You are on page 1of 7

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. 51 (Dec. 18, 1982), pp. 2061-2066 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4371676 . Accessed: 20/04/2013 09:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 120.59.165.205 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:47:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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 postcolontial modes, and recently, a dual mode. Fromnthe 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 or 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 of authors htave broughzt in freslhly gathiered field data at the first and second levels to buittress their argunienits. 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 Agricultural 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 mathemnaticalmodels. 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 links; and recommnendationsfor praxis. This is the third and last part of the paper whichi has been published in three parts. Direction and Pace of Change in Independent India
UT1-SA PA INAIK,
IPAB}ESH

NIRMAL

SEN

GUPTA,
LIN,

CHAY1-OPADHYAY,

SHARAD

Tlhe feudal miodel is still prevalernt, to Nirnial Sen Guipta, who according IN the same article on class diffe- buit becauise if they cannnot rent in land, also beieves in the "conAinued deterthey will lhave no means of subsistence. rentiation which we have already ministic role of imrlperialisti even in cited, Utsa Patnaik also takes up the Urader these circumiistances, the type olf post-Indepenldence fact In(lia". The capi'talist investmnent which has been (luestion of the 'trend' acid 'niou-nent' an to be continues Indclia that in the development of Indian agrarian talking place over the past 10-15 years' inltegral part of the xworld capital is that which "raises output and surplus relations. At Independence, slhe wrisvs 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 "capipeasantry, while already existingll, high-vieldirig seecds. Ornly in this wav tatiist tref(id' which uuanifes's itself "in in were overshadowed importa-nce l)y can the gains from capitalist-style pro- a colonial or semii-colonial society", the burden of landlordismtion the duction suirmnount "the rent lbarrier". where the "feudal mo(lde of producpeasantry as a whole. The principal Mechanisation and labour-replacement tioin and feuidal social formationi" surhave been uoi-idertaken primnarilv when iA tilnie, contradiction at that mn<omcnt vive in an "assimilative foimn, running required to raise the surplus per acre, placing all other contradictionis in a ove:r a variety of proportionality bei e, s( zas to allow douoble cropping. secondaiv role, was that De'ween tween fetudal monde and capitalist capiia'ist investment landlords on the one side and the For Ihis reason, imlode". The agrarian formation which alid outL-put expansion have showni a was co.oenal semi-feudlal" in the copeasantry on the other. The trend crop-wise aind( regicn -wise( concentrasince Indepence is toward c-apitalist can he labelled "semiii]lonial period production, Ibut this tendenicv is tion" (Pathaik, 1976). colonial semiii-feud(lal"in the post-Innarrowly based since land'Pordismhas For the fit'iire we canl expect a ]evel"Thougih capitaldependlence periocd. not been abolished and there h-iasbeen .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 (leveor-ce the potential still prevalent, and(1 capitalist However, the developtmientof 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- capitalist rent though with a la", task The concnudes. immediate!v si.n today is not, an(l cannot be, ex- I'atnaik predicts. ahlad, hle urges. "is fundamentally Reniewe(d c ;pital

CHAHBABORTY, ASHOK RUDIRA, ATYACHAR VIR(oI)H peasalnas are prepared to pay "hunger SAMrrI, GAIL OMVEDT rents" not because of high productivity,

DrPWANT;All iGUPTA,. APAuAJITA

actly the samne as at Independence". inv\'estmerit be under:aken if wvill oilv (Platinaik1976) it can emi)oclv a chanige in produc0ion Definite limits, PaXiinaik argues, are techlniques that wvill provide a "subse- to the further developmenit of the s antia?, discrete increase" in output capitalist tendency by thae high leve's and suirplus per unit of land area (4 "precapitalist. ground rent". Small (Iatinaik, 1976).

