IN November 2015, as we were winding up the maiden spell of teaching the newly introduced course on agrarian sociology to undergraduates at the departments of sociology, Delhi University,¹ the redoubtable journalist, Harish Damodaran, wrote a piece in The Indian Express, which was forwarded to the students with a tagline: ‘The reason why you are being force fed this course!’² Here Damodaran gave a swift account of the decline of the craft of agricultural economics in India and pinned his hopes on sociologists and social anthropologists to keep up the legacy of agrarian studies.

Like agricultural economics, agrarian sociology was a flourishing field from the 1950s through 1980s. It was known for the commitment and encyclopaedic range of A.R. Desai, conceptual suppleness of André Béteille, rigorous comparative historical analysis of D.N. Dhanagare and meticulous fieldwork of B.S. Baviskar, and countless other scholars of repute. Students who wanted to do a thesis in agrarian sociology were spoilt for the range of expertise available for supervision in the sociology departments. Exchanges across disciplines and continents were thick and thriving.

 

Today, notwithstanding the ‘lonely furrows being ploughed’ by the likes of A.R. Vasavi and Surinder S. Jodhka, and an occasional outstanding thesis from an institution abroad – to use Hobsbawm’s metaphor from a different context – agrarian studies, which once used to be the sky of social sciences in India, has become all but a pale bank of flimsy clouds. By all indications, along with an agrarian crisis, there is also a crisis of agrarian studies. In short, agrarian studies are as urgent as unsexy.

Perhaps, it would be a mistake to think of this crisis as just one of production of quality scholarly literature or mere lack of attention to urgent and emerging areas of research due to misplaced research priorities. The real crisis is one of the ecosystem of educated opinion for which agrarian realities seem to have become increasingly marginal. Under the circumstances, the task and role of agrarian studies in the undergraduate system should be to rejuvenate that ecosystem. It means not just an introduction of a course on agrarian sociology, but a presence of agrarian economics, history and politics as options to pursue from the undergraduate level onwards, so that it becomes possible for anyone who cares to know what one means when one says: the world of agriculture is world itself.

One may list any number of instrumental reasons for paying attention to agriculture: proportion of workforce, food security, and indispensability for ensuring economic growth, to list a few. But beyond all that, agriculture is about our collective past, our present and our future as a species. Or, as we put it to our students, perhaps with a dash of drama, it is about our ‘here and now’ and ‘forever and always’. It is more immediate to our lives than most of us realize. It is the popcorn we consume and the cotton we wear.

That a significant number of people consume agrarian produce without having anything to do with producing it is itself a more unusual situation in the long history of human civilization than most of us realize. And there is no guarantee that it will always remain so. Agriculture is about the arrangements and relations people enter into while engaging in activities that produce whatever they do. Historically, these arrangements are at times entrenched, at times transforming. Like all social arrangements these too are experienced. They generate their own vision of the world and modes of experiencing the world. To be able to engage with that world, one must be able to understand it with empathy.

 

To think agriculture is to come to our senses about suicides in Vidharbha and Telangana, to understand why a peasant might resort to violence over controlling and cultivating a small piece of land, to figure out the configurations and consequences of social power and inequalities that accrue from the control of land and labour, to understand the peculiarities of the views of life and death. Agriculture is simultaneously political economy with a global scope and a cosmic drama of seasons and festivals and a sense of what is a good life and what is a bad life. It is in a way the absolute horizon of what we have been since the advent of civilization.

In the summer of 2013, when we set out to design a syllabus for agrarian sociology for the BA (Honours) programme, this was the broad vision which we wanted to communicate to a neophyte. Several design considerations went into producing the final draft of the course. The primary objective was to be able to convey the vividness of agrarian realities to a largely urban student population, flag a few key issues that should draw their attention and equip them with categories and language to apprehend that reality and engage in an informed conversation, no matter what they choose to do later in life. At the same time, it was agreed that the course must provide a firm foundation for those who choose to pursue an academic career in sociology or cognate disciplines and take forward their interest in agrarian worlds. Institutionally speaking, the course was envisaged as a ground clearing for more advanced, niche courses to be offered in agrarian studies at the masters and research levels.

