IN this article, I am giving a bare outline to how the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has been trying to tackle the agrarian question in India in the context of the changes that are happening with the growth of capitalist production relations and lately with the imperialist-driven globalisation. A detailed analysis of this issue is reserved for later. The term agrarian question has three important components. The first component is the nature, extent and degree of the development of capitalism in the countryside. The second aspect is the nature of the classes that arise out of the development of capitalism in agriculture. The third component is concerned with the class struggle, i.e., how and by what means and what alliances and the classes that have been identified to be mobilised for the resolution of the agrarian question. Resolution of agrarian question means the progressive transformation of the production relations in agriculture and the socio-economic conditions in the countryside. Hence, the term agrarian question means and includes specific conditions of capitalist development, class formations, class alliance and class struggle. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has made seven major efforts to examine the various aspects of the agrarian question during the past fifty years of its period. They were, the 1964 Programme; 1967 CC document Tasks on the Kisan Front; 1973 CC Resolution on Certain Agrarian Issues; 1976 CC document On CPI(M) Statement of Policy and its Implications; 1993 CC document Review of the Work on the Kisan Front and Future Tasks; the updating of the Party Programme in 2000; and the 2003 CC document Review of the Work on Kisan and Agricultural Workers Fronts and Future Tasks. The CPI(M) considers that the agrarian question continues to be the foremost national question before the people of India. The Party is also of the firm view that the bankruptcy of the bourgeois-landlord rule in India is nowhere more evident than its failure to address, much less to solve, the agrarian question in a progressive democratic way. The Programme adopted in 1964 examined the particular nature of capitalist development in India and came to the following conclusions: “Capitalist development in India, however, is not of the type which took place in western Europe and other advanced capitalist countries. Even though developing in the capitalist way Indian society still contains within itself strong elements of pre-capitalist society. Unlike in the advanced capitalist countries where capitalism grew on the ashes of pre-capitalist society, destroyed by the rising bourgeoisie, capitalism in India was superimposed on pre-capitalist society. Neither the British colonialists whose rule continued for over a century; nor the Indian bourgeoisie into whose hands power passed in 1947, delivered those smashing blows against pre-capitalist society which are necessary for the free development of capitalist society and its replacement by socialist society. The present Indian society, therefore, is a peculiar combination of monopoly capitalist domination with caste, communal and tribal institutions. It has thus fallen to the lot of the working class and its Party to unite all the progressive forces interests in destroying the pre-capitalist society and to so consolidate the revolutionary forces within it as to facilitate the most rapid completion of the democratic revolution and preparation of the ground for transition to socialism.” The Programme adopted in 1964 states that the first and foremost task is to carry out radical agrarian reforms in the interest of the peasantry and to sweep away the remnants of feudal and semi-feudal fetters on our production forces of agriculture. This will have to be supplemented by sweeping measures of reforming the social system through which such remnants of pre-capitalist society such as the caste and other social systems keep the villages tied to age-old backwardness. The Programme also pointed out the need for completing anti-imperialist and anti-monopoly task. About the classes and sections, who should be rallied for resolving the agrarian question, the Programme stated that, due to the decisive inroads of capitalism, the peasantry is not a homogeneous mass and definite classification has taken place among them. The different sections of the peasantry play different roles in the resolution of the agrarian question. The agricultural labourers and poor peasants who constitute 70 percent of the rural households will be the basic allies of the working class. The middle peasantry are the reliable allies. Due to various factors, by and large, the rich peasants can also be brought to the democratic front and retained as allies for the people’s democratic revolution. Based on the understanding of the Party Programme, the Central Committee of the Party worked out the tasks for the Kisan movement in the document Tasks on the Kisan Front in 1967. The CC document pointed out the deep rooted reformistic understanding prevalent in the Party which was a hangover of the united Communist Party. The right deviation manifested in the agrarian front in a number of ways and it failed to study the agrarian situation and evolve correct slogans regarding the specific features of feudal exploitation, the class differentiation taking place in the peasantry, the nature, extent, degree of capitalism penetrating in agriculture etc. Because of the wrong understanding, the agrarian front underplayed the militant role of the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat in the anti-feudal struggle by placing undue reliance on the middle and rich peasant sections. It also expressed in the reluctance of the agrarian front to champion the specific demands of the agricultural labourers and poor peasants. There was distorted understanding of the correct concept of all-in-peasant unity based upon the middle and rich peasantry instead of building it around rural labour and the poor peasants. The CC document made sharp criticism about the failure in giving a correct class orientation to the work on the Kisan front and gave specific directives for corrections. Certain differences related to the questions of (1) land ceiling (2) the rights of tenants at will vis-à-vis non-cultivating tenants especially small owners (3) issues connected with regard to agricultural labour struggle for land and wages (4) attitude of the Kisan movement towards introduction of tractors and other agricultural machinery (5) how fair prices for the peasant produce are to be defined and (6) the stand taken with regard to land legislations and the relation between mass struggles on concrete immediate demands and the propagation of the Party’s programmatic agrarian issues came up in the Party at the end of 1960s. The CC meeting at Muzaffarpur in 1973 tried to settle these issues and adopted a resolution, Resolution on Certain Agrarian Issues. This document also did not help in making a breakthrough in the Kisan movement. The CC resolution, instead of settling the controversy, further aggravated them by landing in Left deviation. This CC document gave emphasis on abolition of landlordism and land distribution as an immediate item on the agenda. It failed to give importance to the multifarious issues affecting the peasantry for building the peasant unity around agricultural labourers and poor peasants. The issues again came up in the Calcutta meeting of the CC in November 1973 and certain changes were made in the Resolution on Certain Agrarian Issues. The CC document adopted in 1976 corrected many of the wrong perceptions and attitudes which were continuing in the Party. It made a review of the capitalist production relations developing in the rural countryside and the class