Semi-Feudalism or Capitalism?

Contemporary Debate on Classes and Modes of Production in

India
Author(s): Alice Thorner
Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 50 (Dec. 11, 1982), pp. 1993-1999
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4371649
Accessed: 06-06-2019 10:48 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:48:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

Seni-Feudalism or Capitalism?
Contemporary Debate on Classes and Modes of
Production in India
Alice Thorner

For over a dozen years Indian and foreign marxists have beetn arguitng with passion, subtlety
and an abundance of statistics about the existing mode of production in Indian agriculture or, more
broadly, in India. There have been proponents of capitalism, pre-capitalism, semi-feudalism, coloniaA
and post-colonial modes, and recently, a dual mode.
From the beginning, the debate has been carried on simultaneously at several levels: that of the
individual cultivating unit, that of the agricultural sector of a particular region (eg, Punjab-Haryana
or Ecastern India) or of India as a whole, that of the entire economy of a region or of India as a
wchole; that of the colony-metropole relationship or of the imbrication of India in the w;orld economy.
A number of authlors have brought in freshly gathered field data, at the first and second levels to
buittress their arguments. Others have drawn upon the vast stock of data available from official sources
suchl as the Farm Management Studies, the Nationnal Samtple Survey, the Ruiral Credit Suirveys, the
Censuses and Agricultural Censuses and the Rural Labour Surveys. Some authors have used historical
souirces to document their analyses of nineteenth century developments. Several of the economista have
employed mathematical models. A handful have restricted themselves to purely theoretical exercises.
This paper seeks to delineate the main issues at stake int the debate, enmbracing nodes, forces
and relations of production; modes of exploitation; agrarian classes; social forma(tions, contradictions
aind articulations; mnovements and dominant tendencies; effects of imperialismz and of centre-perip
linlks; and recommendations for praxis.
This is the seconid part of the paper which is being published in thrcc )(Irts. The first part
appeared last week.

Rural Class Structure
JOAN MENCHER, NIRMAI. CHANDRA,
UTSA PATNAIK, ASHOK RUDRA.
FIBANAB BARDHAN, PIRADIIAN PRASAD,
JOHN HARRISS
AN important reason put forwxard by
Joan Mencher for trying to understand
the nature of socio-economic classes
in rural areas is *to try to find an
explanation of whv peasant organisa-
tions have deve.oped in certain
r egions of India, but not elsewhere,
"wvhy people in one area are
involved in conitinual revolt, while
those in another area are relatively
(uieseent". (Mencher 1974) Looking
at village India (i e, rtling out tribal
tracts such as Naxalbari) in recent
years, Mencher concludes that move-
ments have occurred "where there is
a strong. polarisation between landless
and all others". In effect, these are
areas with a large agrictultural labour
class, although peasant organisations
are not strong in all suich areas. In
the South Indian context, Mencher
asserts, Eric Wolf's hypothesis that it
is middle peasants who constitute the
pivotal groups for peasant uprisings
does not hold. Rather it has been the
landless labourers "unconstrained by
possible ties to the land" who have
been the main agi'ators or strikers.
Meiucher contrasts developments in
two regions known for successftl
organisation of landless labourers and
sharp agrarian conflicts - Thanjavur
in Tamil Nadu anid Kuttanad in KeraTa
- with Chingleput district, also in
Tamil Nadu. In Chingleput, Mencher
points out, there is a large proportion
of agricultural labourers, but in any
given year a handful of these landless
families may become share-croppers
"on a 50/50 basis if they have bul-
locks; if not, on a 1-to-6 basis". Com-
petition for obtaining land on crop-
share acts to inhibit iinity among the
landless, as alsc between peasants
with small plots of their own who
equally hope to rent . in additional
fields from the same land-owners. The
ruiral bigwigs, for their part, are quite
capable of jtugaling tenancies not only
to prevent the actual cultivators from
being able to claim customary rights
but precisely to kIeep the poor divided
and ealderless.
Thlus, one way of handling a poten-
tial organiser of the landless or of
the smnall peasants has consistently
been to threaten that he might not
get any share-cropping land for the
next season or for the next year.
(Mencher 1974)
Mencher calls attention to the use
of caste alfegiances "by people in the
system, as well as by outside obser-
vers. to mask class differences". For
example, well-to-do members of mlid-
dle-ranking castes may give land prc-
ferentially- to their own poor caste
mates, who are thus led to identify
with the village landed.
On the basis of detailed informnatioin
which she gathered in 10 villages stu-
died in 1966-67 and 1970-71, Mencher
proposes "a very rough socio-economic
classification of the rural population of
Chingleptit District". Her roster of six
classes amnong "the population whichb
(derives its miiain stubsistence from land,
in onie wvav or another" begins at the
botoom. She characterises in order:-
(1) The landless - "those who pri-
rmarily (lerive their livelihood
from working in agriculture
either as day-labourers, as at-
tached permanent labourers for
particular landlords, or as ... a
kind of share-cropper, receiving
one portion for every six retain-
ed by the landowner".
(2) Poor peasants - "those who

