“Changing Political process and the power structure as the

motivator of peasant mobility: A critical review from Bangladeshi

peasant society”

Abstract

The political process and power structure play an important role in the peasant

society. Over a long period of time it had been stagnant and operated within the

village community in Bangladesh. As the trend tended to be changed and the local

power structure came to the touch of national politics, the power structure turned into

a new shape. The social mobility of the peasants started to be mobile again and new

classes emerged. The land distribution, changes in size and tenure structure of the

peasants went to a new level. There came a shift from farm to non-farm occupations

also. Land distribution pattern and size holding reflected the growth rates of owned,

operated and cultivated land.

The interrelationship between peasant household mobility and the class formation of

the peasantry are tried to reveal in an authentic and analytical way in this paper. By its

nature, specific case studies have been initiated by profound researchers and

organizations that show the subtle change in the rural peasant politics. Indigenous and

peasant struggles for political power are not simply products of recent reforms but

have deep historical roots in broader struggles for political autonomy and territorial

control. While indigenous and peasant control of political power represents an

important scaling-up of rural struggles in many locales, it carries with it serious

dangers of bureaucratization, co-optation, and the fragmentation of indigenous and

peasant struggles (Karim, 1980).

For the purposical interest of being a sociologist, there came the issues of who owns

what, who gets what and what do they do with it? Social relations, notably class and

gender and politics (both of the state and wider social movements), inevitably govern

the distribution of assets, patterns of work and divisions of labor, the distribution of

income and the dynamics of consumption and accumulation in peasant societies.

However, the whole aspects make an interrelation among the political process, power

structure and social mobility of the peasants that reflect the culture of peasant society.

1

Key words

Peasant politics, Power structure, Peasant mobility, Peasant culture.

Key sentence

“The Political process and power structure affect the mode of mobility of peasants in

Bangladesh.”

Introduction

The political process of the peasant society has historically been different from that of

the urban politics. In a sense, the rural political process can also be called as the

peasant political process. As we see, over the last few decades Bangladesh has

become gradually, incorporated into the World Capitalist System. The peasant

economy and society, in particular has been subjected to the `riles of modernization'

by international agencies and successive governments. There have been various

programmers to spread the Green Revolution to assist the Poor and to accomplish

bottom-up development. The extreme peripherality of Bangladesh and motions of

developmentalism engendered by World Capitalism and the state is likely to have

specific consequences on the peasant power structure in Bangladesh. The area of

community power in rural Bangladesh has increasingly attracted the attentions of the

social scientists during the last fifteen years. This literature has grown out of surveys,

case studies and anthropological research. A serious shortcoming of a large majority

of these studies is that they attempt at exploring the complex phenomenon of power at

a very superficial level. Surveys have mainly focused upon the Socio-economic

background of the leaders. Anthropological studies have viewed power as

epiphenomena, an adjunct to stratification. Even this stratification theory of

2

community power (Polsby, 1970) it rarely spelt out clearly at analytical Most of these

studies are descriptive and deal with limited aspect; of power. Therefore, this paper

aims at presenting the political process and power structure change more deeply and

the mobility as a result in the peasant society.

Meaning of Power Structure

The term ‘power’ has come from Latin word "potere" meaning to be able and its

general meaning is affordability. It also means to impose ones will to another. In the

word of Max Weber power means “…such a scope within social structure where one

can perform his desire.” Generally, the basis of the power can be propaganda

influence skill direction & sometimes coercion. To refer peasant power structure, we

understand the system by which the system by which peasant society is predominated

and certain authorities are established.

In another view of Weber the synthesis of those people who exerting influence in the

production system, administrative and judicial system and how they do it and which

components help to organized it, is called power structure.

The power structure is not the same in every peasant society as it rests on

administrative unit. As Bangladesh has been invaded by several countries, the power

structure of our country is of various types. Mainly we understand the peasant power

structure as the daily interaction of rural peasant life that is conformed to rural rules

and regulations and maintained by a special way in which the standard of the peasant

life becomes unbroken.

Political process and power structure in Bangladesh: A critical

review of the Contemporary context

After the liberation of Bangladesh, power structure shape in the peasant society

started to change again. Union Councils were renamed Union Parishads and then

abolished in 1975. It was revived shortly afterwards. A new institutional experiment

for local government and development was started through the promulgation of

Sawnirvar Gram Sarker Rules, 1980. It provided for the constitution of a Sawnirvar

Gram Sarkar in each village. It was an ambitious institutional framework which aimed

3

at ensuring political stability and economic transformation of the rural society- Thana

Sarkar was introduced all over the country, but abandoned within two years shortly

after the death of President Ziaur Rahman who happened to fancy it.

