CHAPTER: 8The Peasantry and Peasant Movement in India------------------------------------------------------------------------------India is an agriculture based country and a vast section of Indian people belong to a class engaged in agriculture. More than two-third of the people of India are dependent on agriculture. Most of them are farmers and connected with agricultural marketing. This vast population cannot be considered as a universal homogeneous class. Various provincial and traditional diversities as well as different circumstances exist in this class. Apart from that it belongs to various subclasses. Peasant movements in India have created magnificent tradition of history against exploitation. Historians mention these peasant movements which have been occurring since ancient times. The history of revolts against extreme exploitation of British imperialist and colonial power may shake us. Such revolts in many numbers took place in different forms in between 2nd half of the 18th to mid of 19th century. The peasant class and rural people of India raised protest against the colonial rule and land system through Sannyasi-Fakir Revolt, Choar revolt. Although these revolts were overcast with religious and caste related consciousness, still the main cause of those was unbearable economic exploitation. Actually opposition against imperialism or aspiration for independence were not visible. These revolts had happened much before the formation of Indian National Congress. A new phase of peasants revolt occurred at the 2nd half of the 19th century. Mainly increase of tax-rate came to be the cause of these revolts. Farmers started the protest against the high rate of tax, eviction from farming land and the system of using and demanded for reasonable taxation and possessory right of land. All of the agriculture based people were involved with these movements. Rich farmers were extremely conscious about the feudal exploitation; they expected the development of agriculture and they were more interested for agricultural marketing. This section of farmers usually led the movements. British rulers made the feudalistic pattern by introducing the permanent settlement of land system. By the next period some changes took place in land system, yet hangover of feudalism still now in effect. In many respect for cause of the feudalistic pattern the rich and the poor farmers has flown through a same stream. But step by step the change of the social pattern has made differences among various class and subclass of the agriculture based people.In Indian history of the tribal farmers revolts have taken a great in numbers. As an example it can be said about the Santhal Revolt of mid-19th century. The tribal farmers had revolted frequently against the landlords, money-lenders and British authorities. These revolts took place in the state of Jharkhand as well as in a major parts of West Bengal and Bihar. The Santhal Revolt took its utmost limit in between 1855 and 1856. This was a revolt of the farmers; only the Santhal farmers had become to be its main force. Except this a revolt led by Birsa Munda took a prevailing shape in 1895. The government managed this situation by reverse oppressive measures. After Birsas death due to cholera infection in Ranchi jail it became easy to bring down the revolt. Added to this the revolt was not organized with a well-planned way. There is no dearth of documentaries given by the historians about the peasants movements that took place in India. Yet for contextual necessity a few of these revolts is needed to be mentioned. For an example we can say about the Indigo Mutiny of Bengal in which farmers of all level took important part. Landlords, Talukdars, money lenders, rich land owners and even the workers of the Indigo farm (Neel Kuthi) came forth to lead this struggle against the British oppressor. The urban middle class also stood beside the farmers. Except the region of the eastern India a new type of peasant movement took place in Maharastra. This revolt was against the money lenders and their British patrons. It was also same as the Santhal revolt. In the early period of 20th century when the modern nationalism was growing in the elite and middle class people, they failed to realize the interest of peasantry and rural population including peasantry remained isolated from growing national freedom movement. Later when Mr Mk Gandhi convinced himself as the leader of the Indian nationalist movement, he inspired the peasants even of the remotest corner of the country. After 1920 Mr M. K. Gandhi could take the leadership of national freedom movement, the peasant movement and the nationalist movements organised by the same platform. Subsequently there movements became to be major allies of the anti-imperialist national movement. The previous phase of these movements was against the money lenders and landlords and during the next period its character took shape as anti-state struggle. Among these movements Barodoloisatyagraha in Gujrat was famous. The government of Bombay became bound to bow head owing to the movement led by Mr M. K. Gandhi. In this movement rich farmers named Patidarrayat played the main role. There were so many peasant movements had organized and all are left to flow of anti-imperialist anti-British struggle. Such types of movement were also organized by the farmers of Uttar Pradesh in 1920. At the same time Swami Vidyananda and Swami Sahajananda led such movements in Bihar. In the 20s peasant- revolts commenced in Bengal which stood beside the non-cooperation movement. From the decade of 1930 peasant uprising started to be organized by the leftists who were ideologically communists. The Moplah rebellion of south India was anti-British and anti-landlords and to some extent it had communalistic character as it was mainly led by the Muslims. This rebellion started in 1934 and took an overspreading shape in 1935. Except the Moplah rebellion farmers uprising took place in many parts of South India. Some of them took place in Guntur and Andhras Godavari district. During the 30s such an uprising occurred