Harvest of Anger: Peasants, Power, and the Politics of Betrayal in India

 From Revolutionary Promise to Fragmented Protest—Why India’s Agrarian Question Remains Unresolved

-Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

The history of peasant movements in India reveals a persistent yet unresolved agrarian question rooted in colonial extraction, postcolonial compromise, and contemporary neoliberal transformation. While peasants have repeatedly mobilized—ranging from localized revolts like the Indigo Rebellion to mass protests such as the 2020–21 farmers’ agitation—their struggles have largely failed to produce structural transformation. This essay, written from a Marxist perspective, argues that the failure lies in the internal contradictions of the peasantry—class differentiation, caste hierarchies, and regional disparities—combined with political co-option and ideological fragmentation. It critically examines the evolution of peasant movements, the role of Kisan Sabhas, the divergence from Congress politics, and the limitations of contemporary farmers’ agitations. By situating Indian developments within the theoretical frameworks of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong, the essay concludes that the absence of a sustained worker-peasant alliance has prevented the emergence of a transformative agrarian politics. The ongoing crisis has rendered agriculture economically precarious, turning it into a site of survival rather than prosperity.

Keywords

Peasant Movements; Agrarian Crisis; Kisan Sabha; Marxism; Farmer Protests; Punjab Agriculture; Class Struggle; Political Economy; Rural India; Left Politics

I. Introduction: A Century of Resistance, A History of Deferral

At the borders of Delhi in 2020, the Indian farmer did not arrive as a stranger to protest. He came with memory—of indigo fields, of unpaid rents, of broken promises, of reforms that never reached the soil.

The 2020–2021 Indian Farmers' Protest was not an isolated upheaval. It was the latest expression of a historical contradiction that has persisted since colonial times:

the agrarian question in India remains unresolved.

“The Indian peasant rises again and again—not because he forgets, but because nothing fundamentally changes.”

II. Colonial Origins: The Making of Agrarian Distress

Colonialism did not merely exploit agriculture—it reorganized it for extraction.

The Indigo Rebellion and Deccan Riots were early responses to this transformation. Yet, these revolts were reactive, not revolutionary.

Even under Mahatma Gandhi in the Champaran Satyagraha, the peasantry was mobilized within limits. Gandhi’s politics sought moral reform, not class rupture.

III. The Left Intervention: Making the Peasant Political

The formation of the All India Kisan Sabha marked a decisive intervention by Left forces.

Leaders like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati, N. G. Ranga, and E. M. S. Namboodiripad attempted to transform peasants from a suffering mass into a political class.

They demanded:

Abolition of zamindari

Reduction of rent

Redistribution of land

These demands directly challenged both colonial authority and indigenous elites.

“The peasant must cease to be a subject of pity and become a subject of politics.” — Swami Sahajanand Saraswati

IV. Radical Peaks: Tebhaga and Telangana

The 1940s saw the most radical articulation of peasant power.

The Tebhaga Movement demanded two-thirds of produce for cultivators.

The Telangana Rebellion went further—seizing land and dismantling feudal authority.

Leaders like P. Sundarayya,  B. T. Ranadive and Harkishan Singh Surjeet sought to build a revolutionary alliance of peasants and workers.

For a brief moment, India approached a transformative agrarian revolution.

“Telangana was not merely a revolt—it was a glimpse of an alternative rural order.”

V. Theoretical Tensions: Marxism and the Peasantry

Karl Marx saw peasants as fragmented. Friedrich Engels emphasized gradual transformation.

Vladimir Lenin provided a strategy:

ally with poor peasants, neutralize middle peasants, oppose kulaks.

Mao Zedong went further—placing peasants at the centre of revolution.

India’s Left attempted to apply these frameworks but struggled against caste, regional diversity, and political compromise.

VI. Post-Independence Betrayal: Reform Without Justice

Independence marked not transformation, but containment.

Land reforms were diluted. Movements like the Bhoodan Movement, led by Vinoba Bhave, replaced class struggle with moral appeal.

The State integrated rural elites into democratic structures, preserving hierarchy under a new legitimacy.

