“Colonialism had a twisted logic of its own for commercialization. It emerges on analysis to have been often an artificial and forced process.”

Answer:

Colonial commercialisation in India did not emerge as a natural internal transition towards capitalist agriculture. It was shaped by the needs of the colonial state and British industry. Hence, it often appeared artificial and forced, because peasants were pushed into market production without security, bargaining power or adequate returns.

Forced Character of Commercialisation

• Cash revenue demand forced peasants to sell produce in the market in order to pay land revenue.
• High and rigid revenue assessments increased dependence on moneylenders, traders and grain markets.
• Commercial crops such as indigo, cotton, opium, jute and tea expanded because of imperial demand rather than peasant choice.
• Indigo cultivation in Bengal showed the coercive side of commercialisation, as planters compelled raiyats to grow indigo on unfavourable terms.

Colonial Logic

• India was made a supplier of raw materials and a market for British manufactures.
• Railways, ports and communication networks linked agriculture to export markets, but primarily served colonial extraction.
• The benefits went largely to planters, merchants, moneylenders and the colonial state, while cultivators faced price fluctuations and indebtedness.

However, commercialisation was not uniformly negative. Some rich peasants and traders benefited in favourable regions and crops. Still, nationalist economists like R.C. Dutt saw it as part of colonial exploitation. Therefore, colonial commercialisation was “twisted” because it expanded markets without creating a balanced, autonomous and peasant-friendly agrarian capitalism.