MIDDLE peasants, in the true sense of the term, are found mainly among the backward castes of Koiris, Yadavas and major sections of Kurmis. The lands operated by them are either fully owned or partly owned and partly leased in from upper-caste landholders. Only occasionally do they employ hired labour. It is rare for upper-caste middle peasants to lease in land, the overwhelming majority of them either lease out their land or get it cultivated through banihars or hired labourers. However, except operating the plough, considered to be a customary taboo, a good majority of them do put in self-labour in their fields. Particularly, Bhumihar middle peasants put in hard labour, in some cases nowadays they operate the plough as well. Among the backward castes, sections of Awadhia Kurmis, having moved up on the social ladder and encouraged by the abundant supply of cheap agrarian labour, have given up direct cultivation.

Middle peasants are linked with the landlords and kulaks through numerous economic ties such as trade, money-lending, land acquisition interests of the landlords, supply of credit and other input facilities from block offices and so on and so forth. And to top it all, there is the aspect of caste solidarity. Mobilised by the landlords on the basis of castes, middle peasants often serve as cannon-fodder in the former’s factional infightings as well as in their battle with agricultural labourers and poor peasants who are struggling for minimum wages and pieces of land.

However, as middle peasants mainly belong to the lower castes, they face the wrath of upper-caste landlords. There are also serious contradictions concerning the share of various facilities provided by government institutions, tenancy rates, control over communal and grazing lands etc.

The question of building solid unity with middle peasants, who make up nearly twenty per cent of the rural population, is a question of decisive importance in tilting the balance in favour of agrarian revolution. Recent changes in the agrarian scene and caste-baked rigid social divisions in the countryside of Bihar have rendered the task much more complicated.

Solid unity with middle and even rich peasants belonging to the Koiris and other backward castes down the social ladder develops rather easily due to the peculiar position of these castes. Hardworking by nature and oppressed by upper-caste landlords and harassed by widespread theft and dacoity, they quickly come over to the fold of revolutionary organisations. The most complicated is the question of unity with the Yadava middle peasantry, as they often obstruct the rural poor’s struggle against the zamindars by coming in between the two conflicting sides. For instance, often when a wage or land struggle against a zamindar reaches the verge of victory, he suddenly switches over from cultivation through hired labour to that through tenants, and in effect­ing this switch he finds readymade takers in the Yadavas. Thus the zamindar retreats into the background while the Yadavas come to the fore and the struggle naturally loses its edge. Then there are the questions of use of communal land, tanks etc. and struggle against theft and dacoity. All this leads to the contradiction with them taking a serious and sharp turn. But fortunately enough, such frictions prevail only in certain pockets and are not widespread. In fact, in many other cases they are quite good allies. Regarding relations with middle peasants belonging to the Awadhia Kurmis as well as various upper castes, the main questions are those of wages, vested land and social oppression.