1993o

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:48:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
December 11, 1982 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

own small pieces of land, bet-
ween 1 and 2.5 acres, small
enough to require that on oc-
casion some of the members of
a household do day-labour".
(3) Middle peasants - "those who
are clearly self-sufficient and
able to sustain themselves with-
out ever doing coolie-work...
Households with over 2.5 acres
of Jland are employers of lab-
our, and rarely go out as man-
ual labourers themselves"
(4) Rich farmers - "those having
between about 7.5 and 15"
acres, "not only self-sufficient
outside of the village or to have ad- PERCENTAGES OF HOUSEHOLDS IN
ditional sources of income "which add DIFFERENT RURAL CLASSES IN
to the households' resource base and BURDWAN VILLAGES (N CHANDRA 1975b)
serve to,raise them further in the socio-
economic sphere". (Mencher 1974) (a) (b)
Agricul- Income
In the Chingleput villages studied by tural from
Mencher, class and caste hierarchies Income All
overlap to a considerable degree. only Sources
Landless households (those owning less landlords 3.5 2.4
than one acre) were mostly Vanniyars jotedars 19.2 10.8
rich peasants 16.0 19.8
(low-caste) and Paraiyans (untouch-
middle peasants 9.0 15.0
ables). Proportionately fewer untouch-
i

ables were to be found in the second, to'-al upper

they are also able to store
poor peasant, category. Large land- classes 47.7 48.0
surplus for a bad year, and
still have enough grain to sell to owners (over 30 acres) belonged almost
poor peasants 19.9
obtain cash for the purchase of exclusively to Brahman, Reddiar and agricultural
cocisumer goods. (Most have a
Mudaliar castes (these last two con-
transistor set or a regular radio, labour 30.3
sidered locally to be agriculturalist other 2.1
and if possible, electricity)".
(5) Rich farmers, capitalist farmers, castes), although the majority of house-
and traditional landlords holds in each of these castes had smal- the one side, and the poor peasants
"households owning between 15
ler holdings. and agricultural labourers on the
acres and approximately 30 acres
of land. In this category there Caste loyalties tend to blur class other. Given this quasi-equality, a
are three types of agriculturists: boundaries, as does the fact that struggle launched by the exploited half'
(a) "rich farmers who, apart against the exploiting half "would
fromn giving small parcels owners of even tiny plots become em-
of land to share-croppers, ployers of labour at peak mnoments for never get off the ground". (Nirmal
cultivate most of the land transplanting and harvesting rice. Thus Chandra 1975b)
themnselves with the help of "on the whole the well-to-do Vanniyars
An alternative political approach
coolies and actually go into
the fields and do some of have managed to keep the Vanniyar implicit in the two giant waves of
their manual work...." poor politically isolated and segregated peasant struggle, for the reforn of the
(b) "capitalist farmers ... who from the untouchable poor". On the tesancy system in undivided Bengal in
do not do physical labour other hand, "families in category 3 1946-47, and for the recovery and dis-
themselves...."
(middle peasants), and even many in tribution among the poor of surplus
(c) "traditional lanrdlords of the
old school. I hesitate to category 2 (poor peasants), do not see land in West Bengal in 1967-70, was
call them 'feudal' because a commonality of interest with the to concentrate on a struggle agaicist
this is an area that has been landless - not even with their own "one particular feudal remnant". The
subjected to capitalist pene-
tration for a long period.... landless relatives". (Mencher 19$74) difficu ty encountered was that in both
Mostly this category consists Nirmal Chandra, in the Frontier arti- cases "the exploiters were sometimes
of landowners who give men wi b very small means, asid had
their land on various kinds cles to which we have already referrred,
close friends and supporters among
of tenancy to labourers who delineates the rural classes in his
look after their land for Burdwan (West Bengal) villages in sections of the middle and poorer pea-
them." santry". Too many enemies were crea-
somewhat different fashion, and also
(6) Indeterminate class of large ted. This enabled the "most powerful
considers the imnplications of the class
landholders - "a few house- sections in rural society" to create divi-
holds in the over-3S-acre cate- structure for political action. He de-
gory.... I frankly question whe- fines as "upper classes" landed families sions among the ranks of the militants
ther it would even be useful to which do not depend to any signifi- and their fol'owers, and eventually to
decide if they are 'capitalist defeat the movements. Nirmal Chandra
fanners' o. 'feudal landlords'." cant extent on income from agricultural
wage-labour. These classes include proposes instead a two-stage approach
(Mencher 1974)
landlords "who depend mainly on their with left-wing political hegemony as
Putting together Census of 1971 fig-
rental income,", jotedars "those funec- the first g<oal. Once this has been
ures for Chingleput District and her
tioning in a capitalist manner", rich achieved, the main task becomes the
own survey data, Mencher provides an
elimination of all forms of exploita-
idea of the relative strength of the sixpeasants who are dependent upon non-
tion. He foresees the possibi'ity of a
classes. According to the Census, 43 family labour although engaging per-
inuimber of sub-stages in the course of
per cent of all working mnales in thesonally in some major field operations,
and middle peasants who cul'tivate with the movement "when the lines bet-
rural population of the district were
only marginal help from workers out- ween 'friendly' and 'hostile' elements
recorded as agricultural labourers.
Another 32 per cent were returned as side of the famnily. He proposes twNomay have to be redrawn". (Nirmal
(handra 1975b)
cultivators. The vast majority of these separate estimates of class strengths
latter, Mencher judges on the basis of which we can set out in tahullar form. Utsa Patnaik retuirns to the centre
her survey villages, belong to her cate- (a) taking into account only household of the debate in 1976 with an artic'e
gories 2 and 3, So far as concerns the agricultural income, and (b) according on class differentiation among the pea-
three upper classes, "Those owning to households income from all sources. santry. Citing evidence from successive
more than 7.5 acres, even of dry land, In other words, the villages are split censuises of landholdings, she empha-
are qfuite rare...". It is these same almost into equal halves between those sizes the extent of "concentrationi
well-to-do hou.seholds in which more with unearned incomes, ie, all who of the means of prodcuction". This high
-famnily mnember.s ten(l to be employedlea.se oult land or hire in wvorker.s degree
on of concentr ationi. Pa'naik rea-

