The nature of the Indian states of the early medieval period (mid-sixth century to thirteenth century

CE) has been defined differently by different scholars from different schools depending on their
approach and ideological model. Differences regarding the nature of the state, the multiplicity of
regional powers, separated the politics of early medieval India from the situation prevailing in the
pre-600 CE days. The factors responsible for this changing landscape have not been unanimously
identified. Major issues of debate include the degree of control (central authority versus local
autonomy) and the different roles of religious institutions in the state system.

There are various major schools that debate around the nature of the state in early medieval India.
Some of the major models that talk about the nature of the state in early medieval India are:

 Asiatic Mode of Production

 Centralised Model (Indian Historical Model)
 Marxist’s Indian Feudalism Model
 Segmentary State Model
 The Integrative State Model

Asiatic Mode of Production

The first model was the Asian mode of production influenced by colonial and imperialist ideology,
proposed by early Marxist historians. This model argued that the entire system of production in India
was that of Oriental autocracy, where society was largely immutable and the various caste and varna
equations remained highly stable. This period was marked by external warfare and internal
exploitation of rural communities, where the ruling classes owned all the land, while the peasants
(i.e., Shudras and Vaishyas) were forced to work on the land by central force. However, given the
'variability' of the model introduced by several historians such as Herman Kulke and B D
Chattopadhyay, this model was soon rejected.

Centralised Model (Indian Historical Model)

The second model was the Indian historical model. Scholars of this school viewed the early
medieval state as a unitary-centrally organized and territorially defined state with a strong
bureaucracy, extensive revenue system and a strong army and navy. This nationalist
historiography tried to see the entire medieval period as one. Furthermore, they attempted
to establish the existence of a centralized empire as a continuation of the ancient kingdoms,
thereby negating the elements of the changes in the nature of the state during this period.
This historical tradition was seriously challenged by Burton Stein. As Stein refused to regard
the Chola monarchy as an extremely powerful monarchy at the top level as he pointed to its
contrast with the heavy presence of local self-bodies in villages.
Segmentary State Model
The model of Segmentary state was first constructed by Aidan Southall to explain the Alur society in
East Africa. The segmentary state is an anthropological model developed by Southall. Burton Stein
used this model to describe the formation of the kingdom under the Cholas and Pallavas. Southall
describes the Segmentary state as a state where the areas of ritual hegemony and political
sovereignty do not coincide. The former extends widely towards a flexible changing periphery.
The latter is confined to the central core domain.
Initially, argued in favour of a clear distinction between these two spheres of authority,
Stein is now convinced that the lordship for Hindus had combined ritual and political
authority.
The Segmentary state is a political order where:
• There are many centres or political regions.
• Political power and sovereignty are differentiated so that these powers can be controlled by
a number of people, whereas imperial sovereignty by only one anointed king.
• All regions had autonomous administrative capabilities and means of coercion.

Hermann Kulke has questioned Stein’s concept of ritual sovereignty. According to Kulke in a
traditional society, particularly in India, ritual sovereignty seems to be an integral part. A key
element of the segmentary state theory was also the so-called Brahman-peasant alliance at the
Nādu. The peasant was always exploited by the Brahman and Kshatriya combination. The model was
originally proposed to explain the tribal situation and not suited to a stratified society.

The Integrative State Model

The model proposed by BD Chattopadhyay was called the Integrated Polity Model. In this
model, he described the early medieval period as 'the period of state formation'. It means
the transformation of pre-state polities into state polities, thus the integration of local
polities into structures that transcended the boundaries of local polities.
This integrated development was based on and accompanied by a series of processes such as
peasantization (that is, tribes that were no longer practicing agriculture were now converted into
cultivators); The emergence and spatial expansion of ruling dynasties through processes called
Kshatriyaization or Rajputisation; Linking the dynastic territory and its hinterland with a network of
royally guarded religious institutions and land allotments to officials, etc. Furthermore, state
formation implies that there existed resources capable of generating a surplus.

Marxist’s Indian Feudalism Model

The model of Indian feudalism was proposed by RS Sharma. According to RS Sharma, a major cause
of feudalism in India was land grants to Brahmins, religious institutions, and officials. A new class of
land-mediators emerged, due to excessive immunities, such as freedom from taxation and oversight
by royal officials, and royal privileges such as jurisdiction and the right to collect fines. They captured
the communal lands of the villages and gradually converted these villagers into slavery. This growth
was partly due to the decline of urbanism and trade and further.