A new scheme for administrative devolution was launched in 1982 which made old

Thanas the centre of local administration, planning and development. Under this

scheme old thanas have been upgraded as Upazilas. The Ordinance of 1982 provides

for the revolutionary administration to be run by Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) and

the development administration by Upazila Parishad. The Upazila Chairman is to be

elected directly on the basis of universal franchise. The Upazila Parishad enjoys

strong administrative and financial support and is responsible for all local level

development activities.

It is apparent from this short overview of the history of local administration and self-

government that after a very long period of n6glect, there has been a series of

experiments with local administration. Ambitious schemes have appeared and

disappeared with the change of political regimes. These experience merits have been

imposed from the above which have allowed little scope for stability and evolution of

local institutions.

While studying on the power structure in the peasant societies, the researchers and

authors have generally adopted micro level studies. This gives us a good specific idea

of several power structure patterns in the agrarian societies.

Micro-level studies of power provide us with an insight into the way power is

structured and exercised. But as it has been pointed out earlier, such studies are

unrepresentative and often incomparable. Surveys, although limited in depth, bring

more representative data. An analysis of several such studies will be discussed below.

Ahmed (1983) conducted an anthropological study of the peasant politics and power

structure of a village called Bijna located in Brahmanbaria, Comilla in 1978-79.

According to Ahmed there were six major factions in the village co-terminus with six

major lineage groups. The Talukdars were the oldest land-owning Muslim lineage in

the village and became the most dominant 'feudal' aristocracy of the locality after

migration of the Hindu zamindars. But their Power slowly decreased following the

1950s and later time.

From Ahmed's highly descriptive account, several implicit ideas emerge. First, the

domination of a single lineage simply gave way to the combined domination of

4

lineages within the village power structure. Secondly, lineages used different

combination of resource to gain an access to the power structure.

BRAC’s (1983) study conducted in 1979 provides a graphic picture of the way power

is generated and retained through coercion crime and corruption of power structure of

ten Villagess in border and forest region of Mymensingh As it was mainly an area of

new settlement, it gives a rare example of the way. The powerful men in the area

attained their power. The study reveals that most of the 39 local potentates had achie-

ved their power through government land-grant, land-grabbing. smuggling, cattle-

lifting and even dacoity. In there village’s powerful men were organized into factions,

bad maintained good relationship with the local bureaucracy through bribery and were

linked to political parties and mainly to the party in state-power.

In 1978 SIDA undertook well-irrigation in the former district of Bogra (Chisholm,

1984). It included an exploration into the relationship between new technology and

power structure. The study found that the impact of the new technology was more

complex than it is generally assumed. The rich peasants were threatened by the new

technology as it was likely to erode the customary bases of power. One typical

response was to capture the technology and to exclude the small and middle peasants

from its benefits. It exemplified the anti-production attitude of the rich peasants. The

second type of response was To run the machine efficiently for the mutual benefit of

the surplus peasants. Even in the pump groups dominated by small leaders who

sought to establish their power of the new technology. The well became a of factional

rivalry as various sought control over it not emerge any broader participation or co-

operation the peasants. It was mainly because the small peasants and tenants had

limited ability to contain the arbitrary actions of' the managers. But they could bring

pressure upon the management for better operation of the machines. Thus the new

technology did bring some benefits to the poor, but not much. It did not increase the

bargaining power earners. As Chisholm points out:

“An unequal social structure preoccupied with competitive struggles for survival was

the setting for a technology seemingly requiring social cooperation, It would appear

to be a rural development model with store prospect of entrenching than transforming

existing social hierarchic.”

5

During 1984-85 Karim (1980) undertook an intensive study of changing leadership

patterns in two Villages of Puttia Upazila of Rajshahi. Karim found that Samaj (or

society) constituted the traditional and non-formal institutional basis for the exercise

of power in these two villages. The Samaj was headed by one or more Pardhans or

Paramaniks. Their position was hereditary, but the members of the Samaj had power

to elect leaders under specific circumstances. The formation of Samaj in both the

villages could be traced to persons who were connected with revenue collection

during the Raj. By the middle of 1980S there were 10 Samajes and 31 Pardhans and

Paramaniks. The Samaj often mainifested a precarious unity as it, in one instance,

underwent fragmentation over the issue of a few stolen hens. One Yea-son for the

fragility of Samaj was possibly the scheming of aspiring leaders who could be

benefited by its multiplication. The importance of Samaj, in spite of its fragility, lay in

the fact that it served as a vital mechanism for conflict resolution and. patronage.