1994

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:48:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (Alhok ludra 1978a)
Economxiic Class Clharacteristics
(1) Landlord Havin,g thus rlied out any theore-
(a) Capitalist Labour hiring greater than rent tical obligation to fit the whole of the
(1b) Feudal Labour hiring at most as high as rent
(2) Rich peasant agricultural population into one or
(a) Proto-bourgeois Labour hiring greater than rent another class category, Rudra proceeds
(b) Proto-feudal Labour hiring at most as high as rent to argue that there exist in Indian
(:3) Poor peasant
(a) Agricultural labourer agriculture today two, and only two,
operating land Hiring out greater than renit paytnent classes. These are "a class of big land-
(b) Petty tenant Hiring out at most as high as rent owners and a class of agricultural
labourers". The latter include landless
(4) Full-time labourer
(4) Full-tie outonlyform,npayment
labourerHiring out only form, no rent payment
labourers, landed labourers, and poor
sonIs, imyplies "a correspondingly high tenants who do not hire any labourers.
gories she further specifies two dif- (Rudra 1978c)
degree of economic differentiation ferent strata or divisions on the basis
within the cultivating population". of the predominant form of exploita- So far as the big landowners are
Thus, there is nao single 'representa- tion, whether wages or rent. The re- concerned, Rudra can discover no
tive' type of holding, but rather a sulting array of classes and divisions contradictions between those with
series of qualitatively distinct types, is shown in tabular form above. capitalistic features and those who
"which differ in the way their produc-Distinctions among the four main operate along feudal lines. There may
tion activity is organised". (Patnaik classes are those familiar to the be co-existence of more or 3ess feudal
1976) and more or less capitalist farmers "in
Marxist classics. Thus in the case of
big landowners, whether feudal or the same region, or in the same village,
At one end of the scale, Patnaik
continues, a small minority of house- capitalist, family mnembers do not per-or even in the same family". There
holds have resources so great in rela- form manual labour in major farm mnay in fact be co-existence of "some
operations. Supervision or operating traits typical of capitalists and some
tion to family size that they must rely
primarily on labour from outside tha machinery, Patnaik specifies, is not other traits typical of feudal land-
family. At the other pole, a large considered manual labour. Rich pea- owners in the same farmer". Rudra
proportion of households "which may sants do participate in manual work; also rejects the classical distinction
be the majority" have so few resources however their resource position is such between 'landlords' and 'rich peasants'
that in order to meet their family that appropriation of others' labour is on the basis of participation in the
consump:ion needs they must rely at least as important as use of family manual work of cultivation. In India,
primarily on working for others whetherlabour. The middle peasantry is pri- he maintains, this criterion is negated
as labourers or as tenants. In between marily self-employed since on the by the caste factor. In somne cases
these extremes we may expect to findaverage the resources per capita just even very smnall and impoverished land.
a middle category of petty producers suffice to employ adequately the sup- bolders will not take to the pbough
neither employing others nor employedply of familv labour and to provide a because they belong to upper castes.
by others. Taking together the Nationalliving "at a customary subsistence On the other hand, with the introduc-
Sample Survey figures on landholdinglevel". The poor peasant family must tion of mechanisation, one mnay find,
and the results of various Farm hire out its members for wages or lease for example in the Punjab, women
Management Surveys, Patnaik finds in land no matter how high the rent, members of families owning several
that "the majority of holdings in most or combine these two expedients. hundreds of acres who do not hesitate
regions do not fall into this category". Typically these families "cannot make to drive their own tractors. The class
The bulk of agricultural holdings, she ends meet and have to depress con- of big landowners, in Rudra's view,
argues, are so small that peasant fami- sumption standards below customary is "a single class" and also "a hybrid
lies must hire themselve out or take levels". The same is true of full-time class: part feudal, part capitalist". He
in land at high rents in order to make labour families; some of these may refers to it as the "ruling class in
ends meet. (Patnaik 1976) own small strips of land which they Indian agriculture". Apart from the
Reiterating her earlier contention do not cultivate, but lease ouit. But the big landowners and the agricultural
that the size of landholding is insuffi- labour equivalent of the rent received labourers, the rest of the population
cient as an indicator of class status is not large enough to balance, let may be disregarded: "they do not
among the peasantry (see Patnaik alone outxs eigh, the amount of family constitute or belong to any class or
1971b), Patnaik elaborates a composite labour hired out. (Patnaik 1976) classes". This classlessness results from
"labour-exploitation criterion", This Patnaik explains that her labour- the fact that, while they have contra-
ratio, to which she assigns the letter E,
exploitation criterion is designed to dictions among themselves, they do not
takes into account for each houisehold have clear contradictions with the two
bring out the rnecessity for the different
classes within the peasantry to enter principal cJasses. Or such contradictions
hiring in, hiring out, renting in, rent-
ing out, and use of family labour. Her into relations with each other in the "are of a subsidiary nature". Only the
E ratio, Patnaik stresses, "has been process of production. Ashok Rudra struggle between the two main classes
formulated as an empirical, and there- tmakes a very similar point in the first "can provide the motive force for any
fore descriptive approximation to the of three 1978 articles on class relationschanges in the agrarian strueture"..
(Rudra 1978c)
analytical concept of economic class".in Indian agriculture. Classes, he
(Patnaik 1976, italics in the original)understands, "are defined by class con- In his conclusion Rudra spells out
In much the same manner as Nirmal tradictions". The relations between the political implications of his class
Chandra, Patnaik distinguishes between classes are relations of production, but analysis. Since he lumps together land-
the exploiting classes -landlords and (here Rudra diverges) "not all relations lords revealing a preponderance of
rich peasants - and the exploited of production define classes". They capitalistic traits and those displaying
classes - poor peasants and Jabourers.define various "social groups", but a more feudalistic prose, Iludra sees
Within each of the first three cate-"only some social groups are pigses", no justificatiorl for "those who believe