2061

This content downloaded from 120.59.165.205 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:47:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

December 18, 1982 one of full-scale capitalist developthe population". (Lin, 1980)

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL W EEKLY


the uisef'tlness of feuLdalisml as a consing any period at all cept for analys He points out that in Inldiani history. while political ecoionoiists who use the ably believe presumii ternm 'semi-feudal' that the miiode of produiction in India duttring somne previouis period was feucdal, muciieh influential opinicnl among hisWorians rejects the thesis that there was ever feudlalismn in Indian history. After reviewing the historical debate, for Rudria casti(rates the participants p.ayim, insufficient attention to "social, religious d eulturtLl ans instLitutions". Whereas .he "European genius" forge(d the features andl rituials of feuda'!Sinl (sueh as commenldation, homiage and(I fealty), the "InidiaEl genius" inHindu veneed the caste systetm, the hypothesis ethos. I-le advances the that wvhereas in the western world, is the hierarchic struieture of society (l the uiltimiia'e atialysis in niaii-ai(w1w violence, 'tli.s particulacr role i? Ili(ion histoo1 wa.s playted iot by violence but by idleologjy". (Rudra 1981, italics in the origicial) This thesis, Rudr a insists, "has an for implication extremeyivmpnortant practice". The political lessoni that he cdraws is that "the struiggle against the reactionary elements of the Brahmanic i(leologvy should constitutie an important elemnent "in axy struggle for progress in 'this country". (Rudra 1981) Thiis proposal of Rudra's is very close to the recommendelations of a leftwing Mlaharashtriari organisation, the Atyaebar Virodh Samiti, at the end of a report on riots in Marathwada in w-hich caste Ilinduiis -wreaked violence upon inembers of schedutled castes. The Samiti contends that the caste system exrtemnely effective ftuncticos as "an of econonmic exploitation'. method Caste hierarchies reflect economic power and ownershbip of lan(l. As bourgeois relations develop, the argument continuties, the inistituition of caste starts to (isinteg(rate, but 'the process is not .smooth. It is at this point that caste riots, reflecting conflict of class interests In the "mixed capitalis'L take place. of today, caste persists "as economv a part of feuidal ideology". Buit it ailso serves the bou-rgeois systemn since onie of its fuinctions has been "to prevent formnation of consciouisness and strucggles on class linies". The Samiti calls tuponi all progressives and Leftists to take uijp issuies arouincd specific caste questions. an(d to stupport unconditionally moveauitoncnoons a(alit (oppressed) ments wvith (lemnocratic (lemnands aaainst "To establli.sh a cas'e dliscriminatien.

ment". (Sen Gtupta 1977). Re-entermiig the discussion to sharporiginal formiiunations eni so<me of his on positions taken by and to committient Ashok liudra, Hanjit Sau ond I-laiiza Alavi, l'airesh GChattopadhyay inisists no-tably oni the "dual role of capitalpry-capitalism'". ismii with regard to That it seeks both the destruction anid the preservation of older forms, Chatitopadyay holds, "is a universal phenoinenon and not confined to what is ussually considered as 'colonies' or 'semiii-coloniies' ". (Chattopadhyay 1980) A two-part article by Sharat G Lin term, "a dual puts forward a new modce of production" for post-colunial India. Citing lBanaji, Sen Gupia and Briant Davey, Lin finids overaUl agreement that there is a superposition of production. nore than one mode of I1 Lin's formulation "the two primary modes (pre-capitalist and capitalist) insingle "a generating terpenietrate" miiode with dual character having, at accotmLmodating and cononce, both flic'ingr internial dynamnics". State power "must be shared by two historical'y opposed ruling classes" since it is "based on two historically opposed primary modes"; hence it can-not reYet, Lin opines, maini forever stable. it may last longer "than has been the case elsewhere in the wvorld". This is precapita-ist inode is so because the because of wide rewell-entrenched, gional variation in the 9trength of capitalist forces, because of the social iniertia of sheer size, and because of the role of ctultural factors. (Lin, 1980)

Two receint articles concentrate oil rural scenie eleenciits of the current which have been identified as ''feuthe dal'. Dipankar GXupLa considers and conshare-cropping, nalure of telnds that it is "inot a feudal inStitution b)ut rather appears only in forjiuations wvliere feudal inistitutions have capitalism aind been uniderminied by where capitalism has not yet appearI-He prefers to ed in all its virility." view the lndian econolmiy as "a capitatist onie where capitalisimi has not (ieveloped uniforinly". AlLhough capitalisin is the maiin ciienemy," a revo,utakeover "is not yet in the tionary prospect is of a offing" so that the "lon(g period of struggle ahead". The Left should not rush to raise the ciy o1 'inmiiediate socialisatioln of the lalnd' such as since slogans 'lanid to the tiller' can- still imiotivacte the miajority of the peasanlts. (Gupta 1980)

