Explain Khwud-kashta and Pahi-kashta peasants.

In ancient Indian agrarian society, Khud-kashta and Pahi-kashta were classifications of peasants based on their relationship with the land and the mode of cultivation. These terms are commonly associated with the medieval period and reflect different forms of agricultural labor and land tenure.

1. Khwud-kashta Peasants:
   Khwud-kashta peasants were self-cultivating or independent cultivators who owned or leased their land directly from the landlord or the state. They were relatively autonomous in their agricultural practices, controlling the means of production and retaining a larger portion of the agricultural produce. Khwud-kashta peasants typically had more secure land rights compared to other categories of tenants or laborers. This autonomy allowed them to make decisions regarding crop choices, irrigation, and land management.

2. Pahi-kashta Peasants:
   Pahi-kashta peasants were dependent cultivators who worked on land owned by others, such as landlords, temples, or the state. They did not own the land they cultivated and were obligated to pay rent or share a portion of their produce to the landowner as a form of land revenue or tax. Pahi-kashta peasants had less autonomy and faced greater vulnerability due to their dependence on the landowner for access to agricultural resources.

The distinction between Khwud-kashta and Pahi-kashta peasants reflects the diversity of agrarian relations in medieval India, highlighting different forms of land tenure, labor arrangements, and socio-economic conditions. While Khwud-kashta peasants enjoyed more control over their agricultural activities and benefited directly from the fruits of their labor, Pahi-kashta peasants were tied to the landowners through tenancy agreements and faced varying degrees of economic insecurity.

Overall, the classification of Khwud-kashta and Pahi-kashta peasants underscores the complex nature of agrarian society in medieval India, characterized by diverse land tenure systems, hierarchical social relations, and differential access to agricultural resources. These categories illuminate the roles and statuses of peasants within the broader framework of feudal or semi-feudal economic structures, where landownership and labor relations played pivotal roles in shaping rural livelihoods and socio-economic dynamics.