Feudalism debate

c. 750-1200 in Indian History is termed as the Early Medieval Period.

1. Medieval India was identified as the period starting with the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate
(first Muslim rule in mainland India). Islam was an important factor used to study Medieval India.

2. Marxist scholars – there were different approaches within Marxist historiography. Early Marxist
scholars observed that the religion of the rulers cannot be the basis on which a period is defined. Rulers
had one motive – exploitation.

3. Marxist approach – to understand the means of production.

4. Later Marxist scholars challenged the earlier approach of only focusing on North India. They focused
on other regions as well.

Debates on the Early Medieval

2 time-brackets proposed for this period -

1. 7th century - 1300 CE

2. 750-1200 CE (a period of transition from ancient period to medieval period)

There were changes not only in the political sphere, but the society, economy and polity as well.

This disagreement is rooted in the different understanding and interpretations of the characteristic
features of the preceding period. The characteristic features of Ancient India are seen roughly from c.
6th century BCE / mid-first millennium BCE.

D.D. Kosambi was the earliest scholar to identify that the feudal mode of production needed to be
modified to suit Indian realities.

His book - The Study of Indian History mentions 2 phases of feudalism -

1. Feudalism from above - The Emperor takes tributes from the people. No landed intermediary present.
For Kosambi, such a scenario emerged in the Gupta period.

2. Feudalism from below - (Delhi Sultanate) a landed intermediary used to collect taxes on behalf of the
state.

This theory is no longer accepted.

R.S. Sharma - THE INDIAN FEUDALISM MODEL

1. Based on epigraphical data

2. Became a focal point in the Indian Feudalism debate

3. Was there a complete breakdown of the civilisation matrix of the Ancient period? R.S Sharma says
there was a complete breakaway, but B.D Chattopadhyay says there were some elements of continuity.

3 phases - Indian Feudalism

1. 300-600 CE - beginning of feudalism

2. 600-1000 CE - development of feudalism

3. 1000-1200 CE - climax and cracks

He argues that there was a growing practice of land grants - perhaps to counter social (Kali Age) and
economic crises (decline of long distance trade and the rise of a natural economy).

Indian Feudalism Model

(R.S. Sharma - Transition from Ancient to Medieval India)

Features of Ancient Indian period

1. Territorial kingdoms that claimed political sovereignty

2. They crystallised into highly bureaucratic centralised states

3. Urban and rural economies. Village communities functioned as units of production. (communal
property rights)

4. Brahmanas and Kashatriyas (appropriated surplus), Vaishyas (primary taxpayers), shudras (servile
labour) - According to the Indian feudalism model, the society conformed to this rigid system. However,
we know the ground reality was different.

Early Med Social Formations according to the Indian Feudalism Model

1. Political decentralisation and hierarchy

2. Because of the widespread practice of land grants, there emerged a clan of landed intermediaries.

3. A change-over from the market economy to self-sufficient village economies. The root-cause of this is
said to be the decline of commercial networks. Led to the practice of remuneration in land instead of
cash.
4. The recipients of grants were given control over the communal property also. The pastures earlier
available for free could now be brought under cultivation by recipients of grants - subjection of
peasantry.

5. Proliferation of castes from Post-Gupta period.

6. Feudal dimension of the ideology and culture of the period - characterised by Bhakti ideology

Indian Feudalism Model continued

1. R.S. Sharma emphasised on the role of long-distance trade with the Western world. When trade
declined, the currency became irrelevant. Payments made earlier in cash were now made in the form of
land grants.

2. Social crisis and dwindling state finances led to the practice of land grants. They ultimately turned the
donee into a local power.

3. These grants severely undermined the judicial and administrative authority of the ruling class.

4. Emergence of landed intermediaries (samantas). For the Indian Feudalism model, samanta meant
feudal lord. In the Integrative State Model, the term meant subordinate rulers. (read Ranabir C pg 309-
310)

Critique - Traits of the early historical period identified by this model were not experienced by all the
regions. Thus, we cannot say that all those regions experienced the crisis in the civilizational matrix.
Doesn’t include the South Indian polities (Pallava and Chola empires)

HOI (Early Medieval India) recap for 10-09-2021

Limitations of the Indian Feudalism Model

1. Too much importance to normative traditions (which does not reflect ground reality). Literary sources
have been given importance over archaeological sources.

