Different Perspectives on the

Indian Village
Scholars of modern history, sociologists, and social anthropologists have often discussed
rural India and Indian villages in the context of their social importance in the construction of
the nationalist imagination and identification of ‘the real’ India during the national freedom
struggle, that needed to be recovered, liberated and transformed from the clutches of the
British rule, as Surinder S Jodhka, a renowned professor of Social Sciences, puts it. In the
rest of the world, the countryside has been contrasted with urban city life, viewing the former
as the native or indigenous culture. However, it is only in the case of India that the villages
had come to acquire a status of reflecting the basic values of Indian civilization, which
justifies the extensive work, studies, and literature found on the construction of the Indian
village and the validities of these arguments based on the social, economic, political
structures and the autonomous concept of self-sufficiency.
Before we dive into the autonomous and social structure of the Indian villages, let’s first
understand what we understand from the social terms like urban and rural, and what are the
features or characteristics which make a region called so. A.R.Desai, a pioneer in introducing
the modern Marxist approach gives a table that reveals the decisive and sharp differences
between the rural and the urban worlds
Rural World Urban World
Occupation The entirety of cultivators People engaged principally
and several non-agricultural in manufacturing,
pursuits commerce,
Trade and other non-
agricultural occupations.
Environment Direct relationship to nature Isolation from nature
Size of Community Negatively correlated The size is much larger,
therefore positively
correlated
Density of Population Negatively correlated Positively correlated
Nature of the population More homogeneous in racial More diverse or
and psychological traits heterogeneous in nature
Social differences
Mobility Migration from village to Migration from city to
city due to occupational and village only takes place in
territorial reasons case of social catastrophe
System of interaction Predominance of personal Predominance of
and relatively durable impersonal, casual, and
relations short-lived relations

The table proves the fact that the village is the unit of the rural society, the quantum of rural
life unfolds itself and functions (A.R.Desai). However, due to differences in geographical
environments, different types of villages emerged since early ages. World history gives
examples of the self-sufficient Indian Gram, the modern village-an integral part of the manor,
the village of feudal Europe-an integral part of medieval Roman history, etc.
In the context of modern villages, sociologists have classified village communities into
several criteria that differ in the way they have been structured.
(1) Depending on the transition from man’s nomadic existence to settled village life:
a) Migratory agricultural villages
b) Semi-permanent agricultural villages
c) Permanent agricultural villages
(2) Depending on the way villagers reside:
a) Grouped or nucleated villages
b) Dispersed or non-nucleated villages
(3) Depending on the social differentiation, stratification, mobility, land, and ownership,
therefore composed of:
a) Peasant joint owners
b) Peasant joint tenants
c) Farmer laborers
d) Individual farmer tenants
e) Employees of a great private landowner
f) Labourers and employees of the state, the church, the city
Villages have existed in the Indian subcontinent for a long time. But it was studies and work
done by Orientalists, that India was constructed as the land of ‘village republics’, as Jodhka
described it. However, we cannot overlook the fact that other civilizations were primarily
agrarian economies, but it was only the Indian society that was called specifically the land of
villages. Jodhka rightly points out how the British also had their reason for doing this, to
justify their rule over the Indians back in England. It was through colonial education and new
perspectives that their ideas about rural India were formed. But due to the cultural and
regional diversities of the subcontinent, different leaders have different views, opinions, and
perspectives about Indian social life. The village continued to be the center of the schemes
and policies of the national freedom struggle but later a debate was raised as to whether the
village or the individual should be the primary unit of Indian polity.
The nationalist independence movement helped India in consolidating its national identity,
while the political leaders had to figure out a case where India, despite its diversity could be
represented as a single cultural and political entity. Gandhi, Nehru, and Ambedkar were the
most prominent leaders of the freedom movement and all three of them had similarities in
their upbringing, but differences in their social status. All three of them belonged to families
with stable sources of income, went to foreign for education and came back to India, and
studied and followed Law as their occupation. That is why it is important to study their
outlook on the Indian village system, to understand how these three viewed the village
system and what differences in opinions they had.