Chakraborty atSimilarly Aparajita acks the idea "that tenancy as an innecessarl'y a featuLre of s.itution is in precapitalist nmodes of production, particular the feutdal mode" anid that necessarily development capita7lisL She its for disappearance". calls naimies Utsa lPatnaik, Nirmal Chandra having subanid Am-iit Bhaduri as scribed to this erroneous and, in her On the uin-Marxist notion. opinion, contrary, Chakraborty presents the viewz that tenancy is a flexible arrangemeint wNhich "takes clifferent formiis and eml)odies different mixtures of capitalist an(l precapitalist relations unider (lffecondlitions". In India ment historical With regard to the possibflities for has times tenancy until very recent oppressedl been characterisetI - by "very action, the revolutioniary regresagainst wvbich- sive fea ires", andl even todav in many imiust struggle classes ever of the two modes and elemnents cases peasaints arie subject to "exploi"holds trend-dominpower of state tative' rntits" an(d "exorbitant rates of ance in the process )f transition to interest". agricultural In this way The enemly surplus is being holdilng status-dominance". diverted into nonmlust be carefully chosen since a stnlgdevechliayimels, and the produtctive g'e against the. fetudal aspect which loptneot of capitalism in agricutulre is does not take into accotunt the bour- hekl back. The relations of produicgeois aspect w-ill leald by default to tion evmbodied in this process, Chakstrengthening the position of the lat- raborty conce(les, "are no (louibt preter and "to the type of' c'ass collabocapitalist in nature". BuIt this does various left par- not neacn thiat tenancy itself is feudal ration exercised by ever, it is not vet the m-lo- or sem-i ties". Hlows i-feud(lal: ment for "a stage of struigle for the In Mndia, until ,ecently, tenancy revoluition sitnce the Indian socialist was an institLutionwhich was very complekted and bo-urgeoisiie jhbas not much a part of the precapitalist recannot complete the bourgeois demnolations of productioni that characterBut it is getting ised agriculture. cratic revolution. This deemocratic rechanged along with changing con"be completed only can volution ditions to the point of becoming throtugh an alliance of the proletariat compatible with emerging capitapeasantr-v who toan(n impoverishedi list relations. (Chakraborty 1981) gei her a.n.stitulte some 90 per cent of FTorhi.s part. X.shok; Rud(ra dlenies

2062

This content downloaded from 120.59.165.205 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:47:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND POLITICAL WEEKLY ECONOMVIIC


link be tween fights against caste-oppression and. class exploitation", the report concludes, "is the need of the houir". (Atyachar Virodh Samiti 1978)

D)ecember 18, 1982


capitalismi has emerged in a particular different markedly setting, colonial from the conditions in the metropoliwhere capitalism was tan countries born. Bv what criteria has the prevalence of capitalism been established? It has beeni abundantly shown that the existand/or tenancy ence of widespread does nrot necessarily share-cropping indicate the presence of feudcal relations of producition; ncor does the concentration of landholding together with cul'tivation of small uinits by large nnumhers of peasants. By the samne token, the use of wage laloijur cannot by itself be taken as a snire sign of capitalist relations. Yet the shift from exploitation throuigh tenants to large-scale or intensive farming 1y means of hired labour is significant. The growth of capitalist farmingi in India has been accompainied 1b, in fact of relato, a transformation aminouints tions of production anid formiis of exServile, dlebt-lbondled, an(J/ ploitation. labouir has been or traditionallv tied relative'y largely suipplanted bv free, mol)ile, waage labonir, paid (if meagrely) for the most part in cash. Investment in moodern, scien-tific a(gr,icuiltuire and has expanded, has enormouisly restulted, on the whole, in enhanced producionI, at least of certain crops in certain areas. Tenancy and share-crophave in many regiPLng arrangements onis been a(dapted to the niew economic
andl