1995

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:48:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in progress" to support "the assumed
capitalist forces against the assumned
feudal forces in an assumed struggle
between the two". He rejects scorn-
fully the concept of "an allianice of
the entire peasanitry from landless
labourers up to capitalist farmers
against the feudal landlords". Such a
political line, he pronounces, "cannot
but objectively betray the interests of
the peasantry not belong(ting to the
ruling class", and in particular the in-
terests of the agricultural labourers. In
point of fact, Rudra tells us, this is
what has happened in previous peasant
movemenits, "led by the political
parties of the country" which have
"by and large benefited the middle and
rich peasants, but not the landless or
the landed labourers". By contrast,
the line of political action which would
follow from Rudra's thesis "is onae of
struggle by the class of agricultural
labourers against the class of big land'
owners, without making any reserva-
tion on account of some members of
the ruling class revealing more capi-
talis.ic traits than some others". (Rudra
1978c)
Rudra's rather drastic disposal of
commonly held notions of class struc-
ture draws a comment from Pranab
Bardhan, who had previously worked
together with him in a large-scale
survey of land, labour and credit rela-
tions in West Bengal, Bihar and
eastern Uttar Pradesh. (Bardhan and
Rudra 1978). While listing five main
points on which he wishes to state his
agreement with Rudra, he specifies
two major disagreements. Essentially,
Bardhan approves Rudra's proposition
that the most important contradiction
in Indian agricultture is that between
big landowners (including rich pea-
san!s) and labourers (landed or
landless), and Rudra's criticism of
the political line adopted by Left
parties. But he takes Rudra to task for
denying the significance of the middle
peasants - who do not hire them-
selves out very often, or hire in much
labour of others, as a separate class.
For this purpose he cites data compiled
by his wife, Kalpana Bardhan, from
Farm Management Surveys carried out
during the years from 1967 to 1972 in
four states: Punjab, Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. Observ-
ing [hat the numerical strength of the
middle peasantry varies sharply from
one part of India to another, he calls
for a more extensive investigation of
the phenome-non. Bardhan also takes
exception to Rudra's assertion that
within the hybrid class of big land-
owners the feudal elements do nlot
have any contradictions with thle capi--
19919
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:48:33 UTC
talist elements. (Bardhan 1979) of his field work in the dry districts
Pradhan Prasad, writing in 1979 andof Tamnil Nadu. He defines his classes
according to two criteria - size of
1980 about Bihar in particular and, by
production resources (including land)
extension practically the whole of the
in relation to household livelihood re-
North-Indian ilindi-speaking belt (Ra-
jasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pra- quirements, and labour relations. This
desh), provides yet another array of gives four categories as follows:
agrarian classes. As Mencher did for (1) Capitalist farmers, with assets
South Indian, but with less precision, capable of realising more than
Prasad inidicates which castes tend to four times basic livelihood re-
be found in which classes.. His three quirements, employing a per-
ca'egories are as follows: malnent labour force, not con-
(1) Top peasantry, including land- tribulting personally more than
lords, who deem physical labour a very little family labour;
even on their own lands below (2) Rich peasants, with assets yield-
their dignity - upper castes. ing 2-4 times household require-
ments, possibly employing per-
(2) Middle and poor-middle pea-
manent labourers,, but substan-
santrv, who do manual work on
their own farms but do not tially dependent upon family
labour for others. The middle labour;
(3) Independent middle peasants,
peasants hire in agricu,tural
labourers; the poor-middle do whose assets yield 1-2 times
not - these are essentially household needs, employing
"nmiddle-caste Hindus (i e, back- principally family labour, mnay
ward castes other than schedul- sometimes do wage labour for
ed tribes)". others;
(3) Agrictultural labourers, "a size- (4) Poor peasants, whose assets do
able number of whom have not cover their livelihood re-
small operational holdings"; quireTnents, so that they must
these are drawn"mostly from depend primarily upon wage
scheduled castes, scheduled tribes labour, this group includes
and some middle caste Hindus". marginal farners' and agricul-
Prasad points to sharp contradic- tural labourers.
tions between the middle peasants, In the North Arcot village which
whose landholdings have increased Harriss studied intensively, he found
and whose overall economic position evidence of all the features of a well-
has become stronger over the past established capitalist mode of produc-
thirty years, and the top peasants - tion. He emphasises the dominant posi-
(Ioubled and made more acute by con- tion, consolidated since -the end of the
flict belween the "rising" middle last century, of a class of "landowning
castes and the "traditionally dominant"
moneylender merchants", belonging
upper cas'es. He also speaks of an preponderantly in this region to the
"emerging contradiction" between the Agamudaiyan Mudaliar caste. These
"landlords, cultivators and big pea- landowners operate in classical capi-
santry on the one side and the poor talist fashion. "Money has been invest-
peasantry on the. other". This anta- ed in agricultural production and pro-
gonistic relationship arises "out of semi- fits reinvested; and farmers sold a large
feudal "bondage", and is destined to portion of their output; and farmers
become less important "as the semi- employ wage labour...." (Harriss 1979)
feudal set-up disintegrates". It will
Despite the fact that some 80 per
be replaced by "another contradiction
cent of the households of the village.
between new upper caste Hindu kulaks
may be indebted, Harriss insists that
and the poor peasantry". At this stage,
the "dominant mode of appropriation
Prasad predicts, the landlords and big
of surplus in Randam is capitalist."
peasants will foaswear their earlier re-
(Harriss 1979) The distinctive element
sistance to modernisation and "will
in Harriss' contribution to -the debate
take steps to dynamicise their cultiva-
is his characterisation of the local
tion". In his words,
dominant class as merchants as well as
The fanning of caste passions
landowners and moneylenders.
which at one time led to a diffusion
of class contradictions, and thwart-
ed agricultural growth, now turns Mode of Production in Colonial
out to be a factor which may sharpen
the contradiction and cause the dis- India
integration of 'semi-feudal' produc- HAMZA ALAvI, ASHOK RUDRA, GAIL
tion relations in Bihar. (Prasad 1979,
OMIVEDT, JAIRUS BANAJI, KATHLEEN
COUGH, AMIYA K BAGCHI
At the other end of the subcontinent,
John Harriss provides a version of Starting in the middle of the 1970s,
the rural dlass structure on the basis a number of authors take up agai a
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 topic first tu ooted by Utsa Patnaik, "Thev do not r etaini "apar t from theirc'asses in the countrxside, viz, the
