Semi-Feudalism or Capitalism?

Contemporary Debate on Classes and Modes of

Production in India
Author(s): Alice Thorner
Source: Economic and Political Weekly , Dec. 18, 1982, Vol. 17, No. 51 (Dec. 18, 1982), pp.
2061-2066
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4371676

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

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 11 May 2024 05:30:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Semi-Feudalism or Capitalism?
Contemporary Debate on Classes and iModes of
Production in India
Alice Thorner

For over a dozen years Indian and foreign marxists htave been arguing twith passion, subtlety and
an abundance of statistics abouit the existintg mode of production in Indian agriculture or, more broadly,
in India. There hiave been proponents of capitalismrl, pre-capitalism, semi-feudalism, colonial and post-
colontial modes, and recently, a dual mode.
Fromn the beginning, the debate hlas been carried otn simultaneously at several levels: thlat of the
inldividual cultivating unit, thlat of the agricultural sector of a particular region (e g, Punjab-Ilaryana o
Eastern India) or of India as a whole, that of the entire economy of a region or of India as a whole; that
of thze colony-metropole relationship or of the imbrication of India in the world economy. A number o
authors htave broughzt in freslhly gathiered field data at the first and second levels to buittress their arg
nienits. Othlers lave drawn upon the vast stock of data available from official sources such as the Farnm
AManaglement Studies, thze National Sample Survey, the Rural Credit Surveys, the Censuses and Agri-
cultural Censuses and the Rural Labour Surveys. Some authors have used historical sources to document
their analyses of nineteenth century developments. Several of the economists have employed mathe-
mnatical models. A handful 7have restricted themselves to purely theoretical exercises.
Thlis paper seeks to delineaite the main issues at stake in the debate, embracing modes, forces and
relations of production; modes of exploitation; agrarian classes; social formcations, contradictions and
articulations; movements and domninianlt tendencies; efects of imperialism and of centre-periphery link
recommnendations for praxis.
This is the third and last part of the paper whichi has been published in three parts.

Direction and Pace of Change in actly the samne as at Independence". inv\'estmerit wvill oilv be under:aken if
Independent India (Platinaik 1976) it can emi)oclv a chanige in produc0ion
Definite limits, PaXiinaik argues, aretechlniques that wvill provide a "sub-
UT1-SA PA INAIK, NIRMAL SEN GUPTA, s antia?, discrete increase" in output
se- to the further developmenit of the
IPAB}ESH CHAY1-OPADHYAY, SHARAD LIN, capitalist tendency by thae high leve's and suirplus per unit of land area
DrPWANT;All iGUPTA,. APAuAJITA CHAHBA-
(4 "precapitalist. ground rent". Small (Iatinaik, 1976).
BORTY, ASHOK RUDIRA, ATYACHAR VIR(oI)H
peasalnas are prepared to pay "hunger
SAMrrI, GAIL OMVEDT Tlhe feudal miodel is still prevalernt,
rents" not because of high productivity,
according to Nirnial Sen Guipta, who
IN the same article on class diffe- buit becauise if they cannnot rent in land,
also beieves in the "conAinued deter-
rentiation which we have already they will lhave no means of subsistence.
ministic role of imrlperialisti even in
cited, Utsa Patnaik also takes up the Urader these circumiistances, the type olf
post-Indepenldence In(lia". The fact
(luestion of the 'trend' acid 'niou-nent' capi'talist investmnent which has been
that Indclia continues to be an
in the development of Indian agrarian talking place over the past 10-15 years'
inltegral part of the xworld capital
relations. At Independence, slhe wri- is that which "raises output and surplus
svs ein inclicates the continuation of
tes, differentiation and exploitative re- pe( r uinit of lan(d area", such as in
the samne trend essentially as in
lation's among the layers within the irrigation double-cropping, fer.ilisers,
the co oniall days. This is a "capi-
peasantry, while already e xistingll, high-vieldirig seecds. Ornly in this wav
tatiist tref(id' which uuanifes's itself "in
were overshadowed in importa-nce l)y can the gains from capitalist-style pro-
a colonial or semii-colonial society",
the burden of landlordismti on the duction suirmnount "the rent lbarrier".
where the "feudal mo(lde of produc-
peasantry as a whole. The principal Mechanisation and labour-replacement
tioin and feuidal social formationi" sur-
contradiction at that mn<omcnt iA tilnie, have been uoi-idertaken primnarilv when
vive in an "assimilative foimn, running
placing all other contradictionis in a required to raise the surplus per acre,
ove:r a variety of proportionality be-
secondaiv role, was that De'ween i e, s( zas to allow douoble cropping.tween fetudal monde and capitalist
landlords on the one side and the For Ihis reason, capiia'ist investment
imlode". The agrarian formation which
peasantry on the other. The trend alid outL-put expansion have showni a was co.oenal semi-feudlal" in the co-
since Indepence is toward c-apitalist crop-wise aind( regicn -wise( concentra-
]lonial period can he labelled "semiii-
tion" (Pathaik, 1976).
production, Ibut this tendenicv is colonial semiii-feud(lal" in the post-In-
narrowly based since land'Pordism has For the fit'iire we canl expect a ]evel- dependlence periocd. "Thougih capital-
not been abolished and there h-ias been .ihug ofl an(i even (lecline of produictive isri has co-ie. pre-capitalist tnode is
no subsla'atial redistril)bu-ion of land. capital investment or-ce the potential still prevalent, and(1 capitalist (leve-
However, the developtmient of capita- ot a giVen Cotimplex of technical changes lopinenit is arrested( primarily b)y the
list production, althotigh limited, lhas beeni riealised. "The level of pre- inifluience of imiiperialisiin," Sen Gupta
"means that the content of landlord- concnudes. The task immediate!v
capitalist rent though with a la",
si.n today is not, an(l cannot be, ex- I'atnaik predicts. Reniewe(d c ;pital ahlad, hle urges. "is fundamentally