 

In making this course we were committed to two ideas. First, it is an agrarian sociology paper, hence at the end of the day, it is meant to ignite and cultivate the sociological imagination. It must talk to the other papers in the programme and resist any temptation to reify agriculture. Second, it should be premised on the principles of good design, i.e. be innovative, relevant, functional, aesthetic, understandable, comprehensive, long lasting, detailed, flexible and optimal. Above all, the course must be premised on a well articulated narrative and a clear argument. This design emphasis is vital for a successful transaction of the course, as a well designed course can communicate a lot more within the limited teaching time available is easy for both teachers and students to handle and provides sufficient room for interpretation.

It was also decided that the course should strike a balance between the key theoretical perspectives in agrarian sociology and the agrarian realities of Indian society. The intention was to give the students a glimpse of the rich legacy of the body of work, key personages, scholarly resources and emerging issues without taking their eye off the substantive realities. The course is to be transacted in a 14 week semester and is divided into four sections: agrarian societies and agrarian studies (2 weeks); perspectives in agrarian sociology (5 weeks); themes in agrarian sociology of India (5 weeks); and agrarian futures (2 weeks).

 

The first section is short but vital in the larger scheme of things. Its objective is to constitute ‘agrarian societies’ as an object of study for a sociological inquiry. This is to be done in multiple ways: first, by drawing attention to the sheer materiality of agrarian activity and underlining the centrality of that activity for human civilization; second, by drawing attention to the irreducibly social and collective character of agrarian reality and marking the inherent diversity of agrarian social reality across time and space; and third, by pointing out the discursive constitution of that reality from diverse scholarly and political perspectives and tentatively drawing out their implications. Pedagogically speaking, this section presents several ideas, concepts, themes such as land, patterns of landholding, technology, ecology, material culture, social organization of labour processes, agrarian stratification, and issues of public policy in relation to agriculture in a nascent form to the class. So, what has been alluded to in a preliminary fashion here is to be returned to repeatedly over next 14 weeks.

Finally, recognizing the fact that there is no social science without a narrative of how the objective of inquiry is discursively constituted, contextually realized and politically tainted, the section offers a baseline account of how in South Asia, agriculture is constituted in the vision of state and ruling elites as evidenced by an almost unbroken chain of texts from the Artha Shastra to Planning Commission documents and how the lived realities of agrarian communities generally falls by the wayside in our obsession with statist categories. The work of Daniel Thorner, Andre Beteille, David Ludden and Theodor Shanin anchors the first section.

 

The intent of the perspectives section is to frame the substantive issues in agrarian sociology in a conceptual grid that incorporates significant theoretical positions in a conversation. This section is organized in three movements. Each of the perspectives articulates closely with the other. In the first instance, students are introduced to the way the classic agrarian question was posited in the 19th century and evolved through the cataclysmic political and economic events through the 20th century. The attempt is to draw out the configuration, change and dynamics of change of agrarian social orders on a global scale under the sign of capital. The classic two-part survey article by A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and Cristobal Kay is used for this purpose.³

After the survey of macro dynamics of agrarian transition, we turn to micro perspectives with a debate between ‘subsistence oriented family farm production’ centred moral economy and ‘utility maximizing rational peasant’ centred political economy. Essays by James C. Scott and Samuel Popkin introduce students to these debates.⁴ Finally, the section concludes with a brief introduction to the ‘global commodity chains’ perspective.⁵

 

From a pedagogic point of view, the perspectives section is constituted as a series of contrasts. The moral economy – whose origins could be traced to the work and vision of A.V. Chayanov on the one hand and the substantivism of Karl Polyani on the other – stands in sharp contrast to the classical agrarian question. Similarly, the emphasis on production centred communities in these two perspectives stand in contrast to the circulation centred approach of the commodity chains perspective that also enables us to talk of more recent concerns like environment and global justice in relation to agriculture.