2. They explain regional developments with a North-India centric lens. Eg - Each region did not
experience the emergence of a monetised economy.

3. Emphasis on decline of long distance trade with the West. Not enough emphasis on trade with South-
East Asia and China. Moreover, the trade with the West was re-organised. (Tirthankar Ray)

4. The traits of the early historical period identified by the model were not pan-Indian in nature.

BURTON STEIN
Segmentary States in South India

1. He applied this model to South India - the Cholas, and then extended the same to the Vijayanagar
Empire.

2. This theory did not have enthusiastic supporters.

3. His book - Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India 1980

4. This paradigm by Burton Stein was derived from the A. Southhall’s anthropological study of the Alur
society of east Africa

HOI (Early Medieval India) recap for 13-09-2021

Segmentary State continued.

Readings -

The Segmentary State - Interim Reflections

Hermann Kulke (ed.) - The State in India

Re-thinking the Early Medieval (ed - Upinder Singh)

Main features of Burton Stein’s model -

1. Two types of sovereignty - political and ritual

2. We can divide the Chola state into broadly three categories -

(a) Central/core region - Cholamandalam and Jayagondacholamandalam

(b) Intermediate region - Tondaimandalam and Pandimandalam

(c)Peripheral region - Kongumandalam and Gangawadi

3. Thus, it wasn't a uniform system - there existed foci.

4. Political and ritual sovereignties are mutually exclusive. Chola rulers had maximum political
sovereignty at the centre.

5. The monarch had to be sanctioned and legitimised by the Brahmanas.

6. The Cholas did not maintain a unified, well-organised army. In times of war, they mobilised people to
fight, especially from the merchant bodies.

7. Stein perceived inscriptions as expressions of ritual sovereignty rather than political sovereignty.
Criticism - The ideological aspect in this debate is very low.

Plus, there existed village assemblies which have not been elaborated upon.

The duality of authority proposed by this theory is not accepted by historians. Rather, Brahmanas and
Kshatriyas worked hand in hand to ensure smooth working of the varna order. In Ancient India, the
Kshatriyas required legitimisation of their rule, which came through religious sources (brahmanas), who
in turn required protection by the State.

HOI (Early Medieval India) recap for 14-09-2021

INTEGRATIVE STATE MODEL

B.D. Chattopadhyay’s The Making of Early Medieval India

1. Gave importance to regions

2.They said one first needs to identify the characteristic features of the early Historical period and then
the features of the early Medieval period.

3. B.D. Chattopadhyay says that the communities referred to as rathikas and bhojas witnessed the
emergence of a ruling elite called maharathis and mahabhojas. This eventually culminated in the rise of
local ruling elites.

4. If we compare the political map of India from Mauryan and Gupta times, we observe a sharp contrast.
During the Gupta period, there were many polities and new local rulers.

5. The Prayaga Prashasti mentions a number of local rulers and principalities - we need to trace the
processes that led to their formation.

6. According to this model - under the Chola sovereignty (for example) -

The smaller regional powers paid taxes, mentioned them while issuing inscriptions, and supplied
soldiers for war.

It wasn't a fragmented polity, it was a consolidated one.

HOI (Early Medieval India) recap for 15-09-2021

INTEGRATIVE STATE MODEL continued

This model tried to address the gaps which the Indian Feudalism model failed to address.

B.D. Chattopadhyay

1. On the nature of the Satavahana polity - maharathis and mahabhoja (see yesterday’s recap)
2. He doesn't agree with the characteristics identified by the Indian Feudalism model.

3. He mentions three processes -

(a) Expansion of State Society through the process of local state formation.

(b) Peasantization of tribes and caste formation

(c)Cult appropriation and integration

These processes were interrelated.

4. He said state formation was a crucial element of change, there were relationships of domination and
subordination.

5. Expansion of agriculture through land grants, land donations to Brahmanas.

6. Emergence of urban centres are to be seen as processes, not events.

Suggested reading - Kalinga and Andhra : The Process of Secondary State Formation in Early India by
Sudarshan Seneviratne