Peasants and farmers movement
Indian society is a highly stratified and complex social formation characterized by deep-rooted divisions along the lines of caste, religion, language, ethnicity, and region. Despite more than seven decades of democracy, these divisions continue to structure everyday life, particularly in terms of inter-group relations, marriage alliances, religious rituals, and social mobility. In such a social context, social movements have played a critical role in challenging entrenched hierarchies, demanding rights, and shaping the trajectory of Indian democracy.
Social movements in India have historically emerged as responses to both institutional injustices and cultural rigidities. These movements aim to transform unequal social structures and have often drawn momentum from the colonial legacy of British rule, which introduced both repressive structures and modern ideas of rights and citizenship. According to Gail Omvedt in Reinventing Revolution, many of the modern social movements in India are rooted in the quest for social justice and the equitable distribution of resources.
Evolution and Character of Modern Social Movements
Although India has witnessed a long history of resistance and protest—from the Bhakti and Sufi movements to the tribal uprisings under British rule—modern social movements are marked by their organized nature, articulated goals, and contemporary context. They are no longer spontaneous expressions of discontent alone but are strategically planned, ideologically driven, and media-aware. Their issues span caste discrimination, gender inequality, environmental degradation, farmers' rights, and minority protection.
Peasant and Farmer Movements in India
Among the many social movements, peasant and farmers’ movements occupy a central place in the socio-political history of India. These movements are particularly significant because a large proportion of India’s population has historically been engaged in agriculture and related activities.
Conceptual Understanding of Peasants
Sociologically, peasants have been understood through a range of lenses. According to Robert Redfield, peasants are part of the "little tradition," meaning they operate within localized, non-literate cultures. Kroeber viewed them as part of “incomplete societies,” lacking the complex institutional structures of modern social systems. Peasants have traditionally been depicted as economically subsistent, culturally unsystematic, and politically underpowered.
Peasants also occupy a marginalized position within the political economy. Eric Wolf and Teodor Shanin describe them as politically dominated and economically deprived, often lacking the organizational structure or knowledge needed for collective resistance. However, scholars like A.R. Desai and SinghaRoy have reinterpreted peasantry not as passive victims but as active agents in India’s social transformation.
Who Are the Peasants in India?
The Indian peasantry is a heterogeneous category that includes:
Landless agricultural laborers
Sharecroppers and tenants
Small and marginal cultivators
Artisans involved in agricultural production
As D.N. Dhanagare argues, despite differences in class positions and land ownership, these diverse groups are generally referred to under the umbrella term "peasants." Kathleen Gough adds that the interests of these groups are often divergent, leading to internal contradictions within peasant movements.
Peasant-Caste Interface
Caste has a crucial bearing on the peasant identity in India. The majority of peasants come from historically marginalized communities such as the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and tribal groups. These communities have often been excluded from land ownership and subjected to caste-based exploitation. In regional terms, various names like Kisan, Krishak, Roytu, Chashi, Collie, and Adhiar signify their occupational and caste positions, reflecting both economic vulnerability and social inferiority.
According to SinghaRoy, peasants are not only economically marginalized but also culturally subjugated and politically disempowered. Their reliance on land for subsistence places them in a fragile socio-economic position.
Peasant Movements: Sociological Insights
Peasant movements are a distinct category of social movements. Sociologists like Rao, Dhanagare, and Mukherjee argue that these movements are rooted in class conflicts and production relations. They are primarily concerned with:
Redistributive justice (land reforms)
Fair share of agricultural produce
Better wage structures
Access to institutional credit and infrastructure
SinghaRoy explains that peasant movements are collective efforts by the oppressed classes to change ownership patterns and challenge systems of domination.
Peasant Movements Under Colonial Rule
The impact of British colonialism was a major catalyst for the rise of organized peasant resistance:
Commercialization of agriculture: British policies encouraged cash crop cultivation for export, reducing land for food crops.
Marketization of land: Traditional land ownership and community rights were dismantled.
Overcrowding of land: The collapse of artisanal industries pushed more people into agriculture, causing land fragmentation.
