6 (Changing Modes of Praction i Ini Aare em sees sed eerie Desepen Nira Europes Pend Pr 70 Pobre, 199 pp {3590 as ene tees of Epa oan ‘heel relationahlp obtaining in the Mite Agra Foc different iow rier thes see Pi ad Pees fe 7,79 ee FL A ‘mural comrbuton to the debt, boweve, ema Gy is, Te ‘Cra of Fett, Carrs Uriversty Fess, Cambri, 84 ‘Ako see Asfon an CHE. Phin, ed, The lm Dele, ‘Cambridge Univertly Pres, 185- 32.DN. in “Eryn Fetal Formation” ora fie ope Aeciifr Soth Aen tein a, TRY p18 Reve BD. ‘etait end ut go Sc fea etn es een fda Ne ae Tn, pak Hamers i Coens Ct Go Faroe rimtation 6 erty Iie owe -cocatoct hed we inerna ocoeistnciee” hn ay at ne ‘wily crpeabie witht dstalexaricaton wh wil be deren by th preset author arr, 5 MODE OF PRODUCTION IN MEDIEVAL INDIA. IRFAN HABIB ‘The term “mode of production” refers, both in its literal sense and by its tse in Kael Mars, to a cystem of ‘economic relationships, Since Marx believed that the economic or material conditions formed the essential basis for any historical epoch (ee the celebrated acettteenr neato iS been widely held that each mode of production constitutes a distinct period of history in general. We {Unas tend to look for the classic succession of societies, ‘works out in F. Engles's Origins of the Family, Pritt Property and the Siete, namely. primitive communism, slavery, feudalism and capitalism. ‘This simple unilinear scheme of succession is not, however, without its own problems, For one thing, Mare spoke of two ‘modes of production’, which do not occur int, viz. “the Asiatic (based on village-community and, lax-rent equivalence), and the “petty mode of production’ (based on small-scale, ie. peasant and artisanal production for the market). On the formerx Changing Maes of Producti i ain ‘Marx wrote fail extensively in the Groniresee under the designation of the "Asiatic form”, denoting the most primitive form of propesty, arising simultaneously with Slavery and with the "Germanic" form, and being the least dyramic and, theredore, the most long lasing, The “petty mode of production’ was set By his in Capital, Vol (ast but one chapter; ‘Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation’), where he considered it, in its classical form,’ to be postfeudal, a mode out of which, and at whose expense capitalism has arisen. Much ingenuity has been required to explain these two as elements to be filted into the standant scheme of ‘svecestion. Saviet Indologists twated the “Asiatic” asa form af Feudalism, without any sanction from Marx; and some (inchading, the present writer, in a paper sien i eee ti Heat eae attempted to deny iis exstence altogether, invoki Inter silence maintained on it by Marcand Engels. As for ‘the petty mode of production’, Maurice Dobb ‘he entire phase ofits classical form tothe [Period of ‘feudalism’, which he extended down tothe trightcenth century. (Generally, there has been all 160 litte attention paid to Marx's important observations ‘on ‘the petty mode’; and mest Marsist historians tend to overlook it, as practically a slip by Mars, and. to speak as if capitalism simply arose dinectly ot of the debris of feudalism.) All these solutions appear to be tunaatisfactory.once we notice that Marx in defining the “Asiatle and ‘petty’ modes was responding to some ‘ements of reality; which are crucal for defining, a'mode of production. ‘The primary element is “the frm of labour process’, Labour as slave (tke producer controlling ‘Mae of Production is Medico ia 3 either his means of production noe his own person), ser (producer porily corirolling his nears of production and partly his person) and wage labourer (producer ‘at controling protuction ata, but willy controling, his person) appear respectively asthe crucial element it the alave, feudal and capitalist modes of production. ‘The principal ditficulty is that these thrce definitions of lnbotr-forms do not exh! the various posible Forres. ‘Thus peasant and artisan labour within the framework. of the village community had to be set in a class by itself funder the ‘Asiatic Mode’), Silay peasants and artisans producing on their own for the market in economies otherwise dominated by lange kand-owners ‘extracting money-rents from peasants formally tree, ‘ould similarly be neither slvwen,veris nor wage: labourers, and could only be grouped under ‘petty precivction: “There is a second aspect also to be considered, ‘which is ot simply a converse ofthe fir: the mode of ‘exploitation oF the process of accumulation. One could, 90 underClassical Savery the master approptating the difference Between the value of the product and the subsistenceexpenditure on the slave; under feudalise, the lon appropriating: produce ofthe demesne through the labour services of the serfs; and under capitalism, the capiallat oblaining ‘surplus-value! prodvord by the ‘wage-worker, But where the nancial system did not ‘est, and the Slate (‘Oriental Despotise took the bulk of the surplus, the ‘tax’ and ‘rent’ being practically ‘entical one could not surely argue that the made was stil feudal. This was the view explicitly