{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0299079754601227, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006901840490797546, 'mean_word_length': 5.15566037735849, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The logic of tenancy cultivation: central and south-east Punjab, 1870-1935

Tenancy and share-cropping are often seen as expressions of either ’semifeudalism’ or ’formal subsumption’ of labour by capital. ’ Both these concepts are based on the notion that share-croppers and tenants are a homogeneous class, invariably impoverished and perpetually indebted. While according to the first view, this implied ’forcible involuntary exchange’ is characteristic of semi-feudalism, according to the latter, this bondage was an aspect of capitalist subordination of labour and the extraction of absolute surplus value in the form of rent. However, tenancy cultivation and share-cropping can reflect different forms of social relations depending on the specific units of production within which they are integrated. Only by differentiating these forms can one understand the nature and function of tenancy and rent. What we need to examine is: Who leased out and who leased in the land? Why was land leased out? What did rent represent? The different forms of tenancy should not be defined merely in juridical terms-e.g., the difference between occupancy tenants and tenants-at-will. A predominant emphasis on the juridical distinction can be seen in Rothermund’s argument.2 According to Rothermund, the protected