CLASS DIFFERENTIATION OF ANDHRA PEASANTRY 59 The most striking feature is that while in Anantavaram the landlords constitute 11.3 per cent of all families and own 73 per cent of the land, in Kaza the same category accounts for a mere 2.7 per cent of the families and 23.4 per cent of the land. On the other hand the rich peasants in Anantavaram, 6 per cent of all families., possess 10 per cent of the land, while in Kaza they form 10.2 per cent and claim 28 per cent of land ownership. The middle and poor peasants in Anantavaram, who make up 17.6 per cent of all families, own 8.5 per cent of the land, while in Kaza they form 36.7 per cent and own 37.6 per cent of the land. Another glaring contrast between the two villages is that the agricultural labour families in Anantavaram are 37.6 per cent of total against 16 per cent in Kaza. Further, in Anantavaram, the landless constitute 50 per cent of about 800 families, while in Kaza they are 25 per cent of 1030 families. In Kaza village, if all the land of the landlords covering 367 acres is distributed among the landless and those owning less than one acre (excluding those in jobs assuring them an income equal to that of middle peasants), it is just possible that each of these holdings will be an acre in size. So, apart from land distribution and productivity improvements, alternative employment has to be provided to draw away a large number of the rural poor from agriculture. Wage Labour A distinct feature of Kaza is that landlords lease out 52 per cent of their land and on the remaining 177 acres (11.3 per cent of village land) they engage 12.6 per cent of total agricultural labour days. In Anantavaram village, on the other hand, the landlords cultivating 73 per cent of land employ 81 per cent of the wage labour days. Moreover, in Kaza the rich peasants employ 43 per cent of the wage labour days cultivating 32 per cent of the land. The middle peasants employ 27 per cent of the wage labour days cultivating 33.4 per cent of the land, and the poor peasants employ 12 per cent of the wage labour days cultivating 19 per cent of the land. Evidently, the poor and middle peasants employ far less a percentage of wage labour days than the percentage of land they cultivate and make up for it by a greater contribution of family labour. Yet, they are employing a greater proportion of wage labour days than normally expected, higher than in Anantavaram where poor and middle peasants cultivating 14 per cent of the land employ only 6 per cent of the wage labour days. Thus, while in the struggle for agricultural wage increases, the main target would still be the landlords and the rich peasants in that order, extreme flexibility will have to be exercised for keeping the middle peasants and even the poor peasants on our side. This is all the more