AGRARIAN RELATIONS IN MALABAR 25 in Russia.3 By the turn of the century, Malabar had already developed agrarian relations which could be characterised as "semi-feudal". The relations of production in agriculture remained predominantly precapitalist, with significant penetration of capitalist relations at various levels of the economy and society. The contradictions inherent in such a socio-economic formation led to various responses which found full expression in the period we are studying. It will be impossible, given the space and scope of our study, to trace in depth the development of these relations from the nineteenth century onwards. Our attempt is, therefore, to understand the essence of this socio-economic formation and the class correlations inherent in it. To introduce the subject to the general reader poses considerable difficulties, in view of the complexity of the land tenures and the bewildering variety of terms and interpretations attributed to them. However, to have the minimum knowledge of these terms and the formal tenurial systems, we shall begin with a short description of the same without going into the subtle details of their evolution. LAW TENURE As a result of British colonial policy in the nineteenth century with respect to the structure of agrarian relations and as a consequence of the impact of new economic forces, Malabar evolved a distinctive system of land tenure, which, however, embodied features similar to land relations elsewhere in India. The agrarian structure as evolved by the British, constituted a class of landlords (big jenmis) who had absolute ownership of the land, recognised by the courts and enforceable by law. This differed from the precolonial system where the jenmi had overlordship and a share of the produce, but no absolute rights over the soil.4 The land was owned by jenmis who held ryotwari pattas. Most of this land was leased out to tenants. The big jenmis were parasitic rent-receiving landlords. First in the tenurial ladder was the kanakkaran who leased in land on a kanam tenure and held the status of a tenant. The kanakkarans leased in land from the jenmi by giving the landlord a fixed sum of money on which he was entitled to receive interest from the landlord. The kanam tenure was granted for a period of 12 years. The sum paid did not in any way represent the full value of the land. It was not a pure mortgage, but it was generally interpreted by the law courts as part-mortgage and part-lease. The interest due to the kanakkaran was deducted from the annual rent and the balance amount after deduction was paid to the jenmi. The rent paid to the jenmi was generally pitched low, in consideration of the sum which the tenant deposited with the jenmi. Every twelfth year the kanam tenure came up for renewal. On this occasion the kanakkaran was obliged to pay a renewal fee amounting to a percentage of the original sum paid. The renewal fee represented the appropriation by the landlord of a portion of the profit made by the kanakkaran as the rent was lower than the surplus