marxs views on india- a critique of the asiatic mode of producti

7/27/2019 Marxs Views on India- A Critique of the Asiatic Mode of Producti

1/186

McMaster University

DigitalCommons@McMaster

Open Access Dissertations and Teses Open Dissertations and Teses

6-1-1980

Marx's views on India: A Critique of the AsiaticMode of Production

Bula Bhadra

Follow this and additional works at: hp://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations

Part of the Sociology Commons

Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Disser tations and Teses at DigitalCommons@McMaster. It has been accepted for

inclusion in Open Access Dissertations and Teses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@McMaster. For more information, please

contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationBhadra, Bula, "Marx's views on India: A Critique of the Asiatic Mode of Production" (1980). Open Access Dissertations and Teses.Paper 5272.
http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/?utm_source=digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca%2Fopendissertations%2F5272&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations?utm_source=digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca%2Fopendissertations%2F5272&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/open_diss?utm_source=digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca%2Fopendissertations%2F5272&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations?utm_source=digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca%2Fopendissertations%2F5272&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/416?utm_source=digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca%2Fopendissertations%2F5272&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/416?utm_source=digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca%2Fopendissertations%2F5272&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations?utm_source=digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca%2Fopendissertations%2F5272&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/open_diss?utm_source=digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca%2Fopendissertations%2F5272&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations?utm_source=digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca%2Fopendissertations%2F5272&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/?utm_source=digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca%2Fopendissertations%2F5272&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


2/186

MARX'S VIEWS ON INDIA:A CRITIQUE OF THE

ASIATIC MODE OF PRODUCTION


3/186

MARX'S VIEWS ON INDIA:A CRITIQUE OF THE

ASIATIC MODE OF PRODUCTION

ByBULA BHADRA

A ThesisSubmitted to the School of Graduate Studiesin Pa r t i a l Fulf i lment of the Requirements

for the DegreeMaster of Arts

McMaster univers i tyJune 1980


4/186

Dedicated ta:

The St rugg l ing Masses of India


5/186

Master of Arts (1980)(Sociology) McMaster Univers i tyHamilton, Ontario

TITLE: Marx's views on India : A Cri t ique of theAsia t i c Mode of ProductionAUTHOR: Bula Bhadra, B.A. Hons. (Calcut ta Universi ty)

M.A. (Calcut ta Univers i ty)M.A. (Brock Univers i ty)

SUPERVISOR: Dr. Cyr i l Levi t tNUMBER OF PAGES: i x , 176

iv


6/186


7/186

h i s to r i c a l mater ia l i sm and c lass s t ruggle . The sources onwhich Marx depended in h is formulat ions were n o t only scantybu t also unre l i a b l e . Fur the r , the t hes i s o f the Asia t icMode o f Product ion was very margina l to Marx 's main concerneAs a r e s u l t , Marx's thes i s could no t be anything bu t t heo re t i ca l ly cont radic tory and empir ica l ly inadequate. In f ac t , theAris to te l i an conceptual innovation o f "Or ien ta l Despotism"found fervent favor among success ive genera t ions o f Europeanschola r s . It became, with cer ta in necessary modif ica t ions ,the s o -c a l l e d "As ia t i c Mode o f Product ion" in th e s k i l f u l andcompetent hands o f Marx.

v i


8/186

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

l wish to extend my most s ince re apprec ia t ion toa I l those who helped make my t hes i s a r ea l i t y . l amespec ia l ly gra t e fu l to my superv isor , Dr. Cyr i l L e v i t t ,fo r h is magnanimity, p a t i e n t encouragement and i n s igh t fu lsugges t ions . Most important ly , he was extremely kind ingrant ing me the necessary i n t e l l e c t ua l freedom without whichth i s work would never have been completed. l owe a debt o fgra t i t ude to Dr. K. Sivaraman fo r h is i n sp i r a t ion and suppor ttha t l needed from the moment o f conception to the complet iono f my work. My s incere thanks a re a lso due to Dr. WallaceClement fo r h is inc i s ive appra i sa l o f e a r l i e r dra f t s andinva luable advice on the methodological necess i ty of adopt inga c lea r t h e o r e t i c a l approach to the i s sues concerned.

l would l i ke to thank Dr. Buddhadev Bhat tacharyya(Calcut ta Univers i ty) and Professo r Sa i l a Ghosh ( IndianIn s l i u te oIManagement ,Cad.Gut ta ) w 4 ' l . ~ Q e - s e ~ - - v e my ~ a t ; ; - i tulefo r t h e i r cont inuous , valuable suggest ions and suppor t fromabroad. My s ince re thanks are due to the s t a f f o f the In t e r -Library Loans Department o f McMaster Univers i ty and toJacquel ine Tucker who was kind enough to type my t hes i swithout ever complaining.

La s t bu t no t l e a s t , l a lso want to express my s incereg ra t i t ude to my parents for t he i r uncondi t ional love and con-f idence in my a b i l i t y , and to my husband, Bipul , fo r h is many

v i i


9/186

s a c r i f i c e s . Without h is pa t ience , unders tanding and support ,l would have never been able to pursue my work. Needless tosay , l am alone respons ib le fo r any shortcomings in th i s work.

v i i i


10/186

Abst rac t

Acknowledgements

In t roduc t ion

Chapter One:

Chapter Two:

Chapter Three:

Chapter Four:

Bibl iography

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Marx and the Asia t i c Mode o fProduct ion

The Pr iva t e Proper ty in Land

The Vil lage Economy and theStagnat ion o f Indian Soc ia lFormation

The Sta t e in Indian Soc ia l Forma-t ion

i x

v

v i i

1

16

52

94

133

157

167


11/186

INTRODUCTION

The bas ic objec t ive of th i s d i s se r t a t ion work i sto c r i t i c a l l y assess Marx's views on the Indian s o c i a l format i on , espec i a l l y h i s views which can be sununed up in h ist hes i s o f the Asia t i c Mode o f product ion . l This t he s i s wasdeveloped by Marx in the decade o f the 1850s. But eventOday, it cont inues to cause heated d i scuss ion and con t ro versy among both non- and neo-Marxis ts . Fur the r , "Asopposed to h is ana lys i s o f the c a p i t a l i s t mode o f product ionand h is b r i e f formulations on th e feudal mode, Marx nowherecons t ruc t s the concept o f the Asia t i c mode in terms o f thetheory o f modes o f product ion he develops in Capi ta l . ,,2In any case , the debate around the thes i s of the ~ ~ , i t stheo re t i ca l va l id i ty and empi r i ca l re l evance , does no t showany s ign o f abatement . A good deal o f l i t e r a tu re has in f ac tdeveloped in th i s a rea . A cha rac te r i s t i c fea ture o f th i s newpro l i f e r a t ion of the l i t e r a tu re concerns the growing oppos i t ion to the t he s i s o f th e AMP from both theo re t i ca l andempi r i ca l s tandpoin t s . Many have re jec ted the whole t hes i son the ground t h a t the socioeconomic formation o f Ind i a ,i.e. the pr e - cap i t a l i s t s o c i a l and economic s t ruc tu re o fIndia , d id no t d i f f e r s u f f i c i e n t l y from t h a t o f Europe towarran t a spec i a l des igna t ion . 3 Others have assoc ia ted thethes i s o f the AMP with the xis tence o f cen t ra l i zed bureau-

- l -


12/186

- 2 -

c rac ie s provid ing v i t a l i r r i g a t i o n works in ar id reg ions ,and mainta in ing f u l l cont ro l over "hydraul ic soc ie t i es . , , 4A fa i r ly good assessment has been made by a famous Marxis teconornic h i s to r i an in the fo l lowing words:

Of the var ious s t ages o f h i s t o r i c a l developmentl i s t e d by Marx in the Preface to The Cri t ique ofP o l i t i c a l Economy--the 'As i a t i c , anc ien t , thefeudal and the modern bourgeois ' modes o f product ion , the feudal and the c a p i t a l i s t have beenaccepted withou t se r ious ques t ion , while th ee x i s t e nc e , o r the un i ve r sa l i t y o f the o the r twohas been quer i ed o r denied . 5

In genera l , the r e c e n t debates on th e thes i s o f the AMPcentres between t o t a l r e j ec t i on and qua l i f i ed acceptance .In t h i s contex t , l l ike to po in t ou t one major def i c i encyin the r e c e n t controversy over the t he s i s o f th e AMP. Thisconcerns the f a c t t h a t it remains d i s t r e s s ing ly t rue t h a tno se r ious examinat ion o r fu l l - s ca le s tudy o f Marx's t he s i shas ever been under taken in r e l a t i on to th e s o c i a l forma-

, , d ' 6t lon ln In l a . It i s somewhat su rp r i s i ng to note t h a t ,while Marx focussed mainly and subs t an t i a l l y on th e Indians o c l a l f 6 r m a t i 6 n , no sys t emat i c sFuy -has ever been under-taken to t e s t th e bas i c propos i t ions o f Marx's t he s i s botht heo re t i ca l ly and espec ia l ly empi r ica l ly in terrns of thedata t h a t are now irnrnensely ava i l ab l e . The proposed s tudyaims a t remedying th i s defic iency and thus seeks to c r i t i c a l -ly assess Marx's views on Ind ia .

In b r i e f my own i s sue which l seek to re so lve lSt h i s : How fa r or to what e x te n t can Marx's t he s i s on theIndian s o c i a l format ion be j u s t i f i e d t h e o r e t i c a l l y and


13/186

- 3 -

empi r ica l ly on the bas i s o f the da ta provided by h i s t o r i ca levidence from the Indian s o c i a l formation s ince he r e a r l i e s tt imes down to the f i r s t conso l ida t ion o f the Bri t i sh ru lein India in 1757?

THE SCOPE OF THE DISSERTATION

The main burden o f the f i r s t chap te r i s to focus onth e d i f f e r e n t i ng re d i e n t s o f Marx's t he s i s on Ind i a . Thesei ng red i en t s , which a re l inked to each o t h e r " a r e as fo l lows:

(1) The absence of p r i va t e proper ty in l and;(2) The exis tence o f the s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t v i l l age

communities charac te r ized by an un i tY ofagr i cu l t u re and c r a f t i ndus t ry i

(3) The h i s t o r i e s tagna t ion o f the Indians o c i a l formation; and

(4) The O r ie n ta l despotism and the ro l e o f theIndian Sta t e . 7

l. _para l le l task i-n m is G h a p t . e ~ een-sis"Es in reve-al-ing b - r i ~ f ~ly how Marx, in formulat ing above-mentioned dimensions o fh is the s i s , cont inues to pursue subs t an t i a l ly the sameEuropean vers ion o f the Indian s o c i a l format ion .

In the second chap te r l take the i s sue o f th e pr iva t eproper ty in l and . It i s no t c lea r whether Marx r e f e r r edspec i f i ca l ly to th e anc ien t o r medieval per iod o f the Indians o c i a l format ion . 8 In any case , it seems evident , in theabsence o f any evidence to the cont ra ry , tha t he r e f e r r ed ina I l probabi l i ty ta th e pre -co l on i a l o r p r e - c a p i t a l i s t Indian


14/186

- 4 -

soc ia l format ion from h er remotes t an t i qu i t y . Therefore ,on the bas i s of th i s assumpt ion , . I in tend to focus on thei s sue of the pr i va t e landed proper ty s ince Ind ia ' s re -motes t an t i qu i t y . In t h i s context 1 would a lso focus thena ture o f the f euda l mode of product ion as it developed inIndia .