taken by Marx, ‘who denied that pre-colocial India was feudal on the round that there was mo private property i land kn2 (Choning Modes of Profuction in Inia the foudallsense in india, Where, again, ‘commodity’ oF markt relations prevail, bus there és no extraction of ‘surplus value’ under the aegis of the capitalist, one ‘can?t clas that ecooomy ns feudal ether, Because the tuniversalisation of money-rent, while it arises out of feudal ground-rent, is also “the form of (he latter's) dissolution” (Marx, Capial. Vo. Il, Chapter X/VI). Given these preliminary considerations, ti: now time forts to tea the information we have about both the form of labour-process ane about accumulation in Mughal India, to see whether any of the eategories of the modes of production that Marx had in mind are partly or fully applicable here. ‘Thre fs no doubt thal, as we delve more deeply {into our records, the village community, of which we have only a trace in official Mughal documentation, begins to acquire more substantial presence. In 1985, ‘when I poblished the Agrarian System of Mughal fads, ‘Gupter IV. the village enmity appeared as ne more than aevg inthe wheel of Moghal revenue administration, swith ts common “Financial poat".a mere collecting point for streams of indivicas! peasaa law-payments. ut now swe have much langer ammount of information which ocesstates a change in our basic view of thecomensnity, “The Persian and Braj documents from Vrindavan tell ‘us, for example, that the numerous mugeddams ‘Ghesmen) af each village were really the panch there, ‘usually acting collectively. They as athody could sell or ‘Made of Production in Made Indi 5 ‘otherwise dispose of all the uncultivated land of the village, and to presumably set the terms for accommodating: all external peasants, the so-called puikasht, os well as village servants. Fulatzawa has. collected illuminating information from 18th Maharashtra, concerning the details of the relationship. between the artisans and servants (baluta) possessing, hereditary rights to parcels of land ad crop» peryuisiss (ratar) From 17th century Marwar comes distinction between Iok, the indigenous folk, and the basi, the Peas settled by potentatesand so presurnably abject ‘to their direct management. The number of log was much the larger, Thus the carly 19tl-century description of South Indian village communities on ‘which Marx retied is now largely confirmed for other parts of India. In such a village community, the peasants and artisan were individual producers, and yet constrained by ties of custom as well as of caste. It was a constraint ‘of completely different nature than that imposed by feudal lords for exacting labour for their demesne. Ife {rue thatthe peasant in Mughal India could be obliged not to Leave his village by the tax-authorities. Bit, on the other hand, the existence of numerous peasants from outside last) and the ight daimed by samindars to evict peascints from theirlandsimply-conshlerable actual ‘mobility of peasants, + The principal element in the aspect of accumulation” veas the tax-rent, That the land-tax climes! by the Sta comprised the bul ofthe peasants surplus produce is richly attested by Mughal officialEs (Chesging Mates of Production india records, an attestation onty fuither confirmed by the tailed assessenent and collection papers in Rajsthari that continue to be explored and analysed, the archives.of the Amber/ jaipur state of the 1éth and ‘hcenturies see SP. Gupta, Agrariin Syste of Eastera ‘Rasta, The tax rent equivalence obverved by theeatly ‘British administrators (Holt Mackenaie, 1819, speaking, ‘of the states ‘property of tervcleventh of the net rental ‘ofthe country’) and theorists James Mil, 1431, telling, the Parliamentary commie that Indians paid not, oly rent) wes thus no usion but fry established insition going, back atleast fo the reign of Alauddin Khalj (1296 1316) The entie disibutivenetwork and the poical fate rested on the collection and appropriation of tax ofthis magnitude, ‘This information, then, suggest a foiely reasonable approximation to the twin pillars of Marx's “Asiatic Mode", These also show how inadequate is Samir ‘Amin’s substitution ofthe term “Tribyslary Mode" for Marx's “Asiatic”, since, at best it takes. into account oly the tax-rent equivalence; it excludes the village- ‘community which heavily infksenced the form of labour process and must be central to any farmulation about the prevailing mode: So separated from labour-process, the Tributary Mode could conceivably include “feudalism” also (cf Bric R. Wolt), especially if fiel- holders are considered in thelr formal role of hereditary tenantiin-chiel of theking, But for such a step we would Ihave to redefine the “Mace of Production” ina way that ‘would divest it of all elalionship with the form of Tabour-process and so make it irrelevant tothe Marxian, study of historical development Mode of Praduction in Malice! Inti 5 ‘And yet, there are problems appertaining ta both the “orm af labour process” and. proves of accumulation, which suggest that Mughal India does ‘ot