THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
A p r i l 11, 1964
The Middle Class in India
Karuna Chanana
The Indian Middle Classes : Their Growth in Modem Times by B B Misra; Oxford University Press, 1963.
Price Rs 25,
T H E c r u c i a l r o l e o f the m i d d l e class in a d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y make i t a n i m p o r t a n t area o f study f o r the h i s t o r i a n , economist a n d sociologist. D r M i s r a ' s book i s the f i r s t f u l l - l e n g t h study o f the I n d i a n m i d d l e class on an a l l - I n d i a basis. H e r e I s h a l l first s u m m a r i s e the m a i n p o i n t s made i n the book and then discuss c e r t a i n issues w h i c h I consider i m p o r t a n t .
M i s r a traces the g r o w t h of the I n d i a n middle-classes, i e, "the class of p e o p l e w h i c h arose as a result of changes in the B r i t i s h social p o l i c y a n d w i t h the i n t r o -d u c t i o n of the new economic sys-t e m and i n d u s sys-t r y and w i sys-t h sys-the sub-sequent g r o w t h of new professions", f r o m a b o u t the m i d d l e o f the eighteenth c e n t u r y to m o d e r n times. He f r e q u e n t l y refers to the situa-t i o n before situa-the B r i situa-t i s h r u l e ( u n d e r the M u g h a l E m p i r e ) for the sake o f c o m p a r i s o n .
T h e author's chief c o n t e n t i o n is that the factors responsible f o r the emergence o f the I n d i a n m i d d l e class were different f r o m those res-p o n s i b l e f o r the emergence of the m i d d l e class i n the West. I n the latter case, the m i d d l e class came i n t o existence thanks m a i n l y to the
I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n o f the eigh-teenth c e n t u r y w h i c h b r o u g h t about large-scale mechanical p r o d u c t i o n as a result of economic and tech-n o l o g i c a l chatech-nge. T h e I tech-n d i a tech-n m i d d l e classes emerged due to the changes that o c c u r r e d in the course o f about 2 0 0 years o f B r i t i s h r u l e l a r g e l y as a result of changes in B r i t i s h l a n d and legal p o l i c i e s f o l l o w e d b y the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f Western education and t e c h n o l o g y , m o d e r n c a p i t a l i s t enterprise, o f i m -p r o v e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s and com-m e r c i a l progress. P r i com-m a r i l y , i t i s a n h i s t o r i c a l sutvey o f I n d i a n m i d d l e class w i t h reference to its c o m p o s i t i o n , character a n d r o l e .
T h e b o o k i s d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r parts. T h e f i r s t p a r t deals w i t h the p r e - B r i t i s h era. T h o u g h the i n s t i t u t i o n s c o n d u c i v e t o c a p i t a l i s t g r o w t h (e g, a r t i s a n i n d u s t r y , occu-p a t i o n a l soccu-pecialisation, a seoccu-parate class o f merchants o r g a n i z e d i n g u i l d s , a class of m i d d l e - m e n a n d also a developed m o n e y e c o n o m y ) were present i n t h i s era, the p o l i -t i c a l a n d social sys-tems were against c a p i t a l i s m a n d h i n d e r e d the g r o w t h o f the m i d d l e class. T h e k i n g was an absolute despot a n d m o n o p o l i z e d a n y p r o f i t a b l e sphere o f t r a d e . ( S o p e o p l e d i d n o t invest t h e i r money i n trade. T h e b u l l i o n i n I n d i a r e m a i n e d stocked i n houses. I t was not u t i l i z e d i n p r o d u c t i v e investment thereby p r e v e n t i n g the c i r c u l a t i o n o f w e a l t h w h i c h was essential f o r c a p i t a l i s t g r o w t h . T h e k i n g , w h o c o u l d u t i l i z e h i s w e a l t h i n p r o d u c t i v e investment, spent i t m a i n l y for his personal c o m f o r t s .
Caste System
T h e caste system h a m p e r e d occu-p a t i o n a l m o b i l i t y a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l change. T h e priest a n d the k i n g o r the w a r r i o r caste l o o k e d d o w n u p o n trade a n d i n d u s t r y . T h e l o t o f the artisan was v e r y p o o r i n spite of the presence of developed u r b a n i n d u s t r y m a k i n g f a b r i c s a n d l u x u r y goods w h i c h was based on small-scale domestic p r o d u c t i o n .
