THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
The Middle Class in India
The Indian Middle Classes : Their Growth in Modem Times by B B Misra; Oxford University Press, 1963.
Price Rs 25,
T H E c r u c i a l role o f the m i d d l e
class in a d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y
make it an i m p o r t a n t area of study
for the h i s t o r i a n , economist and
sociologist. Dr M i s r a ' s book is the
first f u l l - l e n g t h study of the I n d i a n
m i d d l e class on an a l l - I n d i a basis.
H e r e I s h a l l first summarise the
m a i n points made in the book and
then discuss certain issues w h i c h I
consider i m p o r t a n t .
M i s r a traces the g r o w t h of the
Indian middle-classes, i e, "the
class of people w h i c h arose as a
result of changes in the B r i t i s h
social p o l i c y and w i t h the i n t r o -
d u c t i o n of the new economic sys-
t e m and i n d u s t r y and w i t h the sub-
sequent g r o w t h of new professions",
f r o m about the m i d d l e of the
eighteenth century to modern times.
He frequently refers to the situa-
t i o n before the B r i t i s h r u l e (under
the M u g h a l E m p i r e ) for the sake
of c o m p a r i s o n .
The author's chief contention is
that the factors responsible for the
emergence of the Indian middle
class were different f r o m those res-
ponsible for the emergence of the
m i d d l e class i n the West. I n the
latter case, the m i d d l e class came
i n t o existence thanks m a i n l y to the
I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n of the eigh-
teenth century w h i c h b r o u g h t about
large-scale mechanical production
as a result of economic and tech-
nological change. The Indian
m i d d l e classes emerged due to the
changes that occurred in the course
of about 200 years of B r i t i s h r u l e
l a r g e l y as a result of changes in
B r i t i s h l a n d and legal policies
f o l l o w e d b y the introduction of
Western education and technology,
m o d e r n capitalist enterprise, of i m -
proved c o m m u n i c a t i o n s and com-
m e r c i a l progress. P r i m a r i l y , it is
an historical sutvey o f Indian
m i d d l e class w i t h reference to its
c o m p o s i t i o n , character a n d role.
T h e book i s d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r
parts. T h e first part deals w i t h
the p r e - B r i t i s h era. T h o u g h the
i n s t i t u t i o n s conducive to c a p i t a l i s t
g r o w t h (e g, artisan i n d u s t r y , occu-
pational specialisation, a separate
Karuna Chanana
class of merchants organized in
g u i l d s , a class of m i d d l e - m e n a n d
also a developed money economy)
were present in this era, the p o l i -
tical and social systems were
against c a p i t a l i s m and hindered
the g r o w t h of the m i d d l e class. T h e
k i n g was an absolute despot and
monopolized any p r o f i t a b l e sphere
o f t r a d e . ( S o people d i d not invest
t h e i r money i n trade. The b u l l i o n
i n I n d i a remained stocked i n houses.
I t was not utilized in productive
investment thereby p r e v e n t i n g the
circulation of w e a l t h w h i c h was
essential f o r c a p i t a l i s t g r o w t h . T h e
k i n g , who c o u l d u t i l i z e his w e a l t h
i n p r o d u c t i v e investment, spent i t
m a i n l y for his personal comforts.
Caste System
The caste system hampered occu-
pational m o b i l i t y and technological
change. T h e priest and the k i n g
or the w a r r i o r caste l o o k e d d o w n
u p o n trade a n d i n d u s t r y . T h e l o t
of the artisan was very poor in
spite of the presence of developed
u r b a n i n d u s t r y m a k i n g fabrics and
l u x u r y goods w h i c h was based on
small-scale domestic production.