migrant and free c'ass, whose differences with the urban working class "seem more those of quantity than of quality". (Omvedt 1981) In a tnajor reviewN of the evidence Despite the evidence which she marwhich has become availal)le during the shals to prove the reality of capitalist 1970s, Gail OImvedt development in agriculture, Ornvedt em(gives an unequivocally affirmative answer to the question phasises her assessment that this deveas to whether India's agriculture is now lopment "is not leading to any increased diominantly capitalist. Harking back to overall welfare for the rural (or urban) Daniel Thorner's 1969 formnulation that masses". She disparages the assumption the emergence of capitalist farming re- of some authors that "immiserisation, presented one facet of the induListrial pauiperisation,growing landlessness, etc. revolution which are -themselves signs of 'semi-fetudalism' wvas transforming India, she stresses "the links between or the lack of capitalist development". agricutIture an(l industr,!, city an(I comn- (Omvedt 1981) tryside". (Onmvedt 1981) Omvedt's prescription for political action rests ulpon her faith in the reAt the time of Indepxendence, Omvedt rural probelieves, Indian agriculture was "pre- volutionary potential of the agridominantly feudal iin character, thouigh letariat. She is persuaded that the peasants poor and labourers cultural imnportant elements of capitalissi ha(l are capable "of formina acentre aroun "caste-structured" isen". This was a which middle peasants and other opform of feudalism wvhich exis'Led before pressed sections can be united". Acthe British periocd. When the colonial she deplores the tendency of cordingly, , enforced the statte nio lon(ger officia-1l parliamentary left parties to major the caste system, 'caste' acid 'class' b)egan itJclnding the rich for 'aWiances call to represen-t separat( social phenom-lena. she contends, are in who, peasants", "Ibt there wvas still a near-absolute corand capitalist relation between them". Becauise of the effect "the village rulers weakness of The apparent farmers". particular caste aspect of Indian. feuda'Omvedt tells semni-proletariat, rural the isml, Oimvedt affirm-ns,"the anti-feu-idal numbers of "vast by belied us, is Tnovement was expressed not onlv diverse and unreported or underthrotugh peasant revolts but aLso in the reported clashes" involving "agricultural radical anti-caste moveni-ents of Phule, as we l Ambecdkar and Perivar". (O.mvedt 1981) labourers and other labourers as poor and middle peasants". Since For the present, Ornve(dt's arguments "class exploitation is compo<undedwith
for the dominance of capitalism b)e summcrcd up as foT,lows: (1)
(2)

(.3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

oppression" many caste and national are strugg-les assuLme forrns which over hallf of the rural. population difficult to identify as caass conflicts, depelm(l uipon) wagcs; as for example those of the Jharkhand Morcha in the tribal area of all cIltivators are torced to sell to Mukti the Dalit Panthers in MahaBihar or some extent in the market, and up to now the "rur-al Although rashtra. their production is governed by the masses have not yet found their toiling lawvs of the imiarket, own revolutionary party", Omnvedt contlhe miieans of prodlu-ction in agrifident'y foresees for the future "tuniulculture are now, to a large extent. tons political developmiients". (Omvedt produced industrially and ac(quiired 1981) through the muarket, therIChas been a subs'antial growthl Balance-Sheet in the u.useof capital inipuits such as fertilisers an(d oil eng,ines; What, N-e nmaxynow ask, has been dozen there has leen a genuinile, if ha-t- clarified in the couirse of the past remains what and of debate, years ing, growth in agricultural produccontroversial? First of all, there wou'd tion; no longer appear to be any doubt that generalised commii-noditv prodcuction, capitaiism today dominates Indian agriincluidin-igthe sale of labour powser, culture as it already was generally seen prevails; to dominate industry at the time the the primary aspect of the rela:ion(liscussion began. Does this mean that ship of the ruvlra' rich with the the mnode of production which prevails rural poor is as exploiters of lal)our in contemporary India is capita&ist, and powver; subject to the Marxist laws of inotiomi Here, the the riraln semii-proletairiZat is, b) of capitalist development? andl large, an incr easingly, mobile, answ.ser isc les.s evidlent, since Indlia's

can

technical

re(luirements.

our,

Ye:- master-servant htpes of b-ehaviconstraints, rackCx ra--economic renting au(l usury have by no means (lisappeare:l. A particular featuire of the Iindiani scenle is the vast mass of uinor under-employed- wrho, if they cannot emigrate and fnlod jobs outside of agricultuLre, exercise upward pressuire on the rental price of land, anid downiThe pressure on xvage rates. ward school of thought which tried to take aspects bw labe7ling accouniit of these senmi-feucdal has agriculture Indian withdrawn from the debate after about the middle of the 1.970s, but there is still talk of the persistence of feuidal relations of producand semi-feudal tion. Similarly, the original proponents themse'ves of a colonial monde have while the termii the term, dropped 'dcual mode' has, to mv knowledg.e, attracted no followers. But the concepts -of the preservation/destructiorn of earlier tnodes of produiction by capitalism, and of the articulation of different modes within a single social formation continule to figulre in the (liselissio)n. 2063