2061

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 11 May 2024 05:30:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
December 18, 1982 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL W EEKLY

one of full-scale capitalist develop-
ment". (Sen Gtupta 1977).
Re-entermiig the discussion to sharp-
eni so<me of his original formiiunations
and to committient on positions taken by
Ashok liudra, Hanjit Sau ond I-laiiza
Alavi, l'airesh GChattopadhyay inisists
no-tably oni the "dual role of capital-
ismii with regard to pry-capitalism'".
That it seeks both the destruction anid
the preservation of older forms, Chat-
itopadyay holds, "is a universal phe-
noinenon and not confined to what is
ussually considered as 'colonies' or
'semiii-coloniies' ". (Chattopadhyay 1980)
A two-part article by Sharat G Lin
puts forward a new term, "a dual
modce of production" for post-colunial
India. Citing lBanaji, Sen Gupia and
Briant Davey, Lin finids overaUl agree-
ment that there is a superposition of
nore than one mode of production.
I1 Lin's formulation "the two primary
modes (pre-capitalist and capitalist) in-
terpenietrate" generating "a single
miiode with dual character having, at
once, both accotmLmodating and con-
s.itution is necessarl'y a featuLre of
flic'ingr internial dynamnics". State power
"must be shared by two histori- precapitalist nmodes of production, in
cal'y opposed ruling classes" since it
the population". (Lin, 1980)
Two receint articles concentrate oil
eleenciits of the current rural scenie
which have been identified as ''feu-
dal'. Dipankar GXupLa considers the
nalure of share-cropping, and con-
telnds that it is "inot a feudal inStitu-
tion b)ut rather appears only in for-
jiuations wvliere feudal inistitutions have
been uniderminied by capitalism aind
where capitalism has not yet appear-
ed in all its virility." I-He prefers to
view the lndian econolmiy as "a capi-
tatist onie where capitalisimi has not
(ieveloped uniforinly". AlLhough capit-
alisin is the maiin ciienemy," a revo,u-
tionary takeover "is not yet in the
offing" so that the prospect is of a
"lon(g period of struggle ahead". The
Left should not rush to raise the ciy
o1 'inmiiediate socialisatioln of the lalnd'
since slogans such as 'lanid to the
niaii-ai(w- (l in the uiltimiia'e atialysis
tiller' can- still imiotivacte the miajority
of the peasanlts. (Gupta 1980) 1w violence, 'tli.s particulacr role i?
Similarly Aparajita Chakraborty at-
acks the idea "that tenancy as an in-
particular the feutdal mode" anid that extremey ivmpnortant implication for
the uisef'tlness of feuLdalisml as a con-
cept for analys sing any period at all
in Inldiani history. He points out that
while political ecoionoiists who use the
ternm 'semi-feudal' presumii ably believe
that the miiode of produiction in India
duttring somne previouis period was feu-
cdal, muciieh influential opinicnl among
hisWorians rejects the thesis that there
was ever feudlalismn in Indian history.
After reviewing the historical debate,
Rudria casti(rates the participants for
p.ayim, insufficient attention to "social,
eulturtLl ans d religious instLitutions".
Whereas .he "European genius" forg-
e(d the features andl rituials of feuda'-
!Sinl (sueh as commenldation, homiage
and(I fealty), the "InidiaEl genius" in-
veneed the caste systetm, the Hindu
ethos. I-le advances the hypothesis
that wvhereas in the western world,
the hierarchic struieture of society is
I li(ion histoo1 wa.s playted iot by vio-
lence but by idleologjy". (Rudra 1981,
italics in the origicial)
This thesis, Rudr a insists, "has an

is "based on two historically opposed capita7lisL development necessarily practice". The political lessoni that he
primary modes"; hence it can-not re- calls for its disappearance". She cdraws is that "the struiggle against the

maini forever stable. Yet, Lin opines, naimies Utsa lPatnaik, Nirmal Chandra reactionary elements of the Brahmanic