This part of the course has been designed to help students understand that each of the perspectives offers a distinct version of agrarian realities; that there are specific substantive concerns that are central to each perspective which is also allied to certain kinds of political practice; that none of the perspectives was ever stagnant or monolithic and that there has always been a rich internal debate and constant concern to grapple with changing realities. In a nutshell, these perspectives are presented as live conversations responding to changing agrarian realities across time and space, rather than inert viewpoints.

The third section of the syllabus that deals with the agrarian scene in India is the longest segment in terms of the number of readings. The section is designed on the premise that agrarian modernity of South Asia could be adequately mapped on a space defined by five key axes: land, labour, market, state and technology. This understanding is then translated into four themes: ‘labour and agrarian class structure’, ‘markets, land reforms and green revolution’, ‘agrarian movements’ and ‘caste and gender’.

 

While each of the themes has a measure of these five elements implicit in them, ‘labour and agrarian class structure’ is primarily about land and labour. It starts with a simple description of types of agrarian labour, the proportion of those kinds of labour in the agrarian order and their historical evolution. It then proceeds to demonstrate how these kinds of labour are locked into each other and kinds of land holding and labouring relations to form a specific mode of production using the case study of Chengalpattu by Joan Mencher.⁶ Simultaneously students are also introduced to analytical and comparative questions about the relationship between agrarian structures and agrarian mobilizations. Once these issues are dealt with in adequately concrete terms, they are taught Alice Thorner’s comprehensive survey article on the mode of production debate.

The second subsection on ‘markets, land reforms and green revolution’ draws attention to the close relationship between market, state and technology in 20th century agriculture. For the students, the word market represents either an intimate arena for unbridled bargaining or the utterly abstract, impersonal and inexorable processes of economics that determine the fate of all. The task is to bring these two imaginations together with adequate representation for peasant’s view of the market situation and their sense of vulnerability as a community. We sought to achieve this by prescribing a wonderfully evocative article by Shahid Amin on sugarcane markets in eastern Uttar Pradesh.⁷ The relationship between state and agriculture in India is dealt with by talking about two crucial ways in which post-colonial state attempted to intervene in agrarian transformation at its own initiative: land reforms and green revolution. The discussion on land reforms focuses largely on the institutional and political context of the initiative and its social consequences. While dealing with the green revolution, the course seeks to take a long-term view by tracing its origins in the technological changes that have been in making from 19th century onwards and then drawing attention to the consequences for agrarian social structures.

 

The third subsection on agrarian movements focuses on the peasantry’s collective political negotiation with both state as well as market. It introduces students to the dynamics of both classical peasant mobilizations as well as new farmers’ movements. The fourth subsection handles questions of identity and agrarian inequality with specific reference to gender and caste. These are central to the everyday operations of agrarian society in India but have often been marginalized in conversations about agriculture. The engagement with gender is presented in the form of a debate between Bina Agarwal and Cecile Jackson, that is, between an emphasis on land rights and social relations implicit in agrarian labour. The caste question is introduced from a more experiential vantage via an interview with a Dalit agricultural worker/labourer.⁸

 

The course concludes with a consideration of contemporary predicaments and future prospects for agrarian societies. It is pegged around two themes: agrarian crisis and globalization. The attempt here is to draw attention to the structural logic and long-term policy choices on a global scale that constitutes the causative foundations of contemporary agrarian crisis. The aim was to underline that there is nothing natural or inevitable about contemporary agrarian crisis. At the same time references are incorporated to show how the crisis manifests among peasant communities and the catastrophic personal costs for ordinary peasants.⁹

Clearly, this scheme is not the only way an introductory narrative about agrarian sociology might be constructed. It definitely is not without its share of shortcomings, inadequacies and blind spots. A range of enduring and emerging issues such as plantation systems, irrigation, auxiliary activities, climate change, seed sovereignty, agribusiness, biofuels and so on find no place here. The voice of the peasantry too could have found greater space, if only more ethnographic accounts were incorporated.