VII. The Rise of Elite Farmers: A Shift in Politics

The farmers’ movements of the 1980s, led by Mahendra Singh Tikait, shifted focus:

From land redistribution → to MSP

From class struggle → to price negotiation

This marked the rise of dominant farmer classes.

“The farmers’ protests ceased to ask who owns the land—and began asking at what price it sells.”

VIII. Exclusion Within: The Invisible Rural Majority

Modern farmers’ movements often exclude:

Landless labourers

Dalits

Women farmers

This reflects deeper contradictions.

The “farmer” is not a unified identity—it is a hierarchy of interests.

IX. Political Appropriation: The Betrayal by Parties

Mainstream political parties have consistently used farmers as instruments.

From the Indian National Congress to regional parties like Shiromani Akali Dal and Samajwadi Party:

Movements are mobilized during elections

Demands are diluted after victory

Structural reforms are avoided

“The farmer is remembered at the ballot box—and forgotten in the budget.”

X. The Delhi Protest: Victory and Limits

The 2020–2021 Indian Farmers' Protest forced repeal of laws—an undeniable victory.

But:

It remained regionally concentrated

It excluded the most vulnerable

It fragmented after success

Punjab’s ongoing mobilizations reflect internal divisions, weakening collective strength.

XI. The Crisis Deepens: Agriculture as a Death Trap

Data reveals the severity:

Majority of farmers are small and marginal

Indebtedness is widespread

Farmer suicides persist

Agriculture is no longer sustainable—it is precarious survival.

Recent data underscores the depth of the crisis:

Over 85% of farmers are small and marginal (Agricultural Census)[2]

High levels of indebtedness persist (NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey)[3]

Thousands of farmer suicides are reported annually (NCRB)[4]

Agriculture is no longer a stable livelihood. It is increasingly a site of precarity.

XII. Conclusion: Between Resistance and Revolution

The Indian peasantry stands at a crossroads.

It has:

A history of resistance

A capacity for mobilization

But lacks:

Unity across class and caste

A transformative ideological vision

“Without a worker-peasant alliance, the revolution remains incomplete; without unity, resistance remains repetition.”

The agrarian question remains open.

And until it is resolved, the farmer will continue to march—

not toward revolution, but toward another negotiation.

Footnotes

1.     NABARD, All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey (NAFIS), 2016–17.

2.     Government of India, Agricultural Census 2015–16.

3.     NSSO, Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households.NCRB, Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India, various years.

From Indigo Fields to Delhi’s Borders: The Unfinished Agrarian Question in India

 Rebellion without Revolution, Protest without Transformation

-Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

The history of peasant movements in India reveals a persistent yet unresolved agrarian question shaped by colonial extraction, postcolonial compromise, and neoliberal transformation. Despite recurring mobilisations—from the Indigo Revolt to the 2020–21 farmers’ protest—the Indian peasantry has failed to achieve structural transformation. This essay, written in a narrative and analytical style, argues that the limitations of these movements lie in the internal contradictions of the peasantry—class differentiation, caste hierarchy, and regional disparities—combined with political co-option and ideological fragmentation. By situating Indian agrarian struggles within Marxist theoretical debates and comparing them with China’s agrarian transition, the essay demonstrates how India’s democratic but compromised path produced reform without transformation. Drawing on field anecdotes from Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh, as well as speeches of peasant leaders, the essay concludes that the agrarian question in India remains unresolved, and contemporary protests represent not rupture, but recurrence.

Keywords

Peasant movements; Agrarian crisis; MSP; Class struggle; Farmers’ movement; Rural India; Land reform; Marxism; Punjab agriculture; Debt cycle; China vs India

I. The Road to Delhi: Protest as Historical Memory

On a winter morning in 2024, the highways leading into Delhi began to fill again with tractors. The scene felt eerily familiar. Farmers from Punjab and Haryana moved in slow convoys, carrying supplies, bedding, and flags—preparing not for a march, but for a prolonged occupation.

At the Shambhu border, an elderly farmer leaned against his trolley and remarked quietly:

“Pehle sarkar ke khilaaf lad rahe the. Ab apne hi netaon mein baant gaye hain.”