it may last longer "than has been the anid Am-iit Bhaduri as having sub- i(leologvy should constitutie an impor-
case elsewhere in the wvorld". This is scribed to this erroneous and, in her tant elemnent "in axy struggle for pro-
because the precapita-ist inode is so opinion, uin-Marxist notion. On the gress in 'this country". (Rudra 1981)
well-entrenched, because of wide re- contrary, Chakraborty presents the viewz Thiis proposal of Rudra's is very close
gional variation in the 9trength of that tenancy is a flexible arrangemeintto the recommendelations of a leftwing
capitalist forces, because of the social wNhich "takes clifferent formiis and em- Mlaharashtriari organisation, the Atya-
iniertia of sheer size, and because of l)odies different mixtures of capitalist ebar Virodh Samiti, at the end of a
the role of ctultural factors. (Lin, 1980) an(l precapitalist relations unider (lffe- report on riots in Marathwada in w-hich
ment historical condlitions". In India caste Ilinduiis -wreaked violence upon
With regard to the possibflities for until very recent times tenancy hasinembers of schedutled castes. The
revolutioniary action, the oppressedl Samiti contends that the caste system
been characterisetI - by "very regres-
classes imiust struggle against wvbich- sive fea ires", andl even todav in many ftuncticos as "an exrtemnely effective
ever of the two modes and elemnents cases peasaints arie subject to "exploi- method of econonmic exploitation'.
of state power "holds trend-domin- tative' rntits" an(d "exorbitant rates of Caste hierarchies reflect economic po-
ance in the process )f transition to interest". In this way agricultural wer and ownershbip of lan(l. As bour-
holdilng status-dominance". The enemly surplus is being diverted into non- geois relations develop, the argument
mlust be carefully chosen since a stnlg- produtctive chliayimels, and the deve- continuties, the inistituition of caste starts
g'e against the. fetudal aspect which loptneot of capitalism in agricutulre is to (isinteg(rate, but 'the process is not
does not take into accotunt the bour- hekl back. The relations of produic- .smooth. It is at this point that caste
geois aspect w-ill leald by default to tion evmbodied in this process, Chak- riots, reflecting conflict of class interests
strengthening the position of the lat- raborty conce(les, "are no (louibt pre- take place. In the "mixed capitalis'L
ter and "to the type of' c'ass collabo- capitalist in nature". BuIt this does economv of today, caste persists "as
r ation exercised by various left par- not neacn thiat tenancy itself is feudal a part of feuidal ideology". Buit it ailso
ties". Hlows ever, it is not vet the m-lo-
or sem-i i-feud(lal: serves the bou-rgeois systemn since onie
ment for "a stage of struigle for the of its fuinctions has been "to prevent
socialist revoluition sitnce the Indian In Mndia, until ,ecently, tenancy formnation of consciouisness and strucg-
was an institLution which was very
bo-urgeoisiie jhbas not complekted and much a part of the precapitalist re- gles on class linies". The Samiti calls
cannot complete the bourgeois demno- lations of productioni that character- tuponi all progressives and Leftists to
cratic revolution. This deemocratic re- ised agriculture. But it is getting take uijp issuies arouincd specific caste
volution can only "be completed changed along with changing con-
questions. an(d to stupport unconditionally
ditions to the point of becoming
throtugh an alliance of the proletariat compatible with emerging capita- auitoncnoons a(alit (oppressed) move-
an(n impoverishedi peasantr-v who to- list relations. (Chakraborty 1981) ments wvith (lemnocratic (lemnands aaainst
gei her a.n.stitulte some 90 per cent of FTor hi.s part. X.shok; Rud(ra dleniescas'e dliscriminatien. "To establli.sh a

2062

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 11 May 2024 05:30:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ECONOMVIIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY D)ecember 18, 1982

link be tween fights against caste-op-
pression and. class exploitation", the
report concludes, "is the need of the
houir". (Atyachar Virodh Samiti 1978)
In a tnajor reviewN of the evidence
migrant and free c'ass, whose dif-
ferences with the urban working
class "seem more those of quantity
than of quality". (Omvedt 1981)
Despite the evidence which she mar-
capitalismi has emerged in a particular
colonial setting, markedly different
from the conditions in the metropoli-
tan countries where capitalism was
born.

which has become availal)le during the shals to prove the reality of capitalist Bv what criteria has the prevalence
1970s, Gail OImvedt (gives an unequivoc- development in agriculture, Ornvedt em- of capitalism been established? It has
ally affirmative answer to the question phasises her assessment that this deve- beeni abundantly shown that the exist-
as to whether India's agriculture is now lopment "is not leading to any increased ence of widespread tenancy and/or
diominantly capitalist. Harking back to overall welfare for the rural (or urban) share-cropping does nrot necessarily
Daniel Thorner's 1969 formnulation that masses". She disparages the assumption indicate the presence of feudcal rela-
the emergence of capitalist farming re- of some authors that "immiserisation, tions of producition; ncor does the con-
presented one facet of the induListrial pauiperisation, growing landlessness, etc. centration of landholding together with
revolution which wvas transforming are -themselves signs of 'semi-fetudalism' cul'tivation of small uinits by large nnum-
India, she stresses "the links between or the lack of capitalist development". hers of peasants. By the samne token,
(Omvedt 1981)
agricutIture an(l industr,!, city an(I comn- the use of wage laloijur cannot by itself
tryside". (Onmvedt 1981) Omvedt's prescription for political be taken as a snire sign of capitalist