"the specificity of the colonial systenm". superficial f'orm, the essential nature sharecroppers
of anid the sm.aliholdicig
(Pal inaik 1972) lHam!za . Alavi, in his in-
the feudal relationships". Wheres the milddle peasants';" rather 'the picture
fluiential article on the colonial mode feudal econlomy wsas a system of 'simpleis that of "a great increase in peasant
of production, begins by postulating ieproduction' geaared to the cons- miilitancy". This is dtue to the "wide-
that neither 'feuidalismii' in colonial picuous conisuimpption of the lords, as spread destitution of all the subordi-
India nor contemporary rural 'capi- contrasted with the 'expanded repro- nate classes" brought about iby "the
talism' can be theoretically grasped ducttion' of capitalism, in which much development of 'capitalism' in Indian
except in the context of the world-wide of the surplus is invested to bring agricultture, insofar as it has gone and
structure of imperialism into which about a rise in the organaic composition in areas where it has progressed".
India was, and is, artictulated. This of capital, the colonial mode shares (Alavi 1975)
consideration, he continues, "should neither of these characteristics. Recent
In the body of the article it is never
leacl uIs toward a concept ion of a heavv investment in the colonial
quite clear to which period in India's
colonial mode of production" distinct agrari.an econotnv has taken place. only
recent history Alavi's colonial mode is
fromn both feudalism and capitalism in because of its "encapsulation" within
stupposed to apply. At the end he sug-
the metropolis. (Alavi 1975) If 'feudal' the highlv industrialised world gests that there is "by ac-d large, some
and 'capitalist' modes co-exist in India, econiomv, and also on account of the' degree of correspondance in time be-
Alavi insists, Marxist theory requires "subordinated indus'trial development tween the transition from the colonial
that they must be in contradiction: that has taken place within the colony to the post-colonial mode of produc-
cme emergent, the other disintegrating. itse:f uin(ler the aegis of the mnetro- tion, and {the achievement of political
In that case there is a necessity at politaIi- lbourgeoisie.' There is accord- independence". He also takes the pre-
each historical stage to specify which ingly, in the colonial miiode, a systemii caution of indicating that the "struc-
mode is dominant ainid which are the of expanded reproduction "but of a tural formation" which he has desig-
principal contradictions i,] the class deforned nature." More precisely,
nated as a "colonial miode of produc-
struggle, "as has been elaborated and
a substantial part of the surplus tion" does not constitute "a self-
explained by Mao Tse-tung". Yet, for generated in the colonial agrarian contained entity", since it 'cannot be
India, Alavi writes, no one has been economy (as well as that generated conceptualised except as 'part of a
able to demonstrate "any conflict be- in colonial industry is appropnated
by the imperialist bourgeoisie and large whole. The search for an alter-
tween the new rural 'capitalist' class
enters into expanded reproduction native terminology, he opines, "may be
and the 'feudal' landlords, if they cannot directly within the colonial a profitable semantic enterprise". (Alavi,
be struclurallv distinguiished at all".economy but rather at the imperialist 1975)
(Alavi 1975) centre. (Alavi 1975, cf Patnaik 1972)
Again, with regard to generalised com- Swift reactions from Ashok Rudra
Further Alavi finds it impossible to
rnoditv production, regarded as a and Gail Omvedt were largely favour-
postulate any contradiction between
able to Alavi. Both suggest ithe use of
criterion of capitalism in the colonial
"colonial 'feudalism' and metropolitan
world, this also is created by, and atthe term "social formation" for the
'capitalism', for it is precisely the lat-
the service of, the imperial economy. constellation of traits characterising the
ter which generates and supports the
Whereas fetudalism implied localised economy of colonial India. Rudra raises
former". The specific structures of the
production, localised appropriation and the problem of Alavi's vagueness with
colonial agrarian economy result direct-
a 1ocalised power structure, the coonial regard to the post-colonial phase.
lv from the action of imperial capital
regime "subordinated the power of the Om'vedt holds that conflicts between
which "disarticulates the internal
local lords" to its own framework of capitalist and feudal elements do exist.
economv of the colony [to use Amin's
the "colonial bourgeois state". (Alavi "The expanding thrust of the capitalist
fruitful. concept]" and integrates these 1975) sector," she writes, "is continually
disarticulated segments into the m etro- frustrated by agrarian stagnation." This
A particular feature of the colonia!
politan economy. Alavi cites approving- stagnation together with the lack of
mode in ILidia has been the creation
lv Chattopadhbay with regard to the developmnent of the internal mnarket re-
of "large ntumber of desititute small
preservation/destrtuction of the older sult "in the ultimate analysis from
holders - 75 per cent of all farms in
Indian economy by imperialism. (Chat- continuing semi-feudal relations". But
modern India". Since these holdings
topadhyay 19721)) He also refers these contradictions "are muted by
are too small to assure even a bare
favourably to jairRLs Banaji's concept their integration in an imperialist
subsistence, they- serve as a "valued
of a colonial mode of production sysstem". Omvedt criticises as too
supplier of cheap labour" both for agri-
"neither feudal nor capitalist, though
cuilture and for urban indu-stry. In simplistic
this Alavi's proposition that the
resembling 1)oth at different levels". l)asic cceriflict is between "the workers
way the class of small-holders is in-
(Banaji 1979) and the rural poor (including share-
tegrated i-into the colonial mode of
Arguing 'that the colonial impact Production, and cannot be described croppers and middle peasants)" on the
wrought ftundamental transformations as a 'pre-capitalist' stirvival. (Alavi one hand, and the landowners pluls
in the subject economies, Alavi attacks 1975) the bourgeoisie on the o'her. In her
the "excessive and misleading emphasis words this analysis "hardly seems to
With regard to class contradictions
on the form of the relationship between as we.l, the colonial mode has its own do jtstice ,Io the developing com-
the producer and his master". (Alavi plexities of contradictions in a colonial
pattern. There is no conflict of in-
1975, italics in the original) It is society". (Rudra 1975, Omvedt 1975)
terest between the so-called 'feudal' or
wZrong, he declares, "to describe 'semi-feudal' class of landlords on the A K Bagchi portrays the colonial
colonial economies as those in which one hand, and the bourgeoisie (urban orperiod as a time of de-indusltrialisation
'pre-capitalist' relationships 'co-exist' rural) on the other. Nor is there a con- and possihly even de-commercialisation
with 'capitalist' relations", since such flict in which the "wa;ge labourers of agriculture. Reviewing the evidenice,
traditional relations, e g, share-crop- (the rural pro!etariat) are aligned dif- he judges that in te period up to 1900
ping, "are no longer 'pre-capitalist'. ferently fromn the other subordinate "the share of the secondlary sector in