This was not merely a protest. It was history repeating itself.

The 2020–21 farmers’ movement had appeared, for a moment, as a decisive rupture—forcing the State to repeal contentious farm laws. Yet, only a few years later, fragmentation had returned. Multiple factions—Samyukta Kisan Morcha, its breakaways, and newer coalitions—now negotiated separately, marched separately, and often disagreed publicly.

The farmers’ movement  had resurfaced—but not its unity.

This cyclical return raises a deeper question:

Why does the Indian peasantry rise so often, yet transform so little?

II. The Colonial Wound: Agriculture as Extraction

The roots of the agrarian crisis lie not in recent policy failures alone, but in the structural transformation of agriculture under colonial rule.

British policies converted land into a commodity and peasants into revenue-generating subjects. Systems such as zamindari institutionalised extraction, ensuring that surplus flowed upward—from cultivator to landlord to colonial state.

Early uprisings—Indigo Revolt (1859–60), Deccan Riots (1875), Pabna movement—were not revolutionary movements. They were defensive reactions.

They sought relief, not transformation.

Even when peasants entered nationalist politics under Gandhi—in Champaran and Kheda—their mobilisation remained constrained. Gandhi transformed peasant suffering into moral force, but not into class power.

“The peasant was mobilised—but not radicalised.”

In Marxist terms, the peasantry at this stage remained pre-political—active, but not yet conscious of itself as a class.

III. The Radical Moment: Kisan Sabhas and Class Assertion

The 1930s marked a decisive turning point.

The formation of organised peasant bodies introduced a new language—of rights, class, and struggle. Leaders like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati articulated a radical vision:

“The kisans are not beggars for mercy—they are claimants of rights.”

This was a direct challenge not only to colonial authority, but to indigenous hierarchies.

However, this radicalism existed uneasily within the broader nationalist movement. The Congress sought a multi-class coalition—uniting landlords, industrialists, and peasants. Agrarian radicalisation threatened that balance.

The contradiction was fundamental:

Nationalism required unity

Agrarian justice required conflict

The former prevailed.

IV. Tebhaga, Telangana, and the Revolution That Almost Was

The 1940s witnessed the high tide of peasant militancy.

In Bengal, sharecroppers demanded a greater share of produce. In Telangana, peasants went further—seizing land, forming local committees, and challenging state authority.

An elderly participant from Telangana recalled decades later:

 “Pehli baar laga ki malik hum khud hain.”

For a brief moment, the countryside experienced something extraordinary:

a redistribution of power from below.

Yet, this moment passed.

Independence brought political freedom—but not agrarian revolution.

V. Independence Without Transformation

Post-1947 India did not resolve the agrarian question. It managed it.

Land reforms were:

 Partial

Uneven

Politically negotiated

Large landholders retained influence. Landless labourers remained excluded.

Movements like the Bhoodan initiative replaced confrontation with moral persuasion. The State absorbed radical energies into institutional frameworks.

“India chose reform without rupture.”

VI. From Land to Market: Transformation of Farmers’ movement

By the 1980s, a fundamental shift had occurred.

Peasant movements no longer demanded land redistribution. They demanded:

Minimum Support Price (MSP)

Subsidies

Loan waivers

This reflected a deeper transformation:

the peasant had become a market actor, not a revolutionary subject.

Leaders mobilised farmers not against landlords, but within capitalism.

A farmer from western UP put it simply:

“Zameen ke liye nahi, daam ke liye lad rahe hain.”

VII. The Economics of Distress: Data Behind the Anger

Table 1: MSP vs Cost (Illustrative)

Component	Government MSP (A2+FL)	Farmer Demand (C2+50%)
Paid-out costs	Included	Included
Family labour	Included	Included
Land rent	Excluded	Included
Capital cost	Excluded	Included
Profit margin	Limited	50%

Implication: MSP often does not cover full economic cost.

Table 2: Income vs Debt (Punjab Example)

Indicator	Average
Annual farm income	₹3.2 lakh
Outstanding debt	₹3.4 lakh
Net position	Negative

A farmer in Bathinda explained:

“MSP milta bhi hai toh bas zinda rehne layak. Aage badhne layak nahi.”

VIII. Debt as Destiny

Debt is no longer incidental—it is structural.

Farmers borrow for:

Inputs

Household consumption

Social obligations

Repayment depends on uncertain yields.

This creates a vicious cycle:

Debt → Production → Loss → More Debt

A farmer in Sangrur said:

“Karza utarne ke liye kheti karte hain, par karza badhta hi jaata hai.”

IX. Fragmentation: The Limits of Unity

The Farmers’ agitation presents itself as unified. It is not.

Internal divisions include:

Large vs small farmers

Landowners vs labourers

Caste hierarchies

A Dalit agricultural worker in Punjab observed:

“Yeh andolan zameen walon ka hai. Hum mazdoor alag hain.”

This fragmentation prevents the emergence of a revolutionary bloc.

X. Political Capture: Representation Without Resolution

Mainstream political parties have repeatedly mobilised farmers—but rarely transformed their condition.

Their pattern is consistent:

Mobilise during elections

Offer concessions

Avoid structural reform

A farmer in western UP remarked:

“Sab kisan ki baat karte hain, par kisan ke liye koi nahi karta.”

Peasant politics became electoral arithmetic.

XI. The Left and Its Limits

Left-led peasant movements attempted class-based mobilisation, but faced structural barriers:

Caste divisions

Regional fragmentation

Changing agrarian economy

An activist in Bihar reflected:

“Humne class ki baat ki, gaon ne caste ki.”

The worker–peasant alliance—central to Marxist theory—never fully materialised.

XII. China and India: Two Agrarian Paths

Table 3: Comparative Agrarian Transition

Dimension	China	India
Land reform	Radical	Partial
Ownership	Egalitarian	Unequal
Rural industry	Strong	Weak
State role	Transformative	Mediatory
Outcome	Structural change	Persistent crisis

China redistributed land to millions, dismantling landlordism. It integrated agriculture with industry and transformed rural economies.

: India chose gradual reform.

A farmer near Karnal remarked

“Wahan zameen baanti gayi. Yahan vaade baante gaye.”

XIII. The Cost of Transformation

China’s transformation came at immense cost:

Forced collectivisation

Centralised control

Famine

India avoided such violence—but also avoided structural change.

This creates a paradox:

China resolved the agrarian question violently.

India preserved democracy but left it unresolved.

XIV. The Contemporary Moment: Protest Without Resolution

The renewed protests (2024–26) reflect:

Persistent distress

Declining trust

Increasing fragmentation

The movement remains powerful—but limited.

“It negotiates survival, not transformation.”

XV. Conclusion: A Revolution Deferred

The Indian peasantry has resisted relentlessly.

Yet, it remains:

Fragmented by class

Divided by caste

Mediated by politics

Marx saw its fragmentation. Lenin sought to organise it. Mao transformed it.

India did neither fully.

And so, the tractors return to Delhi.

Not because history has changed—

but because it has not.

“The tragedy of the Indian farmer is not that he does not fight—

but that his fight never becomes final.”

Footnotes

1.  NABARD, All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey (various rounds).

2.  Agricultural Census of India (latest available data).

3.  NSSO Situation Assessment Surveys of Agricultural Households.

4.  NCRB, Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India reports.

5.  Historical accounts of Tebhaga and Telangana movements.

6.  Comparative agrarian studies on China’s land reforms and rural industrialization.

 

 

The Republic of Numbers

 From Aaya Ram to Resort Politics — How Horse-Trading Became the Dark Grammar of Indian Democracy

The uproar in the Haryana Assembly over the Rajya Sabha election is not merely a political dispute. It reflects a deeper pattern in Indian democracy where legislative arithmetic often overshadows electoral mandates.

The uproar in the Haryana Assembly over the Rajya Sabha election may appear to be a routine episode of legislative confrontation. Yet beneath the slogans, walkouts and accusations lies a deeper pattern in Indian politics. From the famous “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” episode of 1967 to the collapse of governments in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, defections and cross-voting have repeatedly reshaped the balance of power inside legislatures. Over time, what was once seen as a scandal has gradually become a strategy. The Haryana controversy is therefore not merely a political dispute—it is part of a long story about how democratic mandates are increasingly negotiated through the arithmetic of power.

