Unravelling the paradox of ‘super-profits’ under semi-feudalism: new perspectives on migration and pre-capitalist

agriculture in Mithilanchal

Fraser Sugden – IWMI, Kathmandu/CNUSUK

Introduction

• Easy to overlook significance of pre-capitalist economic formations

• Mithilanchal: cultural region long under influence of semi-feudal landlordism and labour relations

• What is the future of the semi-feudal mode of production in the context of out-migration?

Methods• Culmination of 8 years research in the eastern and central Tarai,

and north Bihar.• Combining outputs from multiple projects, including PhD work

in 2007-8, internal IWMI funded research in 2012 and CCAFS funded research in 2013/14.

• Two rounds of survey data collected, in Morang in 2008 and in Morang, Dhanusha and Madhubani from 2012-14.

• Collation of qualitative life histories for households in all three sites and elsewhere in the region; focus groups and participatory video project

• Analysis of Regmi archives, colonial gazetteers and similar historical sources.

• Separate survey of women farmers underway at present

Understanding feudalism• Feudalism poorly defined (especially in Nepal context). Some

key attributes from Marx (on European) and RS Sharma (on Indian) feudalism.– Control over the means of production by a small land-owning class

with political, ideological and economic power over a peasant majority.

– Surplus appropriated in kind using extra-economic coercion– Driven by consumption rather than productive reinvestment

• Feudalism is not an archaic and static system, but a dynamic economic formation subject to transformation and change

• It is reproduced in new forms by both the external imperatives of imperialism and capitalist expansion, as well as entrenched social relations on the ground

Kathmandu

Tibetan Autonomous

Region

Nepal

Survey sites

Darbhanga

Madhubani

MITHILANCHAL

Bihar

Janakpur

Biratnagar

TRIBAL BELT

Evolution of modes of production in Mithilanchal: 15th to late 19th century

• In the caste Hindu heartland, feudalism had its origin in centralised state formations– Gorkhali conquest– Darbhanga rajas– Channeling of surplus to the centre through hierarchy of

intermediaries with control over land. Sharing of surplus between local landlords and state

• On Tarai forest frontier, tribal modes of production retained relative autonomy until late 18th century conquest, after which state intervention led to subjugation to feudalism– Distribution of land grants to elites from hills– Clearing of forest land and disruption to shifting cultivation (jhum)– Creation of intermediary/landlord class within tribal social

structure

Colonialism and decentralisation of feudalism: 1900s – 1950s

• Local state formations acquired new sources of revenue through trade and tax during late colonial period. Decline in agrarian tax.

• Led to evolution of a more decentralised feudal system, where landlords loyal to the regime retained increasing share of the surplus through rent.– Powerful local landlords in caste Hindu heartland– Both absentee landlords from hills who had received land

grants, and local Tharu landlords, in tribal belt.• Rural majority composed of marginal owner cultivators

and tenant farmers, mostly from lower caste and adivasi communities

1950s to 1990s: Articulations with capitalism

• Land reforms:– Abolition of jimidari system (Nepal) and zamindari system (Bihar)

and now redundant tax collection hierarchy. – Imposition of ceilings on holdings: easy to avoid. – Primary losers were the adivasi landlords of the Tarai, who lacked

political connections– While power of zamindars slightly dissipated, feudalism or ‘semi-

feudalism’ remained entrenched• Agrarian stress amongst tenant/small farm majority

– Population growth and fragmentation of holdings – Monetisation of the economy, rising costs of living– Loss of land due to debt

• Outcome was a rise in labour in the capitalist sector, both in Indian urban centers and industrial belt of Tarai

Jhorahat, Morang

Contemporary social formation: articulation of modes of production

• Semi-feudal mode(s) of production– Base: Tenants, marginal farmer (<0.5ha), and landless

labourers, who today form at least 75% of the population in study sites.