The artisan w o r k e d f o r very l o w
wages in the 'karkhanas' monopoliz-
e d b y the k i n g . T h e b r o k e r w h o
acted as m i d d l e - m a n between the
trader and the r u r a l artisan was
interested i n his o w n p r o f i t , not i n
the i m p r o v e m e n t of the q u a l i t y of
goods. T h e t i l l e r s and owners of
the l a n d were not i d e n t i c a l . The
owners extracted the utmost f r o m
these who t i l l e d the l a n d . Thus
w e a l t h accumulated o n l y i n the
h i g h e r levels. L a n d economy and
l i m i t e d education also proved to be
further barriers. Caste was closely
related to the law of p r o p e r t y ,
w h i c h encouraged the observance of
caste rules in order to succeed to
one's share in the l a n d . T h u s l a n d
economy encouraged caste distinc-
tions a n d h i n d e r e d the g r o w t h of
trade, e g, a trader c o u l d not o w n
l a n d because he belonged to a cer-
tain caste. Moreover, different
occupational groups h a d k n o w l e d g e
related to t h e i r field o n l y , e g, a
t r a d e r knew c o m m e r c i a l accounts.
April 11, 1964
L i t e r a r y classes were i g n o r a n t of
crafts and trade. T h u s occupa-
tional specialization depended on
inherited occupations a n d could
not be adopted by the other castes.
T h a t is w h y l i m i t e d education was
a handicap. As such there was no
incentive f o r improvement or for
the expansion of the existing trade
and i n d u s t r y .
The second p a r t of the book deals
w i t h the changes b r o u g h t about by
a c e n t u r y of East I n d i a Company's
r u l e w h i c h set free the process of
the g r o w t h o f the I n d i a n m i d d l e -
class w i t h the advent of p o l i t i c a l
s t a b i l i t y , contractual relations. Cus-
t o m was replaced b y l a w . T h e B r i -
tish b r o u g h t w i t h t h e m a p o l i t i c a l
and economic organisation based
o n r a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h ignor-
ed caste distinctions. Caste was
i g n o r e d by the system of Western
education as w e l l . Increase in ex-
ternal trade created c a p i t a l re-
sources f o r i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n .
The h i g h e r castes were the first
to take advantage of the c h a n g i n g
conditions as they already occupied
higher t r a d i t i o n a l social, economic
and p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n . T h e y shifted
to u r b a n centres and received edu-
cation. They took to new and
profitable occupations and were
l i m i t e d to u r b a n centres especially
to the Presidency towns because of
the concentration of w e a l t h a n d of
educational i n s t i t u t i o n s in those
towns.
The r i s i n g middle-class consisted
of four categories of people accord-
i n g t o the r o l e p l a y e d b y them i n
the new economy.
( a ) The c o m m e r c i a l middle-class
of m i d d l e m e n a n d brokers were
found w i t h the foreign companies
and in the indigeneous m e r c a n t i l e
and b a n k i n g houses in the latter
part of the eighteenth century. T h e
i n d i g o p l a n t a t i o n s gave rise i n r u r a l
area? to a c l e r i c a l and supervisory
group of persons and a g r o u p of
contractors w h o d i s t r i b u t e d advan-
ces and s u p p l i e d the plants. M o r e -
over a class of specialists in busi-
ness a d m i n i s t r a t i o n grew w i t h the
683
 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY April 11, 1964

681
 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
o p e n i n g up of trade, banks and the
m a n a g i n g agency system in 1833.
( b ) The money-lenders, the bro-
kers, the banias, the agents and the
creditors, i e, the new moneyed
class invested their money in l a n d
w h i c h became transferable due to
the B r i t i s h p o l i c y . In addition,
there were people w h o held l a n d
on lease on behalf of the i n d i g o
factory ( f o r before 1830 planters
were not p e r m i t t e d to buy lands of
their o w n ) . The recognition o f
the rights of the under-tenures in
1765 also gave b i r t h to a landed
middle-class.
(c) The i n d u s t r i a l m i d d l e class
was very small because the g r o w t h
of industry was very slow. The
first to invest money in i n d u s t r y
were the E n g l i s h C i v i l Servants,
f o l l o w e d i n i t i a l l y by other Euro-
peans and then by some Bengalis
in Calcutta and Parsis in Bombay.
( d ) The educated m i d d l e class
comprised of a class of professio-
nals w h i c h emerged w i t h the i n t r o -
d u c t i o n of Western education and
technology. The changes in the
system of law gave rise to a class
of lawyers. Then emerged doctors
and engineers, printers and p u b l i -
shers. A l l the higher technical and
administrative posts were monopoliz-
ed by Europeans and A n g l o - I n d i a n s .