At the time of Indepxendence, Omvedt action rests ulpon her faith in the re- relations. Yet the shift from exploita-
believes, Indian agriculture was " pre- volutionary potential of the rural pro- tion throuigh tenants to large-scale or
dominantly feudal iin character, thouigh letariat. She is persuaded that the agri- intensive farming 1y means of hired
cultural labourers and poor peasants labour is significant.
imnportant elements of capitalissi ha(l
isen". This was a "caste-structured" are capable "of formina acentre aroun The growth of capitalist farmingi in
form of feudalism wvhich exis'Led before which middle peasants and other op- India has been accompainied 1b, in fact
the British periocd. When the colonial pressed sections can be united". Ac- aminouints to, a transformation of rela-
statte nio lon(ger officia-1l , enforced the cordingly, she deplores the tendency oftions of production anid formiis of ex-
caste system, 'caste' acid 'class' b)egan the major parliamentary left parties to ploitation. Servile, dlebt-lbondled, an(J/
to represen-t separat( social phenom-lena. call for 'aWiances itJclnding the rich or traditionallv tied labouir has been
"Ibt there wvas still a near-absolute cor- peasants", who, she contends, are in largely suipplanted bv free, relative'y
relation between them". Becauise of the effect "the village rulers and capitalist mol)ile, waage labonir, paid (if meagre-
particular caste aspect of Indian. feuda'- farmers". The apparent weakness of ly) for the most part in cash. Invest-
isml, Oimvedt affirm-ns, "the anti-feu-idal
the rural semni-proletariat, Omvedt tellsment in moodern, scien-tific a(gr,icuiltuire
Tnovement was expressed not onlv us, is belied by "vast numbers of has enormouisly expanded, and has
throtugh peasant revolts but aLso in the and unreported or under-
diverse restulted, on the whole, in enhanced
r adical anti-caste moveni-ents of Phule, reported clashes" involving "agricultural producionI, at least of certain crops in
labourers and other labourers as we l certain areas. Tenancy and share-crop-
Ambecdkar and Perivar". (O.mvedt 1981)
as poor and middle peasants". Since PLng arrangements have in many regi-
For the present, Ornve(dt's arguments
"class exploitation is compo<unded with onis been a(dapted to the niew economic
for the dominance of capitalism can caste and national oppression" many andl technical re(luirements.
b)e summcrcd up as foT,lows: strugg-les assuLme forrns which are
(1) over hallf of the rural. population difficult to identify as caass conflicts, Ye:- master-servant htpes of b-ehavi-
depelm(l uipon) wagcs; as for example those of the Jharkhand our, Cx ra--economic constraints, rack-
Mukti Morcha in the tribal area of renting au(l usury have by no means
(2) all cIltivators are torced to sell to (lisappeare:l. A particular featuire of the
Bihar or the Dalit Panthers in Maha-
some extent in the market, and
rashtra. Although up to now the "rur-al Iindiani scenle is the vast mass of uin-
their production is governed by the
toiling masses have not yet found their or under-employed- wrho, if they can-
lawvs of the imiarket,
own revolutionary party", Omnvedt con- not emigrate and fnlod jobs outside of
(.3) tlhe miieans of prodlu-ction in agri-
fident'y foresees for the future "tuniul- agricultuLre, exercise upward pressuire on
culture are now, to a large extent.
tons political developmiients". (Omvedt the rental price of land, anid downi-
produced industrially and ac(quiired 1981) ward pressure on xvage rates. The
through the muarket, school of thought which tried to take
(4) therIC has been a subs'antial growthl accouniit of these aspects bw labe7ling
Balance-Sheet Indian agriculture senmi-feucdal has
in the u.use of capital inipuits such
as fertilisers an(d oil eng,ines; What, N-e nmaxy now ask, has been withdrawn from the debate after about
clarified in the couirse of the past dozen the middle of the 1.970s, but there is
(5) there has leen a genuinile, if ha-t-
ing, growth in agricultural produc- years of debate, and what remains still talk of the persistence of feuidal
controversial? First of all, there and semi-feudal relations of produc-
wou'd
tion;
no longer appear to be any doubt that tion. Similarly, the original proponents
(6) generalised commii-noditv prodcuction, of a colonial monde have themse'ves
capitaiism today dominates Indian agri-
incluidin-ig the sale of labour powser,
culture as it already was generally seen dropped the term, while the termii
prevails;
to dominate industry at the time the 'dcual mode' has, to mv knowledg.e, at-
(7) the primary aspect of the rela:ion- (liscussion began. Does this mean that tracted no followers. But the concepts
ship of the ruvlra' rich with the the mnode of production which prevails -of the preservation/destructiorn of earlier
rural poor is as exploiters of lal)our in contemporary India is capita&ist, and tnodes of produiction by capitalism, and
powver; subject to the Marxist laws of inotiomi of the articulation of different modes
(8) the riraln semii-proletairiZat is, b) of capitalist development? Here, the within a single social formation conti-
andl large, an incr easingly, mobile, answ.ser isc les.s evidlent, since Indlia'snule to figulre in the (liselissio)n.

