--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------Social Classes in India

Class concept in Sociological Analysis

The concept has been deployed by founding father of Sociology like, Karl
Marx, Max Weber to reflect over key themes related to sociology. Such as, nature
of social change or mobility, questions of inequality, sources of conflict, nature of
social stratification, and structural orientation of history. Historically situating the
concept the concept of class it becomes evident that 19th century prevailing
condition of social relationship in the industrial society was main reason behind the
articulation of concept class by classical sociologist Karl Marx and Max Weber.
Karl Marx defined social class as an aggregate of persons who perform the same
function in the organisation of production. In Marxs theory, social classes in
different historical periods are given different names such as freeman and slave,
patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman, oppressor and
oppressed. Classes are distinguished from each other by the difference in their
respective positions in the economy (Bendix & Lipset, 1967: 7). Since social class
is constituted by the function which its members perform in the process of
production, the question arises why the organisation of production is the basic
determinant of social class. Fundamental to this theory was Marxs belief that work
is mans basic form of self-realisation. Stating the four aspects of production, Marx
propounded that these explain why mans efforts to provide for his subsistence
underlie all change in history. Following from this, Marx asserted that the
fundamental determinant of class is the way in which the individual cooperates
with others in the satisfaction of his or her basic needs of food, clothing and
shelter. Other indices such as income, consumption patterns, educational
attainment or occupation are so many clues to the distribution of material goods
and of prestige symbols (ibid:8). Interpreting Karl Marxs viewpoint, Lipset and
1

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------Bendix explain that the income or occupation of an individual, according to Marx,
is not an indication of his class position i.e of his position in the production
process. Marx believed that a mans position in the production process provided
the crucial life experience, which would eventually determine the beliefs and
actions of that individual.

In Marx writings theoretically, [[the concept of class is located at the

confluence of economy, society and polity. For Marx three spheres are
interpenetrating and hierarchically-ordered aspects of a single, seamless social
world. Thus, class in Marxism is the theoretical principle by which society may
be divided into distinct groups that: (a) are identified by their economic role or
position, which (b) shapes the social world they inhabit and the culture they
fashion, which in turn, (c) moulds their political consciousness and inspires their
actions. Thus, the concept of class is the centrepiece of the core causal sequence
proposed by Marxist theory wherein what you are (at the economic levels) shapes
what you experience (at the social level) which ultimately determines what you do
(at the political level).

Taking the cue from Marx, Max Weber made classifications such as
classes, status groups and parties based on distribution of power within a
community. He defined class as when 1) a number of people have in common a
specific casual component of their life chances in so far as 2) this component is
represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and
opportunities for income and 3) is represented under the conditions of the
commodity or labor markets. In Webers theory, class situation is ultimately the
market situation (Weber, 1946). He goes on to elaborate that the factor that
creates class is unambiguously an economic interest and only those interests
involved in the existence of the market.
2

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------Max Weber differs from Marx that class position does not necessarily lead to
class-determined economic or political action. Classification of men into such
groups is based on their consumption patterns rather than on their place in
the market or in the process of production. Weber thought Marx had overlooked
the relevance of such categorization because of his exclusive attention to the
productive sphere. In contrast to classes, which may or may not be communal
groupings, status groups are normally communities, which are held together by
notions of proper life-styles and by the social esteem and honour accorded to them
by others. Linked with this are expectations of restrictions on social intercourse
with those not belonging to the circle and assumed social distance toward inferiors.
In this typology we again find Weber's sociological notion of a social category as
dependent on the definition that others give to social relationships. A status group
can exist only to the extent that others accord its members prestige or degrading,
which removes them from the rest of social actors and establishes the necessary
social distance between "them" and "us." Weber emphasise that Class, Status
and Power all three produces stratification and conflict for example, "class" is
determined by economic position, in contrast to "social status which is
determined by social prestige rather than simply just relations of production.
Hence for him the interplay between ideal types of class, status and power
constitutes more productive framework to understand the stratification and conflict
in society. For instance in capitalist societies, the economically ascendant class
will, in the course of time, also acquire high status; yet in principle, propertied and
property-less people may belong to the same status group. To conclude Max
Weber on Social classes lays the groundwork for an understanding of pluralistic
forms of social conflict in modern society and helps to explain why only in rare
cases such societies are polarized into the opposing camps of the "haves" and the
"have-nots." It has helped us to understand why Marx's exclusively class-centred

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------scheme failed to predict correctly the shape of things to come in modern pluralistic
societies.

Sociologist like Anthony Giddens defines classes as "large scale groupings

of people who share common economic resources, which strongly influence the
types of life style they are able to lead. Ownership of wealth, together with
occupation, is regarded as the chief basis of class differences".