1997

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:48:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
national income would on balance have
been declining". Similarly, the share
of the secondary sector in the \7orkiing
force fell until about the micidde of thenational scale, "capitalist relations of
1920s. In agriculture share tenancy
w as pr-evalent in the nineteenth spread and(I domoiinant", Banaji takes up India as a whole "the bourgeois mode
century, and in somle areas muav liavethe case of the Deccan fromii 1850 to
increased. There nmav vell have been, 1890. I-le cites evidence for the ex-
Bagchi esteems, a net imovenment frornpansion of commodity production dur-
cash rents to kind rents.
Bagehi speaks of "a symbiotic re-
lationship between precapitalist and
capitalist modes of exploitation", and
gives examples:
Most European 'capitalist' planters
(including the Government as culti-
vator of opium) used non-market
coercion to exploit the labourers and
the peasantry... tmany (in fact most)
sugar factories found that it was
imore costly to cultivate sugar on
their own with large-scale 'scientific'
methods tllan to rent out land to
tenants on a share-cropping basis.
(Bagchi 1975)
Even after indepenidence, Bagebli
holds, "this continual interchange be-
tween capitalist and pre-capitalist re-
lations has not ceased". Partly this
continuity is due to the lowV rate of
capital accumulation and to a per-
manent state of relative oveipopulation
in the countryside. It is also the case
that "capitalist profit-making itself
uses precapitalist methods", and capi-
talist farmers "depend on other
propertv-owning strata for maintaining
their political and social power".
(Bagchi 1975)
Bagchi is cautiouis about how to
label the "amalgam of usury, bondage,
wage-labour, and tenancy prevailing in
the Indian countryside". He lists 'semi-
feudalism', 'semi-capitalism', 'neither
colonial mode of production. Arguing tury Deccan "capitalist relations of. ex-
that; in the absence of a specifically ploitation signifying the less developed
capitalist mnode of prodtuction on the formns of capitalist production hb(a
emerged ... and were widlespread an(d
exploitation mnay nonetheless he wide- in some districts dominant". But for
of production in its developed or
'adequate' structure w as neither doomi-
nant nor widespread". The specific
ing those years: cotton and ground- form of capitalist production which
nuts for export; sugar, foodgrains and evolved in the Deccan constituted "a
garden crops for the growing popula- subordiinate aurd transitio-tal system
tion 6of Bombay and Poona cities. The within the bourgeois mode of produc-
process of commodity expansion im- tion in its workl extension". Banaji sets
plied an increasing conversion of lab- himself off sharply from Gunder Frank,
our-power into a commodity. hy means whom he criticises for supposing "that
of proletarianisation. Immediate causesit is sufficient to point to the domi-
such as drought, scarcity and famine tnance of the specifically bourgeois
appeared to play a major role in re- miiode of production on the world scale
in order to establish the prevalence of
duicing the small prodtucers to this
state, but this was possible "only be- bourgeois relations in Indlia'. Yet the
cauise of the already exhausted and political lesson which he draws for
decrepit condition of the Deccan small-present-day India is the same as
production econonmy". A system of Frank's. Banaji judges that in the Indian
cotuntryside "the struggle against capi-
capitalist exploitation operated through
talist forms of exploitation has already
the advances by merchant-moneylenders
l)egun". He urges that it be conduc!ed
for the subsistence of the small pea-
"with a clear understanding of its own
sants. The "purely capitalist nature of
character", that is, "on the basis of a
relationship between the peasant and
programme for the abolition of the
moneylenders" was concealed by the
system of wage-slavery". (Banaji 1977,
fact that the "surplus-vxlue extorted
i'-alies in the original)
from the small producer would be
called 'interest". (Banaji 1977, italics
In a paper prepared for a Workshop
in the original)
on "African and Asian Societies in
These capitalist relations "which at Confrontation with Westemr European
their limit formed the system of the Colonialism" held in Berlin in 1979,
formal subordination of labour to capi- Hlamza Alavi modifies considerably his
tal" existed in the Deccan economy of earlier position. He restates, however,
the nineteenth century in various stages his objections to characterising as
of crystallisation. The same form of feudal Indian agriculture in recent
capitalist exploitation through debt years, prior to the current wave of
which prevailed in the countryside large investment in farm mechanisation.