The p r i m a r y characteristic of
these four groups f o r m i n g the
I n d i a n m i d d l e classes was that they
acquired prestige not through social
status but t h r o u g h education, wealth
and power.
The t h i r d part of the book deals
w i t h the further changes brought
about in economic development,
land p o l i c y . educational p o l i c y
(from 1857 to 1947) w h i c h fur-
thered the g r o w t h of the professio-
nal classes w i t h the end of the
company's rule in 1858.
The author discusses the g r o w t h
of foreign trade and j o i n t stock
companies and Indian-owned banks
and m a n u f a c t u r i n g industries under
the p o l i c y of protection introduced
in 1923. T h i s economic develop-
ment was l i m i t e d l a r g e l y to the
u r b a n centres.
F o r m e r l y ( i n 1786-1790) C o r n -
w a l l i s i n c l u d e d o n l y the zamindars
in the m i d d l e class, but n o w the
concept of the m i d d l e class i n c l u d e d
a l l the a g r i c u l t u r a l classes (the
zamindars, peasant p r o p r i e t o r s and
resident c u l t i v a t o r s ) . At this stage
l a n d p o l i c y was designed to develop
a g r i c u l t u r a l produce t o feed B r i -
tain's i n d u s t r y . The corporate cha-
racter of the villages was destroyed
by p a r t i t i o n suits as w e l l as f r o m
the freedom w i t h w h i c h property
c o u l d be transferred by sale. The
class of salaried employees and
money-lenders who invested money
i n l a n d grew w i t h the expansion o f
commerce, thus transferring land
f r o m the c u l t i v a t i n g c o m m u n i t y to
the c o m m e r c i a l classes.
The importance of educating
Indians on a larger scale was rea-
lized but due to l i m i t e d funds
colleges and schools c o u l d not be
opened in r u r a l areas. T h e y were
opened o n l y in the u r b a n centres.
The rate of progress of higher edu-
c a t i o n increased in 1880 and the
following decade. D u r i n g this
p e r i o d there was shift of emphasis
f r o m higher t o p r i m a r y education
a n d f r o m urban to r u r a l education.
Curzon also saw the need of co-
o r d i n a t i n g technical education w i t h
i n d u s t r i a l development a n d thus
technical schools and colleges were
established. The professional classes
grew r a p i d l y . The p u b l i c servants
and men in the l i b e r a l professions
were m a i n l y h i g h caste people,
especially B r a h m i n s .
Educated Middle Class
The f o u r t h part of the book deals
w i t h the p e r i o d after 1905. It is
m a i n l y a discussion of the r o l e of
the educated m i d d l e class. Their
class-consciousness made them
aware of their interests. They
opposed any measure in favour of
the peasantry and the working-class
and favoured only trade and
industry.
The upper m i d d l e class propa-
gated Western ideas and the West-
ern way of l i v i n g and started re-
formist movements l i k e the B r a h m o
Samaj and the P r a r t h a n a Samaj.
On the other hand, the lower
middle-class comprised the dissatis-
fied educated people w i t h low i n -
come, who started the revivalist
movement of A r y a Samaj w i t h a
view to revive the t r a d i t i o n a l r e l i -
gion and ideas in o p p o s i t i o n to
f o r e i g n d o m i n a t i o n , education and
religion. T h i s class started the
freedom movement and brought
about the Independence of I n d i a .
The Congress has been equated w i t h
l o w e r middle-class, t h o u g h it was
backed by u p p e r - m i d d l e class.
The p r e - B r i t i s h era and the pe-
r i o d of East I n d i a C o m p a n y are
April 11, 1964
sufficiently dealt w i t h whereas the
changes w h i c h were more r a d i c a l
and i m p o r t a n t under the B r i t i s h are
not given in sufficient d e t a i l . A l s o
the most i m p o r t a n t p e r i o d of the
rise of the middle-class and
i n d u s t r i a l development after 1905,
which required a detailed dis-
cussion, has been given scant
attention. M i s r a does not even
attempt to define the t e r m " m i d d l e -
class'' and his definition of the t e r m
"social class'' is rather vague be-
cause a l l the three hierarchies of
class, status and power have been
confused. T h i s happens m a i n l y be-
cause M i s r a tries to evolve a new
terminology.
