The Backward Caste movement in Bihar can be traced back to the formation of Triveni Sangh, a caste coalition and political party, in the 1930s, which was revived after the introduction of land reforms in the 1950s aimed at removing intermediaries from agrarian society. But, this drive could not succeed in bringing long-lasting changes in the condition of lower strata of society, as they lacked political representation and economic power. The period since land reform included caste conflicts and the class struggle which eventually led to a transfer of absolute political power in the hands of Backward Castes, who had been kept away from it earlier. The class struggle succeeded the struggle of some of the Upper Backward Castes against the sacerdotal authorities for improvement in their ritual status. By the 1990s, the conflict between upper-castes and the lower-castes continued, with nearly 17 massacres taking place during this time period. But with the advent of politics of social justice and the Janata Dal in the 1990s, the lower caste became more active politically.
Agrarian relations in colonial Bihar Agricultural society of Bihar Subordination and discrimination comprised the characteristics which defined agrarian relations in Bihar during the Mughal and East India Company period. Land holding defined the hierarchy of castes in agrarian society where the upper-castes which included Brahmin, Bhumihar and Rajputs worked for the Mughal central authority and were involved in the collection of land revenue and quelling any peasant revolts against their overlords, the Mughals. After the control of Diwani rights passed into the hands of the East India Company, an attempt to centralise the revenue collection was made through the Permanent Settlement of 1793 which settled the land, earlier owned by state, in favour of the Zamindars. The hierarchy, which was established in the agrarian society, was dominated by three upper-castes which were at the apex and comprised the Raja, the Maharaja and the petty landlords. However, many of the intermediate tenants who worked on the land also belonged to upper-castes, primarily to the Brahman and the Rajput caste. Only a few of them were Kayastha and Bhumihar.
A majority of tenant cultivators, however, belonged to the Yadav, the Kurmi and the Koeri castes, while the Dalits were included in the category of landless labourers, whose condition in this hierarchy was the worst compared to the others. The Permanent Settlement fixed 9/10ths of the land revenue collected by the landlord for the company for the remuneration of the revenue collectors (the landlords), the remaining 1/10th was secured. However, the landlords extracted excessive revenue from the tenants and the official collection in the records was always shown as 'low'. These upper-caste tenants, and those belonging to backward castes, were always assessed by dual yardsticks, and it was common for the latter to face discrimination while paying revenue. There also existed different "terms of tenure" for a cultivator or agricultural labourer, which depended upon their caste. Grierson in Bihar Peasant Life (1920), highlights the following proverb prevalent in Bihar's rural life to describe the inherent prejudices against the low caste peasants, the so-called rar Jāti:
However, the "untouchables" or the Dalits were the worst sufferers in this hierarchy, as they were in kamia-malik (labourer-landlord) relationship with the landlords. Under this system, the landlords hired them to work off small debts given them in time of need. The condition for repayment was such that the interest increased and the debt of the father ended up being passed on to the son. In this way, the landless labourers become fully dependent on their master and a kind of bondage or serfdom prevailed.
History of peasant struggle in Bihar In the 19th century, the peasants of Bihar were involved in individual heroic struggles against the intermediaries in isolated events like the Santhal Hul rebellion (1855–56) and the Munda uprising of 1899–1901. Later, the Indigo revolt provided Gandhi with an opportunity to experiment with the peasantry. These events, however, were limited to local issues only, and the leadership was provided by local peasant leaders. There was a lack of an overall national perspective. Sahajanand Saraswati is known for leading a peasant struggle in some parts of Bihar, but its effects were limited to certain sections of farmers only. Karyanand Sharma is well known for leading the agrarian movement specially for his Barahiya Bakhast struggle in 1937–39. It was Sharma under whom the Communist Party of India (CPI) undertook some of the important peasant struggles in the 1950s, the most important being the Sathi farm struggle of Champaran.
Background of armed struggle A document released by the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation (CPI (ML)) in 1986 titled Report From the Flaming Fields of Bihar which is referred to by authors like Ranbir Sammadar in their work, defines the nature of the agrarian society of Bihar in the period immediately succeeding the Green Revolution. The landed gentry, which mostly comprised the landlords of the upper caste and some of the emerging kulaks of the intermediate agricultural caste, was in conflict with the lower caste agricultural labourers and landless tenants often leading to armed struggle. The Socialist movement under Jay Prakash Narayan and others though growing stronger had little scope for acceptance in rural Bihar, which was facing the worst form of Feudalism. The state and the landlords often colluded against the Naxalite forces dominated by the landless labourers belonging to lower castes. The CPI (ML) was leading the struggle of the labourers and other groups and ultra-Left cadres belonging to Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) and Chhatra Yuva Sangharsh Samiti, an organisation based on the ideas of Jay Prakash Narayan, which later turned towards radicalism aimed at reducing growing class difference.
