Peasants, Zamindars and the State | Class 12 History Notes

2. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY

Agricultural production involved the active participation of peasants within a village community composed of cultivators, the panchayat (village council), and the village headman (muqaddam or mandal).

Caste played a significant role in structuring rural society. Cultivators were heterogeneous, including landowners and agricultural laborers (majurs). Certain caste groups were relegated to menial tasks and poverty, often living outside village boundaries and facing social exclusion similar to the Dalits of modern India.

The village panchayat was an assembly of elders from important families, usually representing various castes but excluding lower-caste laborers. The panchayat made binding decisions on village affairs, including revenue matters and social norms. It was headed by the muqaddam or mandal, who supervised village accounts with the help of the patwari (accountant). The panchayat managed communal funds used for entertaining revenue officials, community welfare, and infrastructure like canals or bunds.

The mandals were often corrupt, accused of underassessing their own revenue to shift burdens onto smaller cultivators.

Panchayats enforced caste boundaries, regulated marriages, and could impose fines or punishments such as temporary expulsion, which meant loss of social and economic rights.

Each caste or jati had its own panchayat that arbitrated disputes and regulated social conduct. State authorities generally respected these decisions except in criminal matters.

Petitions from lower-caste peasants to panchayats often protested excessive taxation or forced labor demands by elites or state officials. When panchayat mediation failed, peasants sometimes resisted by deserting villages, leveraging the availability of uncultivated land.

Village artisans formed another important group, often comprising up to 25% of households. Many artisans also cultivated land or engaged in craft production during agricultural off-seasons. They were compensated through shares of harvest, land allotments (miras or watan), or negotiated goods-for-services arrangements, a precursor to the jajmani system.

While some British officials viewed villages as 'little republics' with collective resource sharing, in reality, villages had deep caste and gender inequalities, individual land ownership, and oligarchic governance by powerful elites. The growing cash economy linked villages to towns, with money changers (shroffs) facilitating financial transactions.

📊 Diagram: Fig. 8.4 An early nineteenth-century painting depicting a meeting of village elders and tax collectors; Fig. 8.6 A shroff at work, a money changer acting as banker in the village.

🧪 Activity: Discuss similarities and differences between historical panchayats and present-day gram panchayats.

🔗 Connection: Leads to examination of women's roles in agrarian society.