M a r x defined class in terms of
the organisation of p r o d u c t i o n .
Ownership or non-ownership of the
means of p r o d u c t i o n was the most
i m p o r t a n t c r i t e r i o n u n d e r l y i n g the
cleavage of societies i n t o classes.
Each g r o u p of men w h o occupied
the same p o s i t i o n in the productive
system of relations formed a class.
T h o u g h M a r x was aware of other
aspects of stratification he thought
that this was the most i m p o r t a n t
one. These economic differences
were then c a r r i e d into every major
aspect of social l i f e .
Weber made a c r u c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n
between the three orders of stratifi-
cationclass, status and power. The
first refers to the groupings of peo-
ple according to their market posi-
t i o n . T h o u g h it is s i m i l a r to the class
of M a r x , it is different in that it is
more l i m i t e d and specific. The eco-
nomic differences are related to the
other aspects of social life to the
extent that they determine the qua-
l i t v of social honour, i e. prestige.
A n d prestige forms the basis of an-
other system of stratification, viz,
'status' and not of 'class'. They may
overlap to a considerable extent.
P o l i t i c a l power forms the basis of
the t h i r d system of stratification
viz. Party.
M i s r a defines social class as fol-
l o w s : " T h e concept of a single so-
c i a l class i m p l i e s social d i v i s i o n
w h i c h proceeds f r o m the i n e q u a l i -
ties and differences of man in so-
ciety, w h i c h may be n a t u r a l or eco-
n o m i c . It is chiefly the economic in-
e q u a l i t y of man that influences, if
it does not w h o l l y determine, social
differentiation. ft arises basically
f r o m the difference of relationship
which a person or a group bears
to p r o p e r t y or the means of produc-
t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n . " ''This p r i n -
685
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY April 11, 1964.

686
 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
c i p l e of r e l a t i o n s h i p to p r o p e r t y is
q u a l i t a t i v e i n character i n that i t
determines the q u a l i t y of social ho-
nour, or lack of in w h i c h we c a l l
'status'," ( p 2 ) ,
Income is o n l y quantitative in
character in that it is a means to
the creation of wealth. It becomes
q u a l i t a t i v e when invested in land or
i n d u s t r y , i e, in p r o p e r t y , and thus
changes the status of an i n d i v i d u a l
or group. Otherwise it merely pro-
duces a h i e r a r c h y of prestige and
power a c c o r d i n g to variations in its
size. M i s r a proceeds further and
says, "Society is thus d i v i d e d into
classes or groups of people joined
together f r o m motives of common
economic interest, c o m m o n ways of
behaviour and c o m m o n traits of cha-
racter. Each such class forms a hie-
rarchy of status according to the
v a r y i n g q u a l i t y of social prestige
and power expressed through the
standard of l i v i n g , nature of occu-
pation and wealth.'" | p 3 ) .
class and Status
Thus we find that Misra starts by
defining social class in relationship
to p r o p e r t y . He admits that income
is merely quantitative in character.
He also makes a distinction between
'class' and 'status'. when he says
that social honour is derived f r o m
the ownership of p r o p e r t y . Rut when
he goes further he loses sight of the
d i s t i n c t i o n between the two, and
brings in 'power' under 'status'. He
also includes common ways of be-
haviour, style of l i v i n g , and com-
m o n traits of character in the con-
cept of 'class'. These two c r i t e r i a
u n d e r l y the concept of 'status'. S i m i -
l a r l y , he has included ' p o w e r , the
basis of Weber's concept of Party
in the concept of "status'. Power'
is distinguishable from 'prestige' and
the t w o are not identical. During
the discussion he also tends to con-
fuse the various terms group, cate-
gory w i t h class ip 166) and at one
place he even confuses caste and
class (p 1 4 8 ) .
L o o k i n g at the heterogeneous
c o m p o s i t i o n of Misra's middle-class,
one is b o u n d to ask, " W h a t is the
c r i t e r i o n g o v e r n i n g this classifica-
t i o n " ? He has included owners and
non-owners of the means of produc-
t i o n a n d has also excluded some of
the owners of p r o p e r t y . It is appa-
rent that he has not used his defi-
n i t i o n of 'social class' consistently,
because the basis of it is c e r t a i n l y
not the relationship to p r o p e r t y as
landowners, government servants,
a n d persons in the l i b e r a l profes-
sions have a l l been l u m p e d together.