2063

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 11 May 2024 05:30:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 December 18, 1982 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

Several authors who accept the lead- writers (e g, Alavi and Lin). But the his own analysis. As we have seen,
ing role of capitalism nonetheless ex- rubrics utilised by these writers proved these range from calls for completion
press grave doubts as to the likelihood so disparate that I had to give ,p the of the capitalist transformation of agri-
of its further and full development. attempt. cuilture and the bourgeois revolution to
They point out obstacles to capitalist The various discussiolns of colonial clemands for iirimediate organisation
progress on the national scale such as India have all enmphasized the baneful under the banner of socialist revolu-
the relative narrowness of India's in- effect upon the older Indian economy tion and the abolitioin of wage slavery.
dustrial base in tenns of the size of (whether characterised as Asiatic, feu- Many of ouir contributors castigate the
the country, the dependence of this dal or precapitalist) of its involuntary left political parties for having prea-
industry on foreign technology, the integration into the world capitalist ched class collaboration with rich pea-
very limited amount of employment circuit. For some authors, British trans- sants or capitalist farmers against
provided by the secondaiy sector, and formation of its Indian colony into a 'feudal elements'.
the extreme modesty of the economic market for manuif-actures and a source Few oF them calculate the ocdds for
demand for consumers' goods. There is of primary products such as wheat, the suiccess of the sing'e-class nove-
agreement that capitalism in agricul- cotton and jute, served to establish meints which they favour. Few consider
ture cannot be depended upon to solve dominant canitalist relations in late the tacical problems of persuading
the crucial problems of access to 'and aineteenth century India, or in certain poor peasants and labouirers belonging
and to food of the whole rural popu- regions of the country. For others, to respectable, or merely "backward"
lationi. imperialisnm in its own interest shored castes. to unite wVith untouchables for
The set of rural classes proposed by
up feudal elemelnts in Indian economy immediate, let a7one long-range de-
and society. All agree that India is mancds.
the various authors ranges from Ashok
still tributary in large degree to the
l3udra's drastic duality to Nirmal If someone with no personal experi-
international nmarket: some refer to
Chandra's six-fold grouping, and the ence of mass leadership may be per-
this as semi-coloniol status. O-hers pre-
eveni larger number of categories used tnitted to pass comment on her fellow
fer to speak of India's peripheral capi-
by Joan Mencher and Utsa Patnaik. academics, I would say that most of
talisnm in relation to metropolitan
This lack of accord on the array of the political prescriptions smack of the
centres.
rural classes should not surprise us. armchair and the scholar's candle. This
Apart fromn marked regional differences, Earfy interventions in the debate is not to disparage the value of scienti-
it would seem that the class configura- were largely limited to economic issues. fic and theoretical discussions for re-
tion which one sees depends prinmarily Laser papers have paid increasing at- volutionary practice, but rather to su-g-
on one's point of view. Researchers tention to elemlents of consciousness g,st that they be comrbined wvith practi-
trying variously to explain why a land and culture, witlh -special reference to cal lessons le-arned from acttual struig-
reform has or has not actually been caste. Onle of the weakniesses of Mar- gles.
implemented; whetn agricultural (leve- xist stutdies on India has been. )rccisely (Concluded)
lopment programmes work and when a failure, perhaps even an unwi liig-
they don't; why particular candidates ness, to deal adequately with this basic Note
or parties receive the votes of specific facet of Indian society. This is one of
This article. is to appear in the
village groups; where reforn or revo- the directions which future debate can volulme "Caste et Classe en Asie dti
lutionary movements arise and spread, most fruitfully explore. Another is the Sud" edited bv Jacques Poichebpa(lass,
or where they are nipped in the bud; mnore detailed analysis of the ro'e of number 6 (autumn 1982) in the CoFec-
the State. tions Puruisharta published by the Edi-
should obviously not be expected to
tions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes eni
come up with identical list of classes. Although the arguminents have some- Sciences Sociales, Paris. The earliest
Under the circumstances, efforts to at- tiines been couched in highly abstract versions of this study were presented
tach numerical values to particular in two seminar papers in. the Centre
language, the mode of production de- 'd'Etudles de l'Inde et de l'Acie diu
classes are even less conmparable. There late coninot be disnmissed as a scholas- Sud (Centre of South Asia Stuidies) in
is not even a consensus as to the iden- tic quarrel over definitions. The parti- Paris in 1978 and 1979. I suibsequently
tity of the typical producer: is he an cipants are, without exception, engaged reworked the mnaterial several times as
independent middle peasant or, on the
a basis for talks in 1981 and 1982 to
or concerned scholars, who hope groups in the Kerala University,, Trivani-
contrary, is he an impoverished tenant, through their research anid writing to dlrum; the Institute for Social anid Eco-
share-cropper or agricultural labourer? contribute to leftwing pobitical action. nomic Chanae, Bangalore; the Centre
As Omivedt has observed, the polemics for Studies in Social Sciences. Calcutta,
Cut-off points in size of lanidholding the A N Sinha Institutte for Social
began at a critical moment in Indian Studies, Patra: the Political Science
terms are clearly inadequate for tnark-
agricultural development, "expressed Department, University of Delhi; the
ing off agricultural classes. Combina- Sardar Patel Institute. Ahme(labad: the
politically in the Naxa'bari revolt" as
tions of landholding categories with Institute of South Asian Studies of the
also in a new upsurge of agi ation by Universitv of Peking; and the London
other characteristics (such as labouir
agricultural labourers which, in turn, School of Economics. I should like to
r elations) become unwiedly in practice.
cal'ed forth a wave of repression by express mv gratitude to all of the
In the course of preparing the present friends and colleagues who commented
ihe rural elite "symbolised in the 1968
article I tried to make up a table on these talks; I learned a great deal
Kilvenmani massacre, first in a long from them. Particular thanks are due
showing the relative shares of the rural
population attributed to each class by
series of atrocities on Harijans". (Om- to Kirsten Westergaard, who came from
vedt 1981) Copenhagen to Paris to help me work
the different authors who have attemp- through some of the more difficult
ted this exercise (Bhaduri, Nirmal For this reason I have taken the theoretical aspects.
Chandra, Prasad, Mencher, Rudra, Oin- trouble to spell out in considerable Most of the items in the ldbliograplwv
wvhich follows have appeare(d in Indian
vedt) and to include the one-shot esti- dletail the precise political implications
ioirnals from 1969 to the end of 1981.
m.ates o)f thlis or th.at cl.ass by other dlraw0n bys e.ach .author on thew b.asisMostof of the aulithors art them.svlves Tn(li-

264

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 11 May 2024 05:30:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ECONTOMIC AND MLITICAL WEEKLY Decemiiber 18, 1982
ans, somie of thetmi working abroad. A
few titles to which there is no specific re-
ference in the text have been included,
for the most part articles which are not
centred on India, but which may none-
theless be interesting for readers who
wish to pursue the subject further, eg,
Foster-Carter, Westergaard. For the
benefit of readers with limited access
to journals and library facilities, I have
deliberately included as many versions
as I could find of articles with more
or less the same purport pubiished by
the same author in different periodicals.
To judge from the citations in the
papers which form the base of my
survey, books have played only a minor
1ole in the discussion. I have nonethe-
less listed a few volumes, once again
for the convenience of scholars, which
are relevant to the subject even though
I have not referred directly to them.
One book which several colleagues
have mentioned to me, but which I
have not been able to lay hands on, is
described as a pirated collection of
articles from the Economic and Poli-
tical Weekly of Bombay on the mode
of production debate. It was published
in 1979 or 1980 by Vanguard Books
Limited in Lahore. The name of the
editor has been given to me as Najam
Sethi. Another book which may have
by now come out, but which I have
also not seen, is mentioned by Paresh
Chattopadhyay in his 1980 article. He
notes that it was originally written for
publication in the proposed volume on
the mode of production debate, to be
edited by Hamza Alavi, A Gunder
Frank arnd John Harris.
I have aimed at listing every signi-
ficant contribution to the debate. There
are certainly, nevertheless, omissions
which I regret, I shall welcome any
additional citation. I have also tried
earnestly to give a fair, though inevitably
highly condensed, version of the argu-
tients of each participant. Here again,
where I have falled, I must ask for for-
[)earance and corrections.
Bibliography
Alavi, Hamza, "India and the Colonial
Mode of Production", Economic and
Political Weekly (EPW), X (1975)
33, 34 and 35, 1235-1262.
Alavi, Hamza, "Structure of Colonial
Formations", EPW, XVI (1981) 10,
11 and 12, 475-486.
Arens, Jenneke, Van Beurden, Jos,
"Jhagrapur: Poor Peasants and Wo-
men in a Village in Bangladesh"
(1977; New Delhi, Orient Longmnan,
1980).
Atyachar Virodh Samniti, "The Marath-
wada Riots: a Report", EPW, XIV
(1979)19, 845-852.
Bagchi, Amiya K, "Relation of Agri-
culture to Industry in the Context of
South Asia". Frontier, Calcutta VII
(1975) 22, 23 and 24, 12-27.
Banaji, Jairus, "For a theory of Colo-
nial Modes of Production", EPW,
VII (1972) 52, 2498-2502.
Banaji, Jairus, "Capitalist Domination
and the Small Peasantry: Deccan
Districts in the Late Nineteeuth
Century", EPW, XII (1977a) 33 and
34, 1375-1404.
B3anaji, Jairus, "Modes of P~roduction ina D!elhi, (196a cited by Thworr
a Materialist C:oneeption of History", 1980, PP 251-252.
202.41.10.109 on Sat, 11 May 2024 05:30:25 +00:00
Capital and Class, Exeter, (aut
1977b), 1-44.
Bardhan, Pranab, "On Class Relations
in Indian Agricuture", EPW, XIV
(1979) 19, 857-860.
Bardhan, Pranab, Rudra, Ashok, "Inter-
linkage of Land, Labour and Credit
Relatio.s: An Analysis of Village
Survey Data in East India", EPW,
XIII (1978) 67, 367-384.
Bhaduri, Amit, "A Study of Agricultural
Backwardness under Conditions of
Semi-feudalism", Economic Journal,
LXXXVI (1973a) 329, 120-137.
Bhaduri, Amit, "An Analysis of Semi-
Feudalism in East India", Frontier,
VI (aut 1973b) cited by Sen Gupta
1977.
Chakraborty, Aparajita, "Tenancy and
Mode of Production" EPW, XVI
(1?81) 13, Review of Agriculture,
5-14.
Chandra, Nirmal K, "Farm Efficiency
under Semi-Feudalism: A Critique ot
Marginalist Theories and Some Mar-
xist Formulations", EPW, IX (1974)
32, 33 and 34, 1309-1331.
Chandra, Nirmal K, 'Agrarian Transi-
tion in India", in three parts, Fron-
tier, VII (1975a, b, c) 28, 29 and
30; 3-6, 3-9, 3-5.
Chattopadhyay, Paresh, "On the Ques-
tion of the Mode of Production in
Indian Agriculture: A Preliminary
Note", EPW, VII (1972a) 13, Re-
view of Agriculture, 39-46.