The artisan w o r k e d f o r v e r y l o w wages in the ' k a r k h a n a s ' m o n o p o l i z -e d b y th-e k i n g . T h -e b r o k -e r w h o acted as m i d d l e - m a n between the trader and the r u r a l artisan was interested i n his o w n p r o f i t , n o t i n the i m p r o v e m e n t o f the q u a l i t y o f goods. T h e t i l l e r s and owners o f the l a n d were not i d e n t i c a l . The owners extracted the utmost f r o m these w h o t i l l e d the l a n d . T h u s w e a l t h a c c u m u l a t e d o n l y i n the h i g h e r levels. L a n d economy and l i m i t e d education also p r o v e d to be further b a r r i e r s . Caste was closely related to the l a w of p r o p e r t y , w h i c h encouraged the observance of caste rules in order to succeed to one's share in the l a n d . T h u s l a n d e c o n o m y encouraged caste distinc-t i o n s a n d h i n d e r e d distinc-the g r o w distinc-t h o f trade, e g, a trader c o u l d not o w n l a n d because he belonged to a cer-t a i n cascer-te. M o r e o v e r , differencer-t o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p s h a d k n o w l e d g e related to t h e i r field o n l y , e g, a t r a d e r k n e w c o m m e r c i a l accounts.
L i t e r a r y classes were i g n o r a n t of crafts a n d trade. T h u s occupa-t i o n a l specializaoccupa-tion depended o n i n h e r i t e d occupations a n d c o u l d not be adopted by the other castes. T h a t i s w h y l i m i t e d education was a h a n d i c a p . As such there was no incentive f o r i m p r o v e m e n t o r f o r the e x p a n s i o n of the e x i s t i n g t r a d e a n d i n d u s t r y .
T h e second p a r t of the b o o k deals w i t h the changes b r o u g h t a b o u t b y a c e n t u r y of East I n d i a C o m p a n y ' s r u l e w h i c h set free the process of the g r o w t h o f the I n d i a n m i d d l e -class w i t h the advent o f p o l i t i c a l s t a b i l i t y , c o n t r a c t u a l relations. Cust o m was replaced b y l a w . T h e B r i -t i s h b r o u g h -t w i -t h -t h e m a p o l i -t i c a l and economic o r g a n i s a t i o n based o n r a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h ignor-ed caste d i s t i n c t i o n s . Caste was i g n o r e d b y the system o f W e s t e r n education as w e l l . Increase in ex-t e r n a l ex-trade creaex-ted c a p i ex-t a l re-sources f o r i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n .
T h e h i g h e r castes were the first to take advantage of the c h a n g i n g c o n d i t i o n s as they already occupied h i g h e r t r a d i t i o n a l social, economic a n d p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n . T h e y shifted to u r b a n centres a n d received edu-c a t i o n . T h e y t o o k t o new a n d p r o f i t a b l e occupations a n d were l i m i t e d t o u r b a n centres e s p e c i a l l y to the Presidency towns because of the c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f w e a l t h a n d o f educational i n s t i t u t i o n s i n those towns. T h e r i s i n g middle-class consisted of f o u r categories of p e o p l e accord-i n g t o the r o l e p l a y e d b y them accord-i n the new e c o n o m y . ( a ) T h e c o m m e r c i a l middle-class o f m i d d l e m e n a n d b r o k e r s were found w i t h the f o r e i g n companies and i n the indigeneous m e r c a n t i l e and b a n k i n g houses i n the latter part o f the eighteenth c e n t u r y . T h e i n d i g o p l a n t a t i o n s gave rise i n r u r a l area? to a c l e r i c a l a n d s u p e r v i s o r y
g r o u p of persons and a g r o u p of contractors w h o d i s t r i b u t e d advances and s u p p l i e d the plants. M o r e over a class of specialists in b u s i -ness a d m i n i s t r a t i o n grew w i t h the
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY A p r i l 1 1 , 1 9 6 4
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY A p r i l 11, 1964 o p e n i n g up of trade, banks and the
m a n a g i n g agency system i n 1833. ( b ) T h e money-lenders, the bro-kers, the banias, the agents and the c r e d i t o r s , i e, the new moneyed class invested t h e i r m o n e y in l a n d w h i c h became transferable due to the B r i t i s h p o l i c y . I n a d d i t i o n , there were people w h o h e l d l a n d on lease on b e h a l f of the i n d i g o f a c t o r y ( f o r before 1830 planters were n o t p e r m i t t e d to b u y lands of t h e i r o w n ) . T h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f the r i g h t s of the under-tenures in
1765 also gave b i r t h to a landed middle-class.
( c ) T h e i n d u s t r i a l m i d d l e class was v e r y s m a l l because the g r o w t h of i n d u s t r y was very slow. The first to invest money in i n d u s t r y were the E n g l i s h C i v i l Servants, f o l l o w e d i n i t i a l l y b y other Euro-peans a n d then by some Bengalis i n Calcutta and Parsis i n B o m b a y .