The American sociologist Erik Olin Wright has developed an influential

theory of class which combines aspects of both Marx's and Weber's approaches.
According to Wright, there are three dimensions of control over economic
resources in modern capitalist production, and these allow us to identify the major
classes that exist:
control over investments or money capital;
control over the physical means of production (land or factories and offices);
control over labour power.
[[Milton M. Gordon- The term "social class" often shortened to "class" is
used by sociologists to refer to the horizontal stratification of a population. Within
this general delimitation the concept of class has no precise, agreed-upon meaning
but is used either as an omnibus term,' to designate differences based on wealth,
income, occupation, status, group identification, level of consumption, and family
background, or by some particular researcher or theorist as resting specifically on
some one of these enumerated factors. There is substantial agreement, however,
that the stratifications of class are not by definition those of race, religion, and
ethnic origin-although the two systems of stratification may be related-and that the
concept implies the possibility of at least a minimum amount of movement from
one class to another, in other words, of some vertical social mobility.]]
4

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------There have been many frameworks to define classes in modern societies.
While in popular parlance, class is defined in income terms (rich, middle and poor
or with many gradations in between such as upper middle class, lower middle
class, etc), for many social scientists, this is not a satisfactory device since it uses
the outcome, i.e, income, of various social dynamics to define class. Other
frameworks have tended to focus on economic, political and consciousness based
notions to define class (for example, Thompson). Usually, sociologists have tended
to focus on notions of authority/power and status to define and embellish class
even when they are using explicitly economic class categories for a contrast of the
Marxian and Weberian class schemas. In some recently popular frameworks in
Indian nationalist historiography such as Subaltern Studies, terms such as
elite/subaltern have been deployed which are primarily power-based or
consciousness-based categories.

Out of myriad ways of understanding class, one can elicit three or four such
characteristics. They are by no means of equal importance in the history of social
thought.
1) The vertical order of social classes: the existence of superior and inferior
categories of social statuses which are superior or inferior in respect of some
system of privileges and discriminations. Accepting such a class structure would
mean class stratification.
2) Distinctness of permanent class interests.
3) Class consciousness involves not only class identification but also a
consciousness of the place of ones class in the class hierarchy, a realisation of
class distinctness, class interests and possibly of class solidarity as well.
4) Social isolation the absence of closer social contacts: social distance. In the
US, according to this definition, a social class is the largest group of people whose
members have intimate social access to one another. A society is a class society in
5

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------respect of this characteristic if there exist within it distinct barriers to social
intercourse and if class boundaries can be drawn by means of an analysis of
interpersonal relations. Not only is social isolation involved but also the effects of
this isolation and the effects of differences in the degree of access to the means of
consumption.

Concept of Class in Indian Sociology

First systematic and comprehensive study using framework of Class was

conducted by B.B.Misra. [[He defines social class as follows: "The concept of a
single social class implies social division which proceeds from the inequalities and
differences of man in society, which may be natural or economic. It is chiefly the
economic inequality of man that influences, if it does not wholly determine, social
differentiation. It arises basically from the difference of relationship which a
person or a group bears to property or the means of production and distribution."]]
Sociologist K L Sharma has reflected on calcifications done in Indian sociological
literature through the concept of class. He found following category which is
considered as case of class in India.
(i)

the agrarian classes,

(ii)

the industrial classes,

(iii)

the business and mercantile classes, and

(iv)

the professional classes.

Though he find contradictions in these categorization as it have classes

which are traditional in nature and simultaneously it enlist new classes emerging
out modern changes, for instance; Industrial, business and professional classes
characterize urban India, and landowners, tenants, sharecroppers and agricultural
labourers are found in the countryside.

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------For him if classification comprising landowners, moneylenders and
labourers refers not necessarily to class antagonism. But the other classification
comprising the bourgeoisie, capitalist-type landowners, rich peasants, landless or
land-poor peasantry and agricultural labourers necessarily refers to class
interaction, dependence-independence and conflict as the basic elements of class
structure. Hence such enlisting shows influences of ideology which presuppose
only certain nature of classes are prone toward conflicts.]]

Agrarian class structure

[[ In India class analyses in agrarian context take notice of differences of

land holding between social groups. This situation persists due poor
implementation of land reforms in post-Independent India. Due to this
egalitarianism lacks in rural social life. Given this failure, the class structure in
agriculture is fundamentally split between the landed and the landless at the
broadest level. But among the landed, there are many differences but the most
crucial distinction of these is the quantum of land ownership.]]

Daniel Thorner : [[Amongst the earliest attempts to categorize the Indian agrarian
population into a framework of social classes was that of a well-known economist,
Daniel Thorner. He suggested that one could divide the agrarian population of
India into different class categories by taking three criteria. First, type of income
earned from land (such as, 'rent' or 'fruits of own cultivation' or 'wages'). Second,
the nature of rights held in land (such as, 'proprietary' or 'tenancy' or 'sharecropping rights' or 'no rights at all'). Third, the extent of field-work actually
performed (such as, 'absentees who do not work at all' or 'those who perform
partial work' or 'total work done with the family labour' or 'work done for others to

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------earn wages'). On the basis of these criteria he suggested the following model of
agrarian class structure in India:
i) Maliks, whose income is derived primarily from property rights in the soil and
whose common interest is to keep the level of rents up while keeping the wagelevel down. They collect rent from tenants, sub-tenants and sharecroppers.
ii) Kisans, working peasants, who own small plots of land and work mostly with
their own labour and that of their family members.
iii) Mazdoors, who do not own land themselves and earn their livelihood by
working as tenants/sharecroppers or wage labourers with others.]]

