Understanding Rural and Rurality in Indian Society Part

The blog aims to offer an overview of social institutions, with a focus on the patriarchal system and gender roles in India and their importance in understanding rural and rurality. The blog also covers comprehending the rural economy and the role that class plays in rural society as well as the importance of understanding rural India.

Content

Gender and Patriarchal System in India
Patriarchal System
Rural economy and Social Classes of Rural India
Social Classes in Rural India
Summary

Gender and Patriarchal System in India

The biological distinction that one is born as either a man or a woman is indicated by sex and gender. It is true and it is normal. Gender is a construct of society. It gives the act of having sex significance. Only once meanings were linked does the subject of gender differences become relevant. The socio-culturally defined traits, aptitudes, abilities, desires, personality traits, duties, responsibilities, and behavioural patterns of men and women all contribute to the inequality and hierarchies in society and the prevalence of gender-based discrimination. Gender disparities are created by humans and are normalised in patriarchal societies. The disparity is historically constructed and has been justified by a number of ideologies, social norms, and institutions including caste, family, religion, education, the media, law, and state. Masculine and feminine are gender categories, whereas "man" and "female" are sex categories. While features of gender may fluctuate significantly among human communities, portions of sex will not. It's not a predetermined category. The setting, period, and cultural context in which it is performed all affect its significance.

Patriarchal System

The majority of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies were likely fairly egalitarian, according to anthropological evidence, and patriarchal social structures did not emerge until many years after the end of the Pleistocene era, as a result of cultural and technological advancements like agriculture and domestication. However, no specific incident has yet been identified by investigation. Patriarchy shows up as a variety of manifestations of prejudice, inequality, hierarchies, and the subordinate status and position of women in society. In a male-dominated family, patriarchy literally means that the father is in charge. It is an intellectual and social construct that views men—the patriarchs—as being superior to women. According to Sylvia Walby (1997), men dominate, exploit, and subjugate women through a system of societal structures and practises. Men govern women's ability to produce, reproduce, and engage in sexual activity under a hierarchical and unequal system of power relations known as patriarchy. It enforces character stereotypes of masculinity and femininity on society, strengthening the unequal power relations between men and women. Since gender relations are dynamic and varied and have altered throughout history, patriarchy is not a constant. Since class, caste, religion, geography, ethnicity, and sociocultural norms vary from one community to the next, so do the ways in which women are controlled and subjugated. Brahmanical patriarchy, tribal patriarchy, and Dalit patriarchy are so distinct from one another in the context of India. Within a given caste or class, patriarchy varies according to geographical and theological differences. Several scholars have conceptualised and studied Gerda Lerner in The Creation of Patriarchy (1986) in various ways. Patriarchal knowledge, ideology, values, and practise have all been contested by feminists. Although feminism has a number of common themes, there are differences in how feminists view patriarchy. For a variety of reasons, all feminisms favour the terms gender and gender oppression over the term patriarchy. The term "patriarchy" has remained largely undefined, and some feminist researchers are uncomfortable using the term to refer to a generalised system of inequality. According to Michele Barrett, the term "patriarchy" suggests that the relationship between men and women is constant and universal. The phrase is frequently used in a way that confounds the concepts of patriarchy as fatherly authority and patriarchy as male dominance over women. The term "patriarchy" inherently indicates an idea of women's oppression that is historical, universalistic, and mostly biological, and that this idea mistakenly encourages the hunt for a single cause of women's oppression.

Given the part males have played in the birth and expansion of women's issues in India, patriarchy is not perceived as a system of male oppression of women in that country. Under a patriarchal society, gender oppression is frequently related to oppressions based on caste, class, community, tribe, and religion, and in such diverse patriarchies, it is difficult to recognise men as the primary oppressors.

Redefining patriarchies in the context of caste, class, community, and ethnicity hierarchies was made possible by feminist history, which achieved revolutionary strides in this area. Feminism is the recognition of women's oppression, while patriarchy is the predominate mechanism used to carry out this oppression. Despite their divergent ideologies, feminist groups agree on many causes of female subordination. According to Marxist feminist theory, the historical rise of private property coincided with the subordination of women. According to Frederick Engels, women's domestic labour became insignificant in compared to men's productive labour with the advent of private property, as stated in The Origin of Family, Private Property, and the State (1884). Inheritance of property and social status through female lines was abolished as a result of the emergence of capitalism, which is based on the private property ownership of men. As a result, paternal power replaced maternal authority, and it was decided that property should be passed on from father to son rather than from woman to her tribe. The private property-owning bourgeois families developed into patriarchal households where women were oppressed. As males made sure that their possessions solely went to their sons, these patriarchal families became repressive. They contend that male economic and political power, private property, monogamous marriage, control over female sexuality, and monogamy are all factors that contributed to patriarchy rather than just women's nature. Socialist feminists contend that the social and economic system itself is the source of women's subordination. To understand patriarchy, socialist feminists examine both the relations of production and the relations of reproduction. According to Gerda Lerner (1986), the subordination of women is fundamentally based on control over female sexuality. She makes the case that it's crucial to comprehend how reproduction and manufacturing were coordinated. The cornerstone of private property, the institutionalisation of slavery, women's sexual subjugation, and their economic dependence on males is the expropriation and monetization of women's sexual and reproductive capacity by men.

Biological distinction does not directly cause patriarchy; rather, it is interpreted by ideologies and politics. When the capitalist mode of production and the patriarchal mode of production interact, patriarchal state policies increase the exclusion of women from paid employment in comparison to men. The state is a locus of patriarchal relations that is essential to patriarchy as a whole because it perpetuates the subjugation of women by encouraging a type of household where women perform unpaid domestic duties for males. Both the production and reproduction systems are impacted by patriarchy. Unconventional feminism challenges the traditional public/private split and the dominance of patriarchy in all facets of social, personal, psychological, and sexual existence, in addition to politics, public life, and the economic. Radical feminists' groundbreaking work made this clear. In Sexual Politics (1970) and other publications, Kate Millet wrote. They question the very idea that genders are mutually exclusive, biologically defined classifications. Motherhood as a concept subjugates women and supports patriarchy, which not only compels women to have children but also sets the parameters of those children's upbringing. It develops both feminine and masculine traits, deepens the gap between public and private life, limits the mobility of women, and upholds male domination. In "Sexual Politics," Kate Millet described politics as power-structured relationships, including those between children and parents, husband and wife, and the government and its constituents. Males gain the support of the very women they oppress through the family, church, and academia, and each institution legitimises and promotes women's subjugation to men, causing women to internalise a sense of inferiority toward men. Men utilise compulsion to accomplish goals that conditioning is unable to. She suggested that women's liberation required a revolutionary transformation and that patriarchy needed to be fought through a process of conscious-raising. Women must be freed from sexual and psychological tyranny.

According to Gerda Lerner, the family is crucial in establishing hierarchies since they not only educate and socialise their children, but also establish and maintain the hierarchy. Family is crucial for instilling patriarchal beliefs in the following generation. Girls learn to be nurturing, kind, and submissive whereas boys learn to be aggressive and dominant. These gender stereotypes of men and women are not just societal constructs; both men and women have internalised them. Women are expected to perform menial tasks, care for their children, and even take care of other family members while males are under more pressure to provide for the family and earn a living. Women are at a disadvantage and are more susceptible to violence and other forms of discrimination and injustice as a result of these gender stereotypes. Women are kept at home, economically exploited, socially suppressed, and politically passive due to systemic deprivation and violence against them, including rape, sexual harassment, sexual abuse, female feticide, infanticide, witch-killing, sati, dowry deaths, wifebeating, and high levels of female illiteracy and malnutrition and undernourishment. In educational institutions, the knowledge system, and the media, which support male domination, patriarchal constructions of knowledge sustain patriarchal ideology. More covert manifestations of patriarchy included symbology that sent messages about the inferiority of women, myths that highlighted the pure, self-sacrificing image of women, and ritual practises that reinforced the dominant roles of women as devoted mothers and faithful wives. The laws of Manu state that women should be rendered dependent on men because they are by nature unfaithful. The husband should always be treated as a deity, signifying that men are lords, masters, owners, or providers, and that shudras and women are their servants. It legitimised the idea that a woman should never be allowed to be independent, that she should be her father's daughter, his husband's wife, and his son's widow. While women were generally treated equally to men in ancient India (the Vedic and Epic periods), the rise of private property and the emergence of class society in the post-Vedic (Brahmanical and Medieval periods) strengthened the restrictions on women and patriarchal values regulating their sexuality and mobility. Men are not subject to the same restrictions as women in regards to the imposition of pardah, limitations on leaving the home, and the division between public and private. Women's mobility is so restricted. They don't have the right to choose if they want to have children, when they want to have them, how many, whether they can use contraception, whether they can end a pregnancy, and so on.

Rural economy and Social Classes of Rural India

Agriculture is the primary occupation of the people in rural India, and it also provides them with a means of subsistence. However, there are a number of additional occupations that keep the people active and interested. The rural sector and the non-rural sector are the two main economic sectors that make up India. The agricultural and allied subsector and the nonagricultural subsector are the two main subsectors that make up the rural sector. The non-agricultural subsectors are made up of commercial, industrial, and service-related activities. The number of people living in rural areas, the number of animals, the area covered by land, forests, and other natural resources can all be used to estimate the size of the rural sector. The agricultural system of India, which is the foundation of that nation's economy, has unique characteristics.

Social Classes in Rural India

Indian society is divided into strata based on more factors than only caste and occupation. It is divided into classes according to those lines. Under British colonial authority, India's class inequality had a significant negative influence. Caste stratification and class stratification cannot be clearly distinguished from one another. Caste and class are two stratification elements that have existed in Indian social systems for a very long time. Not only should the sociology of Indian class stratification consider the current dynamics among the various class strata, but it should also analyse those processes in the context of earlier periods of change. Indian sociologists have used a variety of theoretical stances to understand the class system in India. Marxian theory was employed by sociologist A.R. Desai in 1969 to analyse the class relations in India, particularly the agrarian relation. The class analysis illuminates the processes behind the class structure in traditional Indian society. It demonstrates how the systems of production and ownership were linked to class structure. For an understanding of the Indian class system, it is important to consider the social ties of kings, feudal chiefs, traders, artisans, peasants, and labourers. These groups of individuals were able to move economic surpluses from villages to towns and cities thanks to the British establishment of several economic and political institutions.

T.K. Oommen (1997) lists the following five categories. (i) Landlords, who own but do not cultivate land, either employing intermediaries or leasing out land. (ii) Rich farmers, who look upon agriculture as a business proposition, produce for the market and for profit, employ wage labour, and supervise rather than cultivate. (iii) Middle peasants, who cultivate their own land and hire labourers only for certain operations or at certain points of time. (iv) Poor peasants, who own small and uneconomic holdings and often have to work as parts labourers or as sharecroppers or tenant. (v) Landless agricultural workers who sell their labour and fully depend on the first three categories for their livelihood.

The five categories are provided by the Indian Communist parties. the feudal and capitalist landlords who abstain from performing manual labour; wealthy peasants who engage in manual labour but primarily use wage labour; Middle-class peasants who own or lease land that is mostly worked by their family as well as by wage labour. Poor peasants who do not use wage labour and whose primary source of income is from leased or owned land. agricultural labourers, who primarily make a living by selling their labour in related industries or in the agricultural sector. Hamsa Alavi adopted a three-tiered system of classifying peasants into rich, middling, and impoverished peasants.

In rural areas, classes consist principally of (i) landlords, (ii) tenants, (iii) peasant proprietors, (iv) agricultural labourers and (v) artisans. Now let us examine each of them one by one.

Landlords

Landlords are broadly divided into two types:

(i) the zamindars/ taluqdars (old landlords) and
(ii) moneylenders, merchants and others.

In zamindari communities, those who had such ownership of tenure rights were frequently referred to as mediators. These intermediaries, which could be found in different parts of the U.P., Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, belonged to several categories and went by numerous names. The large zamindars formed taluqdars out of their own zamindari privileges, which were inferior middlemen. Landowners known as jotedars held land directly from the zamindars and were present in several areas of Bengal. By subletting to the tenants on a 50:50 share, they were able to get the land farmed. Similar to Pattidars, Zamindars held long-term leases with set payments. On the other side, ijardars were people who were given contractual access to an area's revenue.

Peasant Proprietors

Ryotwari Settlement is a different British settlement that was built. In the nineteenth century, this was first implemented in the Madras and Bombay Presidency. The peasants were granted land ownership under this agreement. The payment of revenue was required of the actual cultivators. Nevertheless, this agreement was not final and was reevaluated every 20 to 30 years. It did not establish a peasant ownership structure. Both historically and currently, the peasant proprietors seldom make up a cohesive group.

They may be broadly divided into three categories, namely,

(i) the rich,
(ii) the middle, and
(iii) the poor peasants.

Rich Peasants: They are proprietors with considerable holdings. They perform no fieldwork but supervise cultivation and take personal interest in land management and improvement. They are emerging into a strong capitalist farmer group.

Middle Peasants: They are landowners of medium size holdings. They are generally selfsufficient. They cultivate land with family labour.

Poor Peasants: They are landowners with holdings that are not sufficient to maintain a family. They are forced to rent in other's land or supplement income by working as labourers. They constitute a large segment of the agricultural population.

Tenants

The owner cultivators of pre-British India became a class of tenants after the establishment of zamindari settlements. The zamindars resorted to the habit of charging the tenants an outrageous rent. People who didn't pay their rent were kicked off their land and replaced by people who were willing to pay higher rent. Similar practises were used in estates that the zamindars leased out. In general, there were two types of tenants in zamindari districts during the British era: renters under zamindars and tenants under lease (tenure) holders. Therefore, tenants who were subtenants of tenure holders. Of course, several types of renters and subtenants had also developed in Bengal. Sharecroppers were at the bottom of the social scale.

Agricultural Labourers

Landlords who do not cultivate their land, peasant owners, and tenants are not the only social groups involved in agriculture. The number of agricultural labourers gradually increased along with the growth in the number of rent-paying tenants. This was partly caused by the rising levels of debt among the peasant population, which was then followed by the alienation of land and the eviction of villagers' craftspeople. There were and still are primarily three categories of agricultural labourers. Some people earned their living by selling their labour, but they also owned or held a small plot of land. Others lacked access to land and relied only on the labour of others. The agricultural labourers received very meagre compensation in exchange for their labour. Their standard of living was by no means acceptable. Typically, wages were paid in food grains including paddy, wheat, and pulses. On occasion, cash was given in place of wages in kind. To determine these earnings, a particular standard metric was used. In actuality, payments in kind coexisted with monetary payments. In several areas of the nation, a different kind of labour was prevalent. They were practically in a semi-bondage or bondage situation. Some instances of this type of bonded labour that exist in India include Dublas and Halis in Gujarat and Padials in Tamil Nadu. Such a labour force is still present in some areas today. After India gained its independence, land reform initiatives made very little progress in terms of enhancing the situation of India's agricultural labourers. Naturally, the government has suggested that they be relocated on a cooperative basis to excess, recently recovered, or abandoned territory. In India, bonded labour was officially outlawed in 1976. Today, the government and nonprofit organisations are working hard to find and rehabilitate any remaining bound labourers.

Following the land reform programmes, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of agricultural labourers. This practise has been influenced by landlords reclaiming land for their own personal use and evicting tenants from their leases. The Green Revolution advanced the process even more. Large farms have made it possible for more land to be concentrated through purchase, sale, or eviction of tenants because they are in line with the Green Revolution. The status of agricultural labourers has risen throughout the process. At the same time, there is a very low rate of farm workers moving into the industrial sector. Therefore, there is little chance of a significant improvement in the social and economic circumstances of agricultural labourers throughout the majority of the nation. Of sure, the government has made some efforts to safeguard their interests. This issue is reflected in legislation that calls for the elimination of bonded labour and the minimum wage system, as well as programmes that create jobs. Such actions, however, are utterly ineffective. Thus, the agricultural labourers make up the weakest group in rural society.

Artisans

The village community in rural areas is very much a component of the class of artisans. They have existed since the beginning of time, adding to the perception of an Indian community as generally self-sufficient. Some of these include the potter (Kumhar), the ironsmith (Lohar), and the carpenter. The Jajmani system allowed some families from these occupational castes to serve more than one hamlet, however not all villages had families of these artisans.

Jajmani System

Since ancient times, the Jajmani hereditary system, which is used by many families of various castes to continue providing their specialised services to the village communities, has been common in rural and agricultural cultures in India. The word "Jajmani" is derived from the Vedic word "Yajman," which refers to a patron who hires a Brahmin to perform sacrifices or other sacred rites. The foundation of the jajmani system is essentially the caste system. Even though the majority of the castes are socially divided, there are times when they are economically intertwined. Each caste has a unique profession. In the rural society, this specialisation encourages the interchange of services. There was no contract, and the connection between the "served" castes and the "serving" castes was neither temporary nor individual.

It is a committed, caste-focused relationship. The "jajmani system" refers to this long-lasting relationship between a landowning family and the landless families that provide them with products and services. The lower castes provide goods and services to the high caste landowning family under the jajmani system. The castes that are served are known as jajmans, whilst the castes that are served are known as kamins. For their services, the kamins are compensated in cash or in kind.

When a Brahmin performs any solemn or sacred function, a jajman is typically required to pay the normal fees to the serving class, including the Brahmin. In most cases, the same Brahmin is requested to conduct a ceremony in a specific location, and the payment to him becomes conventional and sometimes even hereditary. Similar to this, other talented artisans such as Kumhar, Potter, Carpenter, and Barber were compensated according to custom. The Brahmin is institutionally forced to rely on the jajmans, who serve as his clientele, for sustenance. The phrase was borrowed from religion and applied to socioeconomic connections. Although there was little social mobility in the pre-British era, these artisan classes didn't alter all that much. This mostly static existence of the artisan classes underwent a major upheaval with the arrival of the British in India. The British commerce and industrial interests began to dominate the Indian economy.

Summary

The blog in-depth explored social institutions in general, in particular the patriarchal system and gender roles in India. Feminist perspectives on gender and the patriarchal system were discussed, as well as their importance in relation to rural Indian society. Additionally, the module provided comprehension of the rural economy's structure, the class structure of rural society, and the importance of rurality in Indian society.

Reference

Ahuja, Ram. 1993. Indian Social System, New Delhi: Rawat Publication
Barrett, M. 1992. Words and things: materialism and method in contemporary feminist analysis. In Barrett, M. and Phillips, A. (eds.). Destabilizing Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Barrett, M. and Phillips, A. 1992. 'Introduction'. In Barrett, M. and Phillips, A. (eds.). Destabilizing Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press
Barrett, M.1980 Women's Oppression Today. New York: New Left Books.
Burgess, F.V. and Lock. 1963. The family, New York: American Book
Desai, A R.1969. Rural Sociology in India, Bombay: Popular Prakashan,
Dutt, R.C.1902. The Economic History of British India, London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co
Friedrich, Engels. 1884. The origin of the family, private property, and the state: HottingenZurich.

Understanding Rural and Rurality in Indian Society Part - 3