( d ) T h e educated m i d d l e class c o m p r i s e d of a class of professionals w h i c h emerged w i t h the i n t r o -d u c t i o n of Western e-ducation a n -d technology. The changes in the system of law gave rise to a class of lawyers. Then emerged doctors and engineers, p r i n t e r s and p u b l i -shers. A l l the h i g h e r technical and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e posts were m o n o p o l i z -ed by Europeans and A n g l o - I n d i a n s .
T h e p r i m a r y characteristic o f these four groups f o r m i n g the I n d i a n m i d d l e classes was that they a c q u i r e d prestige not t h r o u g h social status but t h r o u g h education, w e a l t h and power.
T h e t h i r d part of the book deals w i t h the further changes b r o u g h t about in economic development, l a n d p o l i c y . e d u c a t i o n a l p o l i c y ( f r o m 1857 to 1947) w h i c h fur-thered the g r o w t h of the
professio-n a l classes w i t h the eprofessio-nd of the c o m p a n y ' s r u l e in 1858.
T h e a u t h o r discusses the g r o w t h of foreign trade and j o i n t stock companies and I n d i a n - o w n e d banks a n d m a n u f a c t u r i n g industries under the p o l i c y o f p r o t e c t i o n i n t r o d u c e d i n 1923. T h i s economic develop-ment was l i m i t e d l a r g e l y to the u r b a n centres.
F o r m e r l y ( i n 17861790) C o r n -w a l l i s i n c l u d e d o n l y the zamindars i n the m i d d l e class, b u t n o w the concept of the m i d d l e class i n c l u d e d a l l the a g r i c u l t u r a l classes (the z a m i n d a r s , peasant p r o p r i e t o r s and resident c u l t i v a t o r s ) . At this stage l a n d p o l i c y was designed to develop
a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c e t o feed B r i -tain's i n d u s t r y . T h e c o r p o r a t e cha-racter of the v i l l a g e s was destroyed by p a r t i t i o n suits as w e l l as f r o m the freedom w i t h w h i c h p r o p e r t y c o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d by sale. T h e class of salaried employees a n d money-lenders w h o invested m o n e y i n l a n d grew w i t h the expansion o f commerce, thus t r a n s f e r r i n g l a n d f r o m the c u l t i v a t i n g c o m m u n i t y t o the c o m m e r c i a l classes.
T h e i m p o r t a n c e of e d u c a t i n g I n d i a n s on a l a r g e r scale was rea-lized but due to l i m i t e d funds colleges and schools c o u l d not be opened i n r u r a l areas. T h e y were opened o n l y i n the u r b a n centres. T h e rate of progress of h i g h e r edu-c a t i o n inedu-creased in 1880 a n d the f o l l o w i n g decade. D u r i n g this p e r i o d there was shift of emphasis f r o m h i g h e r t o p r i m a r y e d u c a t i o n a n d f r o m u r b a n t o r u r a l education.
C u r z o n also saw the need of co-o r d i n a t i n g technical educatico-on w i t h i n d u s t r i a l development a n d thus technical schools a n d colleges were established. T h e professional classes grew r a p i d l y . T h e p u b l i c servants and m e n i n the l i b e r a l professions were m a i n l y h i g h caste people, especially B r a h m i n s .
Educated Middle Class
T h e f o u r t h part of the book deals w i t h the p e r i o d after 1905. I t i s m a i n l y a discussion of the r o l e of the educated m i d d l e class. T h e i r class-consciousness made them aware of t h e i r interests. T h e y opposed any measure in favour of the peasantry and the w o r k i n g - c l a s s and f a v o u r e d o n l y trade and i n d u s t r y .
T h e u p p e r m i d d l e class p r o p a -gated Western ideas a n d the West-ern way of l i v i n g and started re-f o r m i s t movements l i k e the B r a h m o Samaj and the P r a r t h a n a Samaj. On the other h a n d , the l o w e r middle-class c o m p r i s e d the dissatisfied educated people w i t h l o w i n -come, who started the r e v i v a l i s t movement of A r y a Samaj w i t h a view to revive the t r a d i t i o n a l r e l i -g i o n and ideas in o p p o s i t i o n to f o r e i g n d o m i n a t i o n , education and r e l i g i o n . T h i s class started the freedom movement a n d b r o u g h t about the Independence of I n d i a . T h e Congress has been equated w i t h
l o w e r middle-class, t h o u g h it was backed by u p p e r - m i d d l e class.
T h e p r e - B r i t i s h era and the pe-r i o d o f East I n d i a C o m p a n y ape-re
sufficiently dealt w i t h whereas the changes w h i c h were m o r e r a d i c a l and i m p o r t a n t under the B r i t i s h are not given i n sufficient d e t a i l . A l s o the most i m p o r t a n t p e r i o d of the rise of the middle-class a n d i n d u s t r i a l development after 1905, w h i c h required a d e t a i l e d dis-cussion, has been g i v e n scant a t t e n t i o n . M i s r a does not even attempt to define the t e r m " m i d d l e -class'' and his d e f i n i t i o n of the t e r m "social class'' is rather vague be-cause a l l the three hierarchies of class, status and power have been confused. T h i s happens m a i n l y be-cause M i s r a tries to evolve a new t e r m i n o l o g y .