differentiation taking place. It also reviewed the results of the agrarian reforms of the Congress government. It stated that taking into account of the structural changes affected in the agrarian sector and taking into serious account of the existing state of organisation, the level of consciousness and the degree of unity among the peasantry, the slogan of the complete abolition of landlordism and distribution of land gratis among the agricultural labourers and poor peasants continues to be a propaganda slogan. While organising struggle for waste land, forest land and the so-called `surplus’ land under the ceiling acts, the agrarian movement will have to channelise many other agrarian currents like the question of wages of the rural workers, the issues of rent reduction, the abolition or scaling down of peasant indebtedness, fair price for agricultural produce, the reduction of tax burden, the police zulum (atrocities) against corruption etc, so that all these currents must be harnessed into a big agrarian stream. This is necessary for building maximum peasant unity and isolating the handful of landlords and their hirelings. The 1993 CC document reiterated that the weakness of the agricultural workers movement and the Kisan Sabha in spite of the favourable conditions constitute one of the important weaknesses of the democratic movement in the country. Without overcoming this weakness, favourable situation cannot be created for the growth of the Party. The CC document also reiterated that the peasant unity should be built centered around the agricultural labourers and poor peasants for achieving maximum peasant unity. The peasant movement should take up the multifarious issues affecting the peasantry such as land and land related matters, wages and social security measures of agricultural workers, irrigation, power, science and technology, infrastructural facilities, cheap credit, market protection, remunerative price for agricultural crops, public distribution system, public education, public health, corruption in governance, social atrocities, promotion of cooperatives, strengthening of the panchayat system, dairy development, fish farming, ecology etc were outlined for being taken up. The CC document also made a serious assessment of the growth of capitalist production relations and the differentiation taking place among the peasantry. It came to the conclusion that the situation in India varies from place to place and this diverse nature should be taken into consideration for identifying issues and formulating demands for building and expanding movement. It also suggested that the country could be broadly divided into three categories based on the level of growth and nature of capitalist production relations, domination of semi-feudal relations, implementation of land reform measures, historical background and other factors. The document also noted the implications of the neo-liberal economic policies and the need to mobilise the peasants, agricultural workers against multinational corporations and imperialist pressures and the policies of the government. The Programme updated in 2000 noted the growth of capitalist production relations in agriculture, effect of the imperialist driven globalisation and liberalisation policies and the class differentiation taking place in the countryside. The programme stated that the development of capitalist relations in agriculture is clearly an all-India major trend marked by greater regional and sub-regional diversity and unevenness in the development of capitalist relations of production and exchange. There are regions where capitalism in agriculture has advanced and where commercial agriculture and cash transactions dominated the rural economy. There are also regions where old forms of landlordism and tenancy and archaic forms of labour service, servitude and bondage still play an important part in agrarian relations. All over the country, there exist caste division, caste oppression and worst forms of gender oppression and exploitation of poor by usurers and merchant capital. The Programme also reiterated that the capitalist developments in Indian agriculture are not based on resolute destruction of the old forms but has been superimposed on a swamp of pre-capitalist production relations and forms of social organisation. The development of the `modern’ does not preclude the continuing existence of the archaic. The Programme noted the rise of a powerful nexus of landlords, rich peasants, contractors, big traders and the rich. They dominate the Panchayat Raj institutions, cooperative societies, rural banks and credit agencies except in Left dominated states and control the rural leadership of the bourgeois-landlord political parties. The surplus they extracted are `ploughed’ into money lending, speculative activities, real estate and also in agro-based industries. They utilise caste affiliations to mobilise support and resort to violence to terrorise the rural poor to submission. The Programme also noted the rapid commercialisation which is taking place in the rural economy. There is enormous growth of the market for foodgrains and agricultural commodities. The control of the monopoly trading concerns over agricultural produce has further tightened. The multinational corporations which operate in the world market have greater direct control over the prices of agricultural commodities. The violent fluctuation in prices of agricultural commodities and adverse terms of trade of agriculture with other sectors are increasing the exploitation of the peasantry. After taking note of the growth of capitalist production relations in agriculture, the effect of the imperialist driven globalisation and liberalisation and the differentiation taking place in the country, the Programme has pointed out the emergence of two important contradictions. First, the sharp division between the rural rich comprising the landlords, capitalist farmers, rich peasantry and their allies on the one hand and the mass of the peasantry mainly agricultural workers, poor peasants and artisans on the other. The second is the growing opposition to imperialist driven globalisation and liberalisation policies of the government not only from among the mass of the peasantry but also from sections of the rural rich. The CC document of 2003 reviewed the work on kisan and agricultural workers fronts on the basis of the changes noted in the Programme and formulated future tasks. It reiterated that the future development of the democratic movement and the Party depend upon how effectively and quickly the existing lags and shortcomings on the work on kisan and agricultural workers are overcome and how speedily and effectively kisan and agricultural workers are organised for the fulfillment of the task of facing up to the needs of the growing crisis in agriculture and in keeping with the perspective of the agrarian revolution. It also stated that any failure in addressing these tasks will again provide more opportunities for caste, communal and sectarian forces to divert the agrarian unrest into diversionary channels and the continuance of the sufferings of the agricultural workers and peasants. The deepening of the agrarian crisis and the consequent growing miseries of the agricultural workers and peasants are providing more opportunities for building a powerful agrarian movement. The CC meeting held in June 2014 decided to examine the impact of neo-liberal policies and the changes that have occurred in various classes and the differentiation within them. A study group was constituted comprising PB and CC members and subject experts in the field. The study group has submitted its report and the Central Committee will discuss the report and will arrive at appropriate conclusions later.