This content downloaded from 120.59.165.205 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:47:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

December 18, 1982 Several authors who accept the leading role of capitalism nonetheless express grave doubts as to the likelihood of its further and full development. They point out obstacles to capitalist progress on the national scale such as the relative narrowness of India's industrial base in tenns of the size of the country, the dependence of this industry on foreign technology, the very limited amount of employment provided by the secondaiy sector, and the extreme modesty of the economic demand for consumers' goods. There is agreement that capitalism in agriculture cannot be depended upon to solve the crucial problems of access to 'and and to food of the whole rural popu-

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY his own analysis. As we have seen, these range from calls for completion of the capitalist transformationof agricuilture and the bourgeois revolution to clemands for iirimediate organisation under the banner of socialist revolution and the abolitioin of wage slavery. Many of ouir contributors castigate the left political parties for having preached class collaboration with rich peasants or capitalist farmers against 'feudal elements'. Few oF them calculate the ocdds for the suiccess of the sing'e-class novemeints which they favour. Few consider problems of persuading the tacical poor peasants and labouirers belonging to respectable, or merely "backward" castes. to unite wVithuntouchables for immediate, let a7one long-range demancds. If someone with no personal experience of mass leadership may be pertnitted to pass comment on her fellow academics, I would say that most of the political prescriptions smack of the armchair and the scholar's candle. This is not to disparage the value of scientific and theoretical discussions for revolutionary practice, but rather to su-gpractig,st that they be comrbinedwvith cal lessons le-arned from acttual struiggles.

writers (e g, Alavi and Lin). But the rubrics utilised by these writers proved the so disparate that I had to give,p attempt. The various discussiolns of colonial India have all enmphasized the baneful effect upon the older Indian economy (whether characterised as Asiatic, feudal or precapitalist) of its involuntary capitalist into the world integration circuit. For some authors, British transformation of its Indian colony into a market for manuif-actures and a source such as wheat, of primary products served to establish cotton and jute, canitalist relations in late dominant aineteenth century India, or in certain For others, the country. regions of lationi. imperialisnm in its own interest shored The set of rural classes proposed by up feudal elemelnts in Indian economy All agree that India is the various authors ranges from Ashok and society. to the l3udra's drastic duality to Nirmal still tributary in large degree some refer to nmarket: international Chandra's six-fold grouping, and the status. O-hers preeveni larger number of categories used this as semi-coloniol peripheral capiIndia's of speak fer to by Joan Mencher and Utsa Patnaik. This lack of accord on the array of talisnm in relation to metropolitan rural classes should not surprise us. centres. interventions in the debate Earfy Apart fromnmarked regional differences, it would seem that the class configura- were largely limited to economic issues. tion which one sees depends prinmarily Laser papers have paid increasing aton one's point of view. Researchers tention to elemlents of consciousness trying variously to explain why a land and culture, witlh -special reference to reform has or has not actually been caste. Onle of the weakniesses of Marimplemented; whetn agricultural (leve- xist stutdies on India has been. )rccisely lopment programmes work and when a failure, perhaps even an unwi liigthey don't; why particular candidates ness, to deal adequately with this basic or parties receive the votes of specific facet of Indian society. This is one of village groups; where reforn or revo- the directions which future debate can lutionary movements arise and spread, most fruitfully explore. Another is the or where they are nipped in the bud; mnore detailed analysis of the ro'e of should obviously not be expected to the State.