New land revenue systems: High taxes and exploitative landlords increased peasant indebtedness and vulnerability.
Disruption of customary rights: Colonial judicial systems often favored zamindars, undermining peasant claims.
Shah notes that between 1860 and 1920, rent collection shifted from cash to grain, increasing the economic burden on peasants due to price volatility.
Phases and Nature of Peasant Movements
Peasant resistance in India has moved through various phases, including:
Pre-independence uprisings (e.g., Indigo Rebellion, Bardoli Satyagraha)
Nationalist phase, where peasants joined the freedom movement
Post-independence movements demanding land reforms and fair policies
Recent agitations like the 2020–21 farmers' protest against new agricultural laws
SinghaRoy argues that these movements form a continuum of struggles—each phase building upon the previous, with evolving demands and strategies.
A.R. Desai notes that the nationalist movement often absorbed peasant struggles, but their class-based demands were sometimes overshadowed by elite political narratives.
Phases of Peasant Movements in India
Peasant movements in India have historically reflected the deep socio-economic inequalities embedded in the agrarian structure. These movements have evolved in distinct phases, responding to transformations in land relations, political authority, and class dynamics. With the passage of time, the character of these movements has shifted from localized resistances against feudal exploitation to organized struggles against capitalist modes of production and state policies. Post-independence, the term “peasant” gradually gave way to “farmer,” signifying not only a change in terminology but also a structural shift in rural society from semi-feudal dependence to capitalist agriculture. The promotion of cash crops, land reforms, and agricultural modernization all contributed to the emergence of a new class of capitalist farmers, thus changing the nature of rural mobilization.
Sociologist Mehta categorizes the history of peasant movements in India into three major phases. The first phase, from 1857 to 1921, was marked by sporadic and fragmented uprisings that lacked a cohesive ideological framework or centralized leadership. These early revolts were primarily a reaction to the oppressive revenue policies of the colonial state, the exploitative practices of zamindars, and the increasing pauperization of rural communities. During this time, recurring famines, economic depression, and the absence of protective tenancy laws created fertile ground for unrest. Iconic movements such as the Santhal Rebellion (1855), the Maratha Uprising (1875), the Champaran and Kheda Satyagrahas (1917–1918), and the Moplah Rebellion (1921) exemplified the resistance of peasants against colonial and feudal oppression. However, these movements remained largely local, leaderless, and reactive rather than programmatic or reform-oriented.
The second phase, spanning from 1923 to 1946, witnessed the emergence of more organized and ideologically grounded peasant movements. Influenced by socialist and Marxist thought, this period saw the formation of peasant organizations such as the Kisan Sabhas, which brought greater coordination and class consciousness to the rural struggles. These movements were no longer just spontaneous uprisings but were driven by well-defined objectives, including tenancy reforms, a fairer share of agricultural produce, and the abolition of feudal landlordism. One of the most significant developments was the establishment of the Bihar Provincial Kisan Sabha in 1929 by Swami Sahajanand Saraswati, which played a crucial role in mobilizing the rural masses against landlordism. A.R. Desai noted that while the Indian National Congress initiated early peasant mobilizations, such as Champaran, they were largely limited in scope and refrained from directly challenging the zamindars, focusing instead on immediate relief from revenue burdens.
The post-independence period ushered in the third phase of peasant mobilization, where new issues and contradictions emerged in the context of a modernizing Indian state. Though land reforms and community development programs were introduced with the intention of transforming agrarian society, they often failed to alter the power dynamics in rural areas significantly. The dominance of the rural elite continued, and many landless laborers and marginal peasants found themselves excluded from the benefits of these reforms. Scholar M.S.A. Rao observed that state-led capitalist development in agriculture deepened existing inequalities and gave rise to new tensions between the landed and the landless.