Politically, this development was considered to be a continuous process of fragmentation and

decentralisation, due to the widespread practice of granting territories to Vassals and officials who
had established themselves as independent powers. Socially, this period was characterized by the
spread of castes and the gradual decline of the economic and social status of Vaishyas and Shudras.
These two varnas eventually became indistinguishable from each other, while the Kshatriyas and
Brahmins became alike to the feudal lords of Europe.

Can the state of early medieval India be called feudal in nature?

The concept of feudalism was borrowed from European historiography. The multiplicity of regional
powers and the absence of a paramount power of pan-Indian structure has been explained by
Marxist historians by the concept of Indian feudalism.

The theory of Indian feudalism is largely based on the process of decentralization and political
fragmentation. R.S. Sharma says that feudalism in India began with the land grants made to
Brahmans, temples and monasteries for which we have inscriptional evidence from the Satavahana
period, which multiplies by Gupta period. The growth of feudal property in India came to be linked
with the undermining of the communal rights in land, as is evident from the later grants which refer
to the transfer of communal resources such as pastures, forests, water reservoirs to the
beneficiaries. The economic essence of Indian feudalism lay in the rise of landed intermediaries
leading to the enserfment of the peasantry through restrictions on peasant mobility and freedom,
increasing obligation to perform forced labour or vishti, mounting tax burdens and the evils of
subinfeudation

D D Kosmabi gave feudalism a significant place in the context of socio-economic history. He

conceptualised the growth of feudalism in Indian history as a two-way process: from above and from
below in his landmark book, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, first published in 1956.
From above the feudal structure was created by the state granting land and rights to officials and
Brahmins; from below many individuals and small groups rose from the village levels of power to
become landlords and vassals of the kings

Harbans Mukhia, in an article entitled ‘Was There Feudalism in Indian History?’ questioned the
Indian feudalism thesis at the theoretical and the empirical level by comparing the medieval Indian
scenario with medieval Europe. Mukhia says that European feudalism developed as a result of
changes at the base of society, in India, the establishment of feudalism is attributed to state action.
Mukhia questions whether such complex social structures can be established through administrative
and legal procedures. Harbans Mukhia compared the ecological conditions, technology available and
the social organization of agricultural labour of India and Europe to counter the concept of Indian
feudalism. The relation between lord and peasant was more complex in India and cannot be simply
compared with serfdom

D. C. Sirkar critiques the Indian Feudalism Model by arguing that while land was given to the
military class in Europe, there are only references available of land being donated to the
Brahmins in India. However, the proponents of the Indian Feudalism Model defended its
argument that the Brahmins performed the same tasks as the military officials in Europe but
only in a different approach. Thus, Brahmins provided legitimisation to their rulers in several
ways.
Chattopadhyaya argued that land-grants gave too much importance under the Indian
Feudalism model while other factors such as the frequent invasions and continuing
authority of the kings had been ignored. B. D. Chattopadhyaya negates the most important
argument of the Indian feudalism model, i.e., the argument of land grants. Thus, according
to B. D. Chattopadhyaya, it can be said that the early medieval period was a period of state
formation and not of fragmentation and disintegration. Therefore, the notion of Feudal
society can be suppressed.
D N Jha had criticized R S Sharma for relying too heavily on the absence of long distance external
trade as the cause of the rise of feudalism in India.. B D Chattopadhyay has shown that there are
enough evidence to show urban development and not decay in early medieval India to have
happened at least a century earlier. Ranabir Chakravarti has brought forward ample evidence of
flourishing trade, different categories of merchants and market centres in the concerned period. The
monetary anaemia thesis, fundamental to the formulation of Indian feudalism, has also been put
under severe strain by recent researches of B D Chattopadhyay and B N Mukherjee.and John S Deyell
who seriously undermined the assumption of the scarcity of money.

Hence, The origins of Indian feudalism still remain to be satisfactorily explained. Early medieval
society was not essentially characterized by lords and peasants, it was far more complex. Early
medieval India cannot be equated with the idea of Indian feudalism