When Pardhans and Paramaniks were asked to list the activities for which people

came to them, a rank -order emerged. These were mainly conflict resolutions, advice

and negotiations for marriage help in litigation; advice for- vote advice on religious

and ritual affairs help for meeting funeral expenses; and economic assistance.

According to Karim, there was a continuation of traditional leadership in the less

developed village. In the more developed village, formal authority was exercised by

new leaders who were young and educated. In this village there was a combinations

of old and new leadership. But Karim emphasizes that control of Samaj and formal

organizations were held by same families and gosthis. The new leaders were younger

kindsmen of the traditional leaders and thus there was no conflict of interest between

the old and the new leaders. Dominant families and gosthis were able to enjoy a lions-

share of the flow of government resources into the villages through the net -work of

kindship.

Though some dashing efforts were taken by the above authors and organizations, it

has hardly been studied in depth or detail or meaningful theoretical contexts. Most of

the studies have focused upon selective aspects of power structure. Again most of the

micro level studies have concentrated on one or two villages and unexplored the

6

politics at the level of Union Council or Parishad which is a crucial locus of power in

rural Bangladesh. These studies also provide us hardly any knowledge of ideology of

the powerful or the skill or strategies with which they rule the country. However,

these are very optimistic approaches that will lead us to further interests.

Peasant mobility: A result of the change in power and politics

‘Mobility’ means the movement of position of an individual or a group of people in a

given social hierarchy. ‘Peasant mobility’ refers to the social mobility i.e. movement

up or down in a stratification system) of the peasants. Traditionally, the peasants are

not willing to change in the peasant society. For this reason mobility comes in a slow

pace in the peasant society. One main reason for this is the self-sufficiency of the

peasants. Also they are conservative in attitude. However, over time, the power

structure of the peasant society made some mobility among the peasants.

Historically, as mentioned at first, the peasants were self sufficient in the early village

communities of Bengal. The changes came in 1758 with the British rule in vogue. For

their own necessary this made a break in of the agrarian structure. The pressure

created by the British led towards the famine of 1770. The British then introduced the

permanent settlement act in 1793. This made the zamindari systems introduction with

it. The Peasant mobility still did not came as the landlords only sought their own

interest.

In the first quarter of the 20th century the mobility started among the peasants. Some

people of the peasant society became educated; they took some initiatives to mobilize

the stagnant society. Schools, Madrarsah and other institutions made profound

change. Also in that time the jute production increased and the price was good for the

peasants. Peasants regained economic sufficiency again.

Some peasant movements occurred for the rights of peasant. mobility came through

this social changes also. Green revolution was another movement that made a

profound effect on the mobility of peasant society.

7

Changes of Peasant Mobility in Bangladesh

There came numerous changes in the peasant mobility pattern in Bangladesh over the

last few decades. One of the basic influential reasons for this change is the changing

power structure discussed earlier. The National Agricultural Census undertaken in

1996 is now published to satisfy the growing demand lion data pertaining to the

structure and organization of agriculture and other related aspects of peasant

households for the entire region of Bangladesh. The earlier agricultural census was

undertaken In 1983/84. These two Censuses adopt similar concept, for categorization

farm, non-tarn, and tenure and for this reason, data pertaining to these variables are

directly comparable. The analysis of data generated by v these two censuses can

obviously provide a basis for showing both the direction as well as magnitude of

changes in the structure and organization of the agricultural sector in Bangladesh

(Saha, 2001).

Now we shall analyze the pattern of Farm and Non-Farm household pattern change of

the peasant society below.

There has been a shift of peasant households from farming to non farming

occupations. From the table below, it can be seen that the percentage of households in

farm sector decreases from 73 to 66 per cent, while in non-farm sector, it increases

from 27 to 34 per cent. Over .the span of twelve years, the non-farm households

grows at a rate of about 4 per cent per annum double of that of all peasant households.