This post-independence phase can itself be divided into three sub-phases. The first sub-phase, in the 1950s and 60s, was marked by struggles for sharecropping rights and tenancy reforms. Movements like the Bargadar agitation in Bengal and the Kagodu Satyagraha in Karnataka focused on the protection of tenants from eviction, the reduction of rents, and the redistribution of excess land. Despite their efforts, these movements struggled to bring about widespread land reform due to inadequate state intervention and political resistance. The second sub-phase occurred in the pre-Green Revolution era, during which poor peasants began demanding access to government land and common resources. In states like Kerala, left-led governments enacted radical land reforms that redistributed land to the tillers, offering a rare success story in India’s otherwise disappointing land reform record.
The third sub-phase, post-Green Revolution, saw a widening gap between rich and poor farmers. The technological and input-intensive model of agriculture disproportionately benefited large landowners, while small and marginal peasants remained trapped in cycles of debt and underemployment. The resulting discontent led to radical movements like the Naxalbari uprising in 1967, where peasants, inspired by Maoist ideology, took up arms against landlords and the state in a bid to revolutionize agrarian relations. Though the movement did not achieve widespread geographic expansion, as noted by P.N. Mukherjee, its ideological influence endured, giving rise to long-term left-wing extremism in parts of rural India, especially in tribal belts.
In recent decades, the nature of rural mobilization has further evolved into what are referred to as "new farmers’ movements." These movements are not necessarily led by the landless poor but are often spearheaded by the relatively better-off sections of the peasantry and supported by middle-class activists and intellectuals. The focus has shifted from land redistribution to issues such as agricultural pricing, subsidies, market access, and displacement due to development projects. A notable example is the Narmada Bachao Andolan, which emerged as a powerful protest against the construction of large dams and the resulting displacement of farmers and tribals. These new movements connect agrarian distress with broader concerns such as environmental justice, sustainable development, and human rights.
Thus, the history of peasant and farmers’ movements in India is a story of changing aspirations, identities, and forms of resistance. From resisting colonial landlords to challenging capitalist agriculture and state-led development projects, these movements have continuously shaped the contours of Indian democracy and agrarian society. Each phase builds upon the previous, creating a dynamic continuum of rural struggles that reflect deeper socio-economic and political undercurrents.
Agrarian Structure and Peasant Movements in Post-Independence India
The agrarian structure and the trajectory of peasant movements in post-independence India have undergone significant transformations in response to land reforms, capitalist penetration, and changing socio-political dynamics. The post-colonial Indian state, driven by the objective of social justice and rural development, introduced a series of land reforms aimed at dismantling the exploitative zamindari system. The abolition of zamindari marked a major shift in rural power structures, weakening the entrenched authority of landlords who had historically dominated the agrarian economy and local governance. This transformation altered the hierarchical landlord-peasant relationship, replacing it with a more direct intervention by the state in land redistribution and rural administration. However, while the reforms reduced the traditional grip of zamindars, they did not necessarily result in equitable land ownership; rather, new rural elites emerged, often comprising prosperous farmers and local bureaucrats who benefited from the redistribution process.
From the 1960s onwards, the rural economy in India became increasingly integrated with the national and global markets, especially with the onset of the Green Revolution. This period witnessed a surge in agricultural productivity and commercialization of farming, which contributed to blurring the traditional rural-urban divide. Rural India was no longer isolated from the broader currents of economic change. With increased access to roads, education, markets, and communication technologies, rural regions began exhibiting characteristics previously associated with urban areas. Additionally, non-farm employment opportunities began to proliferate, creating hybrid rural economies. These developments led to changes in the composition and consciousness of peasant classes. New rural middle classes emerged, often more assertive, politically aware, and economically dynamic, contributing to the redefinition of peasant identities and aspirations.
Another major structural change was witnessed in the evolution of master-labour relations in rural areas. The traditional socio-economic relationships, which were based on caste hierarchies and extra-economic obligations, began to erode as capitalist relations of production deepened. Agricultural laborers increasingly found themselves dependent on wage labor rather than on customary patron-client ties. This proletarianization of labor led to the weakening of older forms of labor control and the rise of more monetized, impersonal relationships between landowners and workers. Kannan and Shah highlight this transformation, noting that wage labor has become the primary form of sustenance for a large section of rural workers. These changes signaled a shift from a semi-feudal to a more capitalist agrarian structure, where economic transactions replaced caste-based servitude and bondage.
