Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
D.N. Dhanagare, a prominent sociologist, significantly contributed to the understanding of agrarian movements in India through his nuanced analysis of peasant mobilization. He moved beyond purely economic or political explanations, emphasizing the role of cultural factors and the interplay between ‘little’ and ‘great’ traditions in shaping peasant consciousness and action. His work, particularly *Peasant Movements in India, 1920-1950* (1988), offered a fresh perspective on movements like those in Satara, Telangana, and Tebhaga. This answer will critically examine Dhanagare’s views, outlining his core arguments, analyzing his case studies, and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of his approach in the context of Indian agrarian history.
Dhanagare’s Theoretical Framework
Dhanagare’s approach was rooted in a synthesis of structural-functionalism and cultural analysis. He argued that understanding agrarian movements required recognizing the distinct cultural universe of the peasantry. He borrowed from Robert Redfield’s concepts of ‘great tradition’ (the Sanskritic, literate, and universalistic culture of the elite) and ‘little tradition’ (the localized, oral, and particularistic culture of the peasantry). He posited that peasant movements often arose from tensions between these two traditions, with peasants selectively adopting elements of the ‘great tradition’ to legitimize their demands and challenge existing power structures.
He also emphasized the importance of ‘symbolic action’ and ‘cultural brokerage’ in peasant mobilization. Leaders often utilized existing religious symbols, myths, and rituals to mobilize peasants, and ‘cultural brokers’ played a crucial role in translating elite ideologies into a language understandable to the peasantry. This focus on cultural factors distinguished his work from earlier Marxist interpretations that primarily emphasized class struggle.
Case Studies: A Dhanagare Perspective
The Satara Movement (1940s)
Dhanagare analyzed the Satara movement as a response to the oppressive practices of moneylenders and landlords. He highlighted the role of the ‘Maratha identity’ and the revival of traditional social structures in mobilizing peasants. The movement, he argued, was not simply about economic grievances but also about restoring social dignity and challenging the dominance of the ‘great tradition’ represented by the upper castes.
The Tebhaga Movement (1946-47)
In the case of Tebhaga, Dhanagare emphasized the role of sharecroppers (bargadars) and their struggle for security of tenure. He noted the influence of the Communist Party in organizing the movement, but also highlighted the pre-existing grievances and cultural factors that made peasants receptive to communist ideology. He saw the movement as a challenge to the existing land relations and the power of the zamindars.
The Telangana Movement (1946-51)
Dhanagare’s analysis of Telangana focused on the complex interplay of economic exploitation, caste oppression, and political mobilization. He argued that the movement was fueled by the grievances of landless laborers and poor peasants against the Nizam’s feudal regime. He also highlighted the role of the Communist Party in providing leadership and ideological direction, but emphasized that the movement drew strength from pre-existing social tensions and cultural resentments.
Critical Evaluation of Dhanagare’s Views
Dhanagare’s work has been widely praised for its nuanced understanding of agrarian movements and its emphasis on cultural factors. However, it has also faced criticism. Some scholars argue that his focus on the ‘little tradition’ and ‘great tradition’ can be overly deterministic and may underestimate the agency of peasants. Critics also contend that he sometimes downplays the importance of economic and political factors in shaping peasant mobilization.
Furthermore, some argue that his analysis tends to romanticize the peasantry and overlooks internal divisions within peasant communities. The Telangana movement, for example, witnessed significant violence and factionalism, which Dhanagare’s analysis does not fully address. His framework, while insightful, may not be universally applicable to all agrarian movements in India, given the diversity of socio-economic and political contexts.
Despite these criticisms, Dhanagare’s work remains a valuable contribution to the field of agrarian studies. His emphasis on the cultural dimensions of peasant movements has enriched our understanding of the complex dynamics of rural India. His work continues to inspire scholars to adopt a more holistic and nuanced approach to studying agrarian change.
| Movement | Dhanagare’s Key Argument | Criticism of Dhanagare’s View |
|---|---|---|
| Satara | Revival of Maratha identity & challenge to upper caste dominance | Underestimation of economic factors driving peasant distress |
| Tebhaga | Sharecroppers’ struggle for tenure security, influenced by communist ideology | Limited attention to internal divisions among sharecroppers |
| Telangana | Complex interplay of economic exploitation, caste oppression & communist mobilization | Insufficient focus on the violence and factionalism within the movement |
Conclusion
In conclusion, D.N. Dhanagare’s work offers a significant and nuanced understanding of agrarian movements in India. His emphasis on the interplay between ‘little’ and ‘great’ traditions, symbolic action, and cultural brokerage provides valuable insights into the dynamics of peasant mobilization. While his approach has faced criticisms regarding its potential determinism and underestimation of economic factors, his contribution remains crucial for a comprehensive understanding of agrarian history in India. His work encourages a holistic approach, recognizing the complex interplay of cultural, economic, and political forces in shaping peasant movements and agrarian change.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.