8

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY FARM, NON-FARM AND AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS

Sector1983/84 1996 Annual growth rate in %

% of H/H % of Agri.Labourer H/H

% OF H/H

% of Agri.Labourer H/H 1/11

Household Agri. LaborHousehold

Farm 72.70 57.08 66.18 17.18 1.35 -0.20Non-farm 27.30 43.47 33.82 52.82 3.58 2.89

All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100. 00 2 15 1.28(13817646) (5495300) (17828187) (64014153)

Fig: Shift from farm to non farm occupations

Source: BB5 (1986. 1999).Note: Figures In parentheses Indicate Number of household

Here, the number of agricultural labor household in farm sector is also declining at the

rate of 0.26 per cent per annum, while it is increasing al 2.89 per cent per annum in

non-farm sector. The labourer household in talc non-farm sector constitutes 53 per

cent in 1996.

Land is an extremely scarce natural resource in Bangladesh. There has been a decline

of cultivated land from 20. 16 million acres in 1983/84 to 17.78 million acres in 1996

indicating that, on an average, nearly 2 lakh acres of cultivable land are going out of

agriculture every year. The 1996 Census reports that a substantial amount of land has

been diverted from cultivation to the physical area tender- cities, homestead, peasant

roads arid infrastructure. Thus, it is obvious that growth of population (though the

growth rate has now substantially declined) would lead to the decrease of per capita a-

availability of cultivable land.

The pattern of ownership of productive assets, particularly land releases a set of'

forces that determines the relationship between various groups of peasants centering

on land. 'Thus, land arid its distribution pattern plays the central role for determining

the changing peasant power structure that impinges upon Chang-es in the structure of

agrarian economy in contemporary period.

9

The patterns of land ownership and/or tenure relations in Bangladesh peasant society

reinforced the mobility of the peasants. The description of peasant Bangladesh as a

land of small peasants does not; conceal the complex reality that smallness may

coexist with in egalitarian land distributions. As a matter of fact, the small minority of

households who own over the major portion of the country's land are at the apex of

the structure of power in rural Bangladesh. The agricultural censuses of 1983/84 and

1996 provide Information on both ownership and operational land holding, the

distribution pattern of which can be seen in the below table. It appears that.

Bangladesh agriculture is overwhelmingly characterized by the prevalence of small

farms. This prevalence of small fauns can not, however, conceal the highly skewed

distribution pattern in both ownership and operational holdings in 1983/84 and 1996

censuses.

It has been observed that landless in smaller farms (up to 1.49 acre) constituting 53.71

per cent of households own 18.17 per cent and operate 14.04 per cent of land in

1983/84 census. In 1996, marginalization is intensified so much so that 64 per cent of

there are now observed to own 26.24 per cent and operat6 23.3 per cent. of land. Thr!t

is to say, at the end, the increase in households is associated with proportionate

increase in owned/operated land. Similarly at the upper end (above 2.5 acres), 29.66

percent of the households are observed to own 68.64 per cent and operate 71.01 per

cent of land in 1983/84. In 1996, 20.14 per cent of the households at the upper end are

observed to own 56.89 per cent, and to operate 58.81 per cent of land. This indicates

that the decreases in large farm: households go with proportionate decreases in land

so that relative positions of household vis-a-vis land remain the same. As a result,

distribution pattern of both owned and operated land, which is alarmingly skewed, has

not undergone significant, changes.

We can, thus, observe that a dramatic proliferation of small and marginal farms

relative consolidation of middle farms and relative decline of large farms.have taken

place over the span of twelve years (1984-1996). These changes take place within the

existing frame work of highly unequal land distribution.

For further scrutiny of the above observation, we can examine the annual growth rates

of households, owned, operated and net cultivated land by farm size categories

presented below. This table shows that growth rates of all different categories

farm/non-farm households up to 2.49 acres are positive, where as growth rates of all

10

these variables for larger farms (2.50 acres mid above) are negative. On balance, farm

households grow at a rate of 1.35 per cent and peasant households at the rate 2.15 per

cent. The number of households for these smaller farms grows at a higher rate than

the rate at which the amount of land under their control grows. For this reason,

average and per- capita land for them reduced as observed.

GROWTH RATES OF OWNED, OPERATED AND CULTIVATED LAND BY SIZE CATEGORIES IN 1996 OVER 1983/84

Size CategoriesIn Acres

Annual growth rates in % from 1996 over 1983/84Household Owned land Operated land Net cultivated

land

Below 0.05 3.99 1.47 3.69 1.370.05-0.49 2.77 1.67 3.08 3.040.50-1.49 2.89 2.08 3.28 3.281.50-2.49 0.95 0.74 1.:13 1.332.50-7.50 -1.27 -1.47 -1.46 -1.447.50-above -2.84 -2.86 -2.92 -2.81All peasants 1.35 -0.98 -0.95 -2.81All households

(Farm and non

farm)2. 15 -0.80 -0.87 -0.94

Fig: Growth rates of various types of Lands by size

Source: Estimates based on the previous table data

Peasant Class mobility System: The Changing Patterns

In the preceding pages, we have seen the structural changes of the peasant society. In

the following pages we shall discuss the rural class system in Bangladeshi society.