In the t h i rd chapter , "The Vil lage Economy and theStagnat ion o f th e Indian Soc ia l Formation", 1 review c r i -t i c a l l y the vi l lage community system as it developed andd i s i n t eg ra t ed in course of h i s t o r i c a l movements o f theIndian s o c i a l formation. While pursuing t h i s theme, 1 alsoin tend to po in t to th e dynamism o f the Indian s o c i a l forma-t ion and h e r h i s to ry cont rary to what Marx knew and sa id .An at tempt w i l l be made to loca te the or ig in of the dominantsoc ia l c l a s se s , the exis tence o f th e antagoni s t i c c lass in -

t e r e s t s and the div i s ion o f l abour inc luding the growing op-pos i t ion between town and country in India .

Fina l ly , the purpose o f the l a s t chapte r , "The St a t eih th Indm Soc ia l Format ion il, i s to prove t h a t Marx' sideas on the na tu re and ro le o f the s t a t e in India are bothInadequate and s i m p l i s t i c . On the bas i s o f the da ta ava i l -able it can be shown t h a t from h er e a r l i e s t t imes Ind ia ' spo l i t i c a l and ideo logica l i n s t i t u t i ons were fa r more complex,e labora te and developed, which cannot be covered in theassumptions o f the despo t i c ro le of the s t a t e , o f the royal-ownership o f the pr iva te proper ty , o r o f the s t a t e ' s ro leas provider of publ ic works. A secondary t ask w i l l cons i s tin s i tua t ing the complex p o l i t i c a l system v is a v is the


15/186

- 5 -

format ion o f soc ia l c lasses and antagonism between them.The conclus ion w i l l emphasize the above-mentioned

i s sues , as made out to be the scope o f the d i f fe ren t chaptersin th i s d i s se r ta t ion . To ant ic ipa te my own conclus ion ,which fol lows as a r e s u l t o f my i nves t iga t ion , it can be sa idt h a t Marx's t hes i s on th e AMP i s both t heo re t i ca l ly andempir ica l ly i n s u f f i c i e n t and misleading as a means o f expla in ing the pr e - cap i t a l i s t soc ia l format ion o f India .

A NOTE ON THE INTERPRETATIONS OFPRE-BRITISH INDIAN HISTORY: A SUR

VEY OF TRENDS

The dominant i n t e rp re t a t ion regard ing the Indians o c i a l format ion and h e r his tory to th e world in the 18th and19th centur ie s was produced by the European scho l a r s . Thei rp a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l wri t ings were in genera l agreement withthe dominant ideo logica l a t t i t udes t h a t preva i l ed in Europea t t h a t t ime. It i s no doubt subs t an t i a l ly d i f f e r e n t fromany account o f the indegeneous scholars who undertook extens ive and in tens ive research in the twent ie th century .9 Thef i r s t beginning o f a d i f fe ren t in te rp re ta t ion o f the Indiansoc ia l formation and h er his tory could be t raced back to thedecades o f the 1920s and 1930s. The f i r s t i n t e l l e c t u a l re be l l i on occurred with in the d i sc ip l ine o f His tory , as o fcourse could be expec ted. His tor ians l i k e R.C. Mazumdar,K.P. Jayaswal , H.C. Raychaundhuri , B.K. Sarkar , U.N. Ghosale tc . s t rongly contes ted the not ions o f O r ie n ta l despot ism!


16/186

- 6 -

s tagna t ing India , absence of p r i va t e proper ty in land e t c . lOThis group o f h i s to r i ans took a f resh look a t the sourcesand r a i sed se r ious cont rove rs ie s about many fa rni l ia r not ionsinc luding those al ready mentioned. Sorne o f the conclus ionst h a t emerged from these s tud i e s may br i e f l y be ind ica ted here .

(1 ) A thorough i nves t i ga t i on o f the or ig ina lHindu l i t e r a t u r e , the law books and d i f f e r e n t i n sc r i p t i ons hasled the i nves t i ga t o r s to conclude t h a t the concept o f des-po t i c monarchy does n o t a t a I l provide a sa t i s fac to ry accounto f the ac t ua l soc ioh i s to r i ca l r ea l i ty o f the Indian s o c i a lformat ion . On th e po i n t o f th e concept o f despotism thefol lowing s ta tement i s an i nd i ca t i on o f the t rend o f con-temporary i nves t i ga t i on :

It i s al ready c l e a r , a t any r a t e , tha t thenine teenth century genera l i za t ion about theOr ien t as the land exe lus ive ly o f despot ism,and as the only home o f despotiBm, must beabandoned by s tudents o f p o l i t i c a l sc ienceand socio logy. It i s high t ime , t he re fo re ,t h a t comparat ive p o l i t i c s , so fa r as thep a ra l l e l s tudy o f Asian and Eur.-Arnericani n s t i t u t i ons and t heo r i e s i s considered ,

s h o u l d - b e r - e s ~ u e G l - - f - : r ; o m "t-he-- B l - e - m e n ~ - r : y -anl-,in many i n s t ances , unfa i r no t ions preva l en ts inee the days of Maine and Max Muller , f i r s t ,by a more in tens ive study o f the Orient , andseeondly , by a more hones t presenta t ion o foc c ide n ta l laws and c o n s t i t u t i ~ n s , fromLycurgus and Solon to Freder ick the Greatand the successors o f Louis XIV, t h a t i s , Ilby a reform in th e comparat ive method i t s e l f .(2) As fa r as the exis tence of the pr iva te proper ty

i s concerned, th e i nves t iga to r s were in genera l agreementt ha t pr i va t e l y owned l and was very much in exis tence in th epre -Br i t i sh Indian s o c i a l format ion .

(3) Studies were a lso wdertaken fo r de ta i l ed s tudy


17/186

- 7 -

o f d i f f e r e n t regions and dynas t i e s . In o the r words, theresea rch focus became microsooio logica l , concent ra t ing in -t ens ive ly on a del imi ted ob je c t ive . As a r e s u l t , th i shelped to unfold the s im i l a r i t i e s and d i s s im i l a r i t i e s betweend i f f e r e n t regions and dynast ies a t d i f f e r e n t t imes in theIndian s o c i a l format ion. The broad-based-genera l conclu-s ion o f these s tud i e s i s t h a t the h i s t o ry o f the Indiansoc ia l format ion was ce r t a i n l y dynamic and not s tagnant .

But , a t the same t ime , it remains t rue t h a t thef i r s t genera t ion o f Indian s o c i a l s c i en t i s t s d id n o t pro-vide any account o f the c lass s t rugg le s o r c lass cont rad ic -t ions in th e pre -Br i t i sh Indian s oc i e ty . The f i r s t system-a t i c s tudy, remaining still unsurpassed and unr i va l l ed , wasprovided by D.D. Kosambi in 1956. Needless to add, Kosarnbi 'sapproach to revea l ing Ind ia ' s soc i a l r ea l i t y was c lasstheo re t i ca l . It was Kosambi who, in h is a t tempt to providefo r a Marxis t bas i s of ana lys i s fo r s tudying Ind i a , definedh i s t o r y -as "the- pr--e-seB.-t-a-t;.ien-, in--eh-J:'EFIloogieale-rder, OTsuccess ive deve lopment s in the means and r e l a t ions o f product ion . ,,12 As f a r as th e t hes i s o f the AMP i s concerned,Kosarnbi had the fo l lowing to say:

The adopt ion o f Marx's thes i s does no t meanb l ind r epe t i t i on of a I l h is conclus ions (andeven l e s s , those of th e o f f i c i a l , p a r t y - l i n eMarxists) a t a I l t imes . . . The r ea l ly vexedques t ion i s what i s meant by th e Asi a t i cmode o f product ion , never c lea r ly defined byMarx. . . . What Marx h imse l f sa id about Ind iacannot be taken as it s t a nds . 13Kosarnbi, on h is p a r t , provided an exce l l en t account o f thedevelopment o f c l a s s soc ie ty in th e pre -Br i t i sh o r pre -


18/186

- 8 -

capi t a l i s t Indian soc i e t y . 'His accounts have provided uswith an i nva luab le c r i t i que o f Marx's concept o f s e l f -s u f f i c i e n t vi l lage economy in India . His wri t ings , in f ac t ,gave the necessary impetus to s tudy Indian soc ie ty andhis tory from a new perspec t ive . It i s only a f t e r l a t e 1950st h a t se r ious s t ud i e s on the economic and soc ia l h i s t o ry o fInd i a began. A deta i led desc r ip t ion o f the r e su l t s o f theses tud ies i s inappropr ia te here although l have t r i ed tou t i l i z e and incorpora te those in my work a t re levant p la c e s .It i s , however, needless to mention many recent s tud ie s ,espec i a l l y the doc tora l d is se r ta t ions , have y e t to be pub-l i shed . But ti10se al ready publ i shed and ava i lab le i nd ica t eadequate ly the main t rends o f research on th e economic ands o c i a l h i s t o ry o f the Indian s o c i a l format ion . These t rendsi nd i ca t i ng the leading focus o f the recent researches can besummarized as fo l lows:

(1 ) Assessment o f the economic his tory o f the pre -Br i t i sh Indian s o c i a l formation inc luding the ana lys i s o f the-existence o f p r iv a t e proper ty an prclse na tu re o f l andr igh ts i n d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r i c a l phases o f Indian soc ie ty .14

(2) Assessment o f the na ture o f feudalism in Ind iainc luding ana lys i s o f the causes , development and decay o fthe spec i f i c type o f feudal mode o f product ion i n Ind i a . 15

(3) Assessment o f the or ig in , na t u re , developmentand dis in tegra t ion o f the economies o f Indian v i l l ages . 16

(4) Formulat ions o f the theor ies of Kingship ,na tu re and obl iga t ions e tc i ana lys i s o f th e r e l a t ions o f th e


19/186


20/186

- 10 -

LIMITATIONS OF THE WORK

In del inea t ing the contours and the content o fMarx's t he s i s o f the Asia t i c Mode o f Production l havechosen to cover Marx up to Capi t a l (1867). In the l a s tyears o f h is l i f e ( i . e . 1880-1883) Marx c r i t i c a l l y reviewedthe works o f Morgan, Maine, Phear and Lubbock and renewedh is i n t e r e s t in the AMP. These s t u d i e s , espec ia l ly those o fMaine and Phear , conta ined valuable ana lyses on Orienta lsoc ie t i e s inc luding India . But l have excluded Marx'se thnologica l notes from the scope o f my the s i s . My de c i s ion ,involv ing sorne amount o f persoaa l pre fe rence and unders tand-ing , i s based on the fo l lowing reasons:

(1) Although both Maine and Phear had sorne i n fo r -mation regard ing the pre-Br i t i sh Indian s o c i a l format ion ,the re main emphasis was on Br i t i sh Ind ia . As Krader informsus:

Phear was weI l informed on ru r a l India duringth e nine teenth ~ R t . u " Y E > a ~ t . - i G a l - a c r - l y in regardto de l ta ic Bengal , b u t save fo r a few anc ien tdocuments which he had i n t e rp re t ed fo r him hewas no t weIl informed about Ind ia p r io r tothe Muslim conquest ... 20

As fa r as Maine's wri t ings are concerned, it should be notedt h a t he, l ike Marx, rece ived impor tan t in format ion from theBri t i sh adminis t ra tor s employed by the Bri t i sh government inIndia . 2 l

(2) As al ready i nd i ca t ed , it i s extremely d i f f i c u l tto g e t any spec i f i c idea as to the spec i f i c o r e xa c t t imeper iod on which Marx focussed . Tnis di f f i cu l ty appears a l so


21/186

- Il -

in h is e thnologica l notes where he gave a somewhat d i f f e r e n tp i c t u re o f the !ndian s o c i a l format ion . The cons t ra i n t s o ft ime and money involved in de t a i l ed inves t iga t ions of Marx'se thnologica l wr i t ings so t ha t l can have a more cons ideredjudgement has led me to keep aside those e thnologica l wr i t ingsfrom th e purview o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n .

