Breaking down the question
The question asks for the impact of the Green Revolution on rural class structure — that is, on the arrangement of agrarian classes defined by their relation to land, labour and the market. The focus is sociological, not agronomic: yields and technology matter only insofar as they reshaped social relations in the countryside.
A strong answer explains the Green Revolution briefly, then analyses how the new technology altered the position of large farmers, middle peasants, small cultivators and agricultural labourers, and whether the net effect was greater equality or sharper differentiation. The debate between optimistic and critical readings gives the answer its analytical edge.
How to approach it
Define the Green Revolution and the pre-existing agrarian class structure. Then work through the effects on each stratum, drawing on the classic assessments — Francine Frankel on the political economy of the new strategy, Utsa Patnaik on capitalist differentiation, and Andre Beteille on agrarian class.
Organise the analysis around the central sociological finding: that the technology was scale-neutral but not resource-neutral, so its benefits flowed to those already advantaged, deepening class polarisation. Close with a balanced verdict. See the note on the Green Revolution and social change for fuller treatment.
Model answer
The Green Revolution — the package of high-yielding seeds, chemical fertilisers, assured irrigation and mechanisation introduced from the mid-1960s — was designed to raise food output. Its deeper sociological significance lies in how it transformed the rural class structure, especially in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.
Rise of a capitalist farmer class. The chief beneficiaries were the large and middle landowners who could afford the costly inputs and credit the new technology demanded. As Utsa Patnaik argued, they reinvested their surpluses, hired wage labour and produced for the market, evolving into a class of capitalist farmers. The technology was scale-neutral in principle but not resource-neutral in practice, so it rewarded those already endowed with land and capital.
Squeeze on small and marginal peasants. Small cultivators struggled to meet the cash costs of seeds, fertiliser and irrigation. Many fell into debt, mortgaged or sold land, and slipped toward the ranks of the landless. The gap between them and the prospering rich farmers widened — a process of agrarian differentiation of the peasantry.
Proletarianisation of labour. Displaced smallholders and existing landless workers swelled the agricultural labour force. While demand for wage labour and real wages initially rose in the dynamic regions, mechanisation — tractors, threshers, harvesters — later displaced labour, and older patron-client bonds gave way to impersonal cash-wage relations. This proletarianisation sharpened the divide between owners and workers.
Political and regional dimensions. Francine Frankel showed that the new prosperous farmers translated economic gain into political assertion, as seen in later farmers' movements over prices and subsidies. The benefits were also regionally uneven, concentrated in irrigated belts and largely bypassing dryland and eastern India, deepening inter-regional inequality.
Assessment. The dominant sociological verdict, shared by Patnaik and broadly by Andre Beteille, is that the Green Revolution consolidated a capitalist agrarian structure marked by sharper class polarisation — a strengthened landowning bourgeoisie above a growing rural proletariat. Optimists counter that rising output, employment and wages in the boom years brought real gains and that some middle peasants prospered. On balance, it raised production but, in the absence of prior land reform, entrenched inequality rather than easing it.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners look for a shift from description to class analysis — weak answers recite the components of the technology and its yield effects, missing the question's focus on social structure. The mark of a strong script is the distinction between scale-neutral and resource-neutral, which explains why a technically egalitarian innovation produced unequal social outcomes.
High-scoring answers trace the effect on each stratum, name scholars such as Patnaik and Frankel, and end with a reasoned verdict rather than a slogan. Noting the regional unevenness and the link to later agrarian politics adds depth and signals command of the field.