fully suit the “Asiatic” form as Marx had described it, at beast in the Grinutreisse, sg itis Ri mers ones ws acres ly of the pessants in Mughal India appear to tore bene ey prison, The erence Ut tax was largely ‘in money is overwhel though itny be dette! whether peas pad 6 money, or the tax collected in kind. was by the village community or superior intermediaries commuted ito money by sale of the produce collected, Even Marx acknowledged in Capital, [that “the suxplus... becomes ' commodity” inthe Indian village-community system, the state converting only “a portion” of it into money, the rest being so converted. presumably by the tax: payers. At the same time, we find large groups.of both rural and urban artisans working for the markt, It thus Appetrs that “the petty mode of production, based on. individual commadity-producers, was far more ‘widespread in preolonial India than Marx had allowed, for in his undynamic “Asiatic Mode”, At the level of accumulation, we find, first, that te heer cabs i ntiintestis norms in official Mughal terminology) are totaly Scone “Asus athene Those Cina wert often tked to the caste-structure: witness the position cccupied by the Rajput clans within the saminda class and, the armed power they possessed, in the shape of armed% (Changing Moses of Production iia retainers, insicated that non-economic compulsion was fa major source of theie income. Nonetheless, the fact ‘that their rights had become fully salabe by the 16th shoved that their income was langely in money {or at least commute info money), and tha, therefore, market relations provides part of the environment in which they operated. Their existence must modify the somewhai absolutist picture of Orienial Despotism that ‘we get in the Grundreisee. The samindazt sales (and also sales of even beacimen's rights) tll that, within Kit, landed property and money-wealth were becoming Interchangeable, and this again seca incompatible with any changeless system of the “Asiatic” sort. ‘Another form of secumulation made possible by commodity production (part of which mast have certainly bees taxinduced) was that af merchant capital Steensgaond’s extension of Van Leu's thesis of Asian merchants being myriads of pedlars has been firrly contested by Tapan Raychaulhur in Camirige Economic istary of Pudi, Vol. 1: and there is no doubt that ot ‘only was trade lange inthe aggregate, bus the indivicuat ‘units composing it (Finns Of sthas, or big, merchants, vwith their agents oF factors at numerous places) could alo have been very lage too. The fairly well-developest system of commerciat credit, depost-banking, brokerage ‘and insurance, further demonstrated that a fairly ‘extensive commercial apparatus hod been constructed fon the bass of “petty production”. It is difficult to see hhow sich. high degree of development of merchamt- capital can be accommodated in any wariant of Man's scheme of the Asiatic Mode: Mode of Pradsction in Mail india az m ‘The “mode of production” that wee can thus discern for pre-colonial India cannot, therefore, be simply designated * Asiatic" in the sone so far given tot, still less be treated as the “Asiatic” form of a universal feudalism”. Itcertainly had the two important features, village-community and tax-rent equivalence, that Marx thought ta be the basic elements ofthe “Asiatic” form; ‘but, as we have seen, it also had extensive elements of the petty mode of prvstuction, far more, that is, than ‘Marx could have had in mind for the “feudal et alone, the Asiatic Male. I! could not, therefore, Rave been the unchanging (“no history a all") society that, surviving, the “longest and mast stubbornly, had descended directly from primitive tlmes, One ean also see that ‘with its differentiated peasontry, zamsindar, members of the nuling clase (based on the rentextracting stat) ‘numerous artisans ant merchants it could hardly qualify for Hobsbaw’s inference for tke historical status of the “Asiatic aysters”, vie. “not yeta class soxiely, on if a class society, them... the most primitive form of it), Itis indeed, impostant to realise thatthe society of ‘Mughal Indin was:not only elas riven, but also as replete with class-sinuggles as other societies of the tine. The widespread! peasant and agrarian reves were noticable feature ofits political history (cLmy Agrarian System of ‘Mughal india, chapter £8). Thus the “passive sort of cstencc” which Marx postlaied fo te pre-coonia din counuryside snot historicaly bore out,ry Changing Made of Proction tn Indie v ‘We must, therefore, teat the pre-colonial Indian society a a fairly well developed class society, but by no means. to be places in the fist phase of social dlitfercetiation where Marx tended to place his “Astate ‘mode. Oa the other hand, from the fact that Mughal India hod extensive elemenis of the “petiy mode of production”, it becomes tempting to claim that its ‘Sconomy necessatily had the potentiality on itsown to develop inta capitalism, a suggestion made by RCP. Dutt ‘over filty years ago in Inia Today and also by WiC. Smith. have argued agains this af lengah in