On the other hand, the largest a n d
smallest landowners are placed in
other classes, t h o u g h a l l the land-
owners stand in a s i m i l a r relation-
ship to the means of p r o d u c t i o n . It
seems that he takes income as the
u n d e r l y i n g c r i t e r i o n of this classifi-
cation, not the relationship to the
means of p r o d u c t i o n . H e r e he uses
the concept of class as evolved by
W a r n e r , C D H Cole and others.
T h i s is also evident in the classifi-
cation of the m i d d l e class i n t o two
sub-classes. T h i s sub-classification is
based p u r e l y on income. A c c o r d i n g
to M i s r a , the lower-income g r o u p
(pp 366, 393) f o r m the lower-mid-
dle class.
Even Warner's concept of class
is not a p p l i c a b l e here because the
various groups f o r m i n g M i s r a ' s m i d -
dle class b e l o n g to different castes
and do not even have a c o m m o n
style o f l i v i n g . B r o a d l y speaking,
M i s r a ' s contention, that the m i d d l e
class has a c o m m o n style of l i v i n g ,
is true to some extent. Hut l o o k i n g
at the v a r i a t i o n s in customs and
style of l i v i n g of the various castes
f o r m i n g the m i d d l e class, one is
b o u n d to doubt the v a l i d i t y of this
statement. T h i s is p r i m a r i l y because
he has not p a i d sufficient attention
to caste.
T h o u g h it is not mentioned clear-
l y , it may be i n f e r r e d that he takes
the members of the I C S, E n g l i s h -
men and Europeans o c c u p y i n g se-
n i o r managerial and technical posts
and the b i g landowners as the ele-
ments of the upper class. F u r t h e r he
places the industrialists in the m i d -
dle class. On what basis does he
classify the industrialists ? Obvious-
ly it is not based on the ownership of
the means of p r o d u c t i o n because he
excludes the largest landowners. Is
it based on income? If it is so,
why does he exclude the largest
landowners. Is he justified in p l a c i n g
Talas m the m i d d l e class? M o r e -
over, he equates the r u r a l popula-
t i o n w i t h the lower classes w h e n he
refers to the neglect of r u r a l edu-
cation, ( p p 160-61). The basis of
his classification of different groups
into classes is not clear as e x e m p l i -
fied in the above instances.
Arbitrary Use of Terms
M i s r a has made a r b i t r a r y use of
the terms class, higher classes, h i g h
castes a n d social stratification. T h i s
April 11, 1964
is due to the lack of conceptual defi*
nitions and the reader has to infer
the meaning of these terms by h i m -
self. W h i l e discussing the emergence
of the class system in I n d i a he says
"'land economy and l i m i t e d educa-
t i o n were both obstructive to social
stratification"., (p 1 0 ) . W h a t he
means to say is that the class sys-
tem, not the caste system, is a sys-
tem of social stratification. T h e lat-
ter has other aspects too.
The author has p a i d cursory atten-
tion to caste, t h o u g h he admits that
it was a very i m p o r t a n t element in
the I n d i a n society. He s h o u l d have
given a regional d i s t r i b u t i o n of the
various castes f o r m i n g the so-called
m i d d l e classes and examined them
in relation to the new system of
classes. hi this context he s h o u l d
also have treated the g r o w t h of the
m i d d l e class r e g i o n a l l y a n d not con-
sidered a general discussion of its
emergence enough. T h i s w o u l d not
have a l l o w e d h i m to i g n o r e the
South, especially Madras Presidency
and Maharashtra, to the extent that
he has done. He has p a i d more at-
tention to Bengal and B i h a r and less
attention to Bombay and Western
I P.
It w o u l d have been interesting to
find out if the caste system was ac-
t u a l l y transformed into the class
svstem or the same system was
transplanted to the u r b a n centres,
i m p l y i n g thereby that there was
l i t t l e change in the caste system.
Misra has tried to dispose of the
p r o b l e m of the caste-composition
merely by stating that the h i g h
castes formed the middle-class. T h e
term "high castes' w i l l not suffice.
