Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:51:22.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Property and production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

Sugata Bose
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Historians of colonial India have been puzzled lately by the mismatch between the rapid expansion of commodity production for a capitalist world market on the one hand, and low levels of productive investment in agriculture and an apparent continuity in non-capitalist agrarian social structures on the other. The sense of bewilderment is itself a scholarly advance from ‘traditions’ set in the later nineteenth century which saw markets, agricultural investment and agrarian relations as themes fit for separate enquiry. Needless to say, this led to ‘debates’ about the economic results of colonialism marked by a peculiar absence of dialogue. Yet even the more perceptive scholars have continued to harbour teleological assumptions about capitalist transformation. This has led some to declare that the ‘ultimate’ dominance of capitalism denotes, willy-nilly, some form of capitalist mode of production in agriculture. Others, convinced that what they see in the rural areas is a ‘semi-feudal’ or simply a ‘peasant’ mode of production, have been concerned with identifying the ‘obstacles’ or ‘impediments’ in the way of capitalism bearing full sway. Consequently, the much-needed probe into the analytics of the relationship between capitalist ‘development’ under colonialism and agrarian continuity or change has been almost always slightly off the mark.

Arguments about continuity in agrarian relations during colonial rule have rested generally, if not purely, on descriptive rather than analytical categories. It has been found acceptable to compare, for instance, levels of peasant differentiation or landlessness at the beginning and at the end of the colonial era. The descriptive approach has tended to obscure subtle but very real processes of change.

Type
Chapter
Information
Peasant Labour and Colonial Capital
Rural Bengal since 1770
, pp. 66 - 111
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdullah, Abu Ahmed, ‘Landlord and Rich Peasant under the Permanent Settlement’ in Calcutta Historical Journal, 4, 2 (1980)Google Scholar
Abdullah, Abu Ahmed et al., ‘Agrarian Structure and the IRDP: Preliminary Considerations’ in Bangladesh Development Studies, 4, 2 (1976).Google Scholar
Ali, Hashem Amir, The Rice Industry in Lower Birbhum (Sri Niketan, 1943).
Baker, C.J., An Indian Rural Economy: the Tamilnad Countryside 1880–1955 (Delhi, 1984)
Banaji, J., ‘Capitalist Domination and the Small Peasantry: Deccan Districts in the Late Nineteenth Century’ in Economic and Political Weekly, 12, 33 and 34 (1977)Google Scholar
Bandyopadhyay, Tarashankar Dhatridebata; Ganadebata o Ponchagram; and Hansuli Banker Upakatha (Calcutta, 1971).
Bhaduri, AmitThe Evolution of Land Relations in Eastern India under British Rule’ in Indian Economic and Social History Review, 13, 1 (1976)Google Scholar
Bhaduri, Amit, ‘A Study in Agricultural Backwardness under Semi-Feudalism’ in Economic Journal, 83 (1973).Google Scholar
Bhowmik, Shark, Class Formation in the Plantation System (New Delhi, 1981).
Bose, Sugata Agrarian Bengal: Economy, Social Structure and Politics (Cambridge, 1986).
Buchanan-Hamilton, Francis, A Geographical, Statistical and Historical Description (1808) of the District, a Zilah of Dinajpur in the Province, or Soubah of Bengal (Calcutta, 1883)
Chaudhuri, Binay Bhusan, ‘The Process of Depeasantization in Bengal and Bihar’ in Indian Historical Review, 3, 1 (1975).Google Scholar
Chowdhury-Zilly, Aditee Nag, The Vagrant Peasant: Agrarian Distress and Desertion in Bengal 1770 to 1830 (Wiesbaden, 1984), ch. 3.
Datta, RajatAgricultural Production, Social Participation and Domination in Late Eighteenth-Century Bengal: Towards an Alternative Explanation’ in Journal of Peasant Studies, 17, 1 (October 1989)Google Scholar
Field, C. D., Introduction to the Regulations of the Bengal Code (Calcutta, 1912).
,GOB, Report on the Conditions of the Lower Classes of Population in Bengal (Dufferin Report, Calcutta, 1888)
,GOI, Census of India 1921 Vol. V: Bengal, Pt 1 Report (Calcutta, 1923).
,GOI, Report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India (Calcutta, 1931).
,GOI, Report on and Enquiry into Conditions of Labour in Plantations in India (D. V. Rege Commission, New Delhi, 1946).
Greenough, Paul, Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal: the Famine of 1943–44 (New York, 1982)
Griffin, Keith, The Political Economy of Agrarian Change (London, 1979)
Griffiths, Percival History of the Indian Tea Industry (London, 1972)
Guha, Ranajit A Rule of Property for Bengal (Paris, 1963);
Guha, Ranajit, ‘Neel Darpan: the Image of a Peasant Revolt in a Liberal Mirror’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 2, 1 (1974).Google Scholar
Hunter, W. W., Bengal Manuscript Records, (London, 1894).
Hunter, W. W., Statistical Account of Bengal: Jalpaiguri, Cooch Behar and Darjeeling Districts (Calcutta, 1872).
Islam, Sirajul The Permanent Settlement in Bengal: a Study of its Operation 1790–1819 (Dhaka, 1979).
Jack, J. C., Bakarganj District Gazetteer (1918).
Jack, J. C., Economic Life of a Bengal District (Oxford, 1916).
Kumar, Dharma (ed.), The Cambridge Economic History of India (Cambridge, 1983).
Kumar, DharmaLand Ownership and Inequality in Madras Presidency, 1853–54 to 1946–47’ in IESHR, 12, 3 (1975).Google Scholar
Marx, Karl Capital: a Critique of Political Economy Vol. III, (Harmondsworth, 1981).
McAlpin, Michelle Subject to Famine (Princeton, 1983).
Morris, Morris D. et al., Indian Economy in the Nineteenth Century: a Symposium (New Delhi, 1969)
Mukherjee, MukulImpact of Modernization on Women's Occupations: a Case Study of the Rice-Husking Industry of Bengal’ in Indian Economic and Social History Review, 20, 1 (1983).Google Scholar
Mukherji, S., ‘Emergence of Bengalee Entrepreneurship in Tea Plantations in a Bengal District, 1879–1933’ in Indian Economic and Social History Review, 13, 4 (October-December 1976).Google Scholar
Palit, Chittabrata Tensions in Bengal Rural Society (Calcutta, 1975).
Rahman, H. Zillur, Report from Raipur Thana (Copenhagen, 1982)
Rajat, and Ray, Ratna, ‘The Dynamics of Continuity in Rural Bengal under the British Imperium’ in Indian Economic and Social History Review, 10, 2 (1973)Google Scholar
Rajat, and Ray, Ratna, ‘Zamindars and Jotedars: a Study of Rural Politics in Bengal’ in Modern Asian Studies, 9, 1 (1975).Google Scholar
Ray, Rajat Kanta, ‘The Retreat of the Jotedars?’ in India Economic and Social History Review, 25, 2 (1988).Google Scholar
Ray, Ratnalekha, Change in Bengal Agrarian Society 1760–1850 (Delhi, 1980).
Reddy, M. Atchi, ‘Female Agricultural Labourers of Nellore, 1881–1981’ in Indian Economic and Social History Review, 20, 1 (1983).Google Scholar
Robertson, F. W., Bankura Settlement Report (1917–24).
Schendel, Willem van and Faraizi, Aminul Haque, Rural Labourers of Bengal, 1880 to 1980 (Rotterdam, 1984).
Schendel, Willem van, Peasant Mobility: the Odds of Life in Rural Bangladesh (Assen, 1982).
Sen, Amartya Poverty and Famines: an Essay in Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford, 1981)
Sen, Amartya, ‘Family and Food: Sex Bias in Poverty’ in Resources, Values and Development (Oxford, 1984).Google Scholar
Shapan, Adnan and Rahman, H. Zillur, ‘Peasant Classes and Land Mobility: Structural Reproduction and Change in Bangladesh’ in Bangladesh Historical Studies, 3 (1978)Google Scholar
Shore, John Minute of June 1789, Parliament Papers, 1812, 7.Google Scholar
Washbrook, D. A., ‘Progress and Problems: South Asian Economic and Social History, c. 1720–1860’ in Modern Asian Studies, 22 (1988).Google Scholar
Wood, John, ‘Class Differentiation and Power in Bondokgram: the Minifundist Case’ in Huq, M. Ameerul (ed.), Exploitation and the Rural Poor (Comilla, 1978).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Property and production
  • Sugata Bose, Tufts University, Massachusetts
  • Book: Peasant Labour and Colonial Capital
  • Online publication: 28 March 2008
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521266949.005
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Property and production
  • Sugata Bose, Tufts University, Massachusetts
  • Book: Peasant Labour and Colonial Capital
  • Online publication: 28 March 2008
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521266949.005
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Property and production
  • Sugata Bose, Tufts University, Massachusetts
  • Book: Peasant Labour and Colonial Capital
  • Online publication: 28 March 2008
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521266949.005
Available formats
×