Prof. D.N. Dhanagare: [[has commented that Thorner's classification of agrarian

classes suffers from its own limitations for it is not based on any specific
theoretical assumptions. Dhanagare himself has suggested yet another model of
agrarian classes. Dhanagare's model consists of five categories or classes which are
as follows:
1.

landlords,

2.

Rich peasants,

3.

Middle peasants,

4.

poor peasants, and

5.

(v) landless labourers]]

[[Though scholar Ashok Rudra analyzes the class composition of the Indian
agricultural population, observes that there are only two classes in Indian
agriculture- the big landlords, and the agricultural labourers. These two classes
are in antagonistic relationship with each other, and this constitutes the principal
contradiction in Indian rural society.]]

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------[[According to T. K. Oommen regional variations apart, we can group
agrarian classes under five major heads based on the ownership and control of
land and management and work patterns on land. Admittedly these categories
have distinct styles of life too, apart from their economic distinctiveness. The five
agrarian classes can be described as follows:

1) Landlords: who live from rent and other exactions such as forced labour, who
own but do not cultivate land. They may live either in the same village where they
own land or may be absentee owners. Their style of life is 'feudal' in that they are a
leisure class and their activities are organized around traditional types of pleasure
seeking. Generally speaking, this is a shrinking category due to the introduction of
agrarian legislations relating to abolition of absentee ownership, intermediaries,
ceiling on landholdings and other reforms and also due to the development of
agrarian capitalism. They get the land cultivated through intermediaries such as
share croppers Most of them, if not all, are drawn from the traditionally privileged
castes such as Brahmins and Rajputs.
2) Rich farmers: In one sense this category is a product of the Green Revolution
in that they are either rich peasants who are in the process of becoming 'farmers' or
those who have taken to farming mainly to take advantage of the recently
introduced state subsidies. However, they are not the real tillers of the land for they
do not themselves. Work on the land, they only supervise agricultural operations
and it is in this sense that they are cultivators. It is not uncommon that they lease in
land for cultivation. He deliberately use the term 'farmers' to refer to them as they
look upon agriculture as a business proposition and they produce for market and
for profit. They are capitalist farmers and are drawn from a variety of backgrounds,
from retired military officers to the enterprising agricultural graduates. Their style
of life approximate that of white-color employees, they are politically influential
and economically well off. Majority of them are drawn from land-owning
9

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------traditional castes such as Brahmins or Rajputs and the newly educated of the
peasant castes such as Jats, Ahirs, Reddis, Kanmas, Nairs etc.
3) Middle peasants: The distinction between middle peasants and rich farmers is
not primarily based on the difference in the size of their holdings, but that the
former participate in the agricultural operations directly and "hire labourers only
for certain operations or at certain points in time. Usually they are not educated and
their style of life is rustic in the sense that it approximates the traditional rural
pattern. Most of the middle peasants were erstwhile tenants and in one sense they
are products of agrarian legislations which upheld the maxim, 'land for the tiller'.
Although usually taken to be resisters of innovations, these peasants are shrewd
men capable of making rational decisions provided they are convinced of the
advantages of the new measures and of course if they can afford them. Un
educated and unsophisticated, they usually lack skill in dealing with the
developmental bureaucracy. The caste background of the middle peasants is more
or less the same as that of rich farmers excepting that the few land-owning
backward and lower castes too fall in this category.
4) Poor peasants: This category is mainly constituted by those persons who own
uneconomic holdings and cultivate it by their own labour. Often their holdings are
so small that they cannot make ends meet exclusively though the income derived
from it and therefore are also part-labourers. They may also work as share-croppers
or tenants of various types. These peasants find it difficult to secure the benefits
available through the state because (a) these subsidies are monopolized mainly by
the first two categories and (b) they lack social skills and net-work ties to
manipulate the bureaucracy. This category is drawn from almost all caste groups,
although most of them may be from back ward and dalit castes.
5) Landless agricultural labourers: This category does not own land; if they did,
it is not more than abadi land on which their huts are situated. Their sole source of
income is their labour and hence dependent on others the first three categories
10

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes------------------- for their livelihood. Majority of these labourers belong to dalit castes who
occupy the lowest ritual status in the traditional caste hierarchy. Admittedly poor
peasants and landless labourers qualify to be labelled as agrarian proletariat.]]

Social transformation in the agrarian class structure

[[Scholar PC Joshi has done a very comprehensive analysis about social

transformation in Indian agrarian class structure that we summarize below:
(a) In post-Independent India with abolition of Zamindari System in agrarian
relationship there is decline in feudal and customary types of tenancies. It was a
more

exploitative

and

replaced

by

insecure

lease

arrangement.