in Madras also. Poor farmers also supported these rebellions. In 1936 BharaterKishansabha led by the leftists took some time of actions. In spite of that the agricultural revolution could not come out of its dark-future. In the manifesto of Kisansabha the main target was to save the agricultural community from the economic exploitation and to grab the economic and political power of them. The aim of this demand was to abolish the feudal system which was established by the British and their allies like landlords, zamindars, talukdarsetc and to handover the farming land to the farmers. Among these leftist movements were famous Adhia and Tebhaga movements of Bengal. Nearly in the same time peasants revolt against the feudal system of Nizamshah in Telengana created vastness and a country wide influence, though its leaders were intellectuals and middle class people. Land to the fillers this was the famous slogan of the leftist to organized the peasantry against feudal system and its remnants. Actually its main target was to abolish the Zamindari system (Which means the system of hegemony of the landlords) and redistribute lands among the peasantry. These movements and other various agrarian revolts led by the leftists. BharaterKishan Sabha (Indian Peasants Association) became to be the largest peasant organization. In post-independence era central government of India made some rearrangement in the land system in India. The government abolished the zamindari system. The peasantsrelation with the government regarding the taxation of land became a direct process. The government also took step to determine the upper limit of land that one can own. Central government passed few acts in regards of upper limit of ownership of land though there were many loofaultsin these acts. Among the problems which remained unchanged in the question of irrigation of land, the differences of land owning system among the provinces, differences among barren fertile lands orchards etc. As a result the determination of the upper limit of land owners has been left solely upon the provincial government. European bourgeois class took the responsibility of establishing democratic revolution through land reforms in the consecutive countries of that continent. But the Indian bourgeois class came out from the womb of international imperialists when it turned to be an exploiting ruling system and got a shape of capitalist character. But there capitalists of India being crippled by its birth are always opportunistic and compromising in character which was noticed In the time period of pre and post-independence era the representatives of feudal class got entry into the Indian National Congress which was led by Indian bourgeois class and its representatives. As a result most of the policies have been taken and implemented in the post independent state system this compromising character of the national bourgeois class has come to be clear. As an example we can take an opinion of Mr MK Gandhi. In this context during an important discussion between Gandhi and Luis Fisher he had given the opinion to give no compensation to the landlords and feudal lords for land reform in the objective of redistribution of land to the toiling peasantry and change of tax collection rules. But in independent India the question of giving compensation to land owners and feudal lords were strongly manifested in Indian parliament by the representatives of the feudal class who have already infiltrated in Indian National Congress and other political parties when the government wanted to take measures by put forwarding the bill at the aim to determine the upper limit of land ownership, (Land ceiling), complete abolition of feudal and royal system to takeover of surplus land under state ownership, abolition of feudal intermediary class system for tax-collection and to introduce direct tax collection by state bureaucratic system. As a result the government have to spend a major portion of its financer of budget of whole second Fifth year plan to give compensation for the above mentioned caused. Through there evidences we can realize the character of Indian bourgeois class which is appeared as a malnourished, crippled and dependent nature. There were much drum beating by the central government regarding the passing the bill of land question and making some act in Indian parliament. But this land act was not implemented in most of the provinces due to many obstacles and so many excuses were put forwarded by landlords and feudal class. As already this feudal class infiltrated in congress and other political parties and also in the state system hey were able to maintain their opportunistic position and hierarchy in most of provinces of India. In some provinces like West Bengal Kerala, AndhraPradesh where leftist movements were active, the central Land policy were implemented to some extent. This became possible mainly for two causes one for making the peasants conscious about the issue of the ownership of land and other was strong protest and movement led by the leftists. The leftists could make it possible in some cases where they won assemble election and in the other hand they started a strong movement.During the pre and post independent India the abovementioned slogan Land to the Tillers inspired many agrarian revolts led by the leftists and communists. A great number of agriculture based people like share croppers, middle peasantry, marginal peasantry and agricultural labourers had participated with these movements. Among these movements the landless peasantry were weak to some extent as the number of the share croppers was apparently vast.The All India Organization for Landless Peasantry organised many movements along with BharaterKishansabha in most of the provinces with a programme to capture the surplus land for the demand of distribution of this surplus land among the landless peasants. The movements of landless labourers regarding increase of their wages was not so strong as other movements as the organisation of the landless labourers was weak because they didnt have able, educated