14 SOCIAL SCIENTIST ascribed to feudal elements. There are many instances of exploiters shifting from feudal modes to capitalist modes of exploitation and vice versa. Thus,, at least in many parts of India, feudal lords and capitalists, as pointed out by Alavi, cannot be identified as distinct classes.2 Secondly, feudal relations of production did not necessarily act as a fetter on the forces of production under all historical circumstances. While in many parts of France the regime of the seigneurs proved to be inimical to further development, which made it necessary to eliminate the feudal relations by a revolution, the English landlords as well as the East-Elbian Junkers played an active part in bringing about agrarian capitalism. The crucial difference between these two types of feudal lords, the seigneur on the one hand and the landlord and the junker on the other, was that the former acted under conditions not allowing him to remain an exploiter under capitalism also—which created an unconditional interest in preserving the feudal system—whereas the latter were able to continue to be exploiters even after a transition to capitalist agrarian relations. So, for them, the question of maintaining feudal or shifting to capitalist relations was ultimately a matter of maximising their returns.8 Hence, in order to establish the thesis that feudal (or semi-feudal) relations of production are inimical to the development of the forces of production it has to be demonstrated, for a concrete country in a concrete historical context, that the ^feudal lords" are interested in preventing the development of the foices of production, either directly by hampering improvements in the technique of production under pre-capitalist conditions, or indirectly by not allowing a transition to a capitalist organisation of production. Technique and Organisation The main concern of the debate on the mode of production in Indian agriculture was the extent to which agrarian capitalism had -» developed and the manner in which it could be identified under conditions of a country like India. Our problem, namely, whether the structure allows a dynamic development of the forces of production, was dealt with quite indirectly. If we observe a dynamic development of agrarian capitalism, we can conclude that the existing structure does not hamper the productive forces, at least not substantially. But even the most optimistic observer could not state that this is true for the whole of India. However, from the mere fact that there is no development of agrarian capitalism or only a narrow based one, we cannot infer that the existing structure is inimical to the development of the productive forces. The crucial difference between capitalist and pre-capitalist relations of production, from the standpoint of the development of the forces of production, is the organisation of production, that is, the question whether production takes place in a large-sc