M a r x defined class in terms of the o r g a n i s a t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n . O w n e r s h i p or non-ownership of the means of p r o d u c t i o n was the most i m p o r t a n t c r i t e r i o n u n d e r l y i n g the cleavage of societies i n t o classes.
Each g r o u p of men w h o o c c u p i e d the same p o s i t i o n in the p r o d u c t i v e system of relations f o r m e d a class. T h o u g h M a r x was aware o f other aspects of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n he thought that this was the most i m p o r t a n t one. These economic differences were then c a r r i e d into every major aspect of social l i f e .
Weber made a c r u c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n between the three orders of s t r a t i f i -cation—class, status and p o w e r . T h e first refers to the g r o u p i n g s of peo-ple a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r market posi-t i o n . T h o u g h iposi-t is s i m i l a r posi-to posi-the class of M a r x , it is different in that it is more l i m i t e d a n d specific. T h e eco-nomic differences are related to the other aspects of social life to the extent that they determine the qua-l i t v of sociaqua-l honour, i e. prestige. A n d prestige forms the basis of an-other system of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , viz, 'status' and not of 'class'. T h e y may o v e r l a p to a considerable extent. P o l i t i c a l power forms the basis of the t h i r d system of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n viz. P a r t y .
M i s r a defines social class as fol-l o w s : " T h e concept of a singfol-le so-c i a l so-class i m p l i e s soso-cial d i v i s i o n w h i c h proceeds f r o m the i n e q u a l i -ties and differences of man in so-ciety, w h i c h m a y be n a t u r a l or eco-n o m i c . It is chiefly the ecoeco-nomic ieco-n- in-e q u a l i t y of m a n that influin-encin-es, if it does not w h o l l y determine, social d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . ft arises b a s i c a l l y f r o m the difference of r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h a person or a g r o u p bears to p r o p e r t y or the means of product i o n and d i s product r i b u product i o n . " ' ' T h i s p r i n
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY April 11, 1964.
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY A p r i l 1 1 , 1964 c i p l e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p t o p r o p e r t y i s
q u a l i t a t i v e i n character i n that i t determines the q u a l i t y of social ho-n o u r , o r lack o f i ho-n w h i c h w e c a l l 'status'," ( p 2 ) ,
I n c o m e i s o n l y q u a n t i t a t i v e i n character in that it is a means to the c r e a t i o n o f w e a l t h . I t becomes q u a l i t a t i v e when invested i n l a n d o r i n d u s t r y , i e, in p r o p e r t y , and thus changes the status of an i n d i v i d u a l or g r o u p . Otherwise it merely pro-duces a h i e r a r c h y of prestige and power a c c o r d i n g to v a r i a t i o n s in its size. M i s r a proceeds further and says, "Society is thus d i v i d e d i n t o classes or groups of people j o i n e d together f r o m motives of c o m m o n economic interest, c o m m o n ways of b e h a v i o u r and c o m m o n traits of cha-racter. E a c h such class forms a hie-r a hie-r c h y of status a c c o hie-r d i n g to the v a r y i n g q u a l i t y o f social prestige a n d p o w e r expressed t h r o u g h the standard of l i v i n g , nature of occu-pation and wealth.'" | p 3 ) .
class and Status
T h u s we find that M i s r a starts by d e f i n i n g social class in r e l a t i o n s h i p to p r o p e r t y . He admits that income is m e r e l y q u a n t i t a t i v e in character. He also makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between 'class' a n d 'status'. when he says that social h o n o u r is derived f r o m the o w n e r s h i p of p r o p e r t y . Rut when he goes further he loses sight of the d i s t i n c t i o n between the t w o , and b r i n g s i n ' p o w e r ' under 'status'. H e also includes c o m m o n ways of be-h a v i o u r , style of l i v i n g , and com-m o n t r a i t s of character in the con-cept of 'class'. These two c r i t e r i a u n d e r l y the concept of 'status'. S i m i -l a r -l y , he has i n c -l u d e d ' p o w e r , the basis of Weber's concept of Party in the concept of "status'. Power' is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m 'prestige' and the t w o are not i d e n t i c a l . D u r i n g the discussion he also tends to con-fuse the v a r i o u s terms g r o u p , cate-g o r y w i t h class ip 166) and at one place he even confuses caste and class ( p 1 4 8 ) .