Gandhi and his reformist ideas on village society

Gandhi, himself was not born in a village nor had any ancestral relation with one, yet his
political philosophies revolved around the idea of the village. His association with villages
can be dated back to his days in South Africa. He used the idea of the Indian village as a
political symbol and ‘village republics’ for the first time in 1894, to establish equal grounds
for the Indians with the ruling British. Later in the 1940s, to drive the British completely out
of the Indian subcontinent, a different set of beliefs, principles, and ideologies were required
to de-legitimize the British rule over India and establish the sovereign identity of India and
restore its cultural confidence. He counterposed the village to city life and presented the
village as the essence of authentic India, which had not yet been corrupted by Western
influence. On one hand, while other leaders believed that freedom could only be achieved by
overthrowing colonial rule, Gandhi, on the other hand, believed that it could only be achieved
through the revival of its village communities by restoring the Indian villages.
Ainslie Embree, the Canadian Indologist and historian pointed out that Gandhi for the first
time gave the masses a sense of involvement in the nation’s destiny by making it inclusive for
villagers as well. Until Gandhi arrived, the nationalist movement was an urban phenomenon
but independence meant to imitate the city life put forward by the colonial power but the real
India was supposed to be found in the villages where a large majority of the Indians lived. He
saw the potential in the villages, of replacing the technology-driven capitalistic cities.
While he saw great strength in the village economy and village in general, he also highlighted
the flaws existing in it; the practice of untouchability and lack of cleanliness,
which were not caused by any Western influence but due to ignorance of the village dwellers
themselves. His wish to revive the culture of the Indian village was a reformist one. He
wanted to re-construct the idea of villages as they have been perceived for so long as ‘centers
of orthodoxy’. This reformist urge would lead to Villageism, which contrary to socialism,
could provide social welfare without using the socialist way of dealing with things, i.e.,
violence. His image of a village was that of a republic one where governance is done by the
village panchayat elected amongst villagers, a balance dependent and interdependent
relationship with its neighbors where cleanliness is maintained, the caste system is abolished
and the minimum education for all is promoted.
Gandhi with his ideas on village structure and society inspired a lot of young leaders
however, there were some colleagues or those who worked closely with him who did not
agree with him on the significance of villages on the same level and Nehru was one such
individual.

Nehru’s Modernist Outlook

Nehru being the first prime minister of a free independent India, played a significant role in
formulating the policies and programs for the Indian state. His views on how rural India
ought to be re-structured were reflected in his policies and propositions. His idea of the
village system and his vision of its future were very different from those of Gandhi. Unlike
Gandhi, Nehru never identified himself with the village and he was conscious of the fact that
he belonged to a middle class, hence his early ideas were entirely bourgeois. On the one hand,
when Gandhi looked at Indian villages from a reformist outlook, Nehru on the other hand
looked at the old traditional structure of Indian villages from a evolutionary perspective. He
identified the old Indian social structure of India in three basic concepts: autonomous village
community, caste, and the joint family. There was an attempt to create a common national
bond that had people united in the spheres of- culture, traditions, religion, etc. Nehru did not
celebrate the ‘village republic’ system of India as Gandhi did, instead, he saw the village
society as economically stagnant, community-oriented, and democratically organized, whose
aim was social security, not progress. The traditional social structure, which also
encompasses within itself the caste system and untouchability, emphasized the duties of the
individuals and the collective and not their rights. A similar mention is seen in Phillip
Mason’s work on Diversity in India, where he talked about how varnashramadharma; a
concept from the Bhagavad Gita, in the context of the caste system, was an obligatory duty of
individuals towards the state and society. Unlike Gandhi, Nehru had no interest in reviving
the Indian village republic as he believed that there can be no equality in status, opportunity,
political and economic democracy.
Nehru viewed the village structure from a modernist outlook and became more critical of
the traditional social order. He saw the organic linkage of landlordism to British rule and
referred to these landlords as a ‘physically and intellectually degenerate class, which has
outlived their day’. Like Gandhi, he was uncritical of the Western or Oriental writings and
work on the village society but he blamed the British for disrupting the old traditional ways
of villages. He believed that it was the British who implanted the agrarian relations and
destroyed the local and regional cultures by taking away the non-agricultural sources of
employment like handicrafts. From his modern perspective, Nehru saw industrialization as
being inevitable and wanted to transform the village social order and economic structures by
using modern technology and changing agrarian relations. He criticized the cultivators for
using outdated methods of cultivation, unlike Gandhi who was solely focused on celebrating
the traditional village structure.
He did agree with Gandhi on two points; the first was the revival of handicrafts and cottage
industry and the second one was self-governing communal units (similar to panchayats). This
proves the fact that he was not completely untouched by the influence of Gandhi.
While both Gandhi and Nehru belonged to an upper-middle-class family, were never
associated with villages before the national freedom struggle were uncritical of the works of
Western scholars, was presented in good light, was Ambedkar, a Dalit from a Maharashtrian
village who put forward a rather radical critique of the picture of Indian village presented by
the Orientalists.