Journal of ‘Ezouamie History, 1962, (Enquiry MS, 1G); and it will, tbe tedious to repeat those arguments here. Buta brief restatement of my pasition may stil be not out of place. Capitalism, ints nal form fuse of wage Iabour in -modern factory systeen) developed first ofall in England, through the Industrial Revolution. One could argue that it war only a unique complex of circumstances, not easily to be duplicated independently, that led in England to this result. Other eouniries in the samse cullure-area CWestern Europe and North America) only followed suit Yet the very fact that France and Germany could lowe England indicated that there were potentialitics of capitalise already existing in their economies. Its, therefore, legitimate to analyse what these factors for potential growth into capitalism were, ‘without absolutely denying the uniqueness ofthe Fnglish experience ‘Marx htnslf assigned outstanding importance here to what he called Primitive or Primary accumolation of Made of Pritinfm Mica Ii 2 Capita. This process hasa dual aspect: ist, collection fof wealth by exploitation through non-capitalist modes (espesilly, inagrarian seco, through rent enfeancernend} ‘or by external plunder (colonialism); secondly, the ‘conversion of this wealth ita capital. In England the first aspect was marked by a drive for rent that led to Enclensres, ad an expanding range of external tribute obtained through African slave-trade, slavery in West Indies and merchantilist plunder of India. The second ‘and, perhaps, the more racial point was how wealth 30 gained! could be changed into capital. In Capital, VoL, Marc notes too ways th which this transformation could ‘ccur. the proclucer himself became a capitalist through Jmproving his earnings and then becoring an employer fof wage-labour. This was "the realy revolutionary Way": the other was for the merchant to seize hold of the productive process to enlarge his profits by exploiting ‘rage Inbour. It was nol the acquisition of lage amounts ‘ol wealth, which the Mughal ruling, class, for example, had alsoachicved, that constituted primary accumulation of wealth only ifthe wealth was convertible into capita! could the phenomenon be so deseribed. For this, nether commodity production sor merchant capital, separately fr together, provided the sufficient conditions, The artisan had to grove ima master craftsman and then & Capitalist Ik was not purely an economic process: it required a constant improvement of erafttechnology that had been the marked feature of Western Europe from ¢1800 onvrards. Ie required cultural development, bby which the artisan beeameaware of new techniques and was rendy to accept them. Theoretical technologists ‘also played their part in the diffusion of inventions. Merchants’ penetration of production was greatly assisted by the nation-states and their merchantilisto ‘Changing Motes of Preuction je indin policies. It is hard ta se¢ how without this support ‘mercantile wealth could have converted itsell into industrial capital. In other words, a complex of cultura, ideological and political changes was required (partly expressed in the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Scientific Revotution), without which the primary accumulation of capital could not have been consummated. TRS ‘cultural aspect was a necessary adjunct to. the West Burapestn Petty Mode of Production tts absence in India {s perhaps at the heart of the reason why commodity production could not develop into capitalist production ne is reminded here that modes of production do-not develop blindly with human being as mere robots Meas are an essential element of their internal movemest. I would, therefore, be vain to try to set the pre-calonial mode in India by the side of the post-feudal, pre- ‘capitalist mode in Western Europe, Lam often asked by critics as to what name one should then give to the “inode of production” that ‘prevailed in Miyghal India, or Medieval India asa whole My suggestion that a term like “Medieval Indiaa (t “Indian fexidatism’”, used for the period 00-1300) should serve, has met with a contemptuous rejection from Chris Wickham, who gives me as the first example ‘of people who just say: ‘ean establish a new mice” (Gourna of Pexaend Shadi, 120-3), p.166). 1 do not know, however, what is to be done if the major clements of ‘the “mode of production” one finds in pee-cotonia india, do not fit any of the five modes of peodiuction after the primitive that Marx has mentioned. Moreover, one should recall hat Marx and Engels themselves gave to Made of Production in Masiecal Inn a ‘capitalism a universal character: Capitalism “through iis exploitation of the world market has given & tan character to production” (Communi ‘All previous modes must, therefore, have eo aeena eas ‘capitalism's conquest of the world, in the shape of colonialism, thatthe miscellaneous caries systems were submerged wader the dominance of a single economic system. To argue otherwise, would be to misunderstand ‘chat capitalism has brought to the whole world - both the destruction and the regeneration.