• The image of a small family on a scooter symbolises the Indian middle class, highlighting that social class in India exists as a form of stratification parallel to caste.

• Many sociologists argue that class divisions in India are relatively recent, because for a long time cultural factors (caste, tradition) dominated status identification, and only with foreign/colonial rule and the rise of economic factors did socio-economic criteria become important.

• Another reason for the late emergence of class is the low occupational diversification in traditional society, which produced mainly a ruling class and a ruled class, with few intermediate strata.

• In contemporary times, the Indian middle class has gained prominence due to its rapid expansion and potential to produce major social change.

• Class societies are marked by horizontal stratification, and in Marxist theory, classes are defined by differential access to the means of production, though actual class structures vary by context.

• The growth of Indian social classes is historically and structurally linked to colonialism, whose legacy still shapes the class system.

• Although class existed in pre-British India, it was less visible and generally overshadowed by caste, appearing most clearly in the relationship between the rulers (king and courtiers) and the ruled subjects.

• Colonial rule, despite its constraints, ensured the security of private property and the sanctity of contract, providing the legal foundations for a market economy, and thereby accelerating the emergence of class structure in Indian society.

Agrarian Class Structure or Agrarian Social Structure in India

• Bottomore stated that social classes are characteristic features of industrial societies, and before British rule India had little surplus, so class stratification was minimal, and society was largely an agrarian or peasant society.

• The saying “Soil grows caste and machine grows class” applies only partially to India, because in agrarian India both land (soil) and machine together contribute to the formation of class structure.

• Unlike urban areas, where education, industry and employment shape class position, in rural India it is primarily the quantum of landholding, along with education and skills, that determines social status.

• Agrarian social structure comprises caste, class, land ownership and the Jajmani system, whereas agrarian class structure refers only to classes.

• Land is the central element in rural stratification, and caste, class and land ownership are closely interconnected, with dominant landowning groups usually belonging to middle or higher castes, and marginal farmers and the landless largely drawn from lower castes.

Agrarian Classes in Pre-British India

• In the pre-British period, the availability of surplus was minimal, leading to very limited class differentiation in villages, so the class dimension was overshadowed by caste, and the Jajmani system became its main economic expression.

• Traditional rural society and the agrarian social structure were organised around caste and Jajmani relations, where Kameens provided various services to Jajmans, and in return received a share of farm produce in cash or kind, forming a system of reciprocal exchange, though participation was unequal.

• The society was predominantly agrarian, and classes were broadly seen only as the rulers (king, courtiers, administrators) and the ruled population.

• The emergence of class was restricted by the absence of private property and land ownership rights, an underdeveloped market economy, and communal forms of production.

• Towards the late Mughal period, elements of a money economy and market mechanisms developed, giving rise to new classes such as merchants, traders and bankers, but these remained numerically small and were still overshadowed by the dominant agrarian structure.

Agrarian Classes in British India

• British conquest introduced private property and a money economy, transforming India from a peasant society into an agrarian class society, and reducing the jural and economic power of Panchayats.

• New land revenue systems created rural hierarchies, required cash payments, promoted commercialisation of agriculture, and replaced the earlier self-sufficient village economy based on coexistence of agriculture and village industry with market-driven dynamics.

• High revenue rates under both Zamindari and Ryotwari systems led to the transfer of land into the hands of Zamindars and businessmen, dispossessing cultivators who failed to pay revenue and enabling purchase by non-cultivating elites.

• Moneylenders and Zamindars emerged as key strata in rural society, and the creation of a Zamindar class provided political and social support to British rule.

• According to A.R. Desai, the colonial state acted as a “Supra-Landlord”, and the system of lease and sub-lease produced absentee landlords, a leisure class, and an exploitative agrarian structure.

• A.R. Desai’s three-tier model of colonial agrarian classes comprised upper class (absentee landlords), middle class (sub-landlords), and lower class (marginal farmers, peasants and sharecroppers).

• Breman classified rural classes mainly on the basis of size of landholdings.

• The dynamic agrarian class structure depended on control over land, cultivation technology, and regional variations, and because land tenure systems were not uniform, class formation also varied regionally across India.