Ambedkar’s Dalitist Approach

When compared with Gandhi and Nehru, Ambedkar had neither the moral authority of
Gandhi nor the institutional and political power of Nehru, however, he was a rebel with
limited influence, as Jodhka mentioned. But out of all three of them, he was the only one who
had experienced village life from his early childhood. Born in a village in a family where his
father was a mobile Dalit employed in a ‘secular’ occupation, he couldn’t escape the
hardships that come associated with the identity of a Dalit. Though he experienced economic
hardships within his family, he grew up to be a barrister with a degree in law and Doctor of
Science from Western University. Thus he was well-versed with both the Oriental versions of
India presented by the Western scholars and the real ground status of village structure, hence
he provided us with a dalitist view of the on-ground reality of the Indian village system.
Like most of scholars and leaders, he also viewed village structure on civilizational terms,
however, unlike others he named it as ‘Hindu civilization’. No one can argue the fact that
Hindu society which consisted in itself of the varna-jati system insisted on segregation of the
untouchable, as they along with the tribal population were not even included in the four-fold
varna system. Therefore, they made the village structure so, that it becomes exclusively for
the upper castes of the society. They enforced territorial segregation by making separate
Ghettos for the untouchables and formulated other ways through which it was ensured that
the untouchables remained separated from the touchable class.
Touchables Untouchables
Known as the major community Minor community
Lived inside the villages Lived outside the villages in separate
quarters, sometimes known as Ghettos
Economically dominant community Dependent community, subject to hereditary
bondsmen
Formulated and laid down codes and Forced to follow the codes and guidelines
guidelines for the rest of the masses formulated by the Touchable

Ambedkar had said,’ What is a village nothing but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance,
narrow-mindedness and communalism.’Thus for Ambedkar, village presented a model of the
Hindu social organization, where one could see the Hindu social order in operation in full
swing. For him, village life was marked by experiences of exclusion, exploitation, and
untouchability. His critique of the Indian village structure resembles the anthropological
way of analyzing and studying concepts and cultures, i.e., from bottom to top.

Conclusion
Gandhi, Nehru, and Ambedkar were not only the three prominent leaders of the national
freedom movement but they also were representatives of what the Indian masses demanded,
how they looked at things, and what they wished for. When Gandhi looked at the villages
from a reformist view, he wanted to create a harmonious, self-sufficient, and self-contained
village, uncorrupted by modern Western influence so that its authenticity is maintained. But,
he gave no policies or hardly showed any interest in the industrialization of villages in the
long run.
Nehru being the first prime minister of independent India, played a crucial role in shaping
the policies and reforms of the state. His modernist vision contained ideas of the development
of the village and the agricultural sector through new technology by denouncing outdated and
old agrarian methods. The implementation of the land reforms and policies based on his
perspective and ideas achieved limited success in rural development in the 1960s, however,
his ideas provided a practical and developmental approach towards the usually stagnant
economy of villages.
Unlike Gandhi and Nehru, Ambedkar would have voted against the idea of the village being
the center of government policies and programmes, as these so-called villages gave no place
to untouchables and Dalits, therefore reconstruction and revival of the village system was not
a concrete step acceptable by him.
This brings me to the end of the report, where I have a few questions of my own. The idea of
reviving the old traditional ways given by Gandhi is a very abstract one because no matter
how glorious your past has been, moving on with time while considering modern
technological advancement is a crucial point to be noted. On the other hand, the solution to
this is given by Nehru who aimed at reconstructing the Indian village system by introducing
the agrarian sector to modern technology but here comes a loophole in the argument, that
both of them were not critical of the writings of Western scholars about the Indian villages,
where they presented a good image of the villages and the social structure itself. However,
Ambedkar was the one to point out how the leaders were uncritical of the Western scholars
because besides painting a pleasant image of the village system they also showed the caste
and class system being followed in the villages in good light. For him, villages were the
constricted space of ignorance where there was no hope for the Dalits and untouchables.
Ambedkar’s viewpoints made me question that was the Indian villages as self-sufficient as
they had been presented for long, were segregating practices were being followed, did anyone
look at the plight or asked the opinions and wishes of untouchables, Dalits, and tribals who
were outside both the village and the caste system. Ironically, the answer to these questions
might not be an absolute disagreement, but it also could not be answered as an absolute no as
well.