October 18, 1975
recent past in India, does certainly not
India and the Colonial Mode
of Production
Comments
i
Ashok Rudra
H A M Z A A L A V I ' s recent contribution
(Special Number, August 1975) makes
a whole host of very important points,
some!? of w h i c h throw fresh light on ob-
scure comers and some others bring to
the fore important matters for further
discussion. The questions that we are
raising and the comments that we are
making below are meant to draw Alavi
out to further elaborate and elucidate
some of the points he has made.
We think no student of the Indian
economy would differ from Alavi that
during the colonial period the following
two structural features characterised
the "social formation" in Indian agri-
culture : (a) "deformed generalised
commodity (production, inasmuch as the
colonial economy is internally disarti-
culated and the circuit of commodity
exchange is completed only via the im-
perialist centre"; (b) "a deformed ex-
tended reproduction inasmuch as the
suqilus value is realised by and though
metropolitan capital accumulation". As
a matter of fact, this understanding of
an economy under imperialist economic
domination constitutes the common un-
derstanding of economists of all shades
from all developing centres who repre-
sent their respective countries in the
forum of the U N C T A D . One does not
have to be a Marxist to subscribe to
this view.
I also emphatically support the pro-
position that in India economic develop-
ment has taken place in such a fashion
as to make "the pattern of generalised
commodity production ,. . internalised
to a greater degree so that the internal
disarticulation of the Indian economy is,
to that extent, ameliorated" and as to
make "the process of extended repro-
duction more internalised".
We have, however, difficulty in un-
derstanding what that mode of produc-
tion is which A l a v i calls the "Post Co-
lonial Mode of Production". Our diffi-
culty arises from the fact that Alavi
fust throws in this new idea and this
new term in the very concluding few
paragraphs of his article. In the body
of the article he seems to have been
concerned with what he calls the "Co-
lonial Mode of Production". He de-
1668
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY
votes a great deal of attention to care-
fully examining the concepts of 'mode
of production', 'relations of p r o d u c t i o n ,
'social formation', etc, and finally takes
the position: "the structural formation
that we designate as a 'colonial mode
of production' does not constitute a self-
contained entity; that is not perhaps the
conventional use of the term 'mode of
production' . .. Given the precise sense
in which we use the term, we would
suggest that the 'colonial mode of pro-
duction' is a valid and satisfactory term
for the theoretical concept that we are
examining here", (What, incidentally,
constitutes satisiactoriness of a nomen-
clature as distinguished from the con-
cept for which the nomenclature
stands?) But there is no precise sense
that Alavi puts forward for the con-
cept — if it is a concept — "Post Co-
lonial Mode of Production". In the con-
cluding paragraph A l a v i writes "These
structural differences distance the post-
colonial mode of production from the
colonial mode". But this statement it-
self cannot be taken as a Valid defini-
tion' of a mode of production. Ifamza
Alavi should clarify whether he really
has in mind yet another mode of pro-
duction, different from feudalism, diffe-
rent from capitalism and different from
the "Colonial Mode of Production", or
is it only an aberration of loose langu-
age in an article in which a g n a t deal
of emphasis is laid on the precise use
of language? If indeed A l a v i has in
mind a distinct mode of production then
he has to admit that he has not stated
the differentia specified of that mode.
Of course, the lucid and penetrating
analysis w i t h the help of which he
builds up his case for a distinct mode
of production to be called the Colonial
Mode is of very great value by itself.
But considerable confusion seems to
arise from the fact that he seems all
along to be trying to comprehend the
agrarian conditions prevailing in the
India of today w i t h the help of the
'conceptualisation' which he calls the
Colonial Mode, reserving to the very
end of the article acknowledgement of
the fact that the Colonial Mode, whe-
ther or not it prevailed sometime in the
prevail in pure form any more in to-
day's India. As a result, by the time
the reader has come to the end of his
article, agreeing on many points and
having doubts on many others, he can-
not but wonder whether he has under-
stood what all of Alavi's arguments
amount to.
Thus, let us consider the following
statements of Alavi, with all of which
I would like to record my emphatic
agreement. But they all seem to refer
to conditions in Indian agriculture in
the post-colonial period (or debates
about them) and none of the observa-
tions depend in any way on the validi-
ty or otherwise of his concept of the
Colonial Mode of Production.
(a) "None . . . has demonstrated that
there is any contradiction between the
new rural capitalists and the feudal
landlords, if they can be structurally dis-
tinguished at all."
(b) "Often it would seem that the main
reason for describing the agricultural
situation as semi-feudal rested on the
belief that tenancy and share cropping
were incompatible w i t h capitalism."