The rise of new farmer organizations in the post-Green Revolution era marked a significant phase in the evolution of peasant movements. Unlike earlier movements, which were often led by marginalized or landless peasants against landlords, the new movements were largely spearheaded by middle and rich farmers. These organizations, such as the Shetkari Sangathana in Maharashtra, the Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU) in Uttar Pradesh, and the Khedut Samaj in Gujarat and Punjab, emerged as powerful pressure groups. They strategically utilized their economic importance and demographic weight to exert influence over state and national policies. Their demands focused on securing remunerative prices for agricultural produce, subsidized inputs, low-interest credit, and reduced electricity and irrigation costs. Their ability to mobilize large-scale protests and engage with political parties made them key actors in the agrarian political economy. They often succeeded in bending policy in their favor, particularly in states where agriculture constituted a significant share of the economy.
In the post-liberalization era, particularly after 1990, the nature of peasant mobilization underwent yet another transformation. The economic reforms initiated by the Indian state increasingly prioritized industrial development, urban expansion, and infrastructure projects. This led to a surge in land acquisition by the state and private corporations, often targeting fertile agricultural lands. In response, numerous peasant movements erupted across the country, protesting displacement and loss of livelihoods. Movements such as those in Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal, Mann in Maharashtra, and Sompeta in Andhra Pradesh highlighted the growing resistance to state-led development that ignored rural concerns. These movements gained momentum due to the active involvement of civil society groups, non-governmental organizations, and environmental activists. The growing role of media and information technology played a crucial role in amplifying their voices and bringing national attention to rural distress. The protests were not only about land but also about dignity, identity, and rights, as peasants increasingly framed their struggle in terms of justice and democratic participation.
Farmer Movements in India: The Peasant versus the Farmer
The study of farmer movements in post-independence India is deeply intertwined with the conceptual evolution from “peasant” to “farmer.” Traditionally, the term “peasant” denoted small-scale, subsistence-oriented agriculturalists, closely tied to the land and embedded within feudal or semi-feudal structures. However, in the decades following independence, the Indian agrarian landscape underwent significant transformations, particularly with the Green Revolution and the rise of market-oriented agriculture. Consequently, the category of “farmer” emerged, signifying a more capitalist and commercially integrated agricultural actor. This shift brought about a corresponding change in the nature, demands, and composition of agrarian movements, complicating any simplistic understanding of rural mobilizations as merely “peasant uprisings.”
The move towards market-oriented farming in India significantly altered the agrarian structure. Traditional peasant societies, rooted in subsistence farming and reliant on communal support systems, gradually gave way to commercial agriculture dominated by input-intensive practices and output-focused production. Farmers began engaging with credit markets, agro-industrial inputs, government procurement systems, and global market trends. This new class of farmers—often more educated, politically conscious, and economically strategic—played a central role in the emerging farmers' movements of post-independence India.
One of the key factors that have driven farmers' mobilizations is the persistent lack of social security. Indian farmers are acutely vulnerable to economic shocks—whether due to crop failure, fluctuating market prices, or natural disasters. Unlike urban workers, they often lack insurance, healthcare, and pension systems. This has led to widespread agrarian distress and demands for comprehensive state support and welfare mechanisms. Equally important is the crisis of credit. Small and marginal farmers, in particular, struggle to access institutional credit due to bureaucratic barriers, lack of collateral, and high-interest rates charged by informal moneylenders. While schemes like the Kisan Credit Card were introduced to alleviate these issues, their implementation has been uneven and riddled with inefficiencies.
Subsidies have become another major focal point of farmer movements. As input costs for seeds, fertilizers, electricity, and irrigation rise, farmers have increasingly demanded state subsidies to maintain viability. These demands are often linked with calls for higher Minimum Support Prices (MSP), a long-standing cornerstone of farmer protests. A remunerative MSP is essential not only for covering the cost of production but also for ensuring a reasonable profit margin. Yet, the disconnect between MSPs announced by the government and the actual prices received in markets often exacerbates rural distress. Additionally, exposure to volatile market prices and global competition without adequate protection has made farming an economically unstable occupation for many.
The scholarly literature offers various interpretations of these movements. Vibha Arora notes that farmer mobilizations gained major traction in the late 1970s and peaked in the 1980s. These movements resurfaced in the 1990s, spurred by the realization that although the Green Revolution had improved productivity, it had not addressed the problem of unremunerative prices. D.N. Dhanagare interprets farmer movements as class-based agitations led by the capitalist farming class. According to him, these movements primarily represented the interests of large and medium landholders who benefited from the Green Revolution and were now demanding additional state support in the form of free electricity, subsidies, and enhanced MSPs. These demands were less about structural change and more about maximizing profits within the existing capitalist framework.
In a similar vein, many of these farmer organizations act as interest groups rather than revolutionary movements. Their political strategies aim to influence state policy through protest, negotiation, and electoral mobilization. This is evident in the emergence of farmer organizations such as the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU), Shetkari Sangathana, and Khedut Samaj, which have effectively functioned as lobbying groups to pressure the government into favorable policy decisions. Gail Omvedt expands this understanding by emphasizing that modern farmer movements increasingly situate their struggles within the broader global economic order. For her, these are not just local or national issues but global in nature, influenced by World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, foreign direct investment in retail, and the spread of genetically modified crops. Such framing broadens the scope of farmers’ struggles to include critiques of neoliberal globalization and corporate control over agriculture.
At the heart of all these movements lies the core demand for remunerative prices. Ensuring a fair return for agricultural produce has become central to the agenda of almost every farmer mobilization, as it directly affects the economic stability and livelihood security of farmers. Moreover, these movements have increasingly taken up concerns that span from local to global issues—such as WTO-mandated trade liberalization, contract farming, retail FDI, and the proliferation of genetically modified seeds. These issues reveal the embeddedness of Indian agriculture within a complex global capitalist system, where decisions made far from the fields of India can have profound consequences on the lives of farmers.
Despite their achievements, farmer movements in India have not been free from criticism. One major critique is their pronounced class bias. Most mobilizations have been led by relatively prosperous, market-oriented farmers who own substantial landholdings and benefit from state subsidies and procurement policies. In contrast, the concerns of subsistence farmers, landless laborers, and tenant cultivators often remain on the margins of these movements. Loan waivers and MSP increases disproportionately benefit the upper segments of the rural agrarian hierarchy, while the poorest continue to suffer without representation or voice.
The caste bias in these movements is equally significant. Many farmer mobilizations have been dominated by upper or dominant castes, leaving Dalits and other marginalized communities underrepresented. In Karnataka, for example, the Raitha Sangha was largely led by the Lingayats and Vokkaligas. In Maharashtra, the Shetkari Sangathana was closely associated with the Maratha Kunbi caste. In Tamil Nadu, participation was dominated by castes such as Naidus, Goundars, Tewars, and Vanniyars, while Dalits remained largely excluded. Similarly, in Gujarat, the Khedut Samaj was primarily led by the Patidars. These patterns reflect the broader caste inequalities that pervade rural India and challenge the inclusive potential of these movements.
Furthermore, the geographical focus of these mobilizations tends to be biased toward irrigated and agriculturally productive areas. The concerns of farmers in rainfed, drought-prone, or ecologically vulnerable regions have not received adequate attention. As a result, the movements have often failed to address the diversity and complexity of agrarian distress in the country as a whole.
Ideology of Farmer Movements in India
Farmer movements in post-independence India have been shaped not only by economic demands but also by deep-rooted ideological frameworks that critique existing power structures. These ideologies help explain the structural nature of agrarian distress and provide a theoretical foundation for collective mobilization. From the global critiques of economic dependency to the internal divides between rural and urban India, these ideologies reflect the complex interplay between local struggles and broader economic systems. Three major ideological narratives have particularly influenced farmers’ movements in India: the Dependency Theory, the "Bharat vs. India" framework, and the ideology of New Farmers’ Movements.