Chattopadhyay, Paresh, "Mode of Pro-
duction in Indian Agriculture: An
Anti-Kritik", EPW, VII (1972b), Re-
view of Agriculture, 185-192.
Chattopadhyay, Paresh, "Mode of Pro-
duction in Indian Agriculture: An
Afterword", EPW, XV (1980), Re-
view of Agriculture, 85-88.
Cleaver, Harry, "Internationalisation of
Capital and Mode of Production in
Agriculture", EPW, XI (1976) 13,
Review of Agriculture 2-16.
Davey, Brian, "The Economic Develop-
metat of India: A Marxist Analysis"
(Nottingham, Spokesman Books, 1975).
Davey, Brian, "Modes of Production
and Socio-Economic Formations",
South Asia Marxist Review I (1975)
2, cited by Lin, 1980.
Foster-Carter, Aidan, "The Mode of
Production Conitroversy", New Left
Review (Jan-Feb 1978) 107, 47-78.
Frank, Andre Gunder, "On 'Feudal'
Modes, Models and Methods of
Escapiang Capitalist Reality", EPW,
VIII (l'J73a) 1, 36-37.
Frank, Andre Gunder, "Reflections on
Green, Red and White Revolutions
in India', EPW, VIII (1973b) 3,
119-124.
Ghosh, A, Dutt, K, "Development of
Capitalist Relations in Agriculture (A
Case Study of West Bengal 1793-
1971)" (New Delhi, People's Pub-
lishing House, 1977).
Gough, Kathleen, "Modes of Produc-
tion in Southern India", EPW, XV
(1980) 5, 6 and 7, 337-364.
Gupta, Dipankar, "Formal and Real
Subsumption of Labour under Capi-
tal: The Instance of 'Jaare-Crop-
ping", EPW, XV (1980) 39, Review
of Agriculture, 98, 106.
Gupta, Sulekh Chand "Some Aspects
of Indian Agriculture", Enquiry,tions", unpublished paper for
This content downloaded from
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gupta, Sulekh Chand, "New Trends o0
Growth", Seminar, Delhi, (1962b),
cited by Patnaik 1971a.
Harriss, John, 'Capitalism and PeasanL
Farming: A Study of Agricultural
Change and Agrarian Structure in
Northern Tamnil Nadu", doctoral
thesis (University of East Anglia.
1977) cited by Westergaard 1979.
Jlanss, John, ' Why Poor People Re-
main Poor in Rural South India",
Social Scientist, Trivandrum, VIII
(1979a) 1, 2U-47.
Harriss, John, 'The Mode of Production
Controversy: Themes and Problems
of the Debate", Working Paper
ItMadras Institute of Developiment
Studies, 1979b).
Kotovsky, G, "'Agrarian Reform in
l-idia', (Moscow, Progress, 1964).
LnI, Sharat G, "'i'heory ot a Dual Mode
of Production in Post-Co(onial India",
in. two parts, EeW, XV (1980) 10
and ll, 616-529, 565-573.
NMencher, Joan P, "Probsems in Analys-
ing Rural Class Structure", EPW,
IX (1974) 35, 1495-1503.
mencher, Joan P, "Agriculture and So-
cial Structure in 'I amil N adu: Past
Origins, Present Transtormation, and
Fluture Prospects" (New Delhi,
Allied, 1977).
Meacher, Joan P, "Agrarian Re;ations
in 'iwo Rice Regions of Kerala",
rPW, XIII (197Th) 6 and 7, 349-366.
McEacherm, D, 'The Mode of Produc-
tion in India", Journal of Contem-
'porary Asia, VI (1976) 4, 444-457.
Ouivedt, Gail, "India and the Colonial
Mode of Production: Commaent",
EPW, X (1975) 42, 1669-1670.
Omvedt, Gail, "Towards a Marxist
Analysis of Caste", Social Scientist,
VI (1978) 11, 70-76.
Omvedt, Gail, "Migration, in Colonial
lIdia: The Articulation of Feudalismi
and Capitalism by the Colonial
btate", Journal of Peasant Studies,
Vll (1980) 2, 185-212.
O)mvedt, Gail, "Capitalist Agriculture
and Rural Classes in India", EPW,
XVI (1981) 52, Review of Agriculture,
140-159.
Patnaik, Utsa, "Capitalist Development
in AgriculLure", EPW, VI (1971a) 39,
Review of Agriculture, 123-130.
Patnaik, Utsa, "Capitalist Development
in Agriculture: A Note", EPW, VI
(1971b) 39, Review of Agriculture,
123-30.
Patiaik, Utsa, "Capitalist Development
in Agrriculture: Further Comment",
EPW, VI (1971c) 52, Review of
Agriculture, 190-194.
latnaik, tJtsa, "On the Mode of Pro-
duction in Indian Agriculture: a
lieply", EPW, VII (1972a) 40, Re-
view of Agriculture, 145-151.
Patnaik, Utsa, "Development of Capi-
talism in Agriculture", Social Scien-
tist. (September 1972b) 2, 15-31.
Patnaik, Utsa, "Class Differentiation
within the Peasantry: An Approach
to Analysis of Indian Agriculture",
EPW, Xi (1976) 39, Review of Agri-
culture, 82-101.
Palnaik, Utsa, "The Process of Com-
mercialisation under Colonial Condi-
Semninar on Commercialisation in~
Indian, Agriculture (Cettre for 1fle-
sag
 December 18, 1982 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