L o o k i n g at the heterogeneous c o m p o s i t i o n o f M i s r a ' s middle-class, one is b o u n d to ask, " W h a t is the c r i t e r i o n g o v e r n i n g this classifica-t i o n " ? He has i n c l u d e d owners and non-owners of the means of produc-t i o n a n d has also excluded some of the owners of p r o p e r t y . It is appa-rent that he has not used his defi-n i t i o defi-n of 'social class' codefi-nsistedefi-ntly, because t h e basis of it is c e r t a i n l y not the r e l a t i o n s h i p to p r o p e r t y as
landowners, g o v e r n m e n t servants, a n d persons i n the l i b e r a l profes-sions have a l l been l u m p e d together. On the other h a n d , the largest a n d smallest landowners are p l a c e d in other classes, t h o u g h a l l the l a n d owners stand in a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n -ship to the means of p r o d u c t i o n . It seems that he takes i n c o m e as the u n d e r l y i n g c r i t e r i o n o f this classifi-cation, not the r e l a t i o n s h i p to the means of p r o d u c t i o n . H e r e he uses the concept of class as e v o l v e d by W a r n e r , C D H Cole and others. T h i s is also evident in the classifi-c a t i o n of the m i d d l e classifi-class i n t o t w o sub-classes. T h i s sub-classification is based p u r e l y o n income. A c c o r d i n g to M i s r a , the l o w e r - i n c o m e g r o u p (pp 366, 393) f o r m the l o w e r m i d -d l e class.
Even W a r n e r ' s concept of class is not a p p l i c a b l e here because the various g r o u p s f o r m i n g M i s r a ' s m i d -d l e class b e l o n g to -different castes and do not even have a c o m m o n style o f l i v i n g . B r o a d l y speaking, M i s r a ' s c o n t e n t i o n , that the m i d d l e class has a c o m m o n style of l i v i n g , is true to some extent. Hut l o o k i n g at the v a r i a t i o n s in customs and style o f l i v i n g o f the v a r i o u s castes f o r m i n g the m i d d l e class, one is b o u n d t o d o u b t the v a l i d i t y o f this statement. T h i s is p r i m a r i l y because he has not p a i d sufficient attention to caste.
T h o u g h it is not m e n t i o n e d clear-l y , it may be i n f e r r e d that he takes the members of the I C S, E n g l i s h -men a n d Europeans o c c u p y i n g se-n i o r m a se-n a g e r i a l a se-n d techse-nical posts a n d the b i g l a n d o w n e r s as the ele-ments of the u p p e r class. F u r t h e r he places the i n d u s t r i a l i s t s i n the m i d -d l e class. On w h a t basis -does he classify the i n d u s t r i a l i s t s ? Obvious-ly it is not based on the ownership of the means of p r o d u c t i o n because he excludes the largest l a n d o w n e r s . Is it based on i n c o m e ? If it is so, w h y does he exclude the largest landowners. I s h e j u s t i f i e d i n p l a c i n g Talas m the m i d d l e class? M o r e over, he equates the r u r a l p o p u l a -t i o n w i -t h -the l o w e r classes w h e n he refers to the neglect of r u r a l edu-c a t i o n , ( p p 160-61). T h e basis of his classification of different g r o u p s into classes is n o t clear as e x e m p l i -fied in the above instances.
Arbitrary Use of Terms
M i s r a has made a r b i t r a r y use of the terms class, h i g h e r classes, h i g h castes a n d social s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . T h i s
is due to the lack of conceptual defi* n i t i o n s and the reader has to i n f e r the meaning of these terms by h i m -self. W h i l e discussing the emergence of the class system in I n d i a he says "'land economy a n d l i m i t e d educa-t i o n were boeduca-th obseduca-truceduca-tive educa-to social stratification"., ( p 1 0 ) . W h a t h e means to say is that the class tem, not the caste system, is a sys-tem of social s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . T h e lat-ter has other aspects too.
The a u t h o r has p a i d cursory atten-t i o n atten-to casatten-te, atten-t h o u g h he a d m i atten-t s atten-thaatten-t it was a very i m p o r t a n t element in the I n d i a n society. He s h o u l d have given a regional d i s t r i b u t i o n of the various castes f o r m i n g the so-called m i d d l e classes and e x a m i n e d t h e m in r e l a t i o n to the new system of classes. hi this context he s h o u l d also have treated the g r o w t h of the m i d d l e class r e g i o n a l l y a n d n o t con-sidered a general discussion of its emergence enough. T h i s w o u l d not have a l l o w e d h i m t o i g n o r e the South, especially M a d r a s Presidency and M a h a r a s h t r a , to the extent that he has done. He has p a i d m o r e at-tention to Bengal a n d B i h a r and less attention to B o m b a y and Western I P.
