Structure:

Introduction: Mention that India is a land of villages. To understand Indian culture and social life one has to study villages.

Body: Explain the various aspects of power in a village. Example: Patriarchy, Caste, Land relations, family etc.

Conclusion: Conclude that traditional power structure is undergoing a rapid change in the recent years.

Content:

The abolition of privileges and economic rights of the intermediaries like the Zamindars and feudal has though not succeeded in introducing an egalitarian class-structure in villages, yet it has made a great social psychological impact on ex-tenant groups and motivates them now for competition with traditional power groups for access to positions of power and social status. Village leadership has now increasingly become more conciliatory and pragmatic in orientation. With the traditional bases of power for the older village elite having been removed, the leadership, which is now emerging, has to reconcile with factions and opposite interest groups to stay in power.

The power-holders may be classified in four groups:

(a) Those who have power based on the ownership and control of land,

(b) Those who have power based on their caste,

(c) Those who have power based on numerical strength, and

(d) Those who have power because of the positions they hold, e.g., in panchayats, etc.

In the traditional power system, the main dimensions of power system were: the zamindari system, the caste system, and the village panchayat. The villagers referred their social, economic and other prob­lems either to the zamindar or to their caste leader or to the village panchayat. In a state like Rajasthan, traditional power structure was feudalistic.

In other states also, zamindari was hereditary. The jagirdari and zamindari systems were in fact land revenue systems. The kings granted lands to their favourite chosen men like ministers, courtiers and military commanders, etc.

The jagirs were bigger estates than the zamindaris. The jagirdar was an intermediary between the tiller of the soil and the state but he behaved practically as the owner of the land in respect of peasants. He collected revenue from peasants for their support and also of the mili­tary force which he maintained. The zamindars were big landlords but possessed no title.

The jagirdars levied number of taxes and took a great portion of the produce as land revenue. They discouraged reforms and so­cial awakening. The zamindars were those who were assigned land by the feudal chiefs and had to pay tribute to the ruler. They used to give their land to tenants whom they exploited in every respect. Thus, ownership of land and their economic status were the fundamental sources of jagirdars’ and zamindars’ power in a village.

The caste leaders had social status in a village. Since caste councils were very powerful through severest sanctions, they could even ostracize defaulters from the caste. The leaders enjoyed great power over members. The village panchayats consisted of village elders from amongst all the major castes in the village. These were informal organisations. The members gathered whenever issues involving the interests of the village were to be decided.

After independence, the jagirdari and zamindari systems were abol­ished and many land reforms were introduced which weakened the traditional power structure and created a new power structure. In place of hereditary and caste leaders, elected persons with political backing be­came leaders. Individual merit and not caste or class became an important factor in leadership.

Yogendra Singh (1961) in his study of changing power structure in Uttar Pradesh villages concluded that the power system has a tendency to incline in favour of the groups which fulfill the economic expectations of the people in the village. Some studies in Haryana and Rajasthan villages conducted in the 1970s and the 1980s have also shown that linkages with politicians and officials have strengthened the already privileged position of the upper classes in rural stratification.

Andre Beteille noted in his study that power has become independent of class to a greater ex­tent than in the past. Ownership of land is no longer the decisive factor in acquiring power.