velopmnent Stu(dies, Trivandrum, 1981),
79 p.
JFouchepadass, I, "L'endettement paysan
(lans le Bihar Colonial", Purusartha
"La Dette" (1980) 4, 165-205.
P'rasad, Pradhan, 'Production Rela-
ticirs: Achilles' Heel of Indian
P.anning", EPW, VIII (1973) 19,
869-872.
Prasad, Praclhan, "Reactionary Role of
Usutrers' Capital in Rural India",
EPW, 1X (1974) 32, 33 and 34,
1305-1.308.
I)rasad, Pradhan, "Caste and Class in
Bihar", EPW, XIV (1979) 7 and 8,
481-484.
'rasad, Praclhan, "Rising Middle Pea-
saritry in North India", EPW, XV
(1980) 5, 6 and! 7, 215-219.
Ran, R S, "In Search of the Capitalist
Farmer: A Commnent", EPW, V
(1970) 51, 2055-2056.
El3ocra, Ashok, Majid, A Talib, B D,
"Rig Farmers of the Punjab: Some
Preliminarv Findings of a Sample
Suirvey", EPW, IV (1969) 39, Review
of Agriculture, 143-146.
Budra, Ashok, "Big Farmers of Punjab:
Second Instalment of Results", EPW,
IV (1969) 52, Review of Agriculture,
21.3-219.
lutidra, Ashok, "Inl Search of the Capi-
talist Farmer", EPW, V (1970) 26,
Review of Agriculture, 85-87.
Rudra, Ashok, "Capitalist Develop-
ment in A ulture: Reply", EPW,
VI (1971) 45, 2291-2292.
Rudra, Ashok, 'Semi-Feudalism, Usury
Capita, Etcetera", EPW, IX (1974)
48, 1996-1997.
Rudra, Ashok, "India and the Colonial
Mode of Production: Comment",
EPW, IX (1975) 48, 1668-1669.
Rudra Ashok, "glass Relations in
Indian Agriculture", EPW, XII
(1978abc) 22, 23 and 24, 916-923,
963-968, 998-1003.
Rudra Ashok, "Against Feudalism",
EPW. XVI (1981) 52, 2133-2146.
Saith, A, Tankha, A, "Agrarian Transi-
tion and the Differentiatioa of the
Peasantry: A Study of a West UP
Village", EPW, VII (1972) 14,
707-723.
Sau, Ranjit, "On the Essence and
Manifestation of Capitalism in Indian
AgricultuLre", EPW, VIII (1973) 13,
Review of Agricultuire, 27-30.
Sau, Ranjit, "Farm Efficiency under
Semi-Feudalism: A Critique of Mar-
ginalist Theories anid Some Marxist
Formulations - A Comment", EPW,
X (1975) 13, Review of Agricuituire,
18-21.
Sau Ranjit, "Cma Capitalism Develop
in Indian Agriculture?", EPW, XI
(1976) 52, Review of Agriculture,
126-136.
Shah, Mihir. "On the Development of
Capitalism in Agriculture", Working
Paper (Gentre for Development
Studies, TrivaiLcdrtiiii, 1980), 54 p.
Sen, Sunil, 'Agrarian Relations in India
(1793-1974)" (New Delhi, People's
Publishing House, 1979).
Sen Gupta, Nirrnal, "Further on the
Mode of Production in Agriculture",
EPW, XII (!977) 26, Review of
Agriculture, 55-63.
Sen Gupta, Nirinal, "Futrther from the
Mode of Production", Working Paper
(A N Sinha Institute of- Social Stuclies,
Patna, 1981), 63) p.
Thorner, Daniel, "The Agrarian Pros-
pect in jindia', (Delhi, 1956; New
Delhi, Allied, 1976).
Thorner, Daniel, "Capitalist Stirrings
in Rural India", The Statesman
(Calctutta, November 1, 2, 3, and 4,
1967 reprintecl in Thorier, Daniel,
"The Shaping of Modern India"
(New Delhi, Allied, 1980).
Westergaard, Kir-sten, "Mode of Pro-
duction in Bangladesh", Journal of
Social Stvdies, Dacca, (1978) 3, 1-98.
Westergaard, Kirsten, "The Relation-
ship betw\veen the State and Ruiral
Society in Bangyladesh", doctoral
thesis (Instituite of Political Stuclies,
University of Copenhagen 1979),
280 p.
Wood. Ceoffrey D, "Rural Class For-
mation in Bangladesh, 1940-1980",
Bulletin of Conicerned AM(ian Scholars,
XIII (1981) 4, 2-15.

FOREVER AT THE
SERVICE OF
OUR COUNTRY I INDIA-U. K. & THE CONTINEN
INDIAIBANGLADESH

AT HOME & ABROAD I INDIA-BLACK SEA A

IINOIA-POLAND AND INDIAN COAST

INDIA STEAMSHIP Co., LTD*

""INDJA STEAMSHIP HOUSE", 21, OLD COURT HOUSE ST., CALCUTTA-1

2068-so

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.109 on Sat, 11 May 2024 05:30:25 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms