Explain the implications and the impact of globalization in situating the changing agrarian class structure in Indin

The older class map

• A. R. Desai and Daniel Thorner-type maps distinguished landlords, rich peasants, middle peasants, poor peasants, and landless labourers.
• Land reform and the Green Revolution strengthened a dominant-caste rich-peasant layer in many irrigated belts more than they created an equal family-farm India.
• Caste still sorted who was labourer and who was owner, which Beteille’s overlap of caste, class, and power already showed.

What globalisation did to that map

• Cheap imports, price volatility, and corporate seeds, chemicals, and procurement tied surplus households to global value chains.
• Contract farming and supermarket standards create a layer of growers who look independent but are budgeted by firms.
• A rentier and absentee class grows where urban money leases land around cities, while actual tilling is done by migrants and women.
• Landless and marginal households mix farm wages with construction, schemes, and circular migration, so the ‘peasant’ is often a labouring household with a plot.

Implications

• Class conflict shifts from classic tenant-versus-zamindar to farmer-versus-state-and-company on prices, and labourer-versus-farmer on wages.
• Regional divergence widens: export horticulture belts versus rainfed distress belts.
• Yogendra Singh’s modernizing tradition appears as caste farmer unions using courts, media, and highways.
• Operation Barga-type tenant security matters more, not less, when land is a financial asset, because unrecorded tillers lose first.

Impact on structure, stated plainly

• Polarisation at the ends: a thinner commercial elite and a larger labouring mass, with a squeezed middle peasantry in many regions.
• Feminisation of field work where men migrate.
• New intermediaries: input dealers, cold-store owners, and labour contractors, not only village moneylenders.