– Apex: a local landlord class in the Hindu caste heartland. Politically connected absentee landlord class in the tribal belt of Tarai-Madhesh

– Surplus appropriation through rent, farm labour and usury– Limited capital accumulation within agriculture

• Continued importance of capitalist wage labour to supplement pre-capitalist rural economy, yet industrial base is very week – ‘comprador capitalism’

Ekrahi, Dhanusha

Bhagwatitol, Madhubani

Sitpur, Morang

Contemporary agrarian stress• Unequal terms of trade for agriculture, driving up price of inputs,

particularly in Nepal. • Climate change:

– Increased unpredictability of monsoons– Rise in extreme precipitation events (droughts and floods)– Rising cost of diesel for groundwater irrigation

• Rising cost of living– Linked in part to rising fuel prices– Increased monetisation of the economy, rising demand for cash, inflated

dowry demands.• Breakdown of state

– Weak state agricultural support services in Nepal. Lack of local elections and breakdown of local development infrastructure

– Long running state weakness on Bihar side of border– Rampant corruption and elite capture– Aggravated by neo-liberal development ideology

Migration economy• Availability of wage labour locally insufficient to support rising

cash needs of marginal farmer, tenant and labouring majority• Significant rise in labour in capitalist sector in context of

agrarian stress. Reinforced by emerging ‘cultures of migration’ • Feminisation of agriculture, with women remaining behind ,

while males seek work in Indian urban centres and the petro-economies of the Gulf.

• Wages overseas only marginally higher than what is available in nearby urban centres when accounting for the costs, yet local labour market can not absorb the vast surplus labour pool

Pre-capitalist reproduction• Semi-feudal relations reinforced by migration• Demand for tenancy and menial farm labour for landlords is high for

women remaining behind• Given agrarian stress, landlords prefer to rent out land rather than

farm themselves. Absentee landlords retain estates for speculative purposes.

• Farming households are having surplus appropriated in new ways, beyond the farm, yet remain feudal in character– Usury is flourishing– Man power agents, middlemen– State sanctioned rent seeking (taxes, bribes etc)

• Backed up by the reactionary state and party apparatus– Political parties serving landed interests, including Nepal and India’s

‘pseudo-left’– Denial of citizenship for next generation in Tarai-Madhesh

Thalaha, Morang

Superprofits for capitalist sector• Superprofits: Profits over and above the average rate of profit in

the economy as a whole. – In developed industrial economy: monopolies or above average

productivity (Marx)– ‘Colonial’ countries through increasing rate of exploitation (Lenin)

• Migrant labour is the primary mode through which ‘super-exploitation’ is achieved– Wages in capitalism cover (i) cost of labour and (ii) cost of labour

‘reproduction’. i.e. costs to maintain workers family; also borne at a societal level from birth (health, education etc).

– However, in the context of migrant labour, the wages only cover the cost of the labourer itself, and a small excess to send home.

• The cost of labour reproduction for migrants is provided mostly for – Subsistence agriculture to support stay behind family; – Feminised household labour; – The informal village economy; the societal cost of reproduction

Politics and the state• Super profits benefit capitalism in Indian urban centers and

petro-economies of the Gulf. Does migration serve the interests of contemporary state and political party apparatus within Nepal and Bihar?

• Migrant wages are not at levels which will reduce demand for tenancies, low wage farm labour– By its nature migrant labour in Mithilanchal is subsidized by pre-

capitalist agriculture. – Landed classes close to the state and parties benefit

• Landed classes close to the state, and segments of the urban upper class retain a share of the surplus (e.g. usury, money lending, comprador import businesses driven by migrant cash)

• Migration offsets class struggle, and reduces pressure to develop strong industrial base at home

Conclusions

Rakuwari, Madhubani

• Feudalism or semi-feudalism is a dynamic system which does not function alone and is reinforced by, and provides labour, to global and regional capitalism.

• Agriculture under exploitative pre-capitalist conditions remains vital to stay behind populations, particularly women

• Migrant labour serves to both reinforce feudal agriculture at home, while the labour itself is subsidised by the agrarian social formation at home

• Considerable complexity in the contradictions of the social formation in Mithilanchal and Nepal more generally. Raises new questions about potential class mobilisation, and the alliances and methods which are necessary

Thank you

Participatory video: experiences of migration http://gendercc-southasia.iwmi.org/videos.aspx