Edward W. Saeed never been to India but he writes on “Orientalism”.

he had never been to India and relied only on low-grade sources from colonial officials

Marx relied heavily on the writings of François Bernier on India, Thomas Stamford Raffles on Indonesia,
Mountstuart Elphinstone’s History of India and Hegel’s Philosophy of History. It is also worth noting Marx’s
ideas on contemporary India changed, especially after the Indian mutiny. See Marx’s articles for the New York
Tribune in July 1857, MECW, 15 (London, 1986), especially pp. 298, 306-307, 354-55.

Wikipedia
The theory of the Asiatic mode of production (AMP) was devised by Karl Marx around the
early 1850s. The essence of the theory has been described as "[the] suggestion ... that Asiatic
societies were held in thrall by a despotic ruling clique, residing in central cities and directly
expropriating surplus from largely autarkic and generally undifferentiated village communities".[1]
The theory continues to arouse heated discussion among contemporary Marxists and non-
Marxists alike. Some have rejected the whole concept on the grounds that the socio-economic
formations of pre-capitalist Asia did not differ enough from those of feudal Europe to warrant
special designation.[2] Aside from Marx, Friedrich Engels was also an enthusiastic commentator
on the AMP. They both focused on the socio-economic base of AMP society.[3]

Principles
Marx's theory focuses on the organization of labour and depends on his distinction between the
following:

 The means or forces of production; items such as land, natural resources, tools, human skills
and knowledge, that are required for the production of socially useful goods; and
 The relations of production, which are the social relationships formed as human beings are
united ("verbindung") in the processes of the production of socially useful goods.
Together these compose modes of production and Marx distinguished historical eras in terms of
distinct predominant modes of production (Asiatic).[4] Marx and Engels highlighted and
emphasised that the role the state played in Asiatic societies was dominant, which was
accounted for by either the state's monopoly of land ownership, its sheer political and military
power, or its control over irrigation systems.[5] Marx and Engels attributed this state domination to
the communal nature of landholding and the isolation of the inhabitants of different villages from
one another.

Criticism
The Asiatic mode of production is a notion that has been the subject of much discussion by both
Marxist and non-Marxist commentators. The AMP is the most disputed mode of production
outlined in the works of Marx and Engels.[6] Questions regarding the validity of the concept of the
AMP were raised in terms of whether or not it corresponds to the reality of certain given
societies.[7] Historians have questioned the value of the notion of the AMP as an interpretation of
the "facts" of Indian or Chinese history.[8]
The acceptance of the AMP concept has varied with changes in the political environment. The
theory was rejected in the Soviet Union in the Stalinist period. Karl August Wittfogel suggested in
his 1957 book, Oriental Despotism, that his concept of Oriental despotism showed that this was
because of the similarity between the AMP and the reality of Stalin's Russia.[9]

Footnotes
1. Lewis, Martin; Wigen, Kären (1997), The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography,
Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 94, ISBN 978-0-520-20743-1.
2. Krader, Lawrence (1975), The Asiatic mode of production: sources, development and critique in
the writings of Karl Marx, Assen: Van Gorcum, ISBN 978-90-232-1289-8.
3. McFarlane, Bruce; Cooper, Steve; Jaksic, Miomir (2005), "The Asiatic Mode of Production – A
New Phoenix (part 2)", Journal of Contemporary Asia, 35 (4): 499–
536, doi:10.1080/00472330580000291., p. 499
4. Marx, Karl (1875), "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Marx & Engels Selected Works, 3, Moscow:
Progress Publishers, pp. 13–30.
5. Marshall, Gordon (1998), "Asiatic mode of production", A Dictionary of Sociology, retrieved 22
August 2010.
6. Hindess, Barry; Hirst, Paul (1975), Pre-capitalist Modes of Production, London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, p. 178, ISBN 978-0-7100-8168-1.
7. Offner, Jerome (1981), "On the Inapplicability of 'Oriental Despotism' and the 'Asiatic Mode of
Production' to the Aztecs of Texcoco", American Antiquity, 46 (1): 43–61, doi:10.2307/279985.
8. Legros, Dominique (1977), "Chance, Necessity and Mode of Production: A Marxist Critique of
Cultural Evolutionism", American Anthropologist, 79 (1): 26–
41, doi:10.1525/aa.1977.79.1.02a00030, p.38.
9. Wittfogel, Karl (1957), Oriental Despotism; A Comparative Study of Total Power, New Haven: Yale
University Press.

Wikipedia ends