It is not even clear what exactly he
means by this term. He classifies
Kayasthas both as l o w caste and as
h i g h caste, ( p p 53, 322, 3 9 3 ) . T h i s
is due to the lack of an adequate
framework w i t h i n w h i c h t o place
these castes. H i s contention that
Brahmins dominated i n a l m o s t a l l
the regions, especially in South
I n d i a , is debatable. Nairs a n d Chris-
tians dominated in Kerala while
Khatris and Aroras dominated in
P u n j a b ; Bania and Kayastha i n
U P; and B r a h m i n , B a i d y a Kayas-
tha and B a n i a in Bengal. He has not
even mentioned the Jews of Calcut-
ta and Parsis of B o m b a y . Ghurye
and G a d g i l have also treated this
p r o b l e m . 1 N K Sinha has given the
caste c o m p o s i t i o n of some of the
occupational groups in Calcutta
w h i c h shows that even some lower
687
 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
castes moved up after making
money," The T e l is of Eastern I n d i a
i m p r o v e d their p o s i t i o n w i t h the ac-
q u i s i t i o n o f wealth. Even i n Bengal
some lower castes commanded pres-
tige after a c q u i r i n g wealth in the
changed conditions. These castes
were the T e l is, Subarnabaniks and
Ugrakshatriyas. R e f e r e n c e to Brah-
mins. Kayasthas and Banias, the
castes w h i c h took advantage of the
changed p o l i t i c a l and economic con-
d i t i o n s are very vague indeed and
do not solve the p r o b l e m of caste-
c o m p o s i t i o n of the m i d d l e class.
The author seems to suggest that
the change f r o m the caste system
to the class system was very r a p i d .
He writes that "regardless of their
o r i g i n a l standing in society'', specia-
lists in business a d m i n i s t r a t i o n were
awarded higher salary and superior
status, (pp 80. 1 0 0 ) . W a s it r e a l l y
so? C o u l d one c o m m a n d prestige by
wealth and power as stated by h i m ?
T h i s can be tested o n l y if one has
a knowledge of the " o r i g i n a l stand-
i n g ' ' of the persons who took to the
new occupations. The degree of
change f r o m the caste system to the
class system can be measured o n l y
in r e l a t i o n to the caste system. H i g h
castes commanded prestige and
wealth in the t r a d i t i o n a l social sys-
tem and it was easier for them to
take up new occupations. So the
change w o u l d be less if they took
to new occupations because they
w o u l d occupy h i g h social position
in the class system s i m i l a r to that
in the caste system. On the other
hand, change w o u l d be more radi-
cal if the l o w e r castes raised their
status in the class system by earn-
i n g wealth t h r o u g h new occupations.
T h i s c o u l d t h r o w l i g h t on the prob-
l e m o f occupational m o b i l i t y w h i c h
is c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e d by the author.
Further, rural-urban contact
s h o u l d have been dealt w i t h . W h i l e
discussing the g r o w t h of m i d d l e -
classes in urban centres, it is i m -
possible to ignore its r e l a t i o n s h i p
to the r u r a l areas. V a r i o u s interest-
i n g questions can be asked in this
context, e g, w h o invested money in
l a n d ? W h a t was the p o s i t i o n of the
new l a n d l o r d s in the villages? W h a t
happened to the landowners w h o
sold their l a n d ? W h i c h e v e r profes-
sion they adopted after m i g r a t i n g to
towns, people s t i l l m a i n t a i n e d con-
tact w i t h the r u r a l areas and the
l a n d they left b e h i n d . A c c o r d i n g to
M i s r a , money flowed f r o m u r b a n to
r u r a l areas as investment in l a n d .
688
i m p l y i n g thereby, that it was a one-
way process; whereas in matter of
fact the money earned f r o m land
was also invested in trade and com-
merce 3 and also in education. As an
example for the latter, it m a y be
mentioned that the c h i l d r e n of Za-
m i n d a r s of Bengal went to E n g l a n d
for h i g h e r studies.