feudalism nor capitalism', and 'both could also be found in the towns in Referring to Utsa Patnaik, be writes:
capitalism and feudalism' as possibili- the case of the "smaller artisans". To prove that there has been, in
(Banaji 1977) recent years, a decisive mnovement
ties, but does not mention a 'colonial
toward capitalism in Indian agri-
mode of production'. He announces Where Banaji had earlier intervened culture, her problem, paradoxically,
that he would accept any of the listed as a supporter of Utsa Patnaik, he now was to prove that what went before
terns "so long as the basic laws of classes her with Amit Bhaduri as a was in fact 'feudal'.
motion of such a society are correctly practitioner -if "extreme formalism". In Alavi's view, "social relations of
understood". {(Bagchi 1975') He argutes that they incorrectly identifyproduction in Indian society were altered
Britain's position as the first country forms of organisation of the labour- in the course of the colonial transfor-
to industrialise didl not lead it to carry process" such as sharecropping or mation". The result was the creation
through a similar revolution in its other types of tenancy with particular of what, having abandoned the colo-
Indian colony, Bagchi observes. In fact, "relations of production" which they nial mode of production, Alavi now
he is not suire "that the' 'transition' to label "pre-capitalist" or "semi-feudal". calls "peripheral capitalism". In India,
capitalismn can ever be complete in the On the contrary, he insists the parti- this development took a long time.
countries of South Asia". It is not the cular form of wage-labour or of tenant Agriculture turned progressively to-
least of the harmftul legacies of co'o- labour which a big peasant or land- ward the production of crops for metro-
nialism, Baachi avers, "that while it owner chooses to employ for technical politan markets, luch as cotton, jtute
modified the precapitalist relations to or personal reasons does not affect the and indigo. Elsewhere peasants pro-
suit its purpose, it also preserved "social character or content of the (iuced food crops as cash crops to feed
tbheci". \Bagchi 1975) production-relaltions that these labour- the colonial towns and also peasants
Another stuldy dealing primarily arrangements
with embody". (Banaji 1977, in other areas who had shifted to ex-
italics in the original)
the British period, in particular with port crops. This constitulted "a formn
the late nineteenth cenltury, is contri-Distinguishing among the regional, of generalised commodity production"
bouted b)y Jairus Banaji. But this timenational and international levels, Banaji specific to peripheral capitalismn, in
he also eschews any ref~erence to a concluels that in the late nineteeth cen-which the circulation of commodities