(c) "In fact the situation of the rural
wage labourer is little different from
that of the share cropper . . . and the
situation of both stands in marked con-
trast to that of the urban proletariat."
The following statement, which too
we wholeheartedly endorse, also refers
to the contemporary situation and dis-
cussions about it: "... we encounter,
all too often, an a p r i o r i assumption
that there is a conflict of interest be-
tween the so-called "feudal" or "semi-
feudal" class of landlords and the bour-
geoisie . .. Facts are forced into the
mould of theoretical assumption ...
we find instead that the big fanner stra-
tegy has served the interests of the
bourgeoisie both Indian and foreign
insofar as it has provided the required
increase in the marketed surplus of
agricultural commodities. The interests
of the foreign monopolist bourgeoisie,
the indigenous bourgeoisie, and the
landlords and rich peasants coincide, in
that respect at least." The confusion
that is created by the shifting time fo-
cus and telescoping one period into
another is best illustrated by the fol-
lowing statements of A l a v i : "... the
Brazilian reality, like that of the other
countries of the T h i r d W o r l d , is that
the 'feudal mode of production' in agri-
culture is precisely at the service of
imperialism rather than antagonistically
in contradiction with it Imperialism
generates and preserves such forms
rather than destroys them." This sen-
 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY October 18, 1975

tence, w r i t t e n in the present tense and such, it is h i g h l y d o u b t f u l if anything such sectors as say p a d d y c u l t i v a t i o n ,
using the phrase 'feudal mode or p r o - is gained by the introduction of such jute c u l t i v a t i o n and the plantations in
duction', could make a reader under- a term as the "Post Colonial Mode of p r e - l n d e p e n d e n c e India. W o u l d he say
stand that the author belongs to that Production". that the same mode of p r o d u c t i o n was
school of opinion that holds that there Before concluding, we w o u l d like to prevailing in all the three? Or w o u l d
is an alliance between imperialism and pose for Alavi a problem of method he say that there were different modes
feudalism w h i c h is acting as a barrier (without w a n t i n g to contest him). T i m e in antagonistic contradiction w i t h each
to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and again he emphasises "the Marxist other? W h i l e elaborating his ideas in
in India — a thesis that flies in the conception of the necessity of contra- this respect w i t h the help of this illus-
face of the glaring fact that the so- diction between co-existing modes of trative example we w o u l d request Alavi
called new agricultural strategy, the p r o d u c t i o n , one in the ascendance and to avoid m a k i n g such erroneous gene-
the other in disintegration, w i t h i n a ralisations as that "the rich farmer eco-
rich fanner-fertiliser-HYV-mechanism
single social f o r m a t i o n " . T i m e and again nomy that is directly geared to the pro-
strategy has been brought to the deve-
he challenges that t w o such modes as duction of cash crops". In India the
loping countries directly by the agents
say the feudal and the capitalist can rich farmer economy produces the bulk
of imperialism. T h a t A l a v i does not be-
co-exist w i t h o u t their being in antago- of the marketed surplus of foodgrains
long to this school is clear f r o m other
nistic contradiction. We w o u l d like to whereas poor peasants engage in cash
observations of his like the f o l l o w i n g :
know how Hamza A l a v i w o u l d treat crop production in vast numbers wher-
, . the contemporary application of
the co-existence of the different pro- ever the soil permits the p r o d u c t i o n of
new technology and the corresponding
duction conditions and relations in three cash crops.
increase in the 'organic composition of
capital' .. . has been possible within
the f r a m e w o r k of the colonial relation-
ships and the metropolitan industrial I I
production (and the dependent indigen-
ous industrial production) that has Gail Omvedt
made available the new technological
resources. Here again, there is a struc- I FIND Hamza Alavi's discussion of describing the whole must be f o u n d .
tural correspondence of interests rather "the colonial mode of p r o d u c t i o n " , like But w h y the necessity for a new con-
than a source of structural conflict." most of his work, challenging and cept of a separate? "colonial mode of
Surely, any agrarian change that results sophisticated, w i t h important insights production"? There are some immediate'
in an increase of the "organic composi- and v a l i d in detail. But I disagree w i t h inconsistencies in Alavi's formulations.
tion of capital' cannot be regarded as some of the major theoretical conclusions The colonial mode is not identical w i t h
generation and preservation of feudal- of the discussion. The positive points imperialism, he notes; indeed the
ism? Yet, both of Alavi's statements are many. Alavi's discussion of the role "imperialist world system" contains
w o u l d be f o u n d to be correct when the of the bourgeois Congress leadership many modes — a colonial mode of pro-
appropriate time context is clarified. before and after Independence, its duction, a post-colonial mode of pro-
It seems to us that Alavi has made thrust towards land reform and rural d u c t i o n , and a capitalist mode of pro-
a highly plausible case for the rejection development, a thrust that finally results duction (he does not mention this but
both of feudalism and capitalism as in attenuation and failure, its c h a n g i n g presumably this exists in the imperialist
characterisations of the mode of pro- political nature — all this is useful and centres). To this we should also have
duction prevailing in Indian agriculture valid. The concept of the colonial to add a semi-colonial mode of produc-
in the early phases of imperialist do- mode of production is an attempt to tion since certainly the structure of
m i n a t i o n ; also, the case for a distinct take into account crucial facts that are societies such as China was changed by
mode of production, to be called the ignored in simply arguing whether the imperialism though with some crucial
"Colonial M o d e " , deserves serious at- agrarian economic structure is "serni- differences f r o m India, Is this not un-
tention. But to say that the mode of f e n d a l " or "capitalist". Among these necessarily m u l t i p l y i n g modes of produc-
production in colonial India was neither facts are the existence of a bourgeois tion? Further, " i m p e r i a l i s m " is not
feudal nor capitalist says nothing about state and legal property relations in- identical with " c a p i t a l i s m " in this for-
whether in the post colonial phase a herited f r o m colonial times and diffe- mulation, but Alavi at points writes as
capitalist mode is emerging or not. Alavi's rent f r o m the localised feudal (or semi- if they were.
arguments about the colonial mode can- feudal, as in China) structures; the W h y not use instead the Marxist con-
not rule out logically the possibility of existence of a deformed form of cept of "social f o r m a t i o n " ? W h a t w o u l d
such emergence. A n d it is the trends, generalised commodity production as be Alavi's objection to this way of stat-
the direction of transformation, that the contrasted to the localised production ing the p r o b l e m ; there is a colonial
students of Indian agriculture are w o r r y - of pure f e u d a l i s m ; and the fact that social formation w h i c h contains a rising
ing about. A n y analysis of this process certain " s e m i - f e u d a l " relations (includ- capitalist mode of production (promoted
of transformation w o u l d show the gra- ing sharecropping and debt-tied wage by the bourgeois state) amid a dis-
dual elimination of some of the features labour) are maintained in a different integrating feudal mode of production
of feudalism and of colonial disarticula- way than under pure feudalism, by the — so far d i s i n t e g r a t e d that we should
tion and deformation w h i c h characteris- economic necessities of an imperialist not speak of a " f e u d a l mode of produc-
ed the mode p r e v a i l i n g in the colonial structure rather than by coercion. A l a v i t i o n " but instead of "semi-feudal rela-
period along w i t h continuation in un- clearly puts f o r w a r d the challenge; it tions of p r o d u c t i o n " , semi-feudalism in
d i m i n i s h e d strength of certain other is not enough to conceptualise the culture and so f o r t h . But the capitalist
features of the same types. Further, Indian economic structure as either mode of production can never f u l l y tri-
this c h a n g i n g amalgam may have more "capitalist" or "feudal" (or "semi- umph because of the existence of impe-
things uncommon than common in the feudal"), Nor we can simply combine rialism. There are contradictions between
different post colonial economies. As the t w o ; some way of satisfactorily the capitalist and feudal elements, but
October 18, 1975 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

these contradictions arc muted and con- market, etc) resulting in the ultimate "allies" was revealing an antagonistic
tained by their integration in an impe- analysis from continuing semi-feudal nature.
rialist system. As Bettelheim has ex- relations. At the political level also, Third, while some such agitations
pressed the situation (in his debate "with there have been crucial contradictions were backed by a variety of parties,
Emmanuel in "Unequal Exchange"), between the urban bourgeoisie and the including 'Left' ones, there was a clear
imperialism both extends and blocks the rural elite, especially its more feudal development after 1973 whereby they
development of the forces of production, sectors, and these contradictions have were drawn into association w i t h the
i e, it promotes capitalist development taken an acute form in the last few Right parties: the Jan Sangh, the
and maintains aspects of pre-capitalist years — and this fact is a refutation Bharatiya Lok Dal, the A k a l i Dal. These
relations — but in the centre of the of the assertion that the Congress parties were thus widening their rural
imperialist w o r l d system the former "alliance of bourgeoisie and landlords" base and consolidating their position as
aspect is primary and in the periphery, has been the primary political factor parties of the more feudal landlord and
in the colonies, it is the blockage since independence. merchant classes. A n d at the same
of development that is primary. The time, this represented the threat of dis-
Agrarian stagnation since 1971 and
rising bourgeoisie has contradictions integration in the rural base of the
the inability of the Indian state to pro-
w i t h feudalism and attempts to promote Congress party itself.
cure sufficient foodgrains from abroad
development just as it attempts to resist T h e n came the JP movement. At
has resulted — in the face of rising
imperialist encroachment — but because first primarily based on petty-bourgeois
mass demands — in the imposition of
of the overall imperialist structures, its agitation, as the movement began to
the levy and growing pressures to pro-
ties w i t h feudal and merchant elements, consolidate itself politically, this petty-
cure foodgrains and industrial raw
its fear of arousing the masses, it conti- bourgeois base of Jayaprakash was
materials at cheap prices from land-
nually compromises instead b o t h w i t h the drawn into the sphere of the landlord-
owners and merchants. Procurement
imperialist bourgeoisie and the semi- based right parties. Generally it seems
itself has been insufficient and stagnant
feudal landlords. The colonial social that it was the more feudal elements
— reflecting the state's tendency to
formation is thus uniquely unstable w i t h of the rural elite that were backing JP
compromise w i t h the rural sector — but
multilateral levels of contradiction, bet- and the Right parties; while the more
its pressure has been growing.
ween classes representing different capitalistic rich peasant-farmers whe
modes of production, between exploit- had emerged as a result of state-sector
The result has been, first, the forma-
ing and exploited classes w i t h i n one green revolution developments tended
tion in many crucial states of action
mode (i e, workers and capitalists, pea- to stay w i t h the Congress-CPl alliance.
committees and then of independent
sants and landlords), and so forth.
class organisations of the rural elite, The denouement is well known. A n d
organisations that have taken an "all if it does not reveal the existence of
If colonial society is a "mode of pro- anagonistic contradictions more complex
peasants" f o r m (and frequently p u l l e d
duction" there should be, one w o u l d than simply those between a landlord-
in middle peasants as cannon fodder
think, two basic classes in conflict, bourgeois elite and the masses, I dont
against the state) but that have in reality
equivalent to the slave-owners/slaves, know what would.
been controlled by the richer peasants
landlords/serfs, workers/capitalists of the
and landlords. Such organisations have
well k n o w n modes of production. What
included the Zirmindara U n i o n (Punjab),
are these? Alavi has a tendency to
the Cotton Growers Association (Maha-
suggest that the class structure poses Nirlon Synthetic
rashtra), the Khedut Samaj (Gujarat),
the workers and rural poor (including
the Kisan Sanghatana (Rajasthan) and N I R L O N SYNTHETIC FIBRES AND
sharecroppers and middle peasants) to-
others. The formation of such organisa- C H E M I C A L S proposes to establish a
gether against landowners and the
tions is itself significant — since the conveyor belting project at Roha, a
bourgeoisie, but quite apart from other
pre-Independence days of landlord 'backward' area of Maharashtra, at a
problems this hardly seems to do justice
organisations, no such class organisa- cost of Rs 7 crores. In addition, it in-
to the developing complexities of con-
tions of the rural elite have been felt tends to set up a plant for recovery of
tradictions in a colonial society.
necessary earlier. Landlords and rich ethyl glycol as a part of the polyester
peasants have in the past simply relied division and to spend about Rs 2 crores
The basic issue ultimately is this: is on state power to deal w i t h challenges
there a contradiction between capitalist for the rehabilitation and improvement
from the rural poor, or have carried of production facilities in the nylon di-
and feudal interests in India? Alavi on their factional feuds w i t h i n the Con-
r i g h t l y makes the point that the con- vision. The company has also budgeted
gress framework. Now, in the face of to spend another Rs 2 crores for the
ception of two modes of production levy and procurement prices, clearly
w i t h i n a single social formation, one research and development project w h i c h
there was a growing feeling that the is being implemented. Last year, the
rising and the other falling, implies Congress could not be relied upon.
such a contradiction. His argument company could not run its nylon textile
rests on the assumption that no such yarn, polyester yarn and tyre-cord plants
contradiction exists in India and he Secondly, these organisations have to capacity because of shortage of raw
asserts that no evidence has been pro- engaged in widespread mass and even materials. The company has been ad-
duced to show one. violent agitations against the state, over vised to operate the textile yam plant
issues of procurement prices, inputs and at 80 per cent of its capacity d u r i n g he
But there is such a contradiction bet- current year on account of inadequate
levy. The agitations have involved
ween feudalism and capitalism at the availability of caprolactum from CSFC.
system l e v e l ; the expanding thrust of demonstrations of tens of thousands,
Nirlon is exploring the possibility of
the capitalist sector is continually lathi charges, firings and deaths. Here importing caprolactum against export
frustrated by agrarian stagnation (and surely was a process whereby a con- earnings, according to the chairman
the lack of development of the internal tradiction developing between a bour- Jaykrishna Hari vallabh das.
geois-controlled state and its landowner
1670