(Concluded) Note
This article. is to appear in the volulme "Caste et Classe en Asie dti Sud" edited bv Jacques Poichebpa(lass, number 6 (autumn 1982) in the CoFections Puruishartapublished by the Editions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes eni Sciences Sociales, Paris. The earliest versions of this study were presented in two seminar papers in. the Centre 'd'Etudles de l'Inde et de l'Acie diu Sud (Centre of South Asia Stuidies) in Paris in 1978 and 1979. I suibsequently several times as reworked the mnaterial a basis for talks in 1981 and 1982 to groups in the Kerala University,, Trivanidlrum;the Institute for Social anid Economic Chanae, Bangalore; the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences. Calcutta, the A N Sinha Institutte for Social Studies, Patra: the Political Science Department, University of Delhi; the Sardar Patel Institute. Ahme(labad: the Institute of South Asian Studies of the Universitv of Peking; and the London School of Economics. I should like to express mv gratitude to all of the friends and colleagues who commented on these talks; I learned a great deal from them. Particular thanks are due to Kirsten Westergaard, who came from Copenhagen to Paris to help me work through some of the more difficult theoretical aspects. Most of the items in the ldbliograplwv wvhichfollows have appeare(d in Indian ioirnals from 1969 to the end of 1981. art them.svlvesTn(liMost of the aulithors

the different authors ted this exercise (Bhaduri, Nirmal Chandra, Prasad, Mencher, Rudra, Oinvedt) and to include the one-shot estim.ates o)f thlis or th.at cl.ass by other 264

Although the arguminents have sometiines been couched in highly abstract language, the mode of production delate coninot be disnmissed as a scholastic quarrel over definitions. The participants are, without exception, engaged hope who scholars, or concerned through their research anid writing to pobitical action. contribute to leftwing the polemics Cut-off points in size of lanidholding As Omivedt has observed, in Indian moment critical a at began terms are clearly inadequate for tnark"expressed development, ing off agricultural classes. Combina- agricultural revolt" as tions of landholding categories with politically in the Naxa'bari also in a new upsurge of agi ation by labouir as (such characteristics other labourers which, in turn, relations) become unwiedly in practice. agricultural forth a wave of repression by cal'ed of the course In the present preparing elite "symbolised in the 1968 article I tried to make up a table ihe rural massacre, first in a long Kilvenmani rural of the showing the relative shares on Harijans". (Omatrocities of series population attributed to each class by 1981) vedt who have attempFor this reason I have taken the considerable out in trouble to spell dletail the precise political implications dlraw0n bys e.ach .author on thewb.asis of

come up with identical list of classes. Under the circumstances, efforts to attach numerical values to particular There classes are even less conmparable. is not even a consensus as to the identity of the typical producer: is he an independent middle peasant or, on the contrary, is he an impoverished tenant, share-cropper or agricultural labourer?

This content downloaded from 120.59.165.205 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:47:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ECONTOMIC AND MLITICAL WEEKLY ans, somie of thetmiworking abroad. A few titles to which there is no specific reference in the text have been included, for the most part articles which are not centred on India, but which may nonetheless 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 nonetheless 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 Political 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 arndJohn Harris. Capital and 1977b), 1-44. Class, Exeter, (aut