-Ramphal Kataria

The Day the Assembly Erupted

The Haryana Vidhan Sabha descended into chaos.

Opposition legislators shouted slogans. Treasury benches fired back. The Speaker struggled to restore order as accusations of “vote manipulation” and “cross-voting” echoed across the chamber. Within minutes, the confrontation escalated into adjournments and finally a walkout led by the opposition headed by Bhupinder Singh Hooda.

At first glance, the uproar appeared to be a routine legislative spectacle — the kind that frequently animates Indian assemblies.

Yet the controversy surrounding the Rajya Sabha election in Haryana reveals something deeper: a political tradition in which electoral mandates are often renegotiated inside legislatures.

To understand the spectacle in Haryana, one must revisit the hidden history of Indian democracy.

“India’s democracy rarely collapses suddenly. It bends slowly under the weight of political arithmetic.”

The First Constitutional Shock

In 1957, the southern state of Kerala achieved a remarkable democratic milestone. Voters elected the world’s first communist government through the ballot box, led by E. M. S. Namboodiripad.

But the experiment did not last long.

Two years later, the central government headed by Jawaharlal Nehru dismissed the state government under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, citing a breakdown of constitutional machinery following widespread protests.

For critics, it was the first major instance of democratic mandate being overturned by constitutional intervention.

For supporters, it was necessary to restore order.

Either way, the precedent was set: electoral outcomes could be reversed.

Haryana and the Birth of a Political Phrase

If Kerala established the precedent, Haryana gave Indian politics one of its most enduring metaphors.

In 1967, legislator Gaya Lal switched political parties three times within fifteen days.

The phrase “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” entered India’s political vocabulary overnight.

The episode symbolised a new political reality — legislative loyalty was no longer permanent.

Governments could be reshaped not through elections but through defections.

“The Constitution assumed political morality; politics perfected political management.”

The Politics of Legislative Arithmetic

The collapse of governments through shifting loyalties soon became a recurring feature of Indian politics.

In the late 1970s, the Haryana government led by Devi Lal fell amid shifting alliances.

At the national level, the minority government of P. V. Narasimha Rao survived a no-confidence motion in 1993 after MPs belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha allegedly accepted financial inducements to support the government.

The scandal revealed how parliamentary survival could depend less on ideology than on negotiation.

Democracy, critics argued, had begun to resemble arithmetic.

The Anti-Defection Law

Alarmed by rampant defections, Parliament introduced a constitutional reform in 1985.

The government led by Rajiv Gandhi enacted the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, widely known as the Anti-Defection Law.

The aim was simple: disqualify legislators who switched parties after elections.

The reform attempted to restore stability to India’s parliamentary system.

Yet politics adapted quickly.

In Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court clarified that cross-voting in Rajya Sabha elections does not automatically lead to disqualification.

The loophole preserved a quiet arena for legislative manoeuvring.

“The Anti-Defection Law tried to discipline legislators. Politics simply learned new ways around it.”

Rajya Sabha: The Quiet Marketplace

Unlike general elections, Rajya Sabha contests are decided by a small electorate — the MLAs of a state assembly.

This limited voting pool creates ideal conditions for persuasion, negotiation and strategic realignment.

One of the most controversial examples occurred in the 2016 Haryana Rajya Sabha election when independent candidate Subhash Chandra defeated Congress nominee R. K. Anand after several opposition votes were declared invalid.

Opposition leaders alleged manipulation involving the voting pen.

Whether accident or design, the episode left a deep imprint on Haryana’s political memory.

The Age of Resort Democracy

Indian politics has since entered what commentators describe as the era of resort democracy.

Whenever crucial legislative votes approach, political parties often move their legislators to luxury resorts to prevent rivals from persuading them to defect.

The practice became highly visible during the Gujarat Rajya Sabha election involving Congress strategist Ahmed Patel, when legislators were flown to Karnataka resorts to ensure loyalty.