La s t b u t n o t l e a s t , l must po in t o u t t h a t rny workremains fa r from being a complete and de f in i t i ve s tudy byi t s e l f . My own focus has been on t he empi r i ca l ( i . e . con-cre te) aspects o f the Indian soc ia l formation. Recenttheo re t i ca l cont rove rs ie s on the AMP have no t been covered.Fur the r , the data fo r th i s work have been mainly co l l ec t edthrough avai l ab le l i b r a ry sources . Because o f t ime and moneycons t ra i n t s l have n o t been able to c o l l e c t man y o t he rimpor tan t mate r ia l s which might have otherwise inf luenced myi nves t iga t ion . l urge my readers to consider t h i s d is se r ta -t ion as a necessary pre l iminary work which l want to pursuemore in tens ive ly in t he nea r fu ture .


22/186

NOTES

1 . Herea f te r , the Asia t i c mode o f product ion w i l l beabbrevia ted as AMP.2. John G. Taylor , From Modernizat ion to Modes o f Production(New Je r sey: Humanit ies Press , 1979) , p . 179.3. For the importan t debate between Marx and Kovalevskyregard ing the ex is tence of the feudal mode in India

see , L. Krader , The Asia t i c Mode o f Production (TheNetherlands: Van Gorcum, 1975) , pp. 190-213; seealso E. Hobsbawm, " In t roduc t ion" , in Karl Marx,Pre -Cap i t a l i s t Economic Formations (New York: Int e rna t iona l Publ i shers , 1975) , pp. 57-9.4. Cf. K.A. Wit t foge l , Or ien ta l Despotism (New Haven:Yale Univers i ty Press , 1970) .

5. E. Hobsbawm, "From Feudalism to Capi t a l i sm" 1 R. Hiltone t a l ( eds . ) , The Trans i t ion From Feudalism toCapital ism (London: Verso, 1978) , p . 159.6. Although a good nurnber of s t ud i e s e x i s t and a lso coverce r t a in aspects o f the AMP, there has been so fa r nowork t h a t d e a ~ s with the empir ica l va l id i ty o f theAMP in the pre -Br i t i sh Indian s o c i a l format ion .7. These four ingred ien t s o f the AMP a re presented not inany orde r of pre fe rence . In terms o f any analys i s o fthe AMP, each of them i s as importan t as any other ofthem.8. According to the h i s t o r i ans , the Indian History i sgenera l ly per iodized in to the fol lowing t ime-sca les :Ancient per i od - -c . 3000 B.C. - c . 600 A.D. andMedieval per iod--c . 601 A.D. - c . 1600 A.D.9. For deta i led discuss ion of the w ri t ings of the European

s cholars on the AMP, see Romila Thaper , "In t e rp re ta t ions o f Ancient Indian His tory" , History and Theory,Vol. 7 (1968), pp. 318-35 j Marian Sawer, Marxism andthe Quest ion o f the Asia t ic Mode o f Product ion (TheHague: Martinus Nijhoff , 1977) , pp. 4-39 i and Krader ,The Asi a t i c Mode o f Product ion , pp. 19-79.10. See B. K. Sarkar , The pos i t ive Background o f HinduSociology, The Sacred Book o f the Hindus, Vol. XXV,Book I I (Al lahabad: The Panin i Off ice , 1974) iR. C. Majumdar, Ancient Ind i a (Delhi : Moti la l Banras idass , 1964); U. N. Ghosal , The Agrarian System

- 12 -


23/186

- 13 -

o f Ancient Ind ia (Ca lcu t t a : Un ive r s i ty o f C a l cu t t a ,1930) and Cont r ibu t ions to th e Hindu Revenue System(Calcut ta : Univer s i ty of C a l c u t t a , 1972) ; K. P. Jay aswal , Hindu P o l i tY (Bangalore c i t y : Banga lorepr in t ing & PUbl l sh ing , 1967) .

Il. Sarka r , The Pos i t i ve Background o f Hindu Socio logy , p . 62.12 . 0 .0 . Kosambi, An In t roduc t ion to the Study o f Ind i an

History (Bombay: Popu la r P rakasan , 1956) , p. 1 .13 . I b i d . , p. 10.14 . See Ghosal , The Agrar ian System o f Ancien t Ind i a ;J"ayaswal, Hindu Po l i ty ; Pran Nath , A Study o f theEconomic Condi t ion o f Ancient Ind i a (London: RoyalAs ia t i c Soc i e t y , 1929) ; D.C. S i r c a r ( ed . ) , Land

S stem and Feudal ism in Ancient I nd i a (Ca lcu t t a :Unlver s l ty 0 C alcu t t a , 66; B.R. Grover , "TheNature o f Land Rights in Mughal I nd i a" , Ind ian Economic and Soc i a l His to ry Review, Vol. 1 (1963) ,pp. 1-23; S. Nurul Hasan , "The pos i t i on of th e Zamindars in th e Mughal Empire" , Ind ian Economic and Soc ia lHistory Review, Vol. 1 (1964) , pp. 107-19; 1 . Habib,The Agrar ian System o f Mughal Ind ia (London: AsiaPb11shlng House, 1963) ; and N. A . S i d d i q i , LandRevenue Admin i s t r a t ion under th e Mughals (New York:Asia Pub l i sh ing House, 1970) .

15 . R. S . Sharma, Ind ian Feudal ism c . 300 - 1200 (Ca lcu t t a :Unive rs i ty of C a l cu t t a , 1965) and "The Orig ins o fFeudal ism in I nd i a" , Jou rna l o f th e Economic andSoc i a l History o f th e Or i e n t , Vol . 1 . P a r t I I I , n . d . ,pp. 297-328; K.K. Gopal, "Feudal Composit ion o f theArmy in Ear ly Medie 'Jal I nd i a" , Jou rna l o f AndhraR e s e a rc h -Soc l e q , VOT. 2B, ParEs 3 & 4 (1962-63),pp. 30-49; S i r c a r ( ed . ) , Land System and Feudal ismin Anc ien t Ind i a ; R. C. Choudhary, "Vis t i in Ancien tI nd i a" , Ind ian H i s t o r i c a l Qua r t e r l y , Vol . 38 (1962) ,pp . 44-59.

16. D. D. Kosambi, Ancien t I nd i a : A His to ry o f its Cul tu reand C i v i l i z a t i o n (New York: Pantheon , 1965) and AnIn t roduc t i on to th e Study o f Ind ian His tory ; R. S .Sharma, Sudras in Ancien t Ind ia (Delh i : M ot i l a lBanaras idass , 1958) ; G. L. Adhya, Ear ly Ind ianEconomics (New York: Asia Pub l i sh ing House, 1966) ;K. M. Ashra f , Li fe and Condi t ions o f th e People o fHindos tan (New Delh i : Munshiram Monohar la l , 1970) ;S. Chandra , "Sorne Aspects o f th e Growth o f a MoneyEconomy in Indi .a dur ing the Seventeenth Century" ,Ind ian Economic and Soc i a l His to ry Review, Vol. 3(1966) , pp . 321-31; 1 . Habib, Usury"in MedievalI nd i a" , Comparat ive Studies in Soc ie ty and Hi s t o ry ,Vol. 6 (1963) , pp. 393-419 and " P o t e n t i a l i t i e s o fC a p i t a l i s t Development in the Economy o f Mughal


24/186

- 14 -

Ind i a " , Journa l o f Economic His to ry , Vol. 29 (1967),pp. 32-78; D. C. Si rca r ( ed . ) , Early Indian Tradeand Indus t ry (Calcut ta : Univer s l ty of Ca lcut ta , 1972) .17 . K. P. Jayaswal , Manu and Yajnavalkya (Ca lcu t t a : But te r wor th , 1930); Sarkar , The Pos l t l ve Background o f

Hindu Sociology; K. M. Panikkar , Or ig in and Evolut iono f Kingship in Ind ia (Baroda: Baroda St a t e Pre s s ,1938) i B. A. Sa l e t o re , Ancien t Indian Pol i t i c a lThought and In s t i t u t i o n s (Bombay: Asia Publ i sh ingHouse, 1963) ; P. Saran, The P ro v i n c i a l Government ofthe Mughals ;1526-1658 (Bombay: Asia Publ i sh ingHouse, 1973); Benl Prasad , The Sta t e in Ancien t India(Allahabad: The Indian Pre s s , 1974) i R. S. Sharrna,Aspects o f P o l i t i c a l Ideas and In s t i t u t i o n s in Ancien tInd ia (Delh i : Mot i l a l Banaras idas s , 1968) .18 . A. S. Al tekar , Sta te and Government in Ancien t India(Delhi : Mot i l a l Banaras idas s , 1962); S. C. Bhat t a charya , Sorne Aspects o f Indian Soc ie ty (Calcut ta :

Firma KLM, 1978); P.C. Ja i n , Labour in Ancien tInd ia (New Delhi : Ste r l ing Pub l i s he r s , 1971) iShireen Moosv i , "The Zamindar ' s Share in the Peas an tSurplus in the Mughal Empire--Evidence o f the Ain- i Akbar i S t a t i s t i c s " , Indian Economic and Soc ia lHis tory Review, Vol. 15 (1978) , pp. 359-74; W.C. Smith,"Lower Class Upris ings in th e Mughal Empire" , Is lamicCul ture , Vol. 20 (1946) , pp. 21-39 and "The MughalEmpire and th e Middle C l a s s " , in i b i d . , Vol. 18(1944) , pp. 349-63. --

19 . I . Habib , "problerns o f Marxi s t Hi s t o r i ca l Analys i s" , inM. Kurian ( ed . ) , Ind i an - -S t a t e and Soc ie ty (Bombay:Orien t Longman, 1975) , p . 23.