It w o u l d have been interesting to find out if the caste system was ac-t u a l l y ac-transformed i n ac-t o ac-the class svstem or the same system was transplanted to the u r b a n centres,
i m p l y i n g thereby that there was l i t t l e change in the caste system.
Misra has t r i e d to dispose of the p r o b l e m of the caste-composition merely by stating that the h i g h castes formed the middle-class. T h e t e r m "high castes' w i l l not suffice. It is not even clear what e x a c t l y he means by this t e r m . He classifies Kayasthas b o t h as l o w caste a n d as h i g h caste, ( p p 53, 322, 3 9 3 ) . T h i s is due to the lack of an adequate f r a m e w o r k w i t h i n w h i c h t o place these castes. H i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t B r a h m i n s d o m i n a t e d i n a l m o s t a l l the regions, especially i n S o u t h I n d i a , is debatable. N a i r s a n d Chris-tians d o m i n a t e d i n K e r a l a w h i l e K h a t r i s a n d A r o r a s d o m i n a t e d i n P u n j a b ; Bania a n d K a y a s t h a i n U P; a n d B r a h m i n , B a i d y a Kayas-tha a n d B a n i a i n B e n g a l . H e has not even m e n t i o n e d the Jews of Calcut-ta a n d Parsis of B o m b a y . G h u r y e and G a d g i l have also treated this
p r o b l e m .1 N K Sinha has given the
caste c o m p o s i t i o n of some of the o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p s i n Calcutta w h i c h shows that even some l o w e r
castes m o v e d up after m a k i n g money," T h e T e l is of Eastern I n d i a i m p r o v e d t h e i r p o s i t i o n w i t h the ac-q u i s i t i o n o f w e a l t h . Even i n B e n g a l some l o w e r castes c o m m a n d e d pres-tige after a c q u i r i n g w e a l t h in the changed c o n d i t i o n s . These castes were the T e l is, S u b a r n a b a n i k s a n d U g r a k s h a t r i y a s . R e f e r e n c e to B r a h -m i n s . Kayasthas and Banias, the castes w h i c h took advantage of the changed p o l i t i c a l and economic con-d i t i o n s are very vague incon-deecon-d ancon-d do not solve the p r o b l e m of caste-c o m p o s i t i o n of the m i d d l e caste-class.
T h e a u t h o r seems to suggest that the change f r o m the caste system to the class system was v e r y r a p i d . He w r i t e s that "regardless of t h e i r o r i g i n a l s t a n d i n g in society'', specia-lists in business a d m i n i s t r a t i o n were a w a r d e d h i g h e r salary and s u p e r i o r status, (pp 80. 1 0 0 ) . W a s it r e a l l y so? C o u l d one c o m m a n d prestige by w e a l t h and power as stated by h i m ? T h i s can be tested o n l y if one has a k n o w l e d g e of the " o r i g i n a l stand-i n g ' ' of the persons w h o t o o k to the new occupations. T h e degree of change f r o m the caste system to the class system can be measured o n l y in r e l a t i o n to the caste system. H i g h castes c o m m a n d e d prestige and w e a l t h in the t r a d i t i o n a l social sys-tem a n d it was easier for t h e m to take up new occupations. So the change w o u l d be less if they took to new occupations because they w o u l d occupy h i g h social p o s i t i o n in the class system s i m i l a r to that in the caste system. On the other h a n d , change w o u l d be m o r e r a d i -cal if the l o w e r castes raised t h e i r status in the class system by earn-i n g w e a l t h t h r o u g h new occupatearn-ions. T h i s c o u l d t h r o w l i g h t o n the p r o b -l e m o f o c c u p a t i o n a -l m o b i -l i t y w h i c h is c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e d by the a u t h o r .
F u r t h e r , r u r a l - u r b a n contact s h o u l d have been dealt w i t h . W h i l e discussing the g r o w t h of m i d d l e classes in u r b a n centres, it is i m -possible to i g n o r e its r e l a t i o n s h i p to the r u r a l areas. V a r i o u s interest-i n g questinterest-ions can be asked interest-in t h interest-i s context, e g, w h o invested m o n e y in l a n d ? W h a t was the p o s i t i o n of the new l a n d l o r d s i n the v i l l a g e s ? W h a t happened to the l a n d o w n e r s w h o sold their l a n d ? W h i c h e v e r profes-sion they adopted after m i g r a t i n g to t o w n s , people s t i l l m a i n t a i n e d con-tact w i t h the r u r a l areas and the l a n d they left b e h i n d . A c c o r d i n g t o M i s r a , money flowed f r o m u r b a n t o r u r a l areas as investment in l a n d .
i m p l y i n g thereby, that it was a one-w a y process; one-whereas in matter of fact the money earned f r o m l a n d was also invested in trade and com-merce3 and also in e d u c a t i o n . As an
e x a m p l e for the latter, it m a y be m e n t i o n e d that the c h i l d r e n of Za-m i n d a r s of Bengal went to E n g l a n d for h i g h e r studies.