Decemiiber18, 1982

Gupta, Sulekh Chand, "New Trends o0 Growth", Seminar, Delhi, (1962b), Bardhan, Pranab, "On Class Relations cited by Patnaik 1971a. in Indian Agricuture", EPW, XIV Harriss, John, 'Capitalism and PeasanL (1979) 19, 857-860. Farming: A Study of Agricultural Bardhan, Pranab, Rudra, Ashok, "InterChange and Agrarian Structure in linkage of Land, Labour and Credit Northern Tamnil Nadu", doctoral An Analysis of Village Relatio.s: thesis (University of East Anglia. Survey Data in East India", EPW, 1977) cited by Westergaard 1979. XIII (1978) 67, 367-384. Jlanss, John, ' Why Poor People Remain Poor in Rural South India", Bhaduri, Amit, "A Study of Agricultural Social Scientist, Trivandrum, VIII Backwardness under Conditions of (1979a) 1, 2U-47. Semi-feudalism", Economic Journal, Harriss, John, 'The Mode of Production LXXXVI (1973a) 329, 120-137. Controversy: Themes and Problems Bhaduri, Amit, "An Analysis of Semiof the Debate", Working Paper Feudalism in East India", Frontier, ItMadras Institute of Developiment VI (aut 1973b) cited by Sen Gupta Studies, 1979b). 1977. Kotovsky, G, "'Agrarian Reform in Chakraborty, Aparajita, "Tenancy and l-idia', (Moscow, Progress, 1964). EPW, XVI Production" Mode of LnI, Sharat G, "'i'heoryot a Dual Mode Agriculture, (1?81) 13, Review of of Production in Post-Co(onial India", 5-14. in. two parts, EeW, XV (1980) 10 Chandra, Nirmal K, "Farm Efficiency and ll, 616-529, 565-573. under Semi-Feudalism: A Critique ot Joan P, "Probsemsin AnalysMarginalist Theories and Some Mar- NMencher, ing Rural Class Structure", EPW, xist Formulations", EPW, IX (1974) IX (1974) 35, 1495-1503. 32, 33 and 34, 1309-1331. Chandra, Nirmal K, 'Agrarian Transi- mencher, Joan P, "Agriculture and Social Structure in 'I amil N adu: Past tion in India", in three parts, FronOrigins, Present Transtormation, and tier, VII (1975a, b, c) 28, 29 and Fluture Prospects" (New Delhi, 30; 3-6, 3-9, 3-5. Allied, 1977). Chattopadhyay, Paresh, "On the Question of the Mode of Production in Meacher, Joan P, "Agrarian Re;ations in 'iwo Rice Regions of Kerala", Indian Agriculture: A Preliminary rPW, XIII (197Th) 6 and 7, 349-366. VII (1972a) 13, ReNote", EPW, McEacherm,D, 'The Mode of Producview of Agriculture, 39-46. tion in India", Journal of ContemChattopadhyay, Paresh, "Mode of Pro'porary Asia, VI (1976) 4, 444-457. An duction in Indian Agriculture: Anti-Kritik", EPW, VII (1972b), Re- Ouivedt, Gail, "India and the Colonial Mode of Production: Commaent", view of Agriculture, 185-192. EPW, X (1975) 42, 1669-1670. Chattopadhyay, Paresh, "Mode of ProI have aimed at listing every signiAn Omvedt, Gail, "Towards a Marxist duction in Indian Agriculture: ficant contribution to the debate. There Analysis of Caste", Social Scientist, EPW, XV (1980), ReAfterword", are certainly, nevertheless, omissions VI (1978) 11, 70-76. view of Agriculture, 85-88. which I regret, I shall welcome any Cleaver, Harry, "Internationalisation of Omvedt, Gail, "Migration,in Colonial lIdia: The Articulation of Feudalismi additional citation. I have also tried Capital and Mode of Production in and Capitalism by the Colonial earnestly to give a fair, though inevitably EPW, XI (1976) 13, Agriculture", btate", Journal of Peasant Studies, highly condensed, version of the arguReview of Agriculture 2-16. tients of each participant. Here again, Davey, Brian, "The Economic DevelopVll (1980) 2, 185-212. where I have falled, I must ask for forO)mvedt, Gail, "Capitalist Agriculture metat of India: A Marxist Analysis" [)earance and corrections. and Rural Classes in India", EPW, (Nottingham, Spokesman Books, 1975). XVI (1981) 52, Review of Agriculture, Davey, Brian, "Modes of Production 140-159. Formations", and Socio-Economic Bibliography South Asia Marxist Review I (1975) Patnaik, Utsa, "Capitalist Development in AgriculLure", 2, cited by Lin, 1980. EPW, VI (1971a) 39, Alavi, Hamza, "India and the Colonial Foster-Carter, Aidan, "The Mode of Review of Agriculture, 123-130. Mode of Production", Economic and Left New Conitroversy", Production Patnaik, Utsa, "Capitalist Development Political Weekly (EPW), X (1975) in Agriculture: A Note", EPW, VI Review (Jan-Feb 1978) 107, 47-78. 33, 34 and 35, 1235-1262. 'Feudal' "On Frank, Andre Gunder, (1971b) 39, Review of Agriculture, Alavi, Hamza, "Structure of Colonial of 123-30. and Methods Models Modes, Formations", EPW, XVI (1981) 10, Reality", Capitalist Escapiang EPW, 11 and 12, 475-486. Patiaik, Utsa, "Capitalist Development VIII (l'J73a) 1, 36-37. Arens, Jenneke, Van Beurden, Jos, Frank, in Agrriculture: Further Comment", Andre Gunder, "Reflections on "Jhagrapur: Poor Peasants and WoEPW, VI (1971c) 52, Review of Green, Red and White Revolutions men in a Village in Bangladesh" Agriculture, 190-194. (1973b) 3, in India', EPW, VIII (1977; New Delhi, Orient Longmnan, 119-124. latnaik, tJtsa, "On the Mode of Pro1980). duction in Indian Agriculture: a Atyachar Virodh Samniti,"The Marath- Ghosh, A, Dutt, K, "Development of lieply", EPW, VII (1972a) 40, ReCapitalist Relations in Agriculture (A wada Riots: a Report", EPW, XIV view of Agriculture, 145-151. Bengal 1793Case Study of West (1979)19, 845-852. People's Pub- Patnaik, Utsa, "Development of Capi(New Delhi, 1971)" Bagchi, Amiya K, "Relation of Agrilishing House, 1977). culture to Industry in the Context of talism in Agriculture", Social Scien"Modes of ProducSouth Asia". Frontier, Calcutta VII Gough, Kathleen, tist. (September 1972b) 2, 15-31. tion in Southern India", EPW, XV (1975) 22, 23 and 24, 12-27. Patnaik, Utsa, "Class Differentiation (1980) 5, 6 and 7, 337-364. Banaji, Jairus, "For a theory of Colowithin the Peasantry: An Approach nial Modes of Production", EPW, Gupta, Dipankar, "Formal and Real to Analysis of Indian Agriculture", VII (1972) 52, 2498-2502. Subsumption of Labour under CapiXi (1976) 39, Review of AgriEPW, Banaji, Jairus, "Capitalist Domination Instance of 'Jaare-Croptal: The culture, 82-101. and the Small Peasantry: Deccan ping", EPW, XV (1980) 39, Review Palnaik, Utsa, "The Process of ComDistricts in the Late Nineteeuth of Agriculture, 98, 106. mercialisation under Colonial CondiCentury", EPW, XII (1977a) 33 and Gupta, Sulekh Chand "Some Aspects tions", unpublished paper for 34, 1375-1404. Enquiry, of Agriculture", Indian Semninar on Commercialisation in~ Jairus, "Modes of P~roduction cited by Thworr B3anaji, ina D!elhi, (196a Indian, Agriculture (Cettre for 1fle1980, PP 251-252. a Materialist C:oneeption of History",