(b) With Green revolution and commercialization, a new commercial based rich
peasant class who were part owners and part tenants. They had resource and
enterprise

to

carry

out

commercial

agriculture.

(c) Further with the decline of feudal landlord class and another class of
commercial farmers emerged for whom agriculture was a business. They used the
non-customary

type

of

tenancy.

Hence according Joshi there is transformation in rural India where we can

see social mobility and marginalization simultaneously. The marginality we find in
form of Depeasantization of small and marginal peasant and thus new from have
and have-nots emerge in agrarian structure in rural India.

The process of social mobility has been seen in two directions. In his study
of six villages in Rajasthan, K.L. Sharma (1980) observed that in some villages,
not only the agricultural labourers but quite a few of the ex-landlords have slided
down in class status, almost getting proletarianised. On the contrary, the neo-rich
peasantry has emerged as the new rural bourgeoisie replacing the older landlords.
11

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------Ramkrishna Mukherjee (1957) in his work Dynamics of a Rural Society dealt with
the changes in the agrarian structure suggesting that a number of classes
(categories) were reduced, and that small cultivators were becoming landless
workers.]]

Political mobilization of Agrarian classes

[[Political mobilization of the agrarian classes on an all-India basis started during

the freedom struggle, particularly by early twentieth century. And, this continues
even today although the spread and intensity of mobilization varied across regions,
classes and time-periods. There is substantial evidence to suggest that the
mobilization of rich farmers is accelerating the process of capitalist development in
agriculture. On the other hand, the mobilization of agrarian proletariat is
moderating, if not halting, the capitalist development in Indian agriculture.
Ignoring these aspects have substantially limited the scope of discussion and
consequently the depth of understanding regarding the nature of agrarian classes.]]

Conclusion: [[The agrarian class structure in India is part of a larger social

structure which includes class divisions of other kinds. Today the agrarian and
industrial economies have become intertwined to a far greater extent than before,
and the balance between agricultural and industrial occupations is undergoing
continuous and, in some places, rapid change. When a peasant loses his land he
does not necessarily become an agricultural labourer. He may secure a toehold in a
transport or construction business and in course of time set up a small repair shop
or act as an agent in the marketing of rural produce. If there is evidence of
polarization, there is also evidence of differentiation of economic roles in the rural
as well as the urban sector. But the increasing complexity and fluidity of class

12

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------divisions in a changing society does not mean that economic inequalities or
conflicts arising from them are disappearing, or even declining.]]

Industrial Class Structure

[[Many social thinkers of late 19th century and early 20th century were seized
with changes that were brought about by industrialisation and the characters that
were part of these emerging societies. Thus, we find many early sociologist
invariably contrasted earlier, pre-industrial societies with industrial societies
resulting in classification and typologies of society, for instance Tonnies
Gemeinschaft and Geselleschaft, Durkheims contrast of organic solidarity
and mechanical solidarity, Maines status and contract and Spencers
militant and industrial society. Or Marxs more elaborate classification societies
which was based on mode of production which included stages such as primitive
communism, ancient , feudal and capitalist.

These theories and typologies tended to be evolutionary in their approach, as

inevitable historical process was visualised. They all tried to look for fundamental
organizing principles behind industrial societies which was then contrasted with
non-industrial or pre-industrial society. For St. Simone (and Comte who followed
him) industrial society was to be contrasted to military society. The latter was
organized around plunder, waste, display; the former was organized around the
orderly output of goods.]]

13

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------Features of Industrial Society

[[An industrial society is marked by the following features:

(i) Emergence of Modern Family

The emergence of modern family in place of traditional patriarchal family is
the first feature of industrial society. The family in industrial society has moved
from an institution to companionship. The woman is no longer the devotee of
man but an equal partner in life with equal rights.
It is not only the males who go to the factory and offices for work, but the
women also are as good earning members as the men. The family has changed
from a production to consumption unit. It now no longer performs the functions
which it did in the pre-industrial society. The machines and appliances have
lessened the drudgery of cooking, bathing, cleaning and washing.
Even the functions of child bearing and rearing are differently performed in
the industrial society. The hospital offers room for the birth of child and he is
brought up in the nursing home while the mother is away to the factory. The family
members of industrial society are individualized in their outlook. In short, the
structure and functions of the family in industrial society are different from those
in the agrarian society.
(ii) Economic Institutions
The most important difference between the industrial society and preindustrial society can be seen in the structure of economic institutions. The
industrial society is marked by a new system of production, distribution, and
exchange. In place of house-holds there are factories where the work is divided up
into little pieces. Large plants have been set up. Corporations have come into
existence. Ownership has been separated from control. The large industrial
business, such as Tatas and Birlas is owned not by one man but by millions of
14

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------people. The stockholders among whom this diversified ownership is spread do own
their companies. But they delegate control of the corporation to salaried
management.
As a matter of fact, we have a sort of collectivization of ownership in an
industrial society. Capitalism with all its necessary features is an important aspect
of industrial society. Thus it is marked by the institutions of private property,
division of labour, profit, competition, wage and credit. The growth of trade unions
is also an important feature of industrial society.
(iii) Occupational Sub-cultures
As referred to above, there is extreme division of labour in industrial society.
Both the production of goods and management of factory are divided into little
pieces leading to occupational specialties. There are thousands in a factory to
produce specialized tasks in order to produce, say, a pair of shoes.
Like-wise, the management work is also divided, one looking to the
purchase of raw material, the other one looking to the maintenance of plant and
machinery, the third one looking after advertisement and publicity and so on.
Such a division of labour leads to what some sociologists have called situses
sets of related occupational specialities arranged hierarchically parallel to and
separate from other sets of related roles, which are also arranged in hierarchies.
Each situs or family or related occupation builds up a set of norms peculiar to it.
These occupational sub-cultures insulate their participants from the members
of another situs. Doctors and nurses hold values not shared by engineers and truck
drivers. The occupational norms of the lawyers are not those of teachers.
The industrial society as it is marked by extreme occupational specialisation
is thus fragmented by occupational sub-cultures. This can be seen at its extreme
15

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------when doctors in India and United States have more to talk about with each other
than either group has with the farmers from its own country.
(iv)

Segmentalized Roles

People in industrial societies have segmentalized roles. One may be a

welder, a religious preacher, a father, a member of a political group, a member of
the cricket team. No one of these bears the same necessary relationship to another
that the roles filled by a tribes man in a tribal society do. In such a society, one
need only know his clan membership to predict his occupation, his relation and his
educational attainment.
(v) Impersonality of Relationship
An industrial society is marked by impersonal rather than personal
relationships.

Occupational

specialization

contributes

good

share

to

impersonality of industrial life. The secondary character of association, the

multiplicity of occupations, the specialization of functions and areas and
competitiveness narrow the attachments and detract the individual from a feeling
of identification with the entire society.
Further the separation of place of work from place of residence removes
working fathers from the view of their children. Most children do not know what
daddy does when he goes to work. They just know that he goes and comes back.
As a matter of fact, not only do most children not know what their fathers do, but
neither do many wives know exactly.
The wife only knows that her husband works in the textile mill, but what he
actually does there, whether he works on the assembly line, or is he a machine
operator or is he a supply man, is not known to her. Under such circumstances,
family fails to enable the child to walk out of adolescence into an adult
occupational role.
16

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------(vi) Status to Contract

The most important feature for an understanding of industrial society is the
trend that sociologists describe as movement from status to contract. In medieval
society the serfs had lands because of their status. A baron was born a baron. His
grandfather had been a baron and it was his right.
The serfs owned him certain obligations not because of achievement, but
because each man was born into his status. The whole society was structured on
ascribed status. The industrial society has shattered this structure.
In an industrial society most people work for big organizations and contracts
are substituted for status system. There is a wage contract, a social security
contract, an unemployment insurance contract and so on. In place of mutual
obligation system there is found contract system in industrial society.
(vii) Social Mobility
Since an industrial society has moved from status to contract, therefore, as a
consequence thereof, it is marked by social mobility. The member of industrial
society can by his achievement raises or lowers his status during his life time. The
role of caste as a factor in determining status gets minimised in an industrial
society.
(viii) Position of Women
In an agrarian society there are few economic pursuits open for women.
They are mostly confined to household drudgeries; and render help at the time of
planting and harvesting of the crops. In an industrial society there are more
opportunities open for women.
Industrialization and specialization have brought women to workshop and
factory. They have entered into the wider life which has altered their outlook and
liberated them from the exclusiveness of domesticity. Seats are now reserved for
17

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------them in legislatures and other elective bodies. The lib movement is a contribution
of industrial society.
(ix) Deviance and Anomie
The industrial society is a mass society with differing sub-cultures. Its
members live under stresses and strains caused by acute competitiveness. The
factories run day and night. People indulge in too many activities and work at
tremendous speed. They are surrounded by complex and heterogeneous rules of
behaviour laid down by various agencies which impose an enormous number of
constraints on human behaviour.

Capitalism, exploitation, class conflicts, cultural lags, impersonality of

relationships, predominance of individualism and mechanical life are the attributes
of industrial society which create mental and emotional disorders. The members of
industrial society suffer from neurosis, psychosomatic disorders and psychosis.
The incidence of suicide and drug addiction is also higher in industrial society.

To conclude, the industrial society has brought about great changes in the
institutional structure and norms. The American society is an industrial society
where the people are highly literate, scientifically trained, economically prosperous
but individualistically oriented.
Will human relationship in such a society be more stable and integrated?
The answer is not definite. However, more and more agrarian societies are entering
the phase of industrialization and in future we shall have more industrial
societies. ]]

18

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------[[Anthony Giddens identifies three major classes in industrial society.
Particularly, in a capitalist society based on economic criteria:
i) Upper class - Ownership of means of Production
ii) Middle class -Owners of technical qualification
iii) Lower class - Owners of manual labour
According to Frank Parkin, who provides occupational classification of
social class, in modem capitalist society, the power to acquire rewards is directly
related to the demands of the market for occupational skills. It is difficult to assess
the claims that Upper classes are superior in intelligence and achievement. But a
close look shows that tests measures the performance rather than intelligence and
performance depend not only ability but on specific training. In other words, it
requires a highly educated worker which in turn leads to higher pay - higher status
occupation. And market which has high consumption requirement required and
helps in the growth of middle market.]]

Industrial class structure in India:

[[Under the British rule, production in India became production for market.
As a result of this, internal market expanded and the class of traders engaged in
internal trading grew. Simultaneously, India was also linked up with the world
market. This led to the growth of a class of merchants engaged in export-import
business. Thus, there came into being a commercial middle class in the country.
With the establishment of railways, the accumulation of savings on the part of this
rich commercial middle class took the form of capital to be invested in other largescale manufactured goods and modern industries. Like the British, who pioneered
the industrial establishment in India, the Indians, too made investment initially in
plantations, cotton, jute, mining and so on. Indian society thus included in its
19

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------composition such new groups as mill owners, mine owners, etc. Subsequently, they
also diversified the sphere of their industrial activity. Economically and socially
this class turned out to be the strongest class in India.

However, Indians lagged far behind in comparison to the British in these

activities. Government policy was mainly responsible for their slow development
during the colonial period. The conflict of interest with the British led to the
formation of independent organizations by the Indian commercial and industrial
classes. This class participated in the freedom struggle by rallying behind the
professional classes who were the backbone of the Indian National Movement.
With the attainment of Independence, emphasis was laid on rapid industrialization
of the country. In this process, the state was to play a very active role. It evolved
economic and industrial policies, which clearly indicated the role of the
commercial and industrial class as the catalyst of industrialization in India. It also
actively assisted such classes towards augmentation of production. The state hence
introduced the mixed economy pattern, which implies that there is a public sector
and a private sector in the Indian Economy. The major fields like agriculture,
industry and trade were left to the private individuals. The creation of
infrastructure and establishment of heavy and strategic industries was taken up by
the state sector. This type of economy led to a phenomenal rise in the number of
industries owned and controlled by the capitalists. It also led to the rise of
commercial classes. The commercial and business class has therefore, grown in
scale and size in the post-Independence era. These industries were not confined to
traditional sectors alone such as textile, jute, mines, and plantation. Rather there
was considerable diversification into steel industries, paper mills, and various steel
manufactured goods. Industrialization, as has been going on, however shows a
disturbing trend. There is a growing tendency towards inequality amongst

20

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------industrial classes. There is heavy concentration of assets, resources and income in
a few business houses such as the Tatas, Birlas, Dalmias, and a few others.]]

Middle classes in India and its Sociological Discourse

Introduction
According to Satish Deshpande (2003 :125) the emergence of middle class
concept in sociology in general and to India sociology in specific was because of
limitation of Class concept (Bourgeoisie - proletariat) in explaining social
dynamics in Post-Second World War scenario. The rise to prominence of
categories like gender, race and ethnicity; the salience of new social movements
organized around non-traditional issues like the environment or peace; and the
spread of various types of identity politics in social science literature revealed the
inadequacies of class concepts in responding the issues emerging in the society.

Conceptualization

Analyzing earlier definitions on Middle Class and reviewing their limitation,

Satish Deshpande (2003:139-140) suggesting following criteria for defining
Middle which emphasize the value orientation:
1) The middle class is the class that articulates the hegemony of the ruling bloc;
it both (a) express this hegemony by translating the relations of domination
into the languages of legitimation; and (b) mediates the relationship between
classes with the ruling bloc, as well as between this bloc and other classes.
For example Middle Class endorsed by participation and legitimatized the
idea of Developmental state during Nehruvian era in India. By accepting the
nationalist history and socialist vision of economic transformation,

21

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------participating in Bureaucracy, scientific establishment thus becoming part of
state apparatus.
2) The middle class is the class that is most dependent on cultural capital and
on mechanism for the reproduction of such capital. For middle class, such
cultural capital may consist of particular types of identities (caste,
community, or region) and competences (educational credentials, linguistic
and other social skills).Such forms of cultural capital fulfill at least three
attributes of property: they confer tangible and psychological benefits; they
can be privatized, that is, others can be excluded from enjoying their
benefits; and finally they can be transmitted across generations. This cultural
capital can become bases of marginalization, inequality (merit versus
reservation) which makes sociologist interested and critical toward.
3) As an increasing differentiated class, the middle class specializes in the
production of ideologies; its elite fraction specializes in the production of
ideologies, and its mass fraction engages in the exemplary consumption of
the ideologies, thus investing them with social legitimacy. Like intellectuals,
professional politicians, top bureaucrats, media persons.
Evolution of the Middle Class in India
B.B. Misra (1961) in his seminal work on the middle classes in India had
concluded that institutions conducive to capitalist growth were not lacking in India
prior to the British rule. Pre-British India did witness an Indian artisan industry as
well as occupational specialisation and additionally a separate class of merchants.
The guild power remained purely money power unsupported by any authority of a
political or military nature. The British rule resulted in the emergence of a class of
intermediaries serving as a link between people and the new rulers. In Misras
viewpoint, there was a fundamental revolution in social relations and class
structure in India. The emergent class of intermediaries was the middle class that
22

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------continued to grow in strength and prosperity with the progress of foreign rule.
Significantly, the establishment of trading relations followed by the rule of the
British East India Company set the stage in the creation of this class. Furthermore,
as part of their educational policy, the British attempted to create a class
comparable to their own to assist the former in the administration of the country
(Misra, 1961:10). The aim of the British was to create a class of imitators and not
originators of new values and methods (Ahmad & Reifeld, 2001:8).

As Pavan K. Verma points out in his work on the middle class, from the
circumstances of their origin and growth, the members of the educated class such
as government servants, lawyers, college teachers and doctors constituted the bulk
of the Indian middle class. This middle class, in Vermas opinion, was largely
dominated by the traditional higher castes (Verma, 1998: 27). Ahmad and Reifeld
argue that in its formation and the role played in history, the Indian middle class
bore close resemblance, at least in some parts, to its European counterparts
(Ahmad & Reifeld, 2001). Like their counterparts in Europe earlier, some of the
entrants to commercial activity either as agents or independently in the 17th and
the first half of the 18th century amassed great wealth and acquired social status far
beyond what they could aspire to have in the structure of economic relations in the
traditional society. But alongside, differences existed, too. While the European
middle class was independent, the Indian middle class was under foreign rule.
Initially, the middle class helped in the establishment of British power and
promotion of European commerce and enterprise in India. It was only after the
Mutiny that it began to assume the political role of competitor for power with the
British. With the passage of time, the competitor role adopted by an important
section of the middle class came to dominate over that of a collaborator and this
continued till the very end of the Raj. Ahmad and Reifeld conclude that from the
beginning of the 20th century, the Indian middle class had come to pose a serious
23

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------challenge to the continuance of the British power. It was instrumental in arousing
national consciousness and giving a sense of unity as a nation to the people
(Ahmad and Reifeld, 2001:10).

Andre Beteille writes that the middle class is not only very large but also
highly differentiated internally to such an extent that it may be more appropriate to
speak of the middle classes than of the middle class in India, stresses upon the
heterogeneous nature of its social composition (Beteille, 2001: 73). The recent
shifts in the economic policy in favour of privatisation, liberalisation and
globalisation have generated a wide interest in the middle class, its size,
composition and its social values. Andre Beteille views middle class in India as
part of a relatively new social formation based on religion, caste and kinship. In
Beteilles opinion, middle class values in India are difficult to characterise because
they are still in the process of formation and have still not acquired a stable form
(Beteille, 2001:74). As such, they are marked by deep and pervasive antinomies
meaning contradictions, oppositions and tensions inherent in a set of norms and
values.

"Old" middle classes and the "new" middle classes

[[A crucial distinction is made in the sociological literature between the

"old" middle classes and the "new" middle classes. The term "old" middle class is
used in the sense in which Marx had used the term "petty-bourgeoisie" i.e. those
who work with their own means of production such as traders, independent
professionals and farmers. The term "new" middle class is broadly used to describe
the skilled or white-collared workers/salaried employees and the self-employed
professionals. Even though they do not own the means of production they work
with, they are distinguished from the unskilled blue-collar workers. Their incomes
24

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------being much higher than that of the blue-collar workers, they can lead a lifestyle
that is very different from that of the working class.]]
The New Middle Class in India: Consumption Patterns, Identities, and Sociopolitical Attitudes

Commenting on the growing middle class, Gurcharan Das (Das, 2000) stated
that although the middle class is composed of many occupations, commerce has
always been at the center- as the businessman mediated between the landed upper
classes and the labouring lower classes. The 20th century witnessed an
entrepreneurial surge in the last decade after 1991 and the expansion of the middle
class in the last two decades after 1980. After growing at a rate of 3.5% a year
from 1950 to 1980, Indias economic growth rate increased to 5.6% in the decade
of the 80s. It climbed further to 6.3% in the decade of 1990s. In these 2 decades the
middle class more than tripled. Between 1998- 2000, $2.5 billion in venture capital
funds have come to India (McKinseys studies have shown that there is a direct
correlation between the availability of venture funds and the proliferation of
business start ups). Writing about this middle class, Das argued that as a result of
changing trends, a new kind of entrepreneur has emerged in India (Das, 2000:195).
As Gurcharan Das notes, although the reforms after 1991 have been slow, hesitant
and incomplete, yet they have set in motion a process of profound change in Indian
society. It is Joseph Schumpeter who coined the term entrepreneur. Contrary to
earlier times, the new millionaires today are looked up to with pride and even
reverence. For they are a new meritocracy highly educated entrepreneur
professionals who are creating value by innovating in the global knowledge
economy.