Some of these issues are sought to be addressed through a carefully chosen list of suggested readings that could form the basis for class presentations and book review projects. More importantly, the hope is that they could be attended to by reimagining evaluation as part of the pedagogic process rather than as a measure of achievement and moment of accreditation that comes after learning process ends. Thus it is important to have imaginative internal assessments to accompany a course like this. One of the suggestions was to ask the students to maintain a scrapbook on agrarian issues for the duration of the course and write an essay around the items they have gathered.

The biggest challenge in rolling out the course was building capacity for transacting it, which can only be a gradual and long-term process. The biggest reward is of course to see that the course actually works, in spite of initial apprehension that agrarian sociology is ‘dry’, whatever that means. Students as a collective and individuals come to a course with a range of attitudes, and varying degrees of maturity and interest. But they are never ‘disinterested’ in anything or unwilling to learn. Of course, they found the course demanding but they also thought it was ‘absolute fun to see the linkages and create a complex web of knowledge with it in your head.’ The diversity in the themes that they found interesting indicates that they could establish a dialogue with the course from their own social and biographical situatedness. Most of them felt ‘critical thinking’ and ‘sensitivity’ were the principal takeaways from the course. I am happy to report that the sense of engagement, extensive written feedback and examination performance from the sociology class at Lady Shri Ram College for Women indicate that all is not lost for the cause of agrarian sociology.¹⁰

 

Footnotes:

1. An endeavour such as this is collective by necessity. The idea of introducing agrarian sociology was mooted by Rajni Palriwala and Satish Deshpande. Anjali Bhatia steered the process of syllabus overhauls of BA (Hons) Sociology at Delhi University, twice over within three years with perseverance and wisdom. I gratefully acknowledge the gentle guidance of Subas Mohapatra, the other member of the drafting committee, in preparing the course. Padma Priyadarshini was steadfast in her commitment to the execution of the course. At Lady Shri Ram College for Women, the course was co-taught with Ishita Dey. I thank her for stepping in at a crucial juncture. Above all, I would like to thank BA (Hons) Sociology, Class of 2016, for their unwavering enthusiasm and a sense of hope they brought in. The final course outline could be accessed at: http://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/6144453_ BA-Honors_Sociology.pdf

2. ‘They Don’t Go to the Field’, The Indian Express, 4 November 2015. http://indian express.com/article/opinion/columns/they-dont-go-to-the-field/

3. A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and Cristobal Kay, ‘Surveying the Agrarian Question: Part 1, Unearthing Foundations, Exploring Diversity; Part 2, Current Debates and Beyond’, The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(1-2), January/April 2010, pp. 177-199 and 255-280.

4. James C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in South East Asia. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1976, pp. 13-34; Samuel L. Popkin, The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1979, pp. 1-31.

5. William Friedland, ‘Commodity Systems Analysis: An Approach to the Sociology of Agriculture’, Research in Rural Sociology and Development 1, 1984, pp. 221-235.

6. Joan P. Mencher, ‘Problems in Analyzing Rural Class Structure’, Economic and Political Weekly, 9(35), 31 August 1974, pp. 1495-1503.

7. Shahid Amin, ‘Unequal Antagonists: Peasants and Capitalists in Eastern UP in 1930s’, Economic and Political Weekly 16(42-43), 17-24 October 1981, pp. PE 19-29.

8. Gail Omvedt, ‘The Downtrodden Among the Downtrodden: An Interview with a Dalit Agricultural Labourer’, Signs 4(4), Summer 1979, pp. 763-774. Special issue on The Labour of Women: Work and Family,

9. A.R. Vasavi, ‘Agrarian Distress in Bidar: Market, State and Suicides’, Economic and Political Weekly 34(32), 1999, pp. 2263-2268.

10. I would like to thank, Ayushi Varma, Kamalini Hegde, Kriti Pradhan, Mohika Sharma, Parnika Agarwal, Tania Chatterjee, Tarini Varma, Upali Bhattacharya, Vishesha Singh for their detailed written responses to the course.