Changing modes of production in Indian agriculture
Indian agriculture has undergone significant transformations over the centuries, reflecting shifts in social, economic, and political structures. The modes of production — that is, the ways in which agricultural production is organized and controlled — have changed from traditional caste-based reciprocal systems to more capitalist and market-oriented forms. Understanding these changes is crucial to grasp the complex dynamics of rural India and its ongoing development challenges.
Historically, Indian villages operated under the Jajmani system, a traditional agrarian social structure deeply rooted in caste hierarchies. In this system, landowning castes known as jajmans depended on service castes called kamins for essential labor and artisanal services such as barbering, carpentry, and washing. This exchange was not monetary but based on reciprocity — kamins provided services throughout the year, especially during life-cycle rituals like weddings and funerals, and in return, received a share of the agricultural produce or goods. The Jajmani system reinforced caste-based interdependence but also ensured the dominance of upper-caste landowners, as control over land was legitimized by social and ritual obligations. Scholars like Bailey and Hardiman have criticized the system as exploitative, perpetuating caste inequalities and restricting the lower castes’ control over means of production.
Before colonial interventions, the Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP) characterized much of rural India. Under AMP, land was not privately owned but belonged collectively to the village or state. The state exercised centralized control over irrigation and public works and extracted surplus in the form of taxes or forced labor. Despite this extraction, the state largely refrained from interfering with the internal economic and social affairs of village communities, which remained largely self-sufficient and isolated.
The arrival of British colonial rule introduced drastic changes in agrarian production through new land revenue systems. The Zamindari system, especially under the Permanent Settlement of 1793 in Bengal and surrounding regions, vested hereditary land ownership in zamindars who collected rents from peasants. This system reduced peasants to insecure tenants forced to pay fixed cash revenues regardless of their harvest, often leading to indebtedness and poverty. In contrast, the Ryotwari system—prevalent in Madras, Bombay, and parts of Assam—recognized peasants as landowners but subjected them to direct and often onerous taxation. The Mahalwari system, covering the Gangetic plain and Punjab, placed collective tax responsibilities on village groups, which frequently led to corruption and coercion. These colonial agrarian policies disrupted traditional production modes, emphasizing revenue extraction and commercialization.
After India’s independence, significant agrarian reforms and technological advancements ushered in a new phase in agricultural production. Land reforms attempted to dismantle feudal ownership patterns, while the Green Revolution introduced high-yield varieties, irrigation infrastructure, and mechanization. This led to a commercialisation of agriculture, shifting from subsistence to market-oriented production where land was increasingly treated as a commodity. Mechanization and capital investments such as tractors and fertilizers became common, while cash transactions replaced the traditional jajmani barter system. Labor relations changed as well, with the decline of hereditary service obligations and the rise of casual, footloose wage laborers. Socially, new classes emerged, including rural bourgeoisie and agrarian capitalists, alongside increased inequality and rural-urban migration.
Several sociologists and economists have analyzed these changing modes of production. Daniel Thorner, through extensive village studies, identified a transition from primitive to capitalist modes of production influenced by land reforms, government employment, and capital investments. Lloyd and Susanne Rudolf coined the term “Bullock Capitalism” to describe the way rich farmers reinvested in agriculture through mechanization and entrepreneurship. Utsa Patnaik highlighted the uneven nature of capitalist development in agriculture, varying by land size, labor use, and productivity. Kathleen Gough’s seminal study in Tamil Nadu revealed the coexistence of multiple production modes — from big bourgeoisie farmers to pure proletarians — within the same rural context. Gail Omvedt emphasized regional variations, noting capitalist agriculture in states like Punjab and Haryana, semi-feudal relations in Bihar, and semi-capitalist economies elsewhere. Rutten pointed to how dominant castes reinvest profits beyond agriculture, leading to rural-urban shifts and the emergence of entrepreneurial elites.
In conclusion, the modes of production in Indian agriculture have evolved from caste-based, reciprocal systems embedded in ritual obligations to diverse, market-driven capitalist forms. This transformation reflects broader socio-economic changes, including the decline of traditional hierarchies, the rise of new rural classes, and the integration of Indian agriculture into global markets. However, these changes have also brought challenges such as inequality, uneven development, and social dislocation, making the study of agrarian modes of production essential for understanding rural India’s present and future.