20 Krader-,'l 'heEmnGJoGgi--ea-l- N ~ e b e e k s of K-a-r-lMarx -('l 'heNether lands : Van Gorcurn, 1972) , p . 32.21. The informat ion Marx rece ived from B r i t i s h adrnin is t rato r s and o the r of f i ce r s were , says r igh t ly Thaper ,"not only scan ty bu t a l so no t a l toge the r r e l i a b l e ,

s ince many o f th e adrnin is t ra tors had preconce ivedideas about the Indian p a s t based on th e wri t ingso f James Mil l , Richard Jones , and o thers which werepresc r ibed t ex t s a t Hai leybury Col lege and o t he rsuch i n s t i t u t i o n s where these adrn in is t ra tors weret r a ine d" . See R. Thaper , " In t e rp re t a t i ons o f Ancien tIndian His to ry" , p . 323. In t h i s connexion it i sworthwhi le to t ake no te o f sorne impor tan t t h e o r i s t s who were in one way o r ano ther connected with th eBr i t i sh ru le in Ind i a . General ly a I l th e B r i t i s hc i v i l se rvants were thoroughly under th e impact o fAdam Smi th ' s economic i de a s . At one t ime , Smith


25/186

- 15 -

was about to be sen t (Smith being wi l l i ng to go)t o Ind ia to i nves t i ga t e ce r t a i n admin i s t ra t ive malp r a c t i c e s . Ricardo was a shareho lde r o f th e Ea s tIndia Company. Malthus and Jones were in theemployment o f th e Company to teach c i v i l se rvan t sa t Haileybury College . James Mil l and John S t u a r tMil l were examiner and ch i e f examiner r e s pe c t ive lyin employment o f the Company. These examplescou ld be m ul t ip l i e d . For weI l documented desc r ip-t i o n ; see S. Ambira jan, Cla s s i c a l P o l i t i c a l Economyand Br i t i sh Pol icy in Ind i a (Cambridge: CambridgeUniv e r s i ty Press , 1978), pp. 2-5.


26/186

CHAPTER ONE

Marx and th e A s ia t i c Mode o f Produc t ion

The genes i s o f th e AMP, which r ece ived mosta r t i c u l a t e c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n in th e hands o f Marx, can bet raced to th e e a r l i e s t su rv iv ing accounts o f Ind ia inWestern l i t e r a t u r e . As a __ mat t e r o f f a c t it may very w e I lbe argued t h a t the AMP i s only a s oph i s t i c a t e d vers ion o fwhat European ph i losophers , p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s , economis ts ,t r a v e l l e r s and miss ionar ies a l ready s a id o f In d i a e a r l i e r . lThe i r a ccoun t s , by s k i l l f u l formula t ion in th e mas te r handso f Marx, became what we c a l I th e A s ia t i c mode o f produc t ion .

Like h is predecessor s , Marx cen te red h is d iscuss ionaround th e fo l lowing f e a t u re s o f O r i e n t a l s o c i e t i e s i nc ludin g In d i a . These a re th e genera l i zed p ropos i t ions o f th eAMP.(1) The Ind ian s o c i a l format ion i s c h a ra c t e r i z e d by th e

aJ5sence 6l: p r i v a t e proper ty in l a n d ;(2) The Indian s o c i a l format ion c ons i s t s o f s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g

v i l l a g e communit ies whose i n t e r n a I cohesion i s main-t a i n e d by a u n i tY of a g r i c u l tu r e and c r a f t i n d u s t ry i

(3) This u n i ty o f a g r i c u l t u r e and manufacture provided th econd i t ions fo r produc t ion and r ep roduc t ion wi th in thev i l l age i t s e l f . In t u r n , t h i s provided g r e a t s t a b i l i t y and a l so became a nega t ive f a c t o r fo r caus ings t agna t ion o f th e Indian s o c i a l fo rma t ion . This was

- 16 -


27/186

- 17 -

sa id to be t rue in sp i t e o f numerous invas ions fromouts ide o f Ind ia in d i f f e r e n t c e n tu r i e s ;

(4) Fi na l l y , because o f th e absence o f the pr i va t e landedproper ty in Ind ia th e revenue c o l l e c t o r s , unl ike thel andlords in European feudal s o c i e t i e s , were n o t cos ha re r s o f p o l i t i c a l power o f th e s t a t e . This a l t o ge the r with the se l f - su f f i c i ency of the v i l l age communi t i e s , based on a system o f economic product ionon the bas i s o f un i ty of ag r i cu l t u re and manufacture ,l a id so l id foundat ion fo r Or ien ta l Despotism. 2Before l take up the spec i f i c propos i t ions in to which

th e t hes i s o f the N ~ can be broken down, as al ready i nd i c a t e din the ab ove , another p o i n t must be mentioned. Orig ina l ly ,Marx expressed h is views on Ind ia as a j ou rna l i s t e Many o fh is wri t ings were publ ished in the New York Daily Tr ibune.However, he took up th e t hes i s in h is t h e o r e t i c a l works suchas Grundr isse and Capi ta l . The p o i n t which needs a t t en t ion ,l _think, i s t.hi1:. M9.J:'_x s J J b ~ t a n t i a l l y and b a s i c a l l y st-ruck t-Gt h e s i s o f th e AMP as he or ig ina l ly formula ted it. What lin tend to emphasise i s the f a c t t h a t , despi te ce r t a in occas iona l changes in emphasis on cer ta in aspects of the t h e s i s , Marxremained s ign i f i can t ly l oya l to h is bas i c propos i t ions (upto Capi t a l ) . His f o r s t pronouncement on the exis tence of theAMP was made in the P re face to A Contr ibut ion to the Cr i t iqueo f P o l i t i c a l Economy (1859) . Here he spec i f i e s in a veryc l e a r and unambiguous language the d i f f e r e n t s t ages o f theproduc t ive development o f soc ia l format ions .


28/186

- 18 -

In broad ou t l ine , the Asi a t i c , anc ien t , f euda land modern bourgeois modes o f product ion may bedesignated as epochs marking progress in theeconomic development of soc ie ty .3With t h i s l e t me pass on to th e spec i f i e arguments in eacho f the p r o p o s i ~ i o n s t h a t as a whole define the Asi a t i c modeo f product ion in th e Marxis t l i t e r a t u r e .

THE ABSENCE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

Marx was convinced by, among o the r s , Be rn ie r ' s(1620-1685j88?) account o f the uniqueness o f the Indiansoc i e t y . This uniqueness cons i s t s in the absence o f pr i va t eproper ty o r i nd iv idua l ' s propr ie ta ry r i g h t over l and . Inh is book Travels in th e Mogul Empire, Bernie r ment ions theprac t i ce of the occasional land grants by the king who i sdesignated as "propr ie tor" o f the l and and who does no tsur render h is propr ie ta ry r igh t s over th e lands granted byhim. The r e l e va n t passages are c i t ed :

It should also be borne in mind, t h a t the GreatMegolce:m-sti-tute-s himse l f h e i r o f t l l -the Omrans,or lo rds , and l i kewise o f th e Mansabdars, o ri n f e r i o r l o rds , who a re in h i s paYi and what i sthe utmost importance, t h a t he i s propr i e to r ofevery acre o f land in the kingdom, except ing ,perhaps , sorne houses and gardens which he sometimes

p e r m ~ t s h is subjec t s to buy and s e l l , and othe r wise dispose o f , among themselves . ... the king ,as propr i e t o r o f the land , makes over a ce r t a inquant i ty to mi l i t a ry men, as an e qu iva l e n t fo r t h e i rpaYi and t h i s gra n t i s ca l l ed j a h -g i r , o r , as inTurkey, t imari the word j ah -g i r s i gn i fy i ng the s po tfrom which to draw, o r the p lace o f sa l a ry . Simi-l a r grants a re made to governors , in l i eu o f t h e i rsa larYi and a lso fo r the support o f t h e i r t roops ,on condi t ion t h a t they p a y a ce r t a in sum annuallyto the king ou t o f any surp lus revenue t h a t theland may y ie ld . The lands n o t so granted are re t a ined by the king as pecu l i a r domains o f h ishouse , and are seldom, if ever , given in the way


29/186

- 19 -

o f j ah -g i r ; and upon these domains he keepscon t rac t o r s , who are also bound to pay himan ann ua l ren t . 4

Marx h imse l f acknowledges, in a l . e t t e r dated June 2 , 1853,t h a t the desc r ip t ion of Bern ie r provides a key to the landt enure system in India . Another p o i n t i s t h a t Bern ie r wasr e f e r r ing to the Mogul per iod (1526-1757) on ly , withou tmentioning the land system o f pre-mughal e r a . Thus Marxwrote ,

Bern ie r correc t ly discovers th e ba s i c forro o fa I l phenomena in t he Eas t - he r e fe r s toTurkey, Pers i a , Hindostan - to be the absenceo f pr i va t e proper ty in l and . This i s ther e a l key even to th e Orienta l heaven.5

Elsewhere Marx a lso r e f e r s , again in a l e t t e r in 1858, to thepre-Mughal , pa r t i cu l a r ly to the Hindu per iod in somewhatdesc r i p t i ve manner.

A more thorough study o f the i n s t i t u t i o n s o fHindostan , toge the r with the inconveniences ,both s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l , r e su l t i ng from theBengal se t t l ement , has given cur rency t o theopinion t h a t by the o r i g i n a l Hindoo i n s t i t u t i ons , "che proper ty o f the land was in th ev i l l age corpora t ions , in which re s ided th epower ota - l i :o t ing i tout ta ln:l.1vil.ua:ls fOrcu l t iva t ion whi le the Zamindars and t a lookdarswere in t h e i r or ig in nothing b u t of f i ce r s o fth e Government, appointed to look a f t e r , toc o l l e c t , and to pay over to the pr ince th eassessment due from the v i l l age . 6

As a mat te r of f a c t , by 1858 Marx developed the AMP model o fthe Indian s o c i a l format ion.