A c c o r d i n g to the author the
g r o w t h of the middle-class was res-
tricted to the u r b a n areas. Nowhere
does he discuss the " g r o w t h of
t o w n s " which is a very i m p o r t a n t
factor in any analysis of the emer-
gence of the middle-class.
Pro-British Appronch
M i s r a constantly gives the impres-
sion that the emergence of I n d i a n
middle-class has been very r a p i d
and smooth, and that a l l B r i t i s h
policies encouraged trade, industry
and education. But here one may
question the v a l i d i t y of his view,
because lie .seems to have ignored
the factors w h i c h hampered the
g r o w t h of middle-class. H i s ap-
proach tends to be p r o - B r i t i s h and
not c o m p l e t e l y objective. For ins-
tance, he overlooks the curbs i n t r o -
duced by Curzon in 1904 on the
education of Indians, and the par-
t i a l i t y of the B r i t i s h for the A n g l o -
Indians. He does not p o i n t out the
position of those I n d i a n craftsmen
w h o were displaced w i t h the end of
the indigeneous i n d u s t r y , due to the
opening up of the I n d i a n market to
cheap manufactured goods f r o m
E n g l a n d . He does not comment on
the role of these craftsmen in the
emergence of the m i d d l e class and
t h e i r position in the new class sys-
tem.
A point on w h i c h this book does
throw l i g h t is the role of Western
education in the emergence of the
middle-class, i e, the role of educa-
t i o n in b r i n g i n g about social change.
It bears testimony to the fact that
education is an integral part of so-
cietv and that the t w o (education
and society) are closely inter-relat-
ed. Change in one necessitates change
in the other.
To start w i t h , schools and colle-
ges were opened in u r b a n centres
to i m p a r t education to people w h o
w o u l d act as media between the
government and the masses. This
was essential to i m p l e m e n t G o v e r n -
mental policies of land r e f o r m and
law. A w h o l e class of lawyers grew
up in this context. Technical educa-
tion had to be coordinated w i t h in-
d u s t r i a l development. Thus, techni-
April II, 1964
cal schools and colleges were open-
ed by Curzon to t r a i n subordinate
technical and supervisory staff. Later,
superior l n d i a n personnel was t r a i n -
ed to facilitate r a p i d i n d u s t r i a l ex-
pansion. W i t h the o p e n i n g up of
trade in 1883 a new pattern of busi-
ness was set u p . T h e separation of
mercantile f r o m the financial branch
of c o m m e r c i a l transactions brought
f o r t h specialization in services. Thus
economic and p o l i t i c a l systems ne-
cessitated a change in the system of
education.
A n o t h e r point h i g h l i g h t e d in this
book is that prestige c o u l d be de-
r i v e d from higher education and
w e a l t h , instead of social p o s i t i o n .
T h i s was made possible by the i n -
t r o d u c t i o n of the new educational
system. T h o u g h the change in values
was not r a d i c a l , it was significant.
It was the educated few w h o pro-
pagated Western ideas and ways of
l i v i n g . A section of the intelligent-
sia also revolted against the West-
ern ideas and ways of l i v i n g and
was able to m o b i l i z e the peasants
and workers against the r u l i n g gov-
ernment. The m i d d l e class lias been
equated w i t h the Congress by M i s r a .
W h e n Curzon saw the danger of
g r o w i n g awareness of their rights
a m o n g the educated he m o d i f i e d the
system of education. The educated
middle-class played a most i m p o r t -
ant role in b r i n g i n g about the I n -
dependence of I n d i a , c h a n g i n g the
p o l i t i c a l system of this c o u n t r y .
Thus education b r o u g h t f o r t h change
in the p o l i t i c a l and social set-up.
Change in the p o l i t i c a l and econo-
mic system was f o l l o w e d by change
in the system of education. T h i s re-
sulted in the i n t r o d u c t i o n of West-
ern education and technology.
M i s r a seems to have made no use
of the vast amount of l i t e r a t u r e
available on the system of social
stratification, especially class, where-
as a book on such a subject requir-
ed a f i r m grasp of this concept
w h i c h has been developed and re-
fined d u r i n g the past century. T h i s
absence of sociological awareness has
become a drawback even in the
treatment of h i s t o r i c a l facts w h i c h
happen to be the author's special
field of study. T h u s one constantly
receives an impression that the sub-
ject has not been discussed f r o m a l l
angles or developed to its f u l l scope.