1998

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:48:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY December 11, 1982
was completed via the export-import
link wvith the inetropoGis. (Alavi 1981)
Although peasanit farming continued
on the basis of largely unchanged
techniques, it was nonetheless subject
to foxrmal subsumptioni by capital, a
conditioln which, in Marx's definitioin,
"does not by itself imply a fundamental
modification of the nlature of the lab-
our process". In a later phase of capi-
talist transformation, the real subsump-
tion of labour under capital, the pro-
cess of production is subject to conJi-
nual transformation, "concomitantly
with rise in organaic comiiposition of
capital". (Alavi 1981)
Alavi takes up cudgels against the
cunservation/dissolution formiula put
forwarrd by Charles Bettleheim and
used by Claude Meillasoux "which
views the persistence of peasant pro-
deuction in colonised societies as a case
of 'conservation/dissolution' of pre-
capitalist modes of production by colo-
nial capital". In Alavi's view this con-
cept obscures rather than clarifying
the underlying theoretical problem of
explaining why peasants do not disap-
pear in the course of the transition to
capitalism. Alavi argues that peasants
are more resilient than urban petty
commodity producers becauase they do
not need to pass through the market
for their food and shelter, they receive
some of the earnings of family mem-
bers who have migra ed in search of
employment, and their being physically
displaced by large-scale farms is im-
peded precisely because they hang on
desperate&y to whatever tiny holdings
they may have - preventing the for-
nmation of the substantial contiguous
blocks of land required for mnodern
cultivation. Nevertheless, Alavi believes,
the conditions of the peasants' existence
are being "progressively uindermined"
by the "d-namics of peripherall capi-
Ltalist development". (Alavi 1981)
Kathleen Gough's contribution to the
debate is a major article tracing the
political economy of Thanjavur district
in Tamil NaduL from about 85() AD to
the present. When she come.i to the
late nineteenth and early .\ventieth
centuiries, G(ugh characterises this
period in mnuch the same wvay ats Alavipected it tio do, that it developed
anid Banaji. During these years, she
w7rites, "the capitalist mode of produc-
tion was (lorninant in Thanjavur";
milost of the actuial relations of produc-
tion "althouLg1h 1of a colonial character,
became essentially those of what Marx
called the 'formal subsumption of lab-
cur uin(ler capDital' ". The' -were not
yet the< relat;Clns of "real sublsulmption
the worldl capit;alist modle of prodllc-
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:48:33 UTC
of labour under capital". (Gough 1980) tion". There has been some crop diver-
Cough gives six reasons for dubbing sification but the proportion grown for
the relations -obtaining in Thanjavur in export has actually risen. Farming has
the illil)erialist period capitalist: been transforimeed throu(rh the use of
(1) With the abolition of slavery the chemical fertilisers, hybrid high-yield-
labourers all becamiie free of poli- ing seeds, pesticides, tractors, tube-
tical folrns of bondage. wells and electric irrigation pumiips.
(2) Teinants, artisans, village servants Especially on the larger fanns "there
anid labourers had already in the is a continuing rise ihl the organic
18th aind early 19th centuries been composition of capital". Correspond-
"freed" from the means of produc- ingly, "the extraction of relative sur-
tion and forced to sell their labour plus value has greatly increased". The
power. profits of increased production, Gough
(3) Landlords becanme private owiners asserts, have gone mainly to metro-
of the means of production, which politan capital which supplies much of
they could sell; they marketed the new mnachinery and chem-lical in-
more than half of their crops. puts, to Indian big business, and locally
(4) Extended reproduction in agricul- to the lbigger landlords akcd merchants.
ture took the formn of greatly in- These households "now enjoy such
accessories as radios, mopeds, cars, air-
creasing the area of land under
comditioning, a range of electrical ap-
cultivation, especially in the case
of rice, the chief export crop; plicances, and other luxury consumer
there was also some investment in goods". At the other end of the social
irri(alion. and economic scale, Gough f.ound that
the standard of living has remained
(3) Extended reproduction as well as
a rise in the organic composition stationary or declined. In two villages
of capital occurred in the mills at opposite ends of the delta she dis-
and iel industiral transport. In covered that half of the inhabitants
these areas the real subsumption could afford on:y onie cooked meal a
Of labour under capital' developed. day duriiag most of the year. Since
they were unable to buy meat or milk,
(6) On the world scale Thanjavur be-
came a specialised producer of rice "large nurnbers in the general popu-
and a few other exports as a part lation had adopted the Harijans' custonm
of the increased internationial divi- of eating field rats". (Gough 1980)
sion of labour. Cough reviews briefly the history of
the Communist movement in Thanjavur,
GouLgh nonetheless acknowle(dges the
wvhich arose in the 1930s and has
persistence of certain pre-capitalist
features in production relations in agri-
been stronv, "among agricultural lab-
ourers, most notably Harijans Nvho
culture: "traditional gifts of clothing
form 22 per cent of 'the population".
and other perqiiisi-es by masters to
In recent years the demands have con-
their labourers at festivals and life-
crises"; the formally subservient be-
ceotrated on raising the level of daily
wages, and when that failed because
haviour "prescribed by caste" of lab-
of the declining number of days of
ourers to masters; the admissibility of
work per year, on 'jobs or dole'. Cough
nmasters' inflicting coriporal punishment
opines that struiggles of this kind
on labourers. She maintains that des-
"though temporarily palliative, cannot
pite these practices, relations of pro-
solve the structural contradictions of
(luctioii were enforced "primiarily by
the capitalist moce of pro(luction in
economic andc not extra-economnic coer-
Thainjavtir". (Gough 1980)
cion". She is riot prepared to accept
Aui op)po';ite poinit of view with re-
Alavi's earlier formmlation of a 'colo-
gard to the colonial period is voiced
nial mnode of produiction' separate from
by Gail Omvedt, who states that "imn-
the capitalist miiode. Rather, she pro-
perialism essentially maintained feu-
poses,
(lalisin -- thoucgh in a suibitjgated anrd
India (lid not develop along the
mondifie(l form- as the (lominant mode
saine path as Britain, as Marx ex-
of production in agyricultuire"'. She
along a complementary and specifi- argutes that the "specificity of the feu-
callv colonial trajectory, yet that it
(lal mio(le of production in India was
(leveloped within the (.single) capi-
la-rgel re'ated to caste". Here she
talist mode. (Gaugbh 1980, italics in
the original) refers in partictular to the role of the
The perio(l from 1947 to 1980 jOlinlulilbaltltedarj svstein and to the
relatious between high caste landlords
Gough characterises as ineo-imperial-Lsti.
an(I low-caste seifs or tenants. (Omve(dt
Thanjavur, she tells iis, has continued
197i8)
to be "an agr icullturala] hinterland within
(To be concluded)
1999
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms