are mostly the big farmers in the village who own 6 to 9 acres of land. These farmers mostly belong to the Ghosh para, who constitute of the caste group of the Sadgops or the dominant caste group in the village and also the Goalas. These caste groups belong to the non-Brahmin and the nabashakh castes, or the clean castes, which can serve the Brahmins. Most of the other farmers from the same caste group can be grouped into the class of the middle farmers who mostly own land from slightly more than 3 acres to less than 6 acres of land. Rest of the farmers who can be classified into the groups of the small and marginal farmers own less than 3 acres of land and usually engage in contract farming of others’ land. Maximum population of the village fall in the last category of farmers with less than 3 acres of land and usually belong to the caste groups of the Karmakars, Kaibartyas, Namasudras (mainly with the surname of Mandal), few households from the Sadgops and Goalas, few households from the adivasis and the Muslims and also one to two households among the Brahmins. In this regard, it is worthwhile to point out that the Brahmins do not opt for working in other’s land as labourers. They engage in other forms of non-farm activities and also in farm-related activities like in the cold storage business.
Out of the households surveyed in the Brahmin para, there was only one such household engaged in working in other’s land as agricultural labourers. However, this kind of reservation about working in the farm as labourers is not found among the ritually lower castes of the Sadgops, Goalas, Karmakars, Kaibartyas, Namasudras, adivasis and even the Muslims. It is always profitable to cultivate in one’s own land than working as contract labourers in others’ land. However, the profit incurred from the cultivation is not lucrative, and that is why most of the farmers also give out their land in leases. These farmers can be called as ‘petty producers’ (Lerche, 1998) and not as capitalist farmers who would invest the accumulated surplus in order to increase profitable agriculture.
Traders/Merchants and Businessmen
This class of rural population is an overlapping category. The merchants, traders and businessmen in the village are again also from the Sadgops and Goalas caste groups. The most lucrative business in the village is of rice-mill owners, the potato storage-keepers and the fish storage-keepers. This is an overlapping category with the former class or category of landowners but not the landlords. It is usually the landowners who also own the large storage houses in the village. There are few other businessmen and traders who come from outside the village. Some of the traders and businessmen who have come from Bihar like the Singhs and the Sahanis have settled in the village solely for the purpose of carrying out business. The large landowners lease out land which are being supervised by the small and marginal farmers and cultivated with the help of the agricultural labourers. The paddy grown in these fields are sent to the mill owners after threshing is completed. The sharecroppers keep a few packets or sacks of rice and potatoes for their household need and for selling in the local market or the weekly market called as ‘haat’ in the village. Most of the packets are then given to the storage-keeper so that it can be sold when the prices go up.
The Agricultural Labourers and the Landless Labourers
This class refers to the rest of the rural households which do not own any land and usually engage in farming occupation as agricultural labourers or landless labourers. Some of the families among these households do not engage in any form of agriculture and get engaged in other non-farming occupations as painters,, construction workers; some of the households have even moved to educational occupation, and there are many others who engage in informal labour work like running a van or driving a ‘trekker’. 1 There are some who have businesses set up in Memary I block which has a comparatively growing urban population than the Memary II block which is completely rural in nature. Majority of the landless households own less than 3 acres of land. Few households among the Kaibartyas (fishermen), Vaishnavas (preachers of Vaishnav cult); one household among the Brahmins; and almost every household among the adivasis, Muslim dalits and Bagdis are landless labourers in the village. This category of farming class does not accrue any share of profit owned by the big and medium landowners. They get work for two to three months in a year and earn ₹130 and 2 kg of rice or ₹200 per day as wages.
In this classification, it is difficult to enumerate the group of the moneylenders or the mahajans as they called in the local dialect. This is because the system of moneylending is not found in a formalized manner, the way it used to be found in the traditional rural economy of Bengal. Moneylending has had been an essential part of the zamindari system in Bengal. Much of the land procured by the local landlords who were locally called as the ‘jotedars’ and usually served the zamindars were done through usurious profits earned from the moneylending system (Beteille, 1965, 1974; Day, 1970). 2 The agricultural labourers and landless labourers and small and marginal cultivators were bonded to the big landlords and the zamindars due to the enormous sum of loan that they had to pay off at very high rates of interest. In contemporary rural economy of Bengal, there is no ‘debt-bondage’ as such of the small and marginal farmers and landless and agricultural labourers to the local landlords or the landowners and even the repayment of the loans are no more settled in the houses of the big landlords (Day, 1970), but they are looked after strictly under the land jurisdiction system. However, this should not necessarily impress upon us that there is no ‘debt-bondage’ at all in the rural economy.
The loans taken by the villagers now are mostly through the self-help groups and also through commercial banks like the Grameen bank and Bandhan bank started by the central government to cater to the local needs of the households in the rural areas. Some of the households continue taking loan from the local ‘munibs’ in whose land they work with the assurance that they will pay off in a stipulated time period. This rate of interest is higher than the usual bank rate of providing loan. But this, as reported by the farmers, do not result in the formation of a system of ‘debt-bondage’ in the rural economy. The labourers are free to move out of the land of one munib and move to the other in the same village or in a different village. They are also freed to get engaged in other forms of non-farm occupation or start small and medium enterprises by taking loan from the self-help groups or from a local household known to them. The traditional dadan system of providing advance crop loans to the cultivators and returning them equivalent to the money taken as loan in the form of produced goods does not exist in the village anymore. The payment system is legalized and set at ₹130 and 2 kg of rice if the labourer is willing to take money and rice. If the labourer is willing to take only money, then it is only ₹200 per day.
For the agricultural labourers and landless labourers working in other’s land and earning the minimum wages as fixed by the government is the best survival strategy if they are engaged solely in farming occupation. Lakshmi Mandi, like many other adivasis, is an agricultural labourer. Her family has been residing in the village since forty years. Most of the adivasis in the village have come from the adjoining districts of Bankura and Purulia, where they have their own houses and also land for cultivation. However, due to lack of cultivation in these drought-prone districts, they have migrated to Bardhaman district. These groups are mainly the santhals and speak in their saothaali dialect among the members of the same household.
Lakshmi’s daughter is five years old and goes to the anganwadi centre in the adivasi para. She works as an agricultural labourer in the Miya’s vested land and also works as a contractual labourer in and outside the village when there is no work in the village. From 6 in the morning till 12 noon, she works in the field. The land has been leased by a local munib of the Ghosh para. Her share of land in which she was to sow seeds and prepare the soil for the paddy cultivation was made by the munib. Lakshmi pointed out that the munib does not delay the payment. But at certain times, they are unable to pay. When such a thing happens, then at the end of the year they do pay off the rest amount. Lakshmi has taken a loan of ₹10,000 from the self-help group in which she is a member. She bought some clothes for the family and used the rest for building the brick walls. Her husband works in the village as a contractual labourer. She has been to the panchayat once or twice to apply for her mother-in-law’s old-age pension. Otherwise, she has never attended any meeting of the local panchayat. From 3 in the afternoon, she again leaves for the field for some left-over work to be completed till the sun sets. By 5 in the evening, the final work for the day is done and she returns to her house for the rest of the household works to be completed. During a busy season, there is not a single day when she can leave after going to the field. If she does not go, she will lose her share of rice and money. On the other hand, it is difficult in the peak season because the munibs stand outside the house of the workers and call them for work. This is a typical lifestyle of an adivasi who works as an agricultural labourer in others’ field.
Distress in Agrarian Economy of the Village
During early morning, the labourers and the supervising farmers on their bi-cycles start heading forward to their fields. The agricultural labourers mostly engaged as piece-wage labourers belong to the group of the SC and ST households. These labourers do not involve in the work of threshing of the harvested paddy. A group of farmers who are economically more well-off than these labourers, mostly belonging to the dominant caste families, and can afford to invest in buying the threshing machines are seen to engage in threshing of the harvested paddy. While some members of the household are engaged in the field, others are engaged in the threshing of the paddy. The dominant groups of Ghosh and Sarkar families belong to the goalas caste group which has an ‘impure’ status in the ritual caste hierarchy. The goalas sub-caste refers to those who feed the cows and usually engage in looking after the cattle. Sarkar surname meant a ‘title’ that has been given to those families which were engaged in the occupation of collecting tax revenue for the kings. Though this was a very brief explanation, yet it can be assumed that this is a form of social mobility that the various groups belonging to Ghosh category have received traditionally. However, not every family belonging to this group is economically well-off. Ahir Sarkar is a marginal farmer with less than 0.16 acres of land. In agricultural terms, this size of land owned is considered too less for any form of major agricultural production.
Sarkar does not have much cattle stock also. He has one cow, two goats and two hens that he obtained from the village co-operative society. He does not own a pucca house. He has one cemented room and a closed bathroom. Rest of the house is made into the traditional mud house. With four members in the family, Ahir, his son and his wife are earning from the field and other forms of casual employment. Ahir’s son is engaged in different forms of casual employment outside the village. His wife and he are engaged in the field, working as piece-wage labourers and his daughter-in-law sometimes assists his wife in the field work. He has given some parts of his land on lease to other farmers. For such farmers, working in other’s land is profitable than working in one’s own land. Their field does not yield even minimum income. By working in other’s field, they earn ₹170–180 on a daily basis. There is hardly two and a half to three months of work available for the labourers to work at. Most of the work is now done by big machines. Those work which used to be done by these farmers using hand and labour are now completed in less time and less expense with the improved machines. Then, where will they get work from is a big question in the contemporary agricultural scenario in rural Bengal.
They have to depend on hundred days’ work to some extent because even this policy (referring to NREGA) is not working properly in the villages. Whatever money they earn from the wages goes away in repaying the loans taken from the swayambhargoshthi (co-operative society). In 2007, there was one scheme from the government providing insurance subsidy. This was the only financial support which these farmers have received till now from the government for agricultural work. There is no political regime which has thought enough for the good of the farmers. There has been no political regulation that has helped the farmers like them to any extent. ‘Politics has become benojol (like impure or adulterated water) now’, pointed out one of the marginal farmers. Previously, there was one ideology and one government. ‘Now, there are “several governments”’, emphasized one such farmer, referring to the factions which have been formed among the local party workers. People are fighting among themselves in the party. Who will work for the development of the village? Most of these groups of farmers do not actively participate in political dealings or administrative aspects of the village. Except for attending some meetings of the co-operative society, they do not attend the gram sabha or the panchayat meetings. The distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ is no more evident in the political scenario now. As one of the farmers revealed, ‘two members of the panchayat are residing in the village but we still do not have electricity in all the houses and also the drains are open. During rain the entire mud road is flooded and clogged’. These families are ready to work in any form of labour-driven work which will provide some form of economic assistance to their family.
Gopinath Kaibartya’s life story and understanding of agricultural condition in the village is not very much different from Ahir Sarkar’s. He and his wife earn maximum ₹15,000–20,000 in a year. This amounts to ₹130 as daily wage with an additional 2 kg of rice if working for a maximum period of 4 months in the village. They have a few acres of land. Gopinath’s wife pointed out that it is much more profitable to work in other’s land and let others also work in your land. So, ‘we have leased out some portion of our land to other farmers who employ the labourers to do the farming and we work in other’s land. In this way, we do not have to take responsibility of the agricultural production taking place in our field. Every year the price of the potatoes is different. If potatoes are sold in the market at rupees 100 per packet (1 packet is of 60 kg of potatoes) then it does not yield a single rupee out of what we spend for the purpose of production’. In this case, it is easier for the farmers who own small size of land to lease out land and work as piece-wage labourers in the fields of other big farmers.
The Brahmin households in the village do not engage in actual cultivation because they believe that holding the plough will lower their caste. There is only one Brahmin household in the village which does not own any land and works as an agricultural labourer in other’s land. These families are mostly formed of several other marriages of their fathers and grandfathers outside their own caste groups which explicates a similar point made by Sanyal (1981), Bandyopadhyay (1990, 1994) and Bose (1975) that many caste groups are formed because of several marriages with men of high castes. These marriage alliances were mostly done in order to upgrade the social position enjoyed by a caste group. These households mostly own 5–10 bighasor 1.66 acres to 3.33 acres of land. Most of these families have received this land in the form of ‘debottosampotti’ or ancestral property. This land or property, according to one of the households, was received in lieu of their service to the landowners and the big landlords. It is called debottosampotti because this land mostly belonged to the temples built by the large landowners and landlords of the village. This property which was meant solely for the purpose of temple was later lent to the Brahman pundits who served these families. These belonged to the gods and goddesses. Thus, it is called as debottosampotti. These families depend on their land which is mostly leased out and is cultivated by the lower caste groups of the Karmakars, Kaibartyas and Namashudras and some of the Goalas.
Brahmin households have shifted from their traditional occupation of ceremonial worship in the households to various other forms of activities. Some of members of these households are working as Central Government employees. They get their land tilled by the labourers who belong to the lower castes. Out of the total packets of potatoes and rice produced in the land, a few packets are given to the landowner and the rest is taken by the supervisor who then gives it off to the agricultural labourers along with their wages. However, they do not completely leave their land in the hands of the labourers and the supervisors. If the labourers cheat them, then they usually change them. These households do not lease out their land to the same farmer every time and also do not keep the same group of labourers throughout the year. When the tenants do not inform and cut the paddy or if they try to steal the harvest, then they are usually thrown out of their land. However, these practices are minimal because the news spreads in the village.
With the decline of the rule of the kings and princes, and the demolition of the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793, which formally brought an end to the feudalistic zamindari system in the villages of Bengal, the social, economic and political position of the Brahmins worsened considerably. Literature on the rising social mobility of the impure and the unclean sudra castes above in the social hierarchy is evident in this village alike many other villages in Bengal (Bandyopadhyay, 1990; Sanyal, 1981). Bengal has seen the development of movement by the Namasudras, Bagdis and even the ‘unclean’ Gops who wanted to take the ‘clean’ position of the Sadgops. In this village too, the Gops or the Goalas and the Namasudras are seen to be in the political and economic forefront of the village economy. In this village, the Bagdis or the households belonging to the Bagnas (locally called) are not economically, politically or socially strong. There are only five households of the Bagdis who reside in the Vaishnab ‘para’ itself.
