74 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
peasants and lived on rent, and sometimes combined this with extraction of labour rent from hereditary farm servants. A legal system of bourgeois property relations superimposed by the British had resulted in land becoming a saleable commodity. This, combined with other factors, led to increased pauperisation of a considerable mass of peasantry which emerged as a wage labouring class. The destitute and pauperised population of the colonial days was not completely free and, therefore, cannot be characterised as the proletariat.
Secondly, there was little investment in agriculture for improving methods of cultivation and raising productivity. Instead, capital was absorbed in'usury and in circulation of commodities—referred toby Marx as antediluvian forms of capital—which cannot give rise to capitalistic relations of production.
This erroneous interpretation of historical facts arises because Harriss relates the definition of capitalism to production for the market alone, rather than in terms of production relations. Although commodity production is a neccessary condition, it cannot be cansidered as sufficient condition for capitalist production. It is necessary to draw a distinction between commodity production and capitalist production and also between the1 ancient forms of money capital engaged in trade and usury, and money capital engaged in capitalist production.
In spite of his assertions, Harriss cannot avoid expressing apprehensions regarding his formulation of capitalist relations of production by pointing out that "in North Arcot merchant capital is independently developed", and that l if surplus labour is appropriated through interest to expand the 'antediluvian forms of capital9 then it is doubtful whether the mass of dependent household producers should be called 'disguised proletarians9, or the relations should be thought of as being in the process of becoming capitalist95 (p 292).
To arrive at his general conclusions I-Iarriss prefers to deny the historical reality although he accepts the grip of merchant-usurer^ capital and also questions the concept of 'disguised proletariat9. The reality of landlordism in agrarian relations was accepted even by the central and state government in India at Independence, expressed in the passing of legislation to abolish landlordism and provide certain rights to tenants. Of course, these governments were not earnest in implementing the reforms because of their class interests. Moreover, if we accept the argument that capitalist relations prevailed even in pre-colonial days, then there is no objective basis for the demand for land reforms.
While analysing the differentiation in the peasantry, Harriss uses an index based on land ownership in relation to their livelihood requirements. The concept of livelihood refers to the individual household9 s total requirements of food and other essential consumer items and services which have been calculated for each household. A minimum desirable intake of calories based on the consumption of rice, is used to