There has been an agreement among scholars that a new middle class
emerged in India after launch of economic reforms in 1991. The shift in Indias
25

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------political economy accelerated the influence of the market in areas which had been
previously controlled by the state, facilitated foreign direct investment and trade,
created new forms of employment, and encouraged mass consumption. The main
group of participants in this new economy has been the so-called new middle class
which is portrayed as the beneficiary of liberalization and market-oriented policies.
Since then, this shift has transformed the idea of middle classness in India. As
Baviskar and Ray explain: At the centre of these policies was the idea of a
middle class unleashed from the chastity belt of Nehruvian socialism and Indiraera austerities, finally able to savor the fruits of its disciplined and diligent work.
This middle class would be the producer as well as the consumer driving the
engine of economic growth and prosperity.

Most of the scholars of Indian new middle class have based their argument
on Pierre Bourdieus definition of class. In contrast to classical Marxian class
analysis where ones class position is linked to the relation to the means of
production, according to Bourdieu (1984), ones class position is not only
dependent on economic capital but also on cultural and social capital which is
accumulated and displayed in practices, skills, social connections, and networks.
Moreover, Bourdieu argues that it is habitus, that is, a set of acquired dispositions,
values, skills, tastes, sensitivities, and practices, which not only structures the
lifestyle of a particular group or class fraction but also forms the conscious or
unconscious unity of the class, and leads to production and reproduction of class
positions.

One of the most recent criticisms of the new middle-class activism was
raised in response to the anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare which
began in 2011. Arundhati Roy (2011), for example, has criticized the anticorruption movement because it has been supported by people who run a clutch
26

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------of generously funded NGOs whose donors include Coca-Cola and the Lehman
Brothers. Harindranath and Khorana (2014) have referred to the anti-corruption
movement as a movement of the twittering classes and Shah (2012) has
criticized its urban middle-class base which did not engage with older systemic
forms of exclusion in the country.]]
[[However, can size or income alone determine the nature of a particular
class? By referring to various approaches on class and the middle class,
sociologists and political scientists have intervened in this discussion and have
critiqued these income and size-based definitions of class to suggest that
qualitative attributes such as occupation, status or even ideology need to be taken
into account while defining a class. Political scientist Achin Vanaik (2002) and
the sociologist Satish Deshpande (2003) have been critical of income and sizebased assessments of the middle class. They have analyzed the middle class from
the Marxist perspective and have examined it with respect to ideology and power.
As a consequence, while Vanaik contends that the middle class is a part of the
ruling elite, Deshpande argues that the Indian middle class plays role in
reproduction of hegemony of ruling class..]]
[[Hence the social orientation of the middle class in urban India is modern,
based on the fact that materialistically, there is a marked change, albeit slowly.
While there is no denying the fact that consumer culture has still not taken a wellentrenched form in India, yet it must be conceded that consumption pattern of the
urban Indian middle class is changing. Overt symbols such as cars, electronic
goods, designer clothes are being used to portray progressive attitudes and
supposedly modern status of individuals. However, to define class in terms of
economic status alone will not be an adequate representation of the class situation
in India. We have tried to bring out the fact that the basis for formation of social
relations is an important criterion for understanding the middle class in India.
27

--------------------Aditya Mongra @ Professors Classes-------------------Middle class in India cannot be defined as being completely modern.
Modernisation is not just about possessing the latest electronic appliances and
being technologically updated.

Rather it needs to be visible in the attitudes of people that come into effect in
their social relations with others. Modernity brings in its wake new forms of social
interaction. In the context of the urban middle class in India, lack of modernity is
perceptible in most realms of the personal lives of people with social relations
continuing to be embedded in traditional expectations, norms and mores.
Essentially, those living in this cosmopolitan city appear to be grappling with the
difficult alternatives of tradition and modernity. Normative patterns and value
orientations are still particularistic, ascriptive based and patriarchal. Choices in
interpersonal relationships are socially controlled. Furthermore, social conditioning
perpetuates reactions and thinking along expected lines that underline the
predominant codes of a male dominated society. We are in no way suggesting that
Indian middle class has not progressed at all. As Dipankar Gupta argues though
the past is in our present, it is not as if the past in its entirety is our present (Gupta
2000: 206). Metamorphosis is taking place which is why people are appearing to
be ambivalent in their thinking as is evident while conducting research amongst
them on these aspects. Modernity brings in its wake contradictions and ambiguities
in the minds of people as options available with them expand manifold. This
phenomenon is being experienced by the urban middle class of India. Therefore,
one can conclude that the social order is in a transitional stage with the traditional
value system still being predominant in the tradition-modernity continuum.]]

28