sag

This content downloaded from 120.59.165.205 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:47:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

December 18, 1982


velopmnent Stu(dies, Trivandrum, 1981), 79 p. JFouchepadass, I, "L'endettement paysan (lans le Bihar Colonial", Purusartha "La Dette" (1980) 4, 165-205. Pradhan, 'Production RelaP'rasad, Achilles' Heel of ticirs: 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 PeaIndia", EPW, XV saritry in North (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 Findings of a Sample Preliminarv 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 Capitalist Farmer", EPW, V (1970) 26, Review of Agriculture, 85-87. Rudra, Ashok, "Capitalist Develop-

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 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 Transition 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 EPW, VIII (1973) 13, AgricultuLre", Review of Agricultuire, 27-30. Sau, Ranjit, "Farm Efficiency under Semi-Feudalism: A Critique of Marginalist 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
(Gentre for Paper Development Studies, TrivaiLcdrtiiii, 1980), 54 p. Sen, Sunil, 'Agrarian Relations in India (New Delhi, People's (1793-1974)" 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 Prospect 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 Production in Bangladesh", Journal of Social Stvdies, Dacca, (1978) 3, 1-98. "The RelationWestergaard, Kirsten, State and Ruiral ship betw\veen the in Bangyladesh", doctoral Society thesis (Instituite of Political Stuclies, of University Copenhagen 1979), 280 p. Wood. Ceoffrey D, "Rural Class Formation in Bangladesh, 1940-1980", Bulletin of Conicerned AM(ianScholars,

XIII (1981) 4, 2-15.

FOREVER AT THE
SERVICE OF OUR COUNTRY

AT HOME &ABROAD
INDIA
2068-so

I I

INDIA-U. K. & THE CONTINENT INDIAIBANGLADESH


INDIA-BLACK SEA

IINOIA-POLAND AND INDIAN COAST

STEAMSHIP

Co.,

LTD*

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

This content downloaded from 120.59.165.205 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:47:06 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like