Indian Rural Life

The traditional Indian society is often studied as a characterization of the Indian rural life and its villages. While some describe the Indian rural life as a representative of simplicity, unity and authenticity, others associate villages with backwardness and even oppression. The fact remains that the Indian villages that carried the essence of India had been “autonomous republics” and the characteristic feature of the “Indian realities” in the history (Jodhka, “Nation” 3343).

However, it is an orientalist notion representative of old and traditional villages which is far away from the true indian realities that have many internal differences and inequalities within itself.

In order to comprehend the features as well as the problems of the Indian villages, it is crucial to identify the social constructs that dominate the village society, economy and polity. This directly leads me to the question, what social structures guide social relationships within the village society?

Various sociologists and anthropologists studied indian villages as a function of the “unity-reciprocity framework” or economic interdependence of various castes (Jodhka, “From book view” 320).

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified writer

Proficient in: India

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

However, this construction is not enough to understand the dynamics of the Indian rural life. Historically, among many social constructs, differences based on the functions gender, caste and class have created a deep cultural entrenchment in Indian rural life, thereby, dominating the social, political and economic spheres of the Indian rural life.

Orientalist constructions of the Indian villages have glorified the traditional India and camouflaged the present or future with the past (Inden 419). With orientalist views, Gandhi considered villages “the essence of indian civilisation” where he states that it is in the villages where Indians truly lived since centuries and modern cities like Calcutta and Bombay were mere colonies of the british (Jodhka, “Nation” 3346).

In fact, he also argued that it is impossible for millions of people to live together in peace in cities and thus “a village centric society was the most pragmatic choice for a country like India” (Jodhka, “Nation” 3347).

With traditionalist views, Gandhi's rationalization of strengthening and sustaining village economies is an important part of embracing the Indian civilization however, at the same time, he turned a blind eye towards the need for modernity within the village communities and its social structures. Like Gandhi, Nehru too considered the traditional notion of villages as communities, however, he considered the village economy as ignorant and backward and the one that needs development and advancement(Jodhka, “Nation” 3351).

In contrast to the orientalist views, having lived in the villages Ambedkar viewed the Indian rural life as a representation of the “Hindu social organization” where he saw dalits ostracized by the hindu society (Jodhka, “Nation” 3350). While it was right that “Villages were close to people, their life, livelihood and culture” (Jodhka, “From book view” 316) and represented unity and nationhood however, what Gandhi considered as a futuristic step was perhaps more historical. Infact, the caste discrimination, class domination, patriararchy and backwardness were the real markers of the state of existing rural life.

In the post independence era, the Indian rural life, thereby, was dominated by the three social constructs of caste, class and gender where caste was a function of status, class was a function of power and Gender was a function of social order. Scholars like Wiser and Srinivas considered social relations amongst caste as a system of “reciprocity” in the form of “Jajmani system” (Jodhka, “From book view” 317). However, caste was not just limited to the framework of reciprocity rather, the social relationships within village communities were strongly guided by the caste system so much so that it left a strong impact on the minds of the people to patronize the upper castes while eliminating the lower castes.

To substantiate that, Ambedkar gave the example of the hindu villages, according to him, every hindu village had a “ghetto” encaged by barbed wire, while the hindus lived the village, the untouchables lived in the ghetto (Jodhka, “Nation” 3350). To give another example, Adrian Mayar, a british scholar, while studying a village in central India was given the status of “an undesignated upper caste” by the villagers making him work only within the limits of the upper castes which consequently made the “observer” of the caste, a “participant” of the caste system (Jodhka, “From book view” 327).

Secondly, it was not just caste that created division of labour rather, gender was only second to caste to create division of labour. For instance, the upper caste women in the villages could only work at home while men were free to work as per their will. Gender in the form of patriarchy in fact was an extension of the caste system where women were confined to a set place within the society and had status secondary to men. Gender encompassed the traditionalist village norm containing a framework of domination even in the domestic scenario. The social order or tradition within village communities was highly dominated by patriarchy where gender was viewed with the “framework of the household” (Jodhka, “From book view” 323).

While dominance within households was clearly located in Gender, it was land along with the caste that created dominance within the village community. The caste system was viewed as a function of status in a village community, it was the class characterized by the land ownership in the village economy which entrusted power within an individual. Lewis argued that “while the landowners are generally of the higher castes in Indian villages, it is their position as landowners, rather than caste membership per se, which gives them status and power” (Jodhka, “From book view” 322). Since village occupations were mostly dominated by agricultural activities, land ownership directly became a matter of differentiation and domination amongst different communities within the village systems.

With respect to modernization in Agriculture in the form of “Green Revolution”, the functioning of the villages evolved, however it is observed that it is the high caste landowners that benefit the most out of this technological advancement as it was beyond the reach of the other communities and thereby they either migrated for jobs or engaged in other occupations weakening the framework of ‘reciprocity’ (Jodhka, “Emergent” 12).

Secondly, many small landowners lost their land as power plants were being laid out in the villages and the unemployed either received jobs in the power plants or worked as casual labourers. Thirdly, with the introduction of power plants and land acquisitions, the settlement patterns in the village changed indicating that the untouchables did not have to live in “ghettos” or on the outskirts of the village. Also, caste based occupation patterns became less prevalent. Fourthly, the dynamics of the power relations within Indian rural life further changed with political advancements within the Indian villages.

However, due to factional alliances amongst the caste groups, the ground realities more or less stayed the same, the high caste landowners continued to have dominance over others within the village though their power was kept under check (Jodhka, “Emergent” 14-15). Finally, with an increased emphasis on education, the traditional norms of patriarchy evolved and women began to move out of the four walls of their households and resultantly lead to an increased social mobility within village communities as we see today. While we have come a long way with all these advancements in the Indian rural life, we still have a long way to completely overcome the ghosts of caste, class and gender from the Indian villages.

Works Cited

1. Inden, Ronald. “Orientalist Constructions of India.” Modern Asian Studies, vol. 20, no. 3, 1986, pp. 401–446. JSTOR.
2. Jodhka, Surinder S. “From ‘Book View’ to ‘Field View’: Social Anthropological Constructions of the Indian Village.” Oxford Development Studies, vol. 26, no. 23, 1998, pp. 311-329.
3. Jodhka, Surinder S. “Emergent Ruralities : Revisiting Village Life and Agrarian Change in Haryana.” Economic and Political Weekly, 26 June 2014.
4. Jodhka, Surinder S. “Nation and Village : Images of Rural India in Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar.” Economic and Political Weekly, 4 Oct. 2019.
5. Jodhka, Surinder S. “Non-Farm Economy in Madhubani, Bihar: Social Dynamics and Exclusionary Rural Transformations.” Economic and Political Weekly, 30 June 2017.