A c c o r d i n g to the author the g r o w t h of the middle-class was res-t r i c res-t e d res-to res-the u r b a n areas. N o w h e r e does he discuss the " g r o w t h of t o w n s " w h i c h is a very i m p o r t a n t factor in any analysis of the emer-gence of the middle-class.
Pro-British Appronch
M i s r a c o n s t a n t l y gives the impres-sion that the emergence of I n d i a n middle-class has been very r a p i d and smooth, and that a l l B r i t i s h p o l i c i e s encouraged trade, i n d u s t r y and education. But here one may question the v a l i d i t y of his v i e w , because lie .seems to have i g n o r e d the factors w h i c h h a m p e r e d the g r o w t h of middle-class. H i s ap-p r o a c h tends to be ap-p r o - B r i t i s h and not c o m p l e t e l y objective. For instance, he o v e r l o o k s the curbs i n t r o -duced by C u r z o n in 1904 on the education of I n d i a n s , and the part i a l i part y of parthe B r i part i s h for parthe A n g l o -I n d i a n s . He does not p o i n t out the p o s i t i o n of those I n d i a n craftsmen w h o were displaced w i t h the end of the indigeneous i n d u s t r y , due to the o p e n i n g up of the I n d i a n m a r k e t to cheap m a n u f a c t u r e d goods f r o m E n g l a n d . He does not comment on the r o l e of these craftsmen in the emergence of the m i d d l e class and t h e i r p o s i t i o n in the new class sys-tem.
A point on w h i c h this book does throw l i g h t is the role of Western education in the emergence of the middle-class, i e, the role of educa-t i o n in b r i n g i n g aboueduca-t social change. It bears testimony to the fact that education is an i n t e g r a l part of so-cietv and that the t w o ( e d u c a t i o n and society) are closely inter-relat-ed. Change in one necessitates change i n the other.
To start w i t h , schools and colle-ges were opened in u r b a n centres to i m p a r t education to people w h o w o u l d act as media between the government and the masses. T h i s was essential to i m p l e m e n t G o v e r n -mental p o l i c i e s of l a n d r e f o r m and l a w . A w h o l e class of lawyers grew up in this context. T e c h n i c a l education had to be coordinated w i t h i n -d u s t r i a l -development. T h u s ,
techni-cal schools and colleges were open-ed by Curzon to t r a i n s u b o r d i n a t e technical a n d s u p e r v i s o r y staff. Later, s u p e r i o r l n d i a n personnel was t r a i n -ed to f a c i l i t a t e r a p i d i n d u s t r i a l ex-pansion. W i t h the o p e n i n g u p o f trade in 1883 a new pattern of busi-ness was set u p . T h e s e p a r a t i o n of m e r c a n t i l e f r o m the f i n a n c i a l b r a n c h o f c o m m e r c i a l transactions b r o u g h t f o r t h s p e c i a l i z a t i o n in services. Thus economic a n d p o l i t i c a l systems ne-cessitated a change in the system of education.
A n o t h e r p o i n t h i g h l i g h t e d i n this book is that prestige c o u l d be de-r i v e d f de-r o m highede-r education a n d w e a l t h , instead of social p o s i t i o n . T h i s was made possible by the i n -t r o d u c -t i o n of -the new educa-tional system. T h o u g h the change in values was not r a d i c a l , it was significant.
It was the educated few w h o pro-pagated Western ideas and ways of l i v i n g . A section of the i n t e l l i g e n t -sia also r e v o l t e d against the West-ern ideas and ways of l i v i n g and was able to m o b i l i z e the peasants and workers against the r u l i n g gov-ernment. The m i d d l e class lias been equated w i t h the Congress by M i s r a . W h e n Curzon saw the danger of g r o w i n g awareness of t h e i r r i g h t s a m o n g the educated he m o d i f i e d the system of education. T h e educated middleclass p l a y e d a most i m p o r t ant r o l e i n b r i n g i n g about the I n -dependence of I n d i a , c h a n g i n g the p o l i t i c a l system of this c o u n t r y . Thus education b r o u g h t f o r t h change in the p o l i t i c a l and social set-up. Change in the p o l i t i c a l and econo-mic system was f o l l o w e d by change in the system of education. T h i s re-sulted in the i n t r o d u c t i o n of West-e r n West-education and t West-e c h n o l o g y .