Caste and class composition of Maoist cadres The land reforms primarily benefitted the middle peasant castes who were the tenants' upper caste landlords in the pre-independence period. These middle peasant castes were linked to the landlords in a variety of ways, including economic ties such as trade and money lending to supply credit and input in agricultural operations. Some of these castes left direct cultivation after successfully climbing the socio-economic ladder. Awadhiya Kurmi was one such community. The Bhumihars, who were included in both the landlord and middle peasant category, took up farming in some regions. They were known for their hard-working nature, contrary to the other upper castes whose ritual status forbade them from farming. The Koiris, another middle caste, were more attracted to the Maoist cadres because of the persistent banditry and oppression by the upper-castes. Sammadar argues that even the rich peasants of the Koiri and other middle castes were easily attracted to Naxal cadres because of their peculiar position in the caste hierarchy. Yadavs often made the class struggle difficult by coming between the two ends of agrarian society—landlords and the labourers. But, overall the question of wage, vested lands, social oppression, and 'caste solidarity' made these peasant castes sympathisers of Maoism.
A report by the Asian Development Research Group suggests that the Kurmi caste dominated the state committee of the radical People's War; members of the Yadav caste dominated the MCC. The CPI(ML), another radical outfit, had its support base among the Koeri and the Yadav castes, which shifted away to electoral politics after the foundation of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD translation: National People's Party. This shift led to the weakening of the 'liberation' in the Aurangabad and Nalanda districts, but the ideological commitment of the group, which also recruited from backward castes other than Yadav and some upper castes, saved it from complete ruin. However, the mass base of the Naxalite groups like the CPI (ML) remained dominated by fighters belonging to the Schedule Caste and the Extremely Backward Caste (EBC).
Sanskritisation and cultural transition in agrarian society An important aspect of agrarian society on the Gangetic Plain was Sanskritization, the phenomenon of the historical and mythical underpinning of caste identities by the peasant and artisan castes in a bid to seek higher status. Among those who engaged in this effort, the Yadavs, Kushwaha and Kurmi were the most visible. For much of the 20th century, these peasant castes had tilled the fertile soil of the Indo-Gangetic Plain and were known for their hard-working nature and their cultivating skills. While many of them were small landholders and powerful tenants, a section of them included large landowners and tenant labourers. The varna system, upon which the British understanding of Indian society was based, continued to recognise them as Shudra against their claim of Kshatriya status from the beginning of 1900, because of the expertise of Brahmins in the caste-hierarchy related matters.
By claiming a noble Kshatriya past, these peasant communities challenged the socio-economic dominance of the elites. This drew antipathy from elite caste groups towards the Kshatriya reform movements, which were portrayed as a question of dignity and self-respect by the reformers. The first instance of this antipathy was the work of Kunwar Chheda Sinha who wrote a book on the anti-Kshatriya reform movement. It avoided the social and cultural transformation going on in contemporary society and connected the movement to the aspirations of Jati activists seeking employment in higher government posts and the rising concern with caste pedigree that was tied to the policy of hierarchical ranking in the census office. The book, published by Sinha in 1907, was circulated widely by the Rajput Anglo-Oriental Press to check the pace of upward mobility of the peasant communities in caste hierarchy.
This antipathy of the upper-caste against the Upper-Backwards continued until Congress established a strong position within the state. The peak of this antipathy was witnessed after the abolition of the Zamindari which followed Indian independence from British rule. The Congress made a successful coalition of the upper-caste, Dalits and Muslims and sidelined the agricultural castes which had benefitted from the zamindari abolition. According to Ranbir Sammadar, the antagonism created by the land reforms between the upper castes and the Other Backward Class (OBC) castes especially the Kurmi and the Koeris could never be overcome while the Yadavs, a herder caste were looked down upon with the greatest contempt by the former because of their professional practice. The Yadavs also worked as charvaha (herders) for the upper caste apart from traditional occupation of cattle husbandry and milk business had benefitted from the zamindari abolition but to a lesser extent than the other OBCs. The mockery or the (folk) jokes made by the upper-caste at their expense, "Yadav attains intelligence not before the age of 60 years", portrayed them as the most rustic stupid people. The Yadav were most discriminated caste amongst the upper-OBCs.
Kshatriya reform movement among Yadavs