A n d this is possible if the distinc-
tions between the three subjects of
sociology, economics, and h i s t o r y
 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY April II, 1964

are broken down. instead of the
three being treated as water-tight
compartments,
In certain places even the histori-
cal facts are not w e l l p r o v i d e d , nor
are they always accurate. As men-
tioned earlier, he has deliberately
ignored the hindrances which the
policies of the B r i t i s h put. in the
way of the r i s i n g middle-class. Ac-
c o r d i n g to M i s r a , the Permanent
Settlement and the a b o l i t i o n of the
customary rule of p r i m o g e n i t u r e in
Bengal formed the basis of the
emergence of the middle-class. This
seems to suggest that the rule of
p r i m o g e n i t u r e was prevalent where-
as he admiits in the b e g i n n i n g that
it was not a c t u a l l y so. A n d if it was
prevalent, it was a p p l i c a b l e o n l y to
local chiefs. Otherwise the institu-
tion of joint p r o p e r t y a l l o w e d d i v i -
sion in land w h i c h resulted in the
fragmentation of land. Thus the
fragmentation of land took place
even before the advent of the B r i t i s h .
( M i s r a . p 4 9 ; Sinha, p 3 4 ) . T h e
B r i t i s h o n l y added pace to the pro-
cess by m a k i n g land transferable
and by the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the sale
laws w h i c h necessitated sale of l a n d
in default of annual rent by a cer-
tain fixed date. ( G o p a l , p 2 0 ) . I n -
crease in p o p u l a t i o n in the r u r a l
areas was another incentive.
fragmentation was not caused by the
a b o l i t i o n of p r i m o g e n i t u r e .
gore. The fact that Swami Dayanand Rajagopalachari Gandhiji, Lala Laj-
belonged to l o w e r - m i d d l e class loses pat Rai, C K Das, V a l l a b h b h a i Pa
its significance when one realizes tcl B h u l a b h a i Desai, and Pandit
that his patrons and chief support- M a d a n M o h a n M a l a v i y a i n the
ers came from the aristocratic or lower m i d d l e class? The author's
rich families. W h i l e going through assumption that the lower m i d d l e
the preface of Satyartha Prakash, class initiated the freedom move-
one finds that it was w r i t t e n in the ment is questionable.
palace of Maharana of L d a i p u r .
A basic flaw in this book is the
who was the patron of S w a m i Daya-
absence of a theoretical f r a m e w o r k .
nand. On his first v i s i t to Punjab,
the host of Swami Dayanand was a
retired M u s l i m c i v i l surgeon of La-
hore and a K h a n Bahadur. The
largest f o l l o w i n g of these leaders
might have come from the lower-
m i d d l e class, but that was not true
of the leaders. In fact, examples can
be cited to prove that m a n y leaders
of the independence movement d i d
not belong to the l o w e r - m i d d l e class,
as stated by M i s r a . To name a few,
can we place the Nehrus. A u r o b i n -
do Ghose, Subhash Chandra Bose,
Thus,

The author presents c o n t r a d i c t o r y

historical facts. W h i l e discussing the
patriarchal basis of pre-British
I n d i a n society, lie states that even
the largest landholders became poor
in course of t i m e due to the inheri-
tance laws, (p 5 0 ) . Afterwards he
seems to contest this point by stat-
i n g that the fragmentation in land
occurred o n l y w i t h the advent of
the B r i t i s h .
Misra equates the (imigress w i t h
m i d d l e class interests. T h i s has been
refuted by many. M i d d l e class peo-
ple and m i d d l e class interests are
two things and it is not legitimate
to identify the two. A n d his point
that l o w e r m i d d l e class, c o m p r i s i n g
of dissatisfied educated people w i t h
low income, started the revivalist
movements as well as the freedom
movement, is not h i s t o r i c a l l y true.
F i r s t l y , the i n i t i a t o r s and the main
supporters of B r a h m o Samaj and
A r y a Samaj d i d not belong to the
l o w e r - m i d d l e class e g . Raja R a m
M o h a n Roy and Devendranath Ta-
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY April 11, 1964