There is much controversy at conceptual level on the structures of caste and class. It is

argued by some social scientists that caste and class are not polar opposites. There is a

continuum between the two. Yet another argument often given is that there is a class

in a caste. The Brahmin is a caste, but there are classes of Brahmins—poor and rich--

11

in the Brahmin caste. Recently, a new controversy is raised by Dipankar Gupta, K.L.

Sharma and other sociologists.

We do not want to elaborate this controversy but would only say that despite

differences in the comprehension of caste and class the fact remains that the

Bangladeshi peasant society shall have to face for some time to come, social problems

relating the caste system. Louis Dumont is the chief architect of the caste as a form of

culture. However, it is not the point to enter into this controversy of caste as a form of

culture or a mode of production. We only wish to argue that class is not essentially an

urban phenomenon, nor the caste is restricted to peasant society. Both caste and class

as forms of stratification are found in peasant society.

Whenever social scientists and political and social workers including the agricultural

workers discuss about rural class system, a question is raised: Is a transition taking

place in the rural social structure of Bangladesh from caste to class? In other words,

the basic point of enquiry today is to find out whether caste is changing and taking the

form of a class. The question is important. It has taken a form of debate in rural soci-

ology. However, Andre Beteille has worked on the class types of the rural peasants as

the structure is followed.

Types of new classes of Peasants

Owners of Land/Peasant Proprietors Non-owners of land (Agricultural Tenants)

Large Middle Lower Land Land Landowners Share-cash Crop share Cash Agricultural owners owners tenants tenants tenants laborers

Fig: Types of new classes of Peasants

12

On one side of the debate is Andre Beteille who has argued in his article on 'Class

Structure in an Agrarian Society' says that the Jotedars of West Bengal, as an

agricultural caste, are moving towards the formation of a class. But the change from

caste to class is amorphous. By amorphousness Beteille means that the form of class

which is emerging among the Jotedars is not of any definite shape or structure of a

class. The movement from caste to class is not clear; it is much doubtful. Beteille

observes:

“It is frequently argued that in countries like India, the older system of

inequalities based on caste is being replaced by a class system not only in the

cities but also in the rural areas. If caste stands for a system of inequality in

which groups are sharply differentiated and at the same time organically

related, then clearly there is evidence of the decline of caste. If, on the other

hand, class stands for a system of antagonistic groups based on the

polarisation of consciously organised interests, there is no general evidence

that this kind of structure is emerging throughout the country: the

predominant impression is bone of amorphousness rather than structure.”

In the above statement Beteille is quite clear when he makes his observation. First, if

caste is defined as a form of structural inequality then it has died. Second, if the

meaning of class is taken as an antagonistic group then it is not taking a definite shape

of a class in village Bangladesh. This formation of classes, therefore, shows a lot of

mobilization of aspects like caste and social grouping inside the peasant society.

Conclusion

The peasant social mobility and change is lot more dependant on the political

variables that affect the power structure of peasant society. The study encourage for

further inquiry into how peasant power relations between classes and other social

groups are created, understood, contested and transformed. The paper reveals

questions of agency of marginalized groups in peasant societies, particularly their

autonomy and capacity to interpret and change their conditions. It will promote

contributions that question mainstream prescriptions or interrogate orthodoxies in

radical thinking.

13

Reference:

1. A.K. Nazmul Karim, “The dynamics of Bangladesh society”, 1980.

2. N. W. Polsby, “Reappointment in the 1970”, California Press, USA, 1971.

3. Max Weber, “Class, status and party”, Berlin, 1922.

4. Tepper, Elliot L. "The Administration of Rural Reform: Structural Constraints

and Political Dilemmas." P. 29-59 in Robert D. Stevens, Hamzi Alavi, and Peter

J. Bertocci (eds.), Rural Development in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Honolulu:

University Press of Hawaii, 1976.

5. S L Doshi and P C Jain, Rural Sociology, Delhi, 1999.

6. Khan, Azizur Rahman. The Economy of Bangladesh. New York: St. Martin's

Press, 1972.

7. Ahmed, A.B, “Bizna: A study of Power structure in Contemporary Rural

Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1983.

8. BRAC, Power structure in ten villages, Dhaka, 1983.

14