Rise and Fall of a Paradigm: Post colonial Indian Sub-continental States and the Praxis of Agrarian Resistance[1]

Neshat Quaiser

[This article is divided into a) Subjugated Past and the Free Present; b) Legitimacy of the states and the ‘unexpected’ behaviour of the exploited classes; c) Expedient Land Reform; d) Nationalist Movement and the Peasantry; e) General and Specific Dynamics of Domain; f) State and the Post-colonial Sub-continental Agrarian Resistance: India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; g) Concluding Remarks]

Subjugated Past and the ‘Free’ Present
This article primarily deals with the theoretical issues relating to praxis of agrarian resistance, agrarian structure and relations of domination, and the character of postcolonial states in Indian subcontinent. These questions are now-almost-forgotten within social sciences. These questions constitute a complex whole influencing and altering the collective life of majority of the people in the region. The site of this complex whole is constituted by multiple metaphors. The article would briefly examine the ways in which these metaphors significantly contribute to the making of praxis of ‘peasant’ resistance to class-caste domination. Such an exercise demands an examination of the internal dynamics of the interplay of agrarian collective action and politico ideological discourses.

The issue is to be situated within the context of today’s po­litically divided Indian sub continent. However, in order to capture the internal dynamics of the domain of the con­temporary independent states of the Indian sub continent, its preceding and (in a way) continuing past cannot be ignored. Thus the interplay of the subjugated past and the ‘free’ present comes into force.

In the history of the Indian sub continent, 1947 emerged as a paradigm. This paradigm was concretised by the continuing ideological political discourses. The paradigm itself was projected as an ideology, with the promise that it would mitigate the existing relations of domination in all spheres. However, the internal logic of the discourse was to produce what was not projected. Hence, 1947 caused less civilisational ruptures and more of cultural traumas.

Be it the irony of history or the inevitability of a particular course of history, the structures that sustain the relations of domination continues to operate in the ‘free states’. And hence challenges to the state also continue. Thus, the need to capture the components of the internal dynamics of the interplay of the state and the praxis of resistance to agrarian class-caste domination.

In the context of collective ‘peasant’ praxis of resistance in the Indian sub continent reci­procal interplay of ideology, class and agrarian collective action and the interplay between the agrarian collective action and politico ideological discourse are intrinsically linked with each other. In other words though the two themes do form two domains with their own internal dynamics and enjoy relative autonomy, empirical evidence concerning sub-continental post colonial collective ‘peasant’ praxis of resistance suggest that the internal dynamics of the two domains constantly acted as determinant for each other.

Legitimacy of the states and the ‘unexpected’ behaviour of exploited classes
The colonial past of the Indian sub continent had direct bearing on its contemporary history in all its spheres including collective praxis of agrarian resistance to class-caste mechanisms of domination, and is be analysed at two levels: at the first level it is to be comprehended that the Post colonial history of Indian sub-continent is marked by a continuity of relations of domination. With the ouster of the British–the external enemy–the most difficult task that the post colonial states have been faced with is to gain legi­timacy. That is, to establish that the state is not external to its people as the colonial state was. But the fact is that the ‘free’ states along with supporting social structures continue to be external to the oppressed, exploited and disenfranchised classes and castes with still newer forms. Hence, the study of the collective praxis of agrarian resistance in the Indian sub-continent in effect is the study of the interplay of the subjugated past and the ‘free’ present, which would make it a study of the rise and fall of a paradigm.