Story of namasudras or the lowest castes of peasants paving their way to a higher economic position is evident through Narayan Mandal’s life. Through his hardship, today he has become a middle-level farmer with more than 5 acres of land. Mandal was part of many social and land movements during the previous political regime. He said he used to run from one place to the other in order to work for the party and as a representative of the panchayat office. Now, he does not involve himself in much of politics, only that he is present in some of the meetings as a member of the village. He emphasized that both the previous government and the present government have done nothing to improve the condition of the farmers. The present government has helped in improving the system of irrigation by making opportunities for micro-irrigation and also by encouraging farmers to go for multi-cropping which was not previously a trend in the village. However, the profit from farm production is still low and not profitable. In cultivating potato in 0.33 acres of land, the cost incurred is around ₹22,000–24,000 in a year. From this land, 80 packets or sacks of potato are produced. If the potato is sold at ₹300 per packet, then it might cover the cost of expenditure to some extent for the farmers. However, the present price ranges from ₹100 to 140 per sack or ₹2–3 per kg, which is too less to even pay off the loans taken for better cultivation of the potatoes in the farm. Similar condition is also in the case of rice production. ₹8,000–9,000 is spent towards the production of rice. If 25 packets or sacks of rice are produced in 0.33 acres of land, then 10 sacks are kept by the farmers and the rest 15 sacks are sent to the rice mill. These farmers sell their rice to the local mahajans who are from the dominant caste groups and among rich traders from the same or other village, who then send it to the mill and finally to the market. He even pointed out that strikes as a political strategy have ruined the farming economy as well.
A significant point Mandal stated was of the ignorance of the government policies towards the development and progress of the middle-income farmer groups. It is also evident from his account that unlike the traditional upper caste groups of the Brahmins, these caste groups which constitute the ritually lower position have acquired political, economic and social domination in course of time with an increase in the size of land under their ownership. Traditionally, Mandals and Karmakars constituted the caste groups of the Namasudras which were considered among the unclean sudra castes or the ajalachal castes. The Mandals have upgraded their political and economic position through social mobilization since 1872–1873 (Bandyopadhyay, 1994, p. 96, see Chapter 2) in eastern Bengal. As an important outcome of the mobilization of the Namasudras, it can be noted that their occupation with the land has increased from the position of merely being agricultural labourers to becoming the middle- and small-size landowners. Narayan Mandal like many other members from this caste group is now the owner of large tracts of land in the rural areas. Along with being the owners of large tracts of land, members of this caste group have also started occupying important political position since the nineteenth century.
In the village, since last 10 years, there has been only one development project taken up for the development of agriculture. Under this project, three pump stations have been built to provide water from the river which is the only source of irrigation along with some sources of micro-irrigation in the village. However, this has been successful only with the help of few local party members who take keen interest in the developmental initiatives in the village. There are very few such people in the village who are also members of the local panchayat who take up important steps towards developmental initiative for the people. Most of the panchayat members are either not interested to look after the villagers or they are involved in forming groups inside the local party. There are already factions formed with few members of the party along with the youngest son of the local landlord, and there is a second faction which has the other two sons as the leaders of the second faction along with other members of the party. Instead of bringing about some progressive development in the village, one faction is always trying to find faults and instigate the local people against the other. It is this divided political system which the farmers have pointed out has never helped in the development of the state’s rural economy, which has also been emphasized in the works of Kaviraj (1997), Patnaik (1995) and Jenkins (1999).
Conclusion
The important questions which led the path forward for the research have come to a naught without a positive answer for the depressed caste and class group of peasants in the rural economy. Except for few instances of social mobility among the peasants, most of the lower caste and class of peasants and tribal groups are reeling under the economic and political suppression of the dominant groups of landowners, the traditional landlords, the traders and merchants and the middlemen. Thus, the larger picture of agriculture and profit shown is not the share of the economically depressed households but a gamble for the dominant groups of landowners or the middle-level farmers who have become the ‘elite’ peasants in the rural economy and wield considerable political nexus at the same time.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the editor and the reviewer for helping me in improvising the article and for making the necessary changes in the article.
This research is a part of a larger PhD thesis on ‘Agriculture and Development: Ethnographic Study of Selected Rural Communities in Bardhaman, West Bengal’ under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Amit Kumar Sharma and Prof. Dr. DivyaVaid as research advisors at the Centre for Studies in Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. This work has been greatly influenced by Prof. Dr. Abhijit Dasgupta from the Department of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.