Democracy, in such moments, resembles containment.

Legislators are guarded, isolated and monitored.

“Horse-trading was once a scandal. Today it is described as strategy.”

Governments That Fell in the New Era

The past decade has witnessed several dramatic government collapses.

In 2019, the coalition government in Karnataka led by H. D. Kumaraswamy fell after multiple MLAs resigned.

In 2020, the Congress government in Madhya Pradesh headed by Kamal Nath collapsed following a rebellion led by Jyotiraditya Scindia.

Two years later, Maharashtra witnessed another dramatic revolt when Eknath Shinde split the Shiv Sena and brought down the government of Uddhav Thackeray.

Each episode followed constitutional procedures.

Yet each raised deeper questions about democratic morality.

Timeline: Defections and Political Realignments in India

1959 — Kerala government of E. M. S. Namboodiripad dismissed under Article 356 of the Constitution of India.

1967 — Haryana MLA Gaya Lal switches parties three times.

1979 — Haryana government of Devi Lal collapses.

1985 — Anti-Defection Law introduced through the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

1993 — Alleged bribery of MPs from Jharkhand Mukti Morcha during the no-confidence vote against P. V. Narasimha Rao.

2006 — Supreme Court ruling in Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006).

2016 — Controversial Haryana Rajya Sabha election involving Subhash Chandra.

2019 — Karnataka government led by H. D. Kumaraswamy falls.

2020 — Madhya Pradesh government of Kamal Nath collapses.

2022 — Maharashtra government of Uddhav Thackeray falls after revolt by Eknath Shinde.

2026 — Haryana Assembly witnesses uproar during Rajya Sabha election.

“When mandates can be renegotiated inside legislatures, elections outside them lose part of their meaning.”

Epilogue: The Quiet Erosion of Democratic Morality

India’s democratic institutions remain intact.

Parliament meets. Elections are held. Courts function.

Yet the deeper question is not whether democracy survives — but how it survives.

Over the decades, the language of parliamentary ethics has gradually been replaced by the vocabulary of strategy. Defections are no longer scandals; they are tactical victories. Horse-trading is no longer whispered about; it is described as political management.

The Republic continues to function.

But somewhere between the Constitution and the conduct of politics, the moral imagination that once animated India’s democracy has slowly begun to fade.

And in that quiet fading lies the most enduring challenge to the future of the Republic.

Footnotes

1. Article 356 of the Constitution of India empowers the Union government to dismiss a state government and impose President’s Rule when constitutional machinery in the state is deemed to have failed. Since independence, the provision has been invoked more than a hundred times, often provoking debates about federalism and political misuse.

2. The dismissal of the Kerala government led by E. M. S. Namboodiripad in 1959 remains one of the earliest and most debated uses of Article 356 in India’s constitutional history.

3. The phrase “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” originated from the political conduct of Haryana legislator Gaya Lal, who switched parties multiple times within a short period in 1967, symbolising opportunistic political defections.

4. The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment (1985) during the tenure of Rajiv Gandhi, sought to curb defections by disqualifying legislators who voluntarily gave up party membership or defied party whips during votes.

5. In Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court upheld the system of open ballots in Rajya Sabha elections and clarified that cross-voting by legislators does not automatically lead to disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law.

6. The alleged bribery of MPs belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha during the 1993 no-confidence motion against the government of P. V. Narasimha Rao became one of the most controversial parliamentary scandals in Indian political history.

7. The 2016 Haryana Rajya Sabha election controversy involving Subhash Chandra highlighted procedural vulnerabilities when several opposition votes were declared invalid due to the use of an incorrect pen.

8. The practice of relocating legislators to resorts during politically sensitive votes—often termed “resort politics”—gained prominence during the Gujarat Rajya Sabha election involving Ahmed Patel and later in several state government crises.

9. Political upheavals in recent years—including the collapse of governments led by H. D. Kumaraswamy, Kamal Nath, and Uddhav Thackeray—demonstrate the continuing role of defections and legislative realignments in shaping government formation in India.