Read the passage given and answer the questions: The harsh working conditions suffered by labourers in Aghanbigha were an outcome of the combined effect of the economic power of the maliks as a class and their overwhelming power as members of a dominant caste. A significant aspect of the social power of the maliks was their ability to secure the intervention of various arms of the state to advance their interests. Thus, political factors decisively contributed to widening the gulf between the dominant class and the underclass.
Why do you think the maliks were able to use the power of the state to advance their own interests?
The maliks were able to use the power of the state to advance their own interests because of their social power as members of a dominant caste and their economic power as a class. In most regions, the upper and middle castes had the best access to land and resources, and hence to power and privilege. This position allowed them to command labour and secure the intervention of various arms of the state, thereby widening the gulf between the dominant class and the underclass.
Why did labourers have harsh working conditions?
The labourers suffered harsh working conditions due to the combined effect of the economic power of the maliks and their overwhelming power as members of a dominant caste. Practices such as begar or free labour were prevalent, where members of low-ranked caste groups had to provide labour for a fixed number of days per year. Many working poor were tied to landowners in 'hereditary' labour relationships. The lack of effective land reforms and redistributive measures in regions like Bihar meant that the agrarian structure remained unchanged, perpetuating exploitation.
Explanation
The passage highlights how caste and class intersect to create power imbalances in rural society. The maliks, being from dominant castes, controlled both economic resources (land) and social institutions (state apparatus). The labourers, typically from lower castes, faced exploitation through practices like begar and hereditary labour ties. The sociologist Jan Breman described this transformation in labour relations as a shift from 'patronage to exploitation', especially in areas where agriculture was becoming commercialised. The context also explains that regions lacking land reforms and political mobilisation saw fewer changes in the agrarian structure.