M i s r a seems to have made no use of the vast amount of l i t e r a t u r e a v a i l a b l e on the system of social s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , especially class, whereas a book on such a subject r e q u i r -ed a f i r m grasp of this concept w h i c h has been developed and re-fined d u r i n g the past c e n t u r y . T h i s absence of s o c i o l o g i c a l awareness has become a d r a w b a c k even in the treatment of h i s t o r i c a l facts w h i c h
happen to be the author's special f i e l d of study. T h u s one c o n s t a n t l y receives an i m p r e s s i o n that the sub-ject has not been discussed f r o m a l l angles or developed to its f u l l scope. A n d this i s possible i f the distinc-tions between the three subjects of sociology, economics, a n d h i s t o r y 688
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY A p r i l I I , 1964 are broken d o w n . instead of the
three being treated as water-tight compartments,
In certain places even the h i s t o r i -cal facts are not w e l l p r o v i d e d , n o r are they always accurate. As men-tioned earlier, he has deliberately i g n o r e d the hindrances w h i c h the policies of the B r i t i s h put. in the way of the r i s i n g middle-class. Ac-c o r d i n g to M i s r a , the Permanent Settlement and the a b o l i t i o n of the customary r u l e of p r i m o g e n i t u r e in Bengal f o r m e d the basis of the emergence of the middle-class. This seems to suggest that the r u l e of p r i m o g e n i t u r e was prevalent where-as he a d m i i t s in the b e g i n n i n g that it was not a c t u a l l y so. A n d if it was prevalent, it was a p p l i c a b l e o n l y to local chiefs. Otherwise the i n s t i t u t i o n o f j o i n t p r o p e r t y a l l o w e d d i v i -sion in l a n d w h i c h resulted in the fragmentation of l a n d . Thus the fragmentation of land took place even before the advent of the B r i t i s h .
( M i s r a . p 4 9 ; Sinha, p 3 4 ) . T h e B r i t i s h o n l y added pace to the pro-cess by m a k i n g land transferable and by the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the sale laws w h i c h necessitated sale of l a n d in default of annual rent by a certain fixed date. ( G o p a l , p 2 0 ) . I n -crease in p o p u l a t i o n in the r u r a l areas was another incentive. Thus, fragmentation was not caused by the a b o l i t i o n o f p r i m o g e n i t u r e .
The author presents c o n t r a d i c t o r y h i s t o r i c a l facts. W h i l e discussing the p a t r i a r c h a l basis of p r e - B r i t i s h I n d i a n society, lie states that even the largest l a n d h o l d e r s became poor in course of t i m e due to the i n h e r i -tance laws, (p 5 0 ) . A f t e r w a r d s he seems to contest this point by stat-i n g that the fragmentatstat-ion stat-in land occurred o n l y w i t h the advent of the B r i t i s h .
M i s r a equates the (imigress w i t h m i d d l e class interests. T h i s has been refuted by m a n y . M i d d l e class peo-ple and m i d d l e class interests are t w o things and it is not l e g i t i m a t e to i d e n t i f y the t w o . A n d his point that l o w e r m i d d l e class, c o m p r i s i n g of dissatisfied educated people w i t h l o w income, started the revivalist movements as w e l l as the freedom movement, is not h i s t o r i c a l l y true. F i r s t l y , the i n i t i a t o r s and the m a i n supporters of B r a h m o Samaj a n d A r y a Samaj d i d not b e l o n g to the l o w e r - m i d d l e class e g . Raja R a m
M o h a n Roy and Devendranath
Ta-gore. T h e fact that S w a m i Dayanand belonged to l o w e r - m i d d l e class loses its significance when one realizes that his patrons and chief support-ers came f r o m the aristocratic or rich families. W h i l e g o i n g t h r o u g h the preface of Satyartha Prakash, one finds that it was w r i t t e n in the palace of M a h a r a n a of L d a i p u r . who was the p a t r o n of S w a m i Daya-n a Daya-n d . ODaya-n his first v i s i t to P u Daya-n j a b , the host of S w a m i D a y a n a n d was a r e t i r e d M u s l i m c i v i l surgeon o f La-hore and a K h a n B a h a d u r . The largest f o l l o w i n g of these leaders m i g h t have come f r o m the lower-m i d d l e class, but that was not true of the leaders. In fact, examples can be cited to prove that m a n y leaders of the independence movement d i d not b e l o n g to the l o w e r - m i d d l e class, as stated by M i s r a . To name a few, can we place the Nehrus. A u r o b i n -do Ghose, Subhash Chandra Bose,
R a j a g o p a l a c h a r i G a n d h i j i , L a l a L a j -pat Rai, C K Das, V a l l a b h b h a i Pa tcl B h u l a b h a i Desai, a n d P a n d i t M a d a n M o h a n M a l a v i y a i n the lower m i d d l e class? The author's assumption that the l o w e r m i d d l e class i n i t i a t e d the freedom move-ment is questionable.
A basic flaw in this book is the absence of a theoretical f r a m e w o r k .