One of the prominent ideological underpinnings of farmer movements, particularly in Karnataka, is derived from Dependency Theory. This theory, which emerged as a critique of neocolonialism and global capitalism, posits that the underdevelopment of the Global South is not accidental but systematically produced by the global capitalist order. The theory argues that the economic progress of developed countries continues to rely on the exploitation of resources and labor in developing nations, even after formal colonialism has ended. In the Indian agrarian context, this framework has been adopted by farmer leaders and movements to highlight how the rural economy remains structurally subordinated.
The legacy of colonial exploitation, where India's raw materials were extracted to fuel industrial growth in Europe, laid the groundwork for underdevelopment. Post-independence, this exploitation persisted through newer mechanisms: cheap agricultural imports from developed countries undermine local markets; substandard technologies are dumped on rural producers; patent regimes imposed by multinational corporations stifle indigenous innovation; and policies influenced by global trade institutions like the WTO restrict farmer autonomy. Farmers in Karnataka, as well as in Uttar Pradesh and other states, have increasingly adopted such arguments to critique national and international structures that perpetuate rural distress. These critiques are grounded in a broader ideological suspicion of globalization and neoliberal reforms, which are seen as extensions of older patterns of dependency.
A second key ideological perspective is encapsulated in the “Bharat vs. India” narrative, most powerfully articulated by Sharad Joshi, the founder of the Shetkari Sangathana in Maharashtra. According to Joshi, post-independence India inherited not just the political structures but also the exploitative economic framework of British colonialism. In this framework, “India” represents the post-colonial, urban-industrial elite, closely tied to global capital and state institutions. It is an entity that promotes urban-centric development, often ignoring the rural economy or using it as a source of cheap labor and raw materials.
On the other hand, “Bharat” represents the real, traditional, rural India—agrarian, self-reliant, and historically exploited. Joshi used this dichotomy to argue that the urban elite and political class, operating under the banner of "India," continue to neglect the interests of the rural population. Agricultural pricing policies, industrial subsidies, taxation systems, and infrastructural development all, according to this ideology, benefit the urban-industrial sector while leaving farmers behind. This ideological divide served as a rallying cry for farmers to demand equal treatment, fair pricing, and recognition of their economic contributions. The “Bharat vs. India” narrative thus reframed the farmers’ struggle as not merely economic but civilizational—an internal colonialism that needed to be dismantled.
The New Farmers’ Movements that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s reflected a more decentralized yet ideologically resonant wave of agrarian mobilization. These movements arose in response to an agrarian crisis marked by falling agricultural incomes, declining terms of trade, and escalating input costs. Farmers were increasingly aware that despite their contribution to national food security and economic growth, they were not receiving adequate compensation or institutional support.
The Shetkari Sangathana in Maharashtra took the lead, particularly through its agitation over remunerative prices for onions—a symbolic as well as economic issue that galvanized rural opinion. The movement soon spread to other states: the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha under M.D. Nanjundaswamy, and the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) under Mahendra Singh Tikait in Uttar Pradesh. Each of these organizations had its own leadership style, regional character, and political alliances. However, despite their similar grievances, these movements remained ideologically fragmented. They failed to coalesce into a unified national political force due to differences in strategy, caste composition, regional priorities, and political affiliations.
Nevertheless, what united these movements ideologically was their critique of the economic system that undervalued agriculture and prioritized industrial development and urban consumption. They challenged the prevailing policy model that favored cheap food prices for urban consumers at the expense of the producers. Their demand for remunerative prices, reduced input costs, subsidy rationalization, and protection from market volatility reflected a coherent, though decentralized, ideological opposition to the economic marginalization of agriculture.
While these movements did not fully integrate into a national political bloc, they played a critical role in reshaping public discourse around agriculture. They highlighted the contradictions within India’s developmental model and exposed the systemic neglect of rural issues. Their ideological positions—rooted in anti-globalization sentiments, critiques of internal colonialism, and demands for economic justice—have continued to influence later mobilizations, including the large-scale farmers' protests seen in the 2000s and 2020s.