For example, the same t hes i s cont inues to pervadeh is most widely read t ex t s such as Grundr isse and Capi ta l .In th e Grundr isse he says whenever proper ty e x i s t s in theO r ie n ta l form i t ex i s t s lIonly as communal proper ty , the rethe i nd iv idua l member i s as much only possesso r o f a pa r t i -


30/186

- 20 -

c u l a r p a r t , h e re d i t a ry o r n o t , s ince any f r a c t i on o f th ep ro p e r t y belongs to no member fo r h im s e l f , b u t to him onlyas immediate member o f th e commune, i.e. as in d i r e c t u n i tYwith it, n o t in d i s t i n c t i o n to it. This i n d i v i d u a l i s thusonly a posses so r . What e x i s t s i s only communal p r o p e r ty ,and only p r i v a t e pos se ss ion . !,7

As now ev id en t , the ques t ion o f d i f f e r e n c e betweenownersh ip and posse ss ion t ak es on an impor tance and hasbecome a very c r u c i a l i s s ue . This d i s t i n c t i o n betweenownersh ip i.e. p r o p r i e t o r s h i p , and posse ss ion i.e. occupancy ,was a l ready w eI l developed in J o n e s ' An In t roduc to ry L e c t ~ r eon P o l i t i c a l Economy. As Krader r e p o r t s , it found its p lacein Hegel as w e I l as in Marx. 8 Ownership imp l i e s , genera l lyin a comprehensive sense , a r e l a t i o n between a person and ar i g h t ves t ed in him. Ownership i s t he expre ss ion o f th er i g h t o v e r a t h in g b u t n o t t h e r e l a t i o n between person andth e th in g itself. When an i n d i v i d u a l owns a p iece o f l a n d ,in t ru t h he owns a p a r t i c u l a r kind o f r i g h t o r what may bec a l l e d p ro p r i e t a ry r i g h t with r e s p e c t to t h a t l an d . Theconcep t o f p r o p e r ty , it i s to be noted , i s a r i g h t b u t n o tlia t h i ng j a r i g h t in th e sense o f an e n fo rc e a b l e c la im tosorne use o r b e n e f i o f someth ing . 119 Now a person owns h isr i g h t o v e r a l and a c t u a l l y posses s ing it, o r t h e re can beownersh ip wi thou t posse ss ion which may be ves ted in ano ther .As f a r as Marx i s co n ce rn ed , th e s t a t e i s th e owner o f a I ll ands , whi le th e i n d i v i d u a l o r th e fami ly i s only th eposses so r . The s t a t e i s th e r e a l and l e g a l owner o f a I l


31/186

- 21 -

lands in the sense t ha t it could con t ro l and regula te landto given uses and so dispose of the products obta ined t he re -from. That i s to say , it gives the s t a t e th e power to re -ceive from d i r ec t producers the produce o f t he i r surp lusl abour . Simi la r ly , the ind iv idua l s a re only possessors who,by v i r tue o f t h e i r occupat ion o f th e land, have the capaci tyto pu t the land in to use o r cu l t iva t ion . Natura l ly , thei nd i v i dua l could not , because o f h is lack of ownership o rpropr ie ta ry r i gh t , t r ans f e r h is land by any means in anyform, i . e . g i f t , purchase , sa le o r mortgage, nor i s he ableto appropr ia te to himse l f h is por t ion of the product whichhe produces in common with others . Fur t he r , as Marx t h i nks ,the s o i l was n o t a pr i zed ob j ec t , in Ind ia , fo r the i nd iv id u a l as was the case in Europe. lO

In Capi t a l Marx in an unambiguous manner a t t r i bu t e sownership to the s t a t e . He poin t s o u t t ha t ,

The s t a t e i s then the supreme l o rd . Sovere ign-ty here cons is t s in the ownership o f land concent ra td on a na tu ra l sca le . But , on the o the rhand, no pr iva t e ownership o f land e x i s t s , a l t h o u ~ - t ; l H ~ ~ e - i s heth priv-ate andconunon possBssionand use o f land . ll

Therefore , the s t a t e i s regarded by Marx as a h i ghe r un i tyand s tands to the d i r ec t c u l t i v a to r s as t h e i r landowner andsovereign. This i s why ren t and tax coinc ide . 12

The not ion t h a t in the Orient there i s no pr iva teproper ty r igh t s had long been i mp l i c i t in Western th ink ingabout the Ori en t a l s oc i e t i e s . The acceptance o f t h i s ideaof non-exis tence o f pr iva te proper ty ,'Jas in vogue "s ince


32/186

- 22 -

c l a s s i c a l Greece , fo r example, in the Greeks ' d e sc r i p t i o no f th e c la ims o f th e Pers ian kings to abso lu te l o rdsh ipove r l and and w ate r . n13 Hi th th e except ion o f one p a r t o fIn d i a , th e h i l l - coun t ry south o f Cri shna , where proper ty inl and seems to have e x i s t e d , Marx goes on to echo th e sametheme o f non-ownership by w r i t i ng t h a t " in any case- it seemsto have been th e Mohammedans who first e s t a b l i s he d th epr i nc i p l e o f "no proper ty in l and" throughout th e whole o fAsia . , ,14 From th e days o f A r i s t o t l e and Herodotus onwards ,th e theme o f absence o f p r i v a t e proper ty remained a s e tfa sh ion among most Western s h o l a r s , a l though it i s now c e r -t a in t h a t it was Megasthenes who first s p e c i f i c a l l y po in tedto the non-ex i s tence o f pr iva t e proper ty in Ind i a . In t h i scon tex t , l e t me quote f rom Richard Jones , who remains oneo f th e b e a re r s o f th e i n f luences o f th e B r i t i s h p o l i t i c a leconomy on Marx.

Throughout Asia , th e sove re igns have neve rbeen in th e possess ion o f an exc lus ive titleto th e s o i l o f t h e i r dominions, and they haveprese rved t h a t ti l e in t s t a fL Qf s . ingula rand i I1auspic ious in t e g r i ty , undi vided , asweI l as unimpai red . The peop le are t h e reu n i v e r sa l l y the tenan ts o f the sovere ign ,who i s th e s o l e p r o p r i e t o r ; usurpa t ions o fh is o f f i c e r s a lone occas iona l ly break th el i n k s o f the cha in o f dependence fo r a t ime .It i s thus u n i v e r sa l dependence on the t h ronefo r th e means o f suppor t ing l i f e , which i sth e r e a l founda t ion o f th e unbroken despot ismo f the Eas te rn world , as it i s o f th e revenueo f th e sovere igns , and o f th e form whichsoc ie ty assumes benea th t h e i r f e e t . 15While the absence o f p r i v a t e proper ty in l and i s

r e sp o n s i b l e , among o t h e r r easons , fo r th e AMP and a conse-quen t s t agna t ion o f the Indian s o c i e t y , European s o c i e t i e s


33/186

- 23 -

passed through th ree success ive s tages - anc ien t , feuda land bourgeois of product ive development. But the quest ioni s , in th e words o f Engels, "how does i t come about thathe OrientaIs d id n o t a r r i ve a t landed proper ty , even in i t sfeuda l form?"16 Engels ' answer i s as fo l lows:

l th ink it i s mainly due to the c l ima te , takenin connect ion with the na tu re o f the s o i l ,espec ia l ly with the grea t s t r e t ches of thed e s e r t which extend from the Sahara s t r a i g h tacross Arabia , P e r s i a , India and Tartary upto th e h i ghes t As i a t i c p l a t eau . A r t i f i c i a li r r iga t ion is here the f i r s t condi t ion o fagr i cu l t u re and t h i s a mat te r e i t he r fo rthe communes, the province o r th e cen t r a lgovernment .17

As fa r as Marx i s concerned, he a lso mentions the po i n t o fi r r i ga t i on works undertaken by the s t a t e in Ind ia . The ab-sence o f pr i va t e o r voluntary assoc ia t ions in Ind i a and, a tthe same t ime, the necess i ty o f an economical and common useo f wate r involved the cen t r a l government in the funct ion o fprovid ing publ ic works. 18 Elsewhere, in the Grundrisse , heagain mentions the importance o f the ro le of the i r r iga t ionworks by the s t a t e . As he says , "The communal cond i t ions o fr e a l appropr ia t ion through l abour , aqueducts , very impor tantamong the Asia t i c peop les , means o f communication e t c . thenappear as the work of the h igher u n i ty - o f the despot icregime hover ing over the little communes." 19 In t h i s conne c t ion , it should be remembered t h a t Marx in h is l a t t e ryea r s , e spec i a l l y i n C ap i t a l, showed a dec l in ing i n t e r e s tin the ro le of the s t a t e in i r r iga t ion works. Fina l ly , heconcludes t h a t pr i va t e proper ty , the grea t desideratum of


34/186

- 24 -

Asi a t i c soc i e t y , was only in t roduced by the Bri t i sh . 20 Thisonly confi rms t h a t p r io r to the Br i t i sh in te rvent ion , inIndia pr i va t e proper ty - l e g a l o r otherwise - was non-exist e n t .

THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY

An impor tant co r re l a t e propos i t ion of the AMP, whichgoes along with the non-exis tence of pr iva te proper ty , de-p ie t s the Indian soc ia l format ion as cons i s t ing o f numerousv i l l age communi t ies . They cons t i t u t e the soc ia l bas i s ofwhat has been ca l l ed Orienta l despot ism.

The na tu re o f economic product ion i s dependent upanwhat ind iv idua ls produced in these v i l l age communi t ies . Thati s to say , the na ture of economic product ion ca r r i ed o u t bythe members o f the v i l l age communities r e f l e c t s the na tu reof the economic product ion in the Indian s o c i a l format ion .In t u rn , it provides a clue to the s tagna t ion o r dynamism o fthe Indian soc ia l formation. The v i l l age communities a recharac te r i sed by, fo r Marx and many o the r s , a viable and in ex t r i cab le un i ty o f agr i cu l t u re and hand i c ra f t s . This uniquecombinat ion of agr i cu l t u re and handicraf t s provides thev i l l age communities with s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , necessary fo r a I lcondi t ions o f reproduct ion and surp lus product ion . Theyare locked within t h e i r independent organisa t ion and d i s t i n c t l i f e .

A few words may be sa i d with regard to the indus t ryi . e . hand i c ra f t s , i n the v i l l age communit ies. Here , one


35/186

- 25 -

f inds a s imple div is ion of l abour r a the r t han , as in ac a p i t a l i s t mode o r product ion , the manufactur ing div is iono f l abour o r div is ion o f l abour in d e t a i l . In a manu-fac tur ing d iv i s ion o f l abour , the process involved in mak-ing a product a re broken down in to seve ra l opera t ions andt hese opera t ions a re performed by s e ve ra l workers . In ac a p i t a l i s t soc ia l format ion , the d iv i s ion o f l abour i sgeared to high l eve l s of s k i l l and spec ia l i s a t ion in workopera t ions . They are de ta i l ed according to th e needs o fthe c a p i t a l i s t product ion . In con t r a s t , the soc ia l div is iono f l abour , the one t h a t ex i s t ed in the v i l l age communitieso f Ind ia , presents a d i f f e r e n t p ic tu re . In the s o c i a ldiv i s ion of l abour , the i nd iv idua l s may remain connec tedin the making o f ce r t a in produc t s , b u t th i s does n o t involvesepa ra te ope ra t ions in making each product . This kind ofd iv i s ion of labour div ides the soc ia l formation i n t o seve ra lopera t ions b u t does n o t s tand in the way o f the developmento f human c a p a b i l i t i e s . This s o c i a l div i s ion of l abourde r ives from the spec i f i c cha rac t e r othumafi work. -J'Thes p ide r weaves, the be a r f i shes , the beaver bui lds dams andhouses , b u t the human i s s imul taneous ly weaver , f isherman,bu ikder , and a thousand o t he r th ings combined in a mannerwhich, because t h i s t akes p lace in , and i s probably onlythrough, soc i e t y , soon compels a soc ia l div i s ion accordingto c r a f t . ,,21

Marx descr ibes most br i l l i a n t l y the fea tures o f t hesev i l l age communities as a lso the p a r t i c u l a r types o f economicproduct ion in them. To quote from Ca pi t a l


36/186

- 26 -

Those smal l and extremely a n c i e n t Indiancornrnunities, sorne o f which cont inued tot h i s day, a re based on possess ion in cornrnono f th e l and , on th e blending o f agr i cu l t u reand ha nd ic r a f t s 1 and on an ' .malterabled iv i s ion o f l abour , which serves l whenevera new cornrnunity i s s t a r t e d , as a plan andscheme ready cu t and dr i e d . Occupying areaso f from 100 up to seve ra l thousand ac res ,each forros a compact whole producing a I l itr e qu i r e s . The c h ie f p a r t o f the products i sdes t ined fo r d i r e c t use by the cornrnunity it-s e l f , and does n o t take the form of a commodi ty . Hence, product ion here i s independen t o f t h a t d iv i s ion o f labour brought about ,in Indian soc ie ty as a whole , by means o f theexchange o f cornrnodities, and a por t ion o feven t h a t l n o t u n t i l it has reached the handso f th e Sta te , i n to whose hands from t ime immemorial a ce r t a in quan t i ty o f these productshas found its way in the shape of ren t ink ind . 22

These v i l l age cornrnunities, o f course , vary from p lace top lace in Ind i a . But , in the s i m p l e s t o f them, th e l and i st i l l e d in cornrnon and the produce d iv ided , probably equa l ly ,arnong the mernbers. The v i l l age cornrnunity i s c ha ra c t e r i s e dby a d i s t i n c t s o c i a l d iv i s ion of l abour . Along with th i scornrnon t i l l a g e of l and and equi tab le d i s t r ibu t ion o f theproducE;!'

... spinning and weaving a re c a r r i e d on in eachfamily as subs id ia ry i n d u s t r i e s . Side by s idewith th e masses thus occupied with one and th esame work, we f ind th e "c h i e f i nhab i t an t " , whoi s judge, po l i ce , and t a x -ga the r e r in one; thebook-keeper , who keeps the accounts o f th et i l l a g e and r eg i s t e r s every th ing r e l a t i n gt he r e to ; another o f f i c i a l , who prosecu tesc r imina ls , pro t ec t s s t rangers t r ave l l i ng throughand es c o r t s them to t he nex t v i l l a g e ; ... th eBrahmin who conduc ts the r e l i g i ous se rv i ces ;... a smith and a c a rpe n te r , who make and re p a i r a I l th e a g r i c u l t u r a l implements; th e p o t t e r ,who makes a I l the po t t e ry o f th e v i l l age ;The whole mechanism d i s c los e s a sys temat i cd iv i s ion o f l abour ; b u t a d iv i s ion l i ke t h a t


37/186

- 27 -

in manufacture i s imposs ib le , The lawt h a t r e gu la t e s the div is ion of l abour inthe cornrnunity ac t s with th e i r r e s i s t i b l ea u thor i t y o f a law o f Nature , a t th e samet ime t h a t each ind iv idua l a r t i f i c e r , th esmith , t he ca rpen te r , and so on , conductsin h is workshop a I l the opera t ions o f h ishand i c ra f t in the t r a d i t i o n a l way, b u tindependent ly , wi thout recogn is ing anya u thor i t y by ove r him.23

Such, as in th e above, was the s o c i a l d iv i s ion o f l abour inth e economic format ion o f the Indian s o c i e t y .

In h is own account o f Ind ia Marx was i n f luenced byth e Off i c i a l Report (5th) o f th e B r i t i s h House o f Cornrnonson Indian Affa i r s , as he was by many o thers inc lud ing HenryMaine and John Budd Phear . 24 In th i s context , ano ther p o i n tcan be made concern ing th e quest ion o f ownership and posses s ionin r e l a t ion to th e s t a t e and v i l l age cornrnunities. While th ei nd iv idua l i s never a propr i e t o r o r owner o f th e land , th ecornrnunity i s the heredi ta ry owner and th e s t a t e , as a h igheru n i ty , the p r o p r i e t o r . The s t a t e appears as a "comprehensiveuni ty" s tanding above the li t l e v i l l age cornrnuni t i e s . Thecomprehensive u n i ty which cha rac t e r i se s the s t a t e and thussepara tes i t . from the r e a l v i l l age cornrnunities i s the u n i tyo f h igher o r so l e p ropr i e t o r over a I l l ands . This u n i tY i sr ea l i zed in th e form o f the despot ,25 and a lso e n t i t l e s thes t a t e to any su rp lus produce beyond what i s necessary fo rreproduct ion o f the v i l l age cornrnunities and t h e i r cor respond-ing econornic fo rma t ions .

The su rp lus p roduc t - which i s , i n c i d e n t a l l y ,determined by law in the consequence of ther e a l appropr i a t ion through l abour - the rebyau tomat i ca l ly belongs to t h i s h ighe s t un i ty .


38/186

- 28 -

Arnidst o r i e n t a l despot ism and proper ty lenesswhich seems l ega l ly to e x i s t t he re , t h i s clano r communal proper ty ex i s t s in f ac t as thefoundat ion , c rea ted most ly by a combinat iono f manufacture"s and agr i cu l t u re wi th in thesmal l commune, which thus becomes a l t oge t he rse l f - sus ta in ing , and conta ins a I l the condi-t ions of reproduct ion and su rp lus product ionwith in i t s e l f . A p a r t of t h e i r su rp lus labourbelongs to the higher community, which ex i s t sul t ima te ly as a person, and th i s su rp luslabour takes the form o f t r ibu te e t c . , as weI las o f common l abour fo r the exa l ta t ion o f theun i ty , pa r t ly o f the r e a l despo t , t a r t l y o fthe imagined clan-being , the god. 2

THE STAGNATION OF INDIAN SOCIAL FORMATIONAND ITS HIS TORY

The t h i rd propos i t ion t h a t the Indian soc ia l forma-t ion and i t s h i s to ry was s tagnant , log ica l ly der i ves , lt h ink , form the pic ture Marx por t rays o f the v i l l age commu-n i t i e s in Ind i a . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the se l f - su f f i c iency ,rooted in the u n i ty o f agr i cu l t u re and hand ic ra f t s , o f thev i l l age communities c rea ted s t a t i c condi t ions . Ind ia ' sbas ic economic s t ruc tu re remained una l te red s ince i t s re -ffiGte-st. ant - iqui ty , u n t i l the f i r s t decade of the hihe tenthcentury .27

Let me now go in to sorne de ta i l s o f the cause of thes t agna t i on . In the f i r s t place , Marx s t a t es t h a t in Indiathe vi l lage communites were so c u t o f f from each o t he r andthe outs ide world t h a t prospec t o f change o r progress wasremote. The Br i t i sh in t roduced th e ra i lways , which, amongo t he r t h i ngs , prcvided fac tua l ly a boos t in the fu r the rdevelopment o f product ive forces , acce le ra ted i ndus t r i a l i -za t ion , and helped develop Coal i ndus t ry , engineer ing f i rms


39/186

- 29 -

(e .g . Jessop, Burn e tc . ) o r S t ee l i ndus t ry (e .g . Tatas)i n I nd i a . But u n t i l then ,

The v i l l age i so l a t ion produced th e absence ofroads in India , and the absence of roads per pe tua ted the v i l l age i s o l a t i o n . On th i s plana community ex i s t ed with a given s c a l e o f lowconveniences , a lmost withou t i n t e r c our s e witho t he r v i l l a g e s , withou t the des i re s and e f fo r t si nd i spensab le to s o c i a l advance. The Br i t i shhave broken up t h i s s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t i n e r t i ao f th e v i l l ages , ra i lways w i l l provide the newwant o f communicat ion and i n t e r c our s e . 28These v i l l age communi t ies , which provide impetus to thecon t inua t ion o f s tagna t ion and despot ism in the Indian s o c i a lformat ion , may be of fens ive in t he i r appearance . But theyhave " re s t r a i ned th e human mind wi th in the sma l l e s t poss ib lecompass, making it the unres i s t i ng t oo l o f s u p e r s t i t i o n ,enslaving it beneath t r a d i t i o n a l ru l e s , depriv ing it o f a I lgrandeur and h i s t o r i c a l energ ies . ,,29

A fa r more impor tant f ac t o r o f the s t a t iona r ines sin the Indian s o c i a l format ion l i e s in the mode (manner) o fproduct ion in th e economy of these v i l l age communities - th eu n i t o f g , g r i u l t ~ r e and c r a f t s ~ 'l 'he laGk Q-f ~ l d v a t p r e -p e r ty toge the r with th e exis tence o f a cen t r a l i s ed p o l i t i c a lsupers t ruc ture - the s t a t e - in India are a I l r e l a t e d to th eu n i ty of ag r i cu l t u re and manufactur ing c ra f t s - the founda-t ion of the v i l l age economy.

The Asia t i c form necessar i ly hangs on mostt enac ious ly and fo r the longes t t ime. Thisi s due to i t s presuppos i t ion t h a t the in div idua l does no t become independent v i s - a v is the commune; t h a t the re i s a s e l f - s u s t a in ing c i r c l e o f produc t ion , u n i ty o fagr i cu l t u re and manufac tures , e t c . 30


40/186

- 30 -

The manner of product ion being essen t i a l ly a simple rep ro -duc t ion o f the v i l l age communities and based on an impene-t r a b l e u n i ty of agr i cu l t u re and c ra f t s the v i l l age communi-t i e s with t h e i r inhe rent se l f - su f f i c i ency surv ives s tubborn ly .Beneath th e veneer o f apparent disso lu t ions and recons t ruc -t i ons o f A s ia t i c s t a t e s , or unceasing changes of dyna s t i e s ,one con f ronts a s o c i a l format ion t h a t remains a f t e r a I ls tagnant .

The s impl ic i ty of the organisa t ion for product ion in t hese se l f - su f f i c ing communities t h a tcons tan t ly reproduce themselves in the sameform, and when a c c ide n ta l l y dest royed, sp r ingup again on t he spo t and with the same name -t h i s s impl ic i ty supp l i e s th e key to the sec re to f th e unchangeableness of A s ia t i c s t a t e s , anunchangeableness in such s t r i k i n g c o n t r a s twith t he cons tan t d i s so l u t i on and re foundingo f A s ia t i c s t a t e s , and th e never-ceas ingchanges of dynasty . The s t ruc tu re of theeconomic elements o f remains untouhed by th estorm-clouds of th e p o l i t i c a l sky . J IThe unbreakable un i ty of agr i cu l t u re and hand i c ra f t s ,

provid ing the so l i d foundat ion o f a t yp i ca l mode o f produc-t i on and r e s t i ng on a l imi ted s o c i a l d i v i ~ i o n o f l aboBr ,proved to be the most insurmountable b a r r i e r in th e way o ffu r t he r evolu t ion o f the Indian economic format ion . Thes tagna t ion t h a t ensued as a r e s u l t was fu r t he r conso l ida ted ,in the t h i rd place , by a unique combinat ion of a l ack o fexchange o f commodities with the l imi ted soc ia l div i s ion o flabour i n I nd i a . As a r e s u l t of t h i s unique combinat ion ,the opposi t ion between c i t y and country in Ind ia could no tdevelop . Marx no tes th e ba s i c opposi t ion in t h i s way: "The


41/186

- 31 -

founda t ion of every d iv i s ion o f l abour t h a t i s weIl develop-ed , and brought abou t by th e exchange of commodit ies , i s th esepa ra t ion between town and country. , ,32 Thus the l ack o fantagonism between towns o r c i t i e s on th e one hand and thev i l l a g e s , on th e o t h e r hand, s i g n i f i e s a fu r the r cause o fs tagna t ion in th e Indian economic format ion . In th eGrundr isse , he w r i t e s :

The h i s t o ry o f c l a s s i c a l an t i qu i t y i s th eh i s t o ry o f c i t i e s , b u t o f c i t i e s founded onl anded proper ty and on agr i cu l t u re ; A s ia t i ch i s t o ry i s a kind o f i n d i f f e r e n t u n i ty o ftown and coun t rys ide ( the r e a l l a rge c i t i e smust be regarded here merely roya l camps,as works o f a r t i f i c e ... e rec ted over th eeconomic cons t ruc t ion proper ) ; the MiddleAges (Germanic per iod) begins wi th land asth e s e a t of h i s t o r y , whose fu r the r deve lopment then moves forward in th e c on t r a d i c t i onbetween town and coun t rys ide ; the modern(age) i s t he u rban iza t ion of th e coun t rys ide ,n o t ru ra l i za t ion of the c i ty as in a n t iqu i ty .33

The main po in t s which Marx 8eems to have emphasised a re t h a tin Ind ia antagonism between c i t i e s and v i l l ages was absen t ,t h a t th e c i t i e s were only ro y a l camps or p laces o f adminis -t r a t i o n , th:!:t i ndus t r i e s in th e c i t i@s mayhave predueed goodsfo r th e bureaucracy of th e king and t h a t th e c i t i e s movedwhenever th e king moved. Fur the r , in th e c i t i e s in Ind iathe re was l e s s p o l i t i c a l s t rugg le between th e king and th es o -c a l l e d t hose subord ina te ro y a l o f f i c i a I s with whom hemoved.

The European c i t i e s p re se n t a c o n t r a s t to those o fIn d i a . The feuda l pr inces encouraged th e development o fth e c i t i e s because it was to t h e i r advantages . As t h e i rt r ade and bus iness t r ansac t i on grew, " the revenues from every


42/186

- 32 -

kind o f t o i l and from the mints l ikewise fiowed in in -creas ing quan t i t i e s in to the l o rd ' s t reasury. , ,34 In thecourse o f t ime, the bourgeois ie emerged as grea t merchantsin the towns. In the c o n f l i c t between the king and theindependent feuda l l o rds , the bourgeois ie consol ida tedp o l i t i c a l power. The feudal l o rds grew weaker because oft h e i r loss of possess ions in land and in s e r f s . In th i sprocess , the king became a s t rong a l ly o f the towns. 35

The c i t i e s in India presents a sharp con t r a s t tothose in the Occident . In India c i t i e s are l e s s s ign i f i can tfrom the po i n t o f view o f indus t r i a l product ion and indus-t r i a l ac t i v i t y . Thei r exis tence was secondary to the im-por tance of the v i l l age communi t ies . A few c i t i e s arosemainly fo r the king and h is household, the nob i l i ty , on theone hand, fo r the purpose o f export ing on th e o the r hand.The exports were conf ined to luxury i tems b u t were no t o fg r e a t quant i ty . The c i t i e s or the l a rge r towns were sus t a in -ed by the king , h is army and cour t , while the prosper i ty andthe popula t ion of these c i t i e s o r the l a rge r towns dependedon those pa t rons , i . e . the king e t c . In drawing th i s p o r t r a i to f the c i t i e s in India Marx depended mainly on Bernie r , who,in discuss ing the s i ze o f k i ng ' s army, says the fol lowing:... This w i l l n o t deemed an ex t ravagan t comput a t i o n , if we bear in mind the immense quant i tyo f t en t s , ki tchen , baggage, fu rn i tu re , and evenwomen, usual ly a t t endant on the army. For theconveyance o f a I l these again required manye lephants , camels , oxen, hor s e s , and por t e r s .Your Lordship w i l l bear in mind t ha t , from the

nature and government o f th i s count ry , wherethe king i s so le propr i e to r o f a I l the land in


43/186

- 33 -

th e empire , a c a p i t a l c i t y , such as Dehlyo r Agra, derives i t s ch i e f suppor t fromthe presence o f th e army, and t h a t thepopu la t ion i s reduced to the necess i ty o ffol lowing the Mogol whenever he undertakesa journey o f long cont inuance . Those c i t i e sresemble any place r a the r than Par i s ; theymight more f i t l y be compared to a camp, ifth e lodgings and accomodations were no t alittle super ior to those found in th e t en t so f armies . 36

Thus, while the u n i ty of agr i cu l t u re and ha nd ic r a f t s pe r -s i s t ed in th e v i l l age communi t ies , the c i t i e s o r towns o fInd ia had to o f f e r little t h a t i s needed fo r fu r t he r develop-ment o f th e economy and th e d iv i s ion o f l abour in Ind i a .Rather the economic format ion remained s t a t i ona ry from t imeimmemorial . The ind iv idua ls ca r r i ed on th e same way o f l i f e ,fol lowed th e same t r ades , produced more or l e s s the sameg o o ~ s , and mainta ined the same u n i ty of ag r i cu l t u re and in -dust ry as t h e i r ancestors had done. The s tagna t ion of theIndian s o c i a l format ion cont inued u n t i l

... Engl ish i n t e r fe rence having placed thesp inner in Lancash i re and weaver in Bengal ,o r swee_12in_g away ho th H i n d o o sp i n n e r anQweaver , d i sso lved these semi -ba rba r ian , semi c iv i l i s e d communi t ies , by blowing up t he i reconomical bas i s , and thus produced th eg r e a t e s t , and, to speak th e t r u t h , the onlys o c i a l revolu t ion ever heard in Asia . 37

This soc ia l revolu t ion cons i s t s in " the l ay ing of th e m a te r i a lfoundat ions o f Western soc ie ty in Asia . , ,38

Now, l e t me come to the f i n a l po i n t in t h i s sec t i on ,t h a t i s , th e absence o f c lass c on t r a d i c t i ons and c l a s ss t ruggles in the Indian s o c i a l format ion . It means t h a tIndia has no h i s t o ry if the " the h i s to ry o f a I l h i t h e r t o


44/186

- 34 -

ex i s t ing soc i e t y i s th e h i s t o ry o f c l a s s s t rugg l es . 1I39This absence o f c l a s s s t rugg le s and c l a s s c on t r a d i c t i ons inthe Indian s o c i a l format ion would seem to fol low genera l lywhen th e economy and d iv i s ion o f l abour remained s t a gna n tand when th e con t rad i c t i ons between t he p roduc t ive fo rcesand th e r e l a t i o n s o f product ion were a b se n t .

India ... could no t escape th e f a t e o f beingconquered , and th e whole o f h e r p a s t h i s t o r y ,if i t be anyth ing , i s th e h i s to ry o f th esuccess ive conques ts she has undergone. In-dian soc ie ty has no h i s t o ry a t a I l , a t l e a s tno known h i s t o r y . What we c a l I its h i s to ry ,i s b u t th e h i s to ry o f success ive i n t rude r swho founded t h e i r empi res on the pass ive b a s i so f t h a t unres i s t i ng and unchanging s o c i e t y .The que s t ion , t he re fo re , i s n o t whether th eEngl ish had a r i g h t to conquer Ind i a , b u twhether we are to p r e f e r Ind i a conquered byth e Turk, by the Pe r s i a n , by th e Russian , toInd i a caonqured by the Br i ton . 40

In n e i t h e r Grundr isse nor Capi t a l , does Marx make any r e f e re n c eto the e x i s t ~ n c e o r any p o s s ib i l i t y of e x i s t e nc e o f c la s ss t rugg l es o r c l a s s con t rad i c t ions . A lI i nd iv idua l s in thev i l l age communit ies share the produce o f t h e i r l a bour . Thet r i b u t e , in the -forro o f s u r p l u s , i s th e t r i b u t e for the kingwho r e p re s e n t s a h ighe r u n i ty, the u n i ty o f th e communit ieso f a I l i nd i v i dua l s . The s t a t e , persona l ized in th e king o rdespot , i s b a s i c a l l y astate wi thou t having even a r i sen o u to f c l a s s antagonisms. The u n i ty o f th e s t a t e above the s e l f -s u f f i c i n g v i l l a g e communit ies i s a u n i ty which i s n o t charac -t e r i s e d by any con t rad i c t i ons between c l a s s e s . So, in b r i e f ,th i s s t a t e cons t i t u t e s a v a r i a t i o n , probably an e x t r a o rd ina ryva r i a t ion in the usua l Marxis t theory o f th e c la s s s t a t e .


45/186

- 35 -

The s t a t e in the AMP i s a s t a t e in which the re are noantagoni s t i c c lasses and, t he re fo re , no po l i t i c s .

The t he s i s of s tagnat ion o f th e Indian soc ia lformation as a whole i s , a f t e r a I l , n o t Marx's i nven t ion .In the Philosophy o f His to ry , Hegel a r t i c u l a t e s the themeo f s tagna t ion of the Eas t .

India , l i ke China, i s a phenomenon ant ique asweI l as modern; one which has remained s ta t ion ary and f ixed , and has rece ived a most pe r fec thome-sprung development . ... The spread ofIndian cu l t u re i s p re -h i s t o r i c a l , fo r Historyi s l imi ted to t h a t which makes an es sen t ia lepoch in the development of S p i r i t . On thewhole, the di f fus ion o f Indian cu l t u re i s onlya dumb, deedless expansion; tha t i s , it pre sen t s no p o l i t i c a l action ... the Engl i sh , o rr a t h e r the Eas t India Company are the lo rdso f the land; fo r it i s necessary fa te Asia t i cEmpires to be subjec ted to Europeans; 41It i s thus d i f f i c u l t to escape the conclus ion t h a t Marx, toborrow the words o f Anderson, "remained subs t an t i a l ly f a i th -fu I to th e c l a s s i c a l European image o f Asia which he had in he r i t ed from a long f i l e o f predecessors . , ,42

ORIENTAL DESPOTISM AND THE STATE

The place which the p o l i t i c a l supers t ruc ture - thes t a t e - occupies in the thes i s o f the AMP i s no t very s ign i -f i can t . By t h i s , however, l do no t imply t h a t Marx d id n o tr e a l i s e the importance o f the s t a t e in the Indian soc ia l fo r -mat ion. What i s s t r e s sed i s tha t the ana lys i s o f the s t a t ein the AMP does no t occupy th e same importance t h a t it doesin the c a p i t a l i s t s o c i a l format ion. From Marx 's p o i n t o fview, th e comparat ive i n s i gn i f i cance of the ro l e o f the


46/186

- 36 -

s t a t e in th e Indian soc ia l format ion i s n a t u r a l because thes t a t e , as l s h a l l show l a t e r , has fewer funct ions to per form in view o f th e communal o r republ ican way o f l i f e fo rthe members in the v i l l age communi t ies . L et me s t a r t withdespotism.

The theme o f so -ca l l ed Orienta l despot ism i s veryold indeed. It has rea l ly a long h i s t o ry i n the wri t ings o fEuropean p o l i ti c a l s c i e n t i s ts , economists , t r ave l l e r s o rmiss iona r ie s . 42 From list o f read ings t h a t var ious ly appearin Marx's notes and c i t a t i ons , it i s only n a t u r a l t h a t theconcept of Or ien ta l despotism would ce r t a in ly have i n f luencedMarx. At the same t ime it i s a lso apparent t h a t th i sOrienta l despotism which almost bl inded many European th inke rsde f in i t e ly l o s t any remarkable s ign i f i cance in the matureMarx's wri t i ngs .

In the formative per iod o f Marx's i n t e l l e c t ua lformat ion, he harbored in h is mind a p i c t u re of India (Asia)as ru led by a despot . In o t he r words, he pic tured a despot ismin which the s t a t e was ens laved to the f ree w i l l of thesovere ign , in which the re was a connection between secu l a rand r e l ig ious power and in which l abour was expropr ia ted byboth secu l a r and r e l i g i ous a u th o r i t i e s . 43 This above con-cep t ion of Indian (As ia t ic) despotism i s rooted dominant lyin the wri t ings o f Herodotus , Montesquie and Hegel . In theCr i t i que o f Hegel ' s Philosophy o f the Law (1843), Marx'ss t a t emen t on Orienta l despotism, i n con t r a s t to Westernfreedom, i s as fol lows:


47/186

- 37 -

Ei the r the re s pub l i ca i s the ac t ua l p r i va t el i f e and th e a c tua l con ten t o f the c i t i z e n s ,as was th e case in Greece where th e p o l i t i c a ls t a t e as such was th e only t rue con ten t o ft h e i r l i f e and w i l l and a pr i va t e man was as l ave ; o r the po l i t i c a l s t a t e i s nothing b u tth e pr i va t e a r b i t r a r i n e s s of a p a r t i c u l a r in d iv idua l , as was in th e case o f Asia t i c despot i sm, where the po l i t i c a ! s lave l i ke th em a te r i a l one , was a s l a ve . 4

In the background o f th i s s ta tement was the t r ad i t i on , thendominant in Ber l in espec i a l l y of Marx's Univer s i ty days , o fa concept ion t h a t Europe was the cen t e r o f democracy andEnlightenment .

It i s only a f t e r 1850, when Marx a r r i ved in London,t h a t he began to s tudy about the s o c i a l formations o f Asia .P r i o r to t h i s , ne i t he r i n The German Ideology nor in theCommunist Manifesto was t he re any ana lys i s on th e Indian o ro the r s o c i a l format ions o f Asia . In a I l th e sources whichMarx r ead between 1850 and 1853,45 the d e s p o t i ~ charac te r ofthe Indian s t a t e was mentioned.

The i s sue o f despot ism der ives , arnong o t he r t h i ngs ,pr inc ipa l ly from the lack o f p r i va t e ownership in Ind i a .Both Rober t Pat ton in h is The Pr inc ip le s o f Asi a t i c Monarchies(1801) and Richard Jones in h is An Essay on the Dis t r ibu t iono f Wealth (1831) advanced the t he s i s t ha t , because o f the non-e x i s t e nc e o f a landed a r i s t oc racy as a p o l i t i c a l counterweight ,the sovere ign i s absolu te ly unres t r i c t ed . To quote pa r t i cu la r -ly from Jones :

The propr ie ta ry r igh t s of the sovere ign , andh is l a rge and prac t i ca l ly i n d e f i n i t e i n t e r e s t sin the produce , prevent the format ion o f anyr ea l ly independent body on th e land . ... There


48/186

- 38 -

e x i s t s nothing the re fore in the soc ie ty beneathhim, which can modify the power o f a sovere ign ,who i s the supreme propr i e to r o f a t e r r i t o rycu l t i va t ed by a popula t ion of ryo t peasants .... But the r e su l t s of A s ia t i c despot ism havenever been the same: whi le it i s s t rong it i sde lega ted , and its power abused by its agen ts ;when feeble and dec l in ing , ~ ~ e power i s v i o l en t -ly shared by its i n f e r io r s 4 and i t s s to lena u thor i t y y e t more abused. 6

Although Marx, l i ke Jones , no where makes any re fe rence tof ac t ua l abuse o f p o l i t i c a l power by s t a t e o f f i c i a I s , he withJones and many o thers says t h a t ownership be longed to thes t a t e and t h a t , by impl i ca t ion theref rom, no pr i v i l egedl anded propr i e t o r s ex i s t ed as contenders to p o l i t i c a l powerin Ind i a . The r e s u l t i s despot ism. Hence as Marx says , inth e Grundr isse , t h a t in the Ind ian s o c i a l format ion , in i t sA s ia t i c phase , "despot ism and proper ty lessness l seems l ega l l yto e x i s t ; th e founda t ion o f t h i s format ion cons i s ted of c lano r communal proper ty . In th e r e l a t i o n s o f the d i r e c t pro-ducers to the n a t u r a l condi t ions o f l abour i.e. l and , thes t a t e as t he h igher community o r ul t ima te ly ex i s t i ng as adespo t in te rvenes . As such , it i s entit.-1eQ tG a sUEplusproduc t because th e s t a t e i s the owner of the land . Thus inthe Asi a t i c o r Ind ian s o c i a l format ion th e s t a t e , i . e .

the comprehensive un i ty s tandLlg above a I lthese little communit ies appears as the h igherpropr i e t o r o r as th e so le propr i e t o r i th e r e a lcommunit ies ... hence only as hered i t a ry possesso rs .Because th e u n i ty i s the r e a l p r o p r l e t o r and ther e a l presuppos i t ion of communal p ro p e r t y , itfo l lows t h a t t h i s u n i ty can appear as a p a r t i c u l a ren t i ty above th e many r e a l p a r t i c u l a r communitiesa u n i ty r ea l i zed i n th e form o f th e despo t ,the f a t he r o f many communities ... 47


49/186

- 39 -

Leaving aside the Grundr i sse , one can f ind tha t in Capi ta lMarx does n o t expl ic i ty say , t h a t the s t a t e i s a highercommunity; poss ibly in l a t e r years Marx became aware of anda lso an t i c i pa t ed the breakdown of the s e l f - s u f f i c in g v i l l agecommunities in India . The s t rong and cen t ra l i zed author i tyof the Mughal s t a t e a t t rac ted h is a t t en t ion . In Ca pi t a l(vol . 1 ) , he does o f course r e f e r to th e v i l l age communitiesin desc r ib ing t h e i r se l f - su f f i c i ency as weI l as p o l i t i c a l andadminis t ra t ive func t ions . Regarding the s t a t e , he ment ionst h a t it rece ives , by v i r tue o f customs from t ime immemorial ,a por t ion o f the surp lus product in the shape o f the r e n t ink ind . He no 10:Qger ment ions in Capi ta l (vol . 1) t h a t ther e a l p rop r i e to r , proper , i s the commune - hence proper ty(ex is t s ) only as communal proper ty in l and" , as he d id inthe Grundr i sse . 48 Late r on, in Capi ta l (vol . 3 ) , Marxd i rec t ly s t a t e s t ha t the s t a t e i s both the sovereign and thel and l o rd , o r , what i s the same th ing to Marx, t h a t in Indiasovere ignty cons i s t s in landownership. Now, al though it i simpossib le to exc lude , in Marx's t rea tmen t o f the AMP, th ecommunal aspec t o f the s t a t e o r the p o l i t i c a l organ i sa t i on ,it may never the less be contended t h a t Marx's emphasis sh i f t edd i rec t ly from the community to the s t a t e i t s e l f . This meanst h a t Marx d id a t t ach much importance, cont rary to any superf i c i a l read ing , to the s t a t e and i t s c ruc ia l ro le as al eg i t imate au thor i ty in mainta in ing publ ic orde r . But t h i simportance i s no t the same as the c a p i t a l i s t s t a t e has inmainta in ing publ ic order so t ha t the soc ia l formation doesno t explode because o f c l a s s con t rad i c t i ons . In any case ,


50/186

- 40 -

i n s t ead o f r e f e r r ing to r ea l propr ie torsh ip o f th e commun-i ty as in the Grundr isse , he says in Capi ta l (vol . 3) t h a t

. . the s t a t e i s then the supreme lo rd .Sovere ignty here cons i s t s in the ownershipo f land concent ra ted on a nat iona l sca leno pr i va t e ownership o f land e x i s t s , a l though the re i s both pr i va t e and commonpossess ion and use o f l and . 49The pr i va t e i nd iv idua l producers in th i s more l e s s

n a t u r a l product ion community, i . e . v i l l age community, are inno sense owners o f land , o r l andlords . The s t a t e was thesupreme lo rd to which the d i r e c t producers were in d i r e c tsubord ina t ion . The s t a t e s tood to th e d i r e c t producers ast h e i r l andlord . As the supreme l o rd , the sovere ign , thes t a t e rece ived t a xe s . As the l andlord o r owner o f the land ,it rece ived the r e n t , the su rp lus product in the form o ft r i b u t e . Rent and t axes co incided . The sovere ignty o r thes t a t e thus cons i s ted in the landownership on a na t i ona lsca l e . Whereas the pr i va t e ownership in l and ex i s t ed s ideby s ide with the sovere ignty o f the p r e - c a p i t a l i s t s t a t e sin Europe, in India such. phenQmenon V/as non-Bxis t en t .

What i s the ro l e of the s t a t e in th e AMP. As al readybeen poin ted ou t , Marx a t the beginning s t r e s sed the s t a t e ' sfunct ion in providing fo r pub l i c , mainly i r r i ga t i on works. 50He r e f e r r ed to the government depar tment of pub l i c works,a p a r t from depar tments o f f inance and p lunder - a I l th reeencompassing the sphere o f ac t ion o f the government o f theIndian s t a t e . The funct ion o f the s t a t e in provid ing fo rpubl ic works was impor tan t espec i a l l y in view o f i t s r e l a t ionto the l and lo rdsh ip o f Lhe s t a t e . In the Grundr isse t h i s


51/186

- 41 -

funct ion o f the s t a t e does no t appear to be an a l I -exc lus ivet rea tmen t . But , even then , Marx continued to say t h a t"aqueducts" , a long wi th the means o f communication e t c . , wereimpor tan t funct ions o f the s t a t e . 51 In Capi ta l Marx d id no tr e f e r to t h i s a t a I l . The ro le o f the s t a t e in terms o f i t sfunct ions was reduced to n u l l i t y . He only s t a t ed t h a tsovere ignty coincided with landownership, the dpendence ofthe d i r e c t producers , the peasants , upon the s t a t e was no t ,o r need n o t be , ha rshe r po l i t i c a l l y o r economical ly than t h a twhich e n t a i l s common subjec t ion to the s t a t e . It i s thuspe r fec t ly c l ea r in Marx's thes i s o f the AMP tha t th e s t a t ewas a weak p o l i t i c a l orga n i s a t i on . I t s p o l i t i c a l a u thor i t ywas nothing more than t h a t kind of l eg i t i ma t e , i . e . publ ic lyrecognised power, necessary to coerce a I l to i t s s ub je c t ion .The s t a t e was fa r from a system o f p o l i t i c a l domination o fone c la s s over another c la s s . As such, it i s evident , Marxseemed to emphasise th e po i n t o f non-exis tence o f c l a s ss t ruggles and c l a s s c on t r a d i c t i ons which cons t i t u t e themotive force of the development o f soc ia l formations andt h e i r change.

My own ana lys i s i s based on Marx 's emphasis on th epo l

marxs views on india- a critique of the asiatic mode of producti

Documents