and experienced leaders.In post independent era some communist came out of CPI(M) and took the path of arm revolution. Naxalbari of North Bengal became the centre of storm and some of the communist Party of chine defined this movement as an out bust of springs thunder so it can be said that the Naxalite leaders got a great influence setting support of the Chinese Communist Party. Later middle class youth of urban areas were attracted greatly by this movement They followed blindly the path of the Chinese revolution and to take free some areas of rural region of Bengal and other states of Bihar and Andhra from the clutches of Indian Capitalist state system. This is traditional weakness of Indian communists to follow a model of successful revolution of other country without considering the ground reality of Indian state system, its class character and objective and subjective condition of revolutionary struggle. By long run they are following the Russian model of path of revolution. Now they have put forwarded Chinese model of revolution shifting centre of revolutionary activity form urban to rural areas. In this struggle a fraction of the communist party formed another Party name CPI(ML) more popularly known as Naxalites, under leadership of Mr CharuMajumdar, Mr KanuSanyal, Mr Sushital Roy Chowdhyury etc. They wanted to imitate and translate the path of Chinese revolution in Indian soil by giving the famous call to capture state power by encircling urban areas with villages. But those leftist leaders did not try to search out an independent unique methodology suitable for Indian ground reality for successful revolutionary struggle so, to get a rapid success they attracted in the petty bourgeois deviation which compelled them to take ultra-leftist line. Though they have organized some peasant movements in Dobra, Gopiballavpuretc., but there are very scanty and scattered and they did not try enough to unite peasantry with the movement of working class. So they are isolated very quickly from toiling masses of this country without doing these necessary revolutionary works, they began to adopt arm- struggle As a result militancy, killing the people either political opponent or some landlords, taking line of terrorism, they developed various group among themselves and a total system of violence erupted as a volcano. As they became successively isolated from general mass the state power has taken this opportunity to crush this revolutionary effort by introducing severe oppressive measure to them. Thousands of life of young students and other revolutionaries were sacrificed, even murdered by state sponsored terror. A big number of remaining revolutionary activists were put into the jail for indefinite period In this way this revolutionary effort decreased since 1972 and onwards and became remain a history in later days. Later a group of Naxalites changed themselves by giving up the unprepared arm struggle. But their vote in the national polities became to be a marginal force. Though we have noticed that a legal Naxalite organisation to some extent has been working in Bihar. Other fractions of the Naxalite group, now popularly named as CPI(ML Maoist), are still active in Bihar, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Andhra and Orissa tribal based region which are mainly forest areas. They have created a frightening situation by personal killing and terrorism during decades of time period. In this way the essence of revolutionary class struggle has become a bookish word by these ultra-leftists. In a different line with same fate as occurred by legal leftists. The movement of Naxalbari was basically organized to establish the rights of peasants on the land, but ultimately this right demand was dropped by quick changeover of political action in favour of seizure of power through arm struggle which is a ultra-leftist deviation mixed with petty bourgeois heroism. In post independent period leftist led three provincial governments we established. Among there provinces leftists were being elected in alternative assembly election in Kerala. But west Bengal set an example by being elected and remaining in state power 34 years at a stretch. In Tripura another small state, leftists have managed to be elected for more than 25 years. These leftist governments led by CPI(M) adopted the limited policy of land reforms by take over the excess land over the upper limit of land ceiling and distributed to the landless peasants. Most important administrative measure was taken by leftist government in West Bengal was named as operation Barga by which the share croppers were legalised and their right on the land was established to some extent by implementing law. As a result of this, how far the democratic and socialist consciousness among the toiling masses wee spread is a matter of debate, but CPI(M) and their allies got a secured vote bank for some years. In the context of a step of establishing PanchayatiRaj was taken successfully and thus decentralisation of power of the state centre system came to be a reality. All these administrative measures had influenced the people of this state which was reflected by the success of leftist in both assembly and parliamentary elections consecutively for 30 years. But still the idea of emancipation of class consciousness examined as a big question. These dependence on the bureaucratic measures and administrative steps the leftist parties created many complication among them, at the same time there were pouring of opportunist elements and thus formation criminalization and lumpenization of politics made the leftists become corrupted resulting an isolation from general mass and losing their popularity and communist character they become to be a mere parliamentary party as like other pro capitalist parties. In West Bengal the left governments 34 years rule has become to be so decadent that they lost two consecutive central parliamentary and provincial assembly elections and now they have become to a negligible force in the national politics. The decaying process of leftists is still continuing and there is no indication of revival have been noticed so far after 16th parliamentary election where they got only two WB seats and total 12 seats in all over India making CPI(m) led leftists as an irre3valent force in Indian parliamentary politics. They dont have tried any self-criticism to take positive steps for their revival, though there are mountains of problems erected in provincial and national politics and social context. At present in West Bengal a complete lumpenization of politics led by Trinamul Congress has taken a Social Fascist role. On the other hand in Central politics extreme rightist force BJP with Hindu fundamentalist flavour has got absolute majority to form government they have already taken anti people and pro capitalist stand which will affect the interest of toiling masses and common people. This extreme rightist force has always a tendency to change their position form pseudo democratic appearance towards fascist one in the length of time as happened in the history. So there are ocean of issues and problems for the leftists to fight for reorganizing people. But they are voiceless, powerless and eroded in by sterility. So this is a time in one side darkness in leftist political field, in other side negation to this socio political condition there is a hope that new dawn of alternative leftism has an opportunity to come forth.Indian Communist parties and their allies in the field of distribution of land had taken a policy to handover the land to the tillers. It was that policy by which Bolshevik Party of Russia could bring the peasants in revolutionary struggle. In the later phase of post-revolutionary Russia this policy became a great obstacle for socialization of private ownership of peasants on land by for many collective farms. In this context the historical lesson is that peasant of any strata has always tendency of craving for land ownership. So, land to the tillers was accepted so easily by the peasants, but issue of collectivization of land was not popularly accepted by them. Rather they wanted to hold this land properly. That means peasant wants land ownership, but they are not prepared to give up this ownership for greater cause, even for their personal benefit through collectivization of land. This is a primitiveness of peasants which make them the ally force of proletariat according to their class position and class consciousness. When Soviet Russian Communist party had taken the policy of collectivization of land by forming collective and state agricultural forms, then this issue brought lot of debate within the party that how this policy would be implemented. Ultimately Joseph Stalin and most of the leaders of central committee of CPSU had taken the steps to apply force to implement this land policy among the unwilling peasants for collectivization of the land, a policy which made socialization of private ownershi8p towards the goal of socialist reconstruction. But later excessive dependence on bureaucracy and failure to change the level of consciousness among the peasants Soviet Communist Party became slowly isolated form general mass of peasantry. In place of communist ideology and guidance the bureaucratic hierarchy became more powerful in ground reality and they had started to erode the communist party by infiltrating within Communist Party with their bourgeois ideology. In this context this bureaucracy took upper hand in all level of production unit, even in industrial sector also later this bureaucratic hierarchy with their bourgeois ideology penetrated in all level of society, state and communist party and making soviet Russia towards state capitalism. As a result working class, peasantry and toiling mass slowly isolated from the state system. This was discussed briefly in Chapter-3. Taking lesson from the history of Russian revolution in agrarian problem Ma-tse-Tung led Chinese communist Party had taken policy of collectivization of land through cooperative farming and formation of commune which became a social ownership in land question from its beginning inste4ad of land to the tillers in the revolutionary process of long term revolutionary struggle of chine. In post-revolutionary period by abolishing private property turned to be a social property and the effort of forming commune system was tried and it was successful. Though this system was how much deep rooted it remains debatable question bill today. The Indian communist party and its allies cannot be able to take lesson from the history and have not adopted better land reform and land policy so far. As Indian leftists gave a more stress in electoral fight, they did not able to bring revolutionary consciousness among the oppressed exploited peasants for changing the society by adopting a revolutionary land policy flourish class struggle in the peasantry for socialist revolution.During the post independent period in Indian economic system with the rest of the world has become to be changed gradually. For this change since present time the agrarian revolts were organized by the rich and middle rank peasants. With this, in colonial system, the interest of the small marginal and share croppers were linked and due to it Indian agrarian community along with the tribal based peasants also stood side by side with most of these movements. There were many contradictions among them, but all of them were against the colonial and zamindari system and that is why they took part in these movements. After independence during 50-60 years the characteristics of Indian land system has been changing very slowly in course of time. The feudal system through zamindaris as intermediary tax collectors was abolished by implementing governmental act, the social position and power successively decreases through the feudal exploitation is continued by their remarks like sotedars ( big land owners) and Mahajan (Money lenders). In place of feudal lords the rich and middle farmers became more powerful in agrarian economy in their social position. Thus the direction of dialectics was changing. Opposite to this the rich and middle sized farmers, the landless agricultural workers, small farmers, marginal farmers and the share croppers took their position. The old feudal remnants became the ally force of rich farmers. Middle sized farmers started to take part in the movements with the rich farmers for their opportunistic class position. The spectrum of peasants struggle continued to change slowly in different route. This time state subsidy in agricultural sector, development of irrigation system, the decrease of price of seed and pesticide and on the other hand for getting high price of agriculture based commodities some movements were mounted up by the rich farmers and it led to take a shape against the government. With the contradiction in the opposite side were not much well organized movements in their interest taking place and leftists failed to do this most important task of class struggle in agrarian sector. In this regards Indian communist parties and leftist could not take programme and strategy adopting the changing ground reality. Their conception about the abolition of feudalism takes a shape of paper tiger which is not parallel to changing agrarian reality.In India there are many provincial and geographical differences and added to this there are socio economic religious culture and caste related problems. So it is very difficult to get together the exploited peasants in mass movements according to following a general pathway of action. But as the agrarian class and the agricultural economy are the spine of Indian socio economic structure, so peasantry should be united through mass movements to develop their consciousness for building revolutionary class struggle by uniting their interest with the interest of working class and other toiling people. Otherwise, there is no hope for a successful revolutionary struggle. To handover the land property to the farmers and to safeguard their rights of private ownership on land were taken by the leftists and communists, in brief the implementation of the popular demand land to the tillers taken by leftists is from basically a petty bourgeois and opportunistic tendency. Through this it is not possible to spread socialist consciousness among the peasantry. Recently at Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal the Left Front Government actually snatched agricultural lands from the farmers by the name of industrialization has created a blood shed and black mark in the history of communist Party and leftists. In this context we may remember the severe contradiction between state apparatus and peasantry for collectivization of land by forming state and collecting forms as the policy taken by Stalin led CPSWin post-revolutionary period of Soviet Russia. It is clear that turning the private property to the social ownership or handover the lands in the hand of industrialists none of these plans cannot be acceptable to the land owner farmers. In brief either small or high and rich farmers are not ready to handover their land property to others or state for the cause of welfare of their own state and society. This is the primitiveness of peasantry as a whole except landless labourers in the consciousness comparing to industrial proletariat. So by classical concept of Marxism they are the most common ally force of revolutionary struggle, but not the class leader of a socialistic revolution. Though these movements, as seen before, now also are led by the rich and middle sized formers. On the other hand the political parties, especially anti-government section, support these movements to make it a political issue and try to fulfil their target of taking hold of the parliamentary power. As a result class struggle, enhancement of class consciousness and spreading of revolutionary socialist ideology all are fading. In India all over peasant movements has a big obstacle of racial differences also co-exist. In one side upper and lower caste differences and in the other differences between the Hindus and Muslims have come to be weapons to find political advantage in Indian Political activities and at present there are the main issues for electoral fight which is showing that Indian politics is circulated for last 50 60 years for these issues. For changing the political scenario and grabbing parliamentary power, various national and regional parties are using these differences. Even the communists and leftists are also not out of this practice. Every political party is creating various types of theory for supporting or opposing this pathway. Its main aim is to in the name of reservation of the backward section of the society to provide some help and religious issue of Hindutva and any fundamentalism all are to confuse the people and to get mass base for electoral gain. By this they are destroying the class struggle and provoking racial and religious conflict to capture the parliamentary power. The BJP, at present the biggest political force in Indian electoral politics, has been using the issue of Hindutva as their main political thesis and grouwing as an alternative to congress party in the central politics and as well as provincial electoral process. By combining their ideology of Hindutva with neo liberal economic policy they are able to get the support of monopoly capital and corpo9rate houses along with the mass supp0ort they are able to create themselves as the most dominating political party which is reflected in recent 16th parliamentary election on May 2014. They got absolute majority by capturing 283 seats alone and Indianpolitics is changing to form coalition government towards single party dominated central power. This ideology of religious content of Hindutva combined with neo liberal capitalist economy may bad towards neo fascism in future if we take lesson form history. Racial and religious problem are very touchy in India and there are deep rooted in the mind of common people. This problem is easy to create, but if cannot be solved easily. The communists and the leftists are not able to organize the popular and courageous movement against this opportunistic reservation and religious issue based politics. In alternative to those issues of reservation for backward and scheduled caste and tribes or minority and religious issues each are the greater base of most of the parliamentary political party of India leftists and communists may build a strong movement on the basis of economic ground by demanding the economic back up; and reservation for economically awkward population of India for their socio economic upliftment. Though there are some problems in this context. As example we can see that some of the upper caste people, though economically poor, but are much ahead culturally and socially than the lower caste people. So, these poor upper caste people get better access to utilize the state support for their upliftment. It is very difficult to introduce a grand narrative and master discourse to solve their problem of differences in classism, racism and fundamentalism. Much of Multi-dimensional discourse with many micro movements are required to solve their socio political issues combined with master discourse to change these non-antagonistic contradiction in favour of solving major contradiction for revolutionary change of the state and society. Rural peasants class struggle will be take new dimension as peasant movement and in that place communists and leftists should take realistic and creative policy and activity. The demands of the rich farmers like subsidies in the fertilizer, pesticide, irrigationetc.along with price of agricultural product which were reflected by the movement of ShetkhariSangathan under the leadership of NarendranathTikayet in late 80s became one of the biggest peasant movement in post independent India for representing the interest of rich peasants. But this movement was getting support from middle even marginal farmers for their common interest thus gaining broad mass base. These issues should not be avoidable. Leftists and communists should require to organize such movements which are the burning problems of a major portion of peasants movement demanding land reform with formation of cooperative farming by accumulating the surplus land over land ceiling involving the landless peasants, marginal farmers and smallcroppers should be incorporated with the movement for agrarian subsidies and price re-modulation of agricultural products. The ideology of working class should be combined with these new forms of peasant movement by changing the traditional and classical class ideology to beacceptable for the changing ground reality in the era of neo liberalism. At present the rich peasant and the feudal remnants like big land owners (Jotedars) and money lenders (Mahajans) are the main obstacle for revolutionary class struggle in rural India as they are citing themselves as the enemy of any progressive and revolutionary change of society being the target of major antagonistic contradictory position against all toiling agrarian mass. On the other camp in agrarian sector the sub classes starting form landless peasants, marginal farmers, small peasants are the most of the revolutionary elements. Along with this, small agricultural traders and the traders of agro based industrial products like fertilizer, pesticides etc. also have the common interest revolutionary peasant classes. So, broad mass movements have to be organized to unite these class and sub class based on their common demands. Though there are many contradictions remain within these sub class which re considered as non-antagonistic one. This can be solved through many micro movements and regional movements along with the major class struggle in agrarian sector. The level of consciousness and low literacy rate are being a major problem for the revolutionaries to convince this peasantry to unite them in revolutionary struggle. In between these two antagonistic class groups there are the middle peasantry who are usually follow of rich peasants. But according to literacy rate and consciousness they are much in higher position in present rural society. So there is another task for revolutionaries to isolate this socially strong peasant sub class form the reactionary camp and unite them with the struggle of exploited peasantry in revolutionary outlook. For changing ground reality the programme of land to the tillers become obsolete, so the surplus land above the land ceiling should not be distributed to the landless peasantry rather to form cooperative land farming organized and managed by the representatives of farmers by forming farmers council with revolutionary political ideology. As the collectivization of the land and forming collective farms and stat farms are not possible without the radical change of state system so there are need to take some programmes to unite the landlesspeasantry, share croppers, small marginal farmers, even the middle peasantry. This may be possible by forming the farmers councils which look after the rights and interest of there all sub classes. For implementing various programmes in rural areas the decentralized power of village Panchayat should be utilized as a supplementary role and turning this Panchayat as a democratic revolutionary unit future socialist society form the smallest unit o0f present state system which is based on capitalist and other oppressor class exploitation. In later chapters we shall discuss the alternative methodology and programmes to unite proletariat and peasantry middle class, pet bourgeois intellectuals and other all toiling people for higher and greater cause of uplifting the society in a changed socio economic reality. In present period of globalization the mass struggle and class struggle should be developed both in economic, cultural and political field by uniting for only proletariat and peasantry, but all other toiling oppressed people along with intellectuals. So, the economic, political and cultural movement and struggle should be organized and developed continuously for the goal of revolutionary change which may be a continuous process and dialectically acting on each other and one of them may be dominant with the changing conditions of society during the period of social progress.

12