At the second level, the issues concerning class consciousness and ideology are palpable with regard to collective praxis of agrarian resistance in the Indian sub-continent. It has been very forcefully (but contentiously) argued that if consciousness is constitutive of labour process through which men acquire consciousness of their existence in relation to the structure (economy) and the structure becomes undesirable, as they get totally aliena­ted from it. In other words, consciousness of the existence in relation to the structure is inevitable. And that is how class-consciousness and ideology emerge and the oppressed and exploited people become capable of unmasking the ‘hidden structure’ beneath the surface of apparent social relations. As a logical corollary of this argument, class-consciousness and ideology then should necessarily come into force and give rise to class collective actions of resistance. Does this always happen in such a neatly drawn linear order? Why do the working class and exploited-oppressed peasants not behave the way they should behave as now-classically prescribed? If so, why is it not happening? In other words, why do the agrarian oppressed and exploited classes not always throw challenge to the structures of exploitation and oppression? Why does the class-consciousness lie dormant? These questions have generated enough contentious debate for quite some time. Thinkers and political activists have made claims and counter claims alike. In order to address these questions, one must raise another question that: under what conditions do class collective action take place? One possible explanation has been given in the above argument, that the oppressive and exploitative structures should be enough to effect this. But it does not always happen. We argue that it is only in the domain of active politics and in other ideological forms (such as culture) that the class-consciousness gets crystallised and activated. Thus, the role of an active political consciousness and internal and external organisation become a necessity. Hence, active political consciousness, in this regard, becomes the principal generative principle. This active political consciousness may find expression either through an organisation or without, as is evident from the sub-continental experiences.

An active and conscious reciprocity between the domains of politics and economy is therefore a necessary condition for the manifestation of class collective action. The domain of active politics therefore is the general necessary condition under which class collective actions take place. Instances of Naxalbari, Tebhaga and Hashtnagar (organisational) and BhoomiSena(non organisational) are obvious examples in this regard. Organisation is one form of its expression. There may be other forms in which class collective actions take place, as we shall see in the pages to come. At the moment we are discussing party/organisation. How does the oppressed class mould itself into a political organisation or politically organised force as the case may be? Timpanaro (1980:195) has argued:

“However, even the moulding of the proletariat into a political party was always seen by Marx, Engels, and Lenin (as it still is today by Mao...) as an objective, ‘caused’ process and not as a mere act of will...”

How is it caused? We argue that it is caused by the same reciprocity between the domains of politics and economy. That is, how a structural issue obviously becomes a political issue. For instance, the question of differentiation of agrarian class structure is essentially a political question as it acquires centrality in any given scheme of agrarian transformation of a fundamental nature. The meanings that a social category (for instance ‘peasant’), attributes to its situations of existence and life under those situations are not structured only by its location in that structure but also by its reciprocal interaction with the domains of politics and culture. Hence, it operates at two levels: firstly, the structural location contains the seeds of an alternative ideology. Secondly, this alternative ideology as opposed to the dominant ideology acquires relevance and meaning in ideological forms. Hence the response of different agrarian classes, during the colonial and post colonial phases of Indian sub-continent, to the process of change differed depending upon their location in the structure and ideological forms they endorsed. Thus the intermediary agrarian dominant classes, in order to maintain their hegemony, collaborated with the anti colonial nationalist leadership representing dominant classes, while on the other hand the ‘peasants’ distanced and acted according to the structural imperatives of their own situations of existence. It is obvious, therefore, that the structural imperatives rest both on economic and social-ideological domains.

The ruling classes control these domains. It is the historical task of these classes to see that persistence of their dominance is not threatened. However, as has been stated, it is in these very domains that the ruled acquire consciousness of the given meaning of their existence. Manifestation of class behaviour, for instance, class collective action of the ‘peasants’, is linked with a class coming to terms with its own consciousness. Ideology appears as a window, a possibility. Hence, the ruled strive to reconstruct the ideological forms to change the relations of domination.

Expedient Land Reform
What we are suggesting is that though the class-consciousness is ineradicably engrained in the labour process, which is situated in the domain of economy, its full meaning is gained in all its manifestations in the ideological forms. Experiences of the oppressed in the domain of economy acquire specific meaning, with regard to the emergence of alternative ideology, only in the ideological forms. It is in this that the base and superstructure acquire specific meaning through ideology.

The point can well be elaborated in the context of various land reform measures adopted by the state in the colonial and post-colonial Indian sub-continent and elsewhere. An agrarian structure marked by relations of domination rests essentially both on economic structure and it’s supporting ideological structures. Both these structures interact reciprocally whether to maintain it or change it. Various land reform measures adopted by the state in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have to be seen from this perspective. Some commentators on the issue have argued that the land reform measures in the post colonial states have essentially been initiated by the ruling elites (see for example Joshi, 1974; though elsewhere he has taken a contradictory position as well, see Joshi, 1972). Various land reform measures in these countries such as Zamindari Abolition Act and other tenancy acts in India; enactment of SPSATA of 1950 and various other land reform measures in united Pakistan were in fact the product of wide spread agrarian unrest and inte­nse peasant struggles. However, it must be noted that these land reform measures adopted by the state were in many ways safety valves and had become historical necessity for the state to meet the challenges thrown by the oppressed at different periods. These measures were the mechanisms to contain and diffuse the challenges that the power stru­ctures faced. It was a case of political expediency. It has been evident from the experiences of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh that these measures did not yield desired results because either they were designed in such a way that they should not affect the existing agrarian power structures or, in case of those measures which clearly favoured oppressed, they were not allowed to be operative. However, certain ‘unintended’ consequences of such measures too should be kept in mind – for example land reform and the production of Mandal Commission in India. Moreover, this question of ‘unintended’ consequences contains certain philosophical connotation with far-reaching implications.

The point is that the oppressed did challenge the exist­ing relations of domination and their challenges did affect not only the economic structure but also its supporting ideological sub structures. And this was possible because of the reciprocal interplay of the domains of economy and active, organised politico-cultural consciousness.

Nationalist Movement and the Peasantry
We have talked about direct organisational collective actions for the immediate conditions of existence. In other words, collective actions of immediate class situations. What are the other conditions under which ‘peasants’ act collecti­vely and apparently not for immediate class purposes? Take the case of nationalist movement in Indian sub continent. It has been argued that the ‘peasantry’ participated fully in the anti colonial nationalist movement (see, Chandra, 1979; Oommen, 1990; Deva, 1946; Ranga and Sahajanand, 1981). The thrust of this argument is that the principal task during the col­onial period was to eliminate the external enemy, i.e., the colonial state, and that is why a grand alliance of all classes was a must to achieve that goal. We would argue that the ‘peasantry’, which ‘wholehear­tedly’ participated, was essentially the intermediary domin­ant agrarian classes that stood to benefit from the nationalist movement. Blanket use of the term ‘peasantry’ by some social science commentators has caused much damage to the understanding of this phenomenon. However, there have also been instances of peasants – the actual producer – poor peasants, agricultural workers etc.,–revolting against the immediate native oppressors and at the same time waging struggles on certain issues or forces under the leadership of their oppressors or organisations representing the interests of the dominant classes. Sub-continental experiences show that the peasants did so to get rid of abject poverty and other forms of social oppression. Peasants many a time formed the backbone of the anti colo­nial struggle giving it a mass character and providing it sustenance, which was so crucial to the nationalist leader­ship. They did so with the hope that once the external enemy is eliminated, the agrarian relations of domination will also disappear as had constantly been promised by the principal anti colonial mobilising agencies such as the Congress, Muslim League, Unionist Party, Praja Party etc. However, once the external enemy was out and the transfer of political power achieved, it soon became clear that these promises were nothing but part of political expediency. It was the fall of a paradigm glorified, and soon peasants in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh rose in revolt. An expedient grand ‘nationalist’ umbrella alliance soon came to an end.

General and Specific Dynamics of Domain
We have so far talked in terms of generality of class, class-consciousness, and ideology as generative principles for the expression of class-consciousness in the form of collective actions. However, at this point the question of specificity needs to be raised. How to look at this? Let us first put the argument and then pose the question. The argument is: consciousness is constitutive of labour process, class is product of production process, and ideology is concretisation of class-consciousness in a specific form, thereby, ontologically speaking, these categories are of trans historical nature. The Question is: do these categories act in all situations and times in the same fashion? Or do these acquire a specific form, sign, code and meaning system, or get moulded in a specific spatio-temporal situation? And if so, how and under what conditions?

To address this question, we have employed the concept of dynamics ofdomain. The most important feature of a domain is that, it contains two opposing forces. The two interact. The nature of interaction depends on who dominates the domain. Each domain has its own internal dynamics, which sustain it. However, although each domain is exclusive in terms of its internal dynamics of sustenance, no domain is completely autonomous or independent of other domains existing at a given time of history. Dynamics of each domain constantly knock at each other’s door. In other words, external forces do affect the domain in different capacities in different times. For instance, the domain of economy is constantly threatened by the domain of politics and culture and vice versa. That is, though the domain is sustained by its own internal properties, its existence largely depends on the existence of other domains also. That is the logic of the survival of the society in its totality. So far it was the generality of the dynamics of domain.

Specificity of the dynamics of domain: Domains of society exist in all situations and every-where. Does the internal dynamics of domain and the contingent external forces are of the same nature? History tells us that it is not so. And here comes the question of specificity of the dynamics of domain. Societal domains that existed during the colonial Indian sub continent had their own internal dynamics. But what we are suggesting is that those domains were not of universal character in the whole of colonial India. It is on this basis that we would argue that colonial India was divided much before its formal declaration in 1947. This division was marked not only by difference in economic domains but also, more importantly, in terms of domains of politics and culture. Specific domain of a divided sub-continent generated specific type of politico ideological discourse. This discourse, in turn, affected the domain of economy. There was an obvious reciprocity between the two. Politico ideological discourse represented the elements of the domain of economy mani­fested in the forms of various contending classes, as the domain itself contained in it opposing forces. Hence, the structural imperatives for the agrarian collective action during the colonial period was marked by the reciprocity between the specific domains of economy and politics of each divided region of the colonial India which we have identified as the mainland India, the North-West, and the peripheral Muslim Bengal. Peasant collective actions .in each region had different course and character. In other words, it was not of a single sub continental character. ‘Nationalism’ was of course not the single integrating force for whole of the sub continent. However, one must exercise utmost care in understanding the above- mentioned division. Two most important factors in this regard must be kept in mind: (1) All the three regions had different mobilising agencies that came to occupy almost the whole of the political space in their respective regions, and emerged as the principal intermediary and negotiator on behalf of the ‘people’ with the colonial state.(2) Aspects of culture (religion, language, nationality), for reasons of specific course of history constituted parts of structural imperatives for collective action including that of agrarian collective actions. The structuring principles of this situation continued in post-colonial sub-continent.

State and the Post-colonial Subcontinental Agrarian Resistance
The specificity discussed above is evident from the experiences of post colonial sub-continental states and societies as well. Post colonial states in Indian subcontinent are marked by a continuity of the relations of domination. Hence, these states are constantly faced with the crisis of legitimation, as the Free State is not expected to behave the way the subjugated state behaved. Be it the irony of history or the inevitability of a particular course of history, the structures that sustained the relations of domination continued to operate in the ‘free’ society and state.

There are sharp differences of opinion on the precise characteri-sation of the state in India subcontinent. However, one thing is clear that the oppressed and exploited people do not view the state as their redeemer and it largely remains external to them.[2]And thereby challenges to the state also persist. Understandably, the history of the post colonial states in the subcontinent is full of peasant revolts. However, despite the structural commonalities found in all the three independent states of the post colonial Indian subcontinent, there are specificities as well, which have given rise to differential collective ‘peasant’ praxis of resistance.

India
In the post 1947 India we find a three-tier structure with regard to collective ‘peasant’ praxis of resistance. They are: (a) reinforcers, (b) reformists, and (c) challengers. The content and forms of agrarian collective actions in the post colonial India are largely the responses to these three types of structure. An attempt, in this context, would be useful to analyse the relative absence and presence of the independent Indian state with reference to various agrarian social categories.

Specificities of the post colonial India with regard to peasant collective action can be summed up as follows: (a) The political question and vision of future society are central to the whole issue; (b) After independence, the Indian National Congress came to power. The point is significant as it was the Congress party, which had claimed as the principal mediator and mobiliser in much of the subcontinent on the promise of mitigating the agrarian relations of domination once the external enemy is eliminated; (c) The post colonial subcontinent remained multi religious and multi-national; (d) The strength of the Communist Party was mainly confined to India as most of its leaders and activists from North West and East Bengal migrated to India in the wake of partition; and (e) Hence, the modes of challenge and mechanisms of state control and power are also marked by multiplicity.

Pakistan
The trajectories of collective praxis of agrarian resistance in the postcolonial Pakistan signified the complete fall of the ruling paradigm. The ruling paradigm that had come to exercise determining role in the decade preceding the formal formation of Pakistan was, however, different from that of mainland India. The paradigm had evolved over a fairly long span of time. Pakistan was formed with the Muslim majority provinces of undivided India. It was perceived to be home for the Indian Muslims where they could manage their own affairs free from the domination of Hindu zamindars, moneylenders, traders, industrialists and the Hindu dominated political spaces. Religion was marshalled as the unifying force cutting across deep-rooted class, caste and ethnic divisions among the sub-continental Muslims. However, during the course of Pakistan movement itself and immediately after its formation, it became apparent that religion was employed as an instrument to legitimise the leadership of Pakistan movement, which was dominated by the feudal, commercial and industrial interests. Intended ideological import of this paradigm was further confirmed when Pakistan broke in 1971. It has been argued that the oppressed peasants had played a crucial role in the formation of Pakistan in the hope of getting their inhuman conditions of existence mitigated. To peasants, Pakistan was a paradigm of hope. To leadership, it was a paradigm of continued domination over vast masses in a new political setting. The paradigm of hope was to be shattered soon. We find large-scale agrarian unrest immediately after the formation of the new state. It became clear that the structures of domina­tion were to continue.

Specificities that affected the agrarian collective actions in post colonial Pakistan can be summed up as follows: (a) religion did not act as a binding force (b) a specific character of a state is not either condu­cive or detrimental to the growth of conscious peasant collective actions. This is evident from the persistence of various types of discourse representing different politico-­ideological streams. This reality questions the implicit argument that in a society like Pakistan the state, under the control of a ‘bureaucratic-military oligarchy’, sets the terms for what may be called the dominant discourse for whole of the politico ideological spaces. For instance, the dominant scholarship has viewed the post colonial Pakistan society and politics primarily in terms of religion, Islamisation or ethnicity. Hence, the peasant collective action in Pakistan has largely been unstudied by scholars. Peasant collective action therefore, is a challenge to the dominant discourse. (c) Rise of regional ethnic conflicts and nationality movements has adversely affected the peasant collective actions.

Hence, with regard to peasant mobilisation in Pakistan, we find a three-tier structure i.e., a) the re-enforcers; b) the ethno-nationalists; and c) the challengers, which is significantly different from what we find in India.

Bangladesh
With the partition of India in 1947, an independent state of Pakistan came into existence of which the present Bangladesh as an independent county was a part. Structural specificities of this region–known as East Bengal/East Pakistan–with regard to politico ideological discourse and agrarian collective action during the colonial period have been briefly discussed above. This Muslim majority region had become independent on the strength of popular movements of the toiling peasants and the intermediary agrarian classes against the domination of Hindu zamindars who had dominated the rural East Bengal ever since the promulgation of the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793 that fundamentally changed the socio-political landscape of the India subcontinent. The decade preceding 1947 had witnessed meteoric rise of a paradigm namely Pakistan that sought to challenge the colonial authority and its modes of agrarian domination through immediate native Hindu oppressors. However, the paradigm witnessed a sudden fall immediately after 1947 when this very ‘Muslim’ leadership continued with the same modes of agrarian relations of domination which they had earlier sought to challenge. Hence, peasants immediately after the transfer of power in 1947 rose in revolt in East Pakistan. Owing to certain specific course of history, it was the central ruling elite of West Pakistan that dominated the domains of economy, politics and culture in the independent East Bengal/East Pakistan. Not only the peasants, but also the rising Bengali middle class and the nascent bourgeoisie felt suffocated. This gave rise to a New Nationalist Movement against the domination of West Pakistan ruling elite. The New Nationalist Movement was first concretised in the form of 1952 language movement. The period between 1952 and 1971 was marked by intense constitutional- political crisis. The peasant collective action in this period was largely subsumed under the new nationalist feelings and movements. However, peasants continued to display visible or invisible protests against the relations of domination even in the midst of heightened Bengali nationalism.

The ‘peasant’ movement in the post 1971 Bangladesh was a case of completing the full circle. Hindu oppressive zamindars had gone, the oppressive and exploitative rule of West Pakistanis also had come to an end and the rule of Bengalis has been established. The country has been liberated from the yoke of West Pakistan colonialism. But the conditions of the peasant masses remained as they were, and the struggle goes on.

Concluding Remarks
The following conclusions can be drawn:

(a) Structural location of a social category is a necessary but not always a sufficient factor for the display of class collective action. It is in the domain of active politics and in other ideological forms that class-consciousness gets crystallised and activated;

(b) Class collective action does not follow any neatly drawn linear pattern;

(c) Though the class collective actions are caused by structural location of a social category, it is realised through mediation of politics, culture, religion etc. These supposedly non class factors play very significant role in initiating the pattern of class collective actions. It is not that a particular class, for instance peasants, is always a plaything in the hands of these non class domains, but peasants also act within these domains to wreck them from within. These domains have very significant metaphorical importance;

(d) The ideology is also endowed with de mystificatory and emancipatory force. Hence, an ideology is also a metaphor of no to everything that oppresses me; no to everything that robs me of my human dignity;

(e) Forms of collective action directed against the relations of domination have direct co relation with ideology. Such forms of collective action represent forms of social/class consciousness concretised in ideology and operationalised through organised spontaneous responses. It is objectively caused and subjectively realised. Forms acquire specific meaning only in terms of its ideological content. Hence, a form of collective action is not merely a political act, but becomes a cultural act in a wider sense. It therefore becomes a means of discourse with the wider social world. Forms of collective action are a means to effect not only intra-class but also inter class discourse. Struggle itself becomes a discoursing act;

(f)The state with its supporting ideological structures, in the post colonial Indian sub continent, is one of the principal agencies for the persistence of relations of domination. Hence, the oppressed people do not view it as their redeemer;

(g)The everyday resistance perspective particularly the ideas of Foucault and his followers in the light of above discussion has assumed significance. This perspective fails to examine the idea of replacing the orders of domination and hegemony, exploitation and oppression. People seem to be content with everyday resistance that does not threaten the system’s persistence and continuation for the assumption that “most subordinate classes are, after all, far less interested in changing the large structures of the state of law…” However, the idea of replacing the orders of domination and hegemony remains active beneath the surface of everyday resistance and practice. It would be useful to note that having been fully aware of conservative nature of folklore and popular morality Gramsci had argued that there would also be a “series of innovations, often creative and progressive, spontaneously determined by the forms and conditions of life in the process of development…”[3] The spontaneous, we argue, is not necessarily unorganised. Spontaneous everyday acts are cumulative expressions of accumulated experiences within relations of domination. Beneath the calm surface lies the uneasy lull, always finding a way out to surface. Zones of silence closely border the zones of violence[4].

End Notes
1. This article draws on the author’s doctoral dissertation.

2. However, with the rise of Hindutva communal politics some difference is made to go beyond the fundamental structural relations of domination.

3. See Davidson, Alistair. 1984. Gramsci, the Peasantry and Popular Culture, in The Journal of Peasant Studies. Vol. 11, No. 4.

4. For a discussion on everyday perspective see: Neshat Quaiser. 2019. ‘Parallel Praxis: History-domination-resistance-ideology-theory’ in K. V. Cybil ed. Social Justice: Inter-disciplinary Inquiries From India. London, Routledge.

[Dr Neshat Quaiser, Associate Researcher, Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH-Delhi)]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 25, Dec 15 - 21, 2024