1

Chairperson : Prof. Neeru

Subject Coordinator : Prof. Sheena Pall
Course Leader : Prof. Sheena Pall

M.A. HISTORY SEMESTER – II

Paper II Opt (i) AGRARIAN ECONOMY OF ANCIENT INDIA

Introductory Letter (i)

Syllabus (ii)

CONTENTS

L. No. Topic Lesson Writer Page

No.
1. Neolithic Age and Bronze Age Dr. Ashish Kumar 1

2. Iron Age Agriculture Dr. Ashish Kumar 11

3. Land Rights (Communal Rights, Individual Rights, 21

Dr. Ashish Kumar
and Royal Rights)
4. State and Private Property (Demarcation of 31
Dr. Ashish Kumar
Land, and Boundary Disputes)
5. Peasant Hierarchy in Early India Dr. Ashish Kumar 45

6. Political and Social Relationships between 56

Peasantry, Donors, and Donees Peasant Dr. Ashish Kumar
Unrests
7. Land Grants and Expansion of Agriculture Dr. Ashish Kumar 67

8. Early Medieval Agrarian Changes and Their 78

Dr. Ashish Kumar
Theoretical Explanations
Vetted By : Prof. Sheena Pall

E-mail of Department : coordhist@pu.ac.in

Contact No. of Department : 0172-2534329
 3

INTRODUCTORY LETTER
PAPER – II Opt. (I) AGRARIAN ECONOMY OF
ANCIENT INDIA

The main objective of this paper is to make you familiar with the agrarian economy of Ancient
India. Beginning from the stone age when the agriculture was discovered the paper covers the entire
period of ancient to early medical changes. The entire syllabus is divided into four limits besides
twenty concepts and terms. In this First Unit you would study about the evolution of agriculture and
domestication of animals in India. Then agricultural techniques crop pattern and use of irrigation
facilities and iron age technology. Second Unit deals with the state and land system, land rights of
people and state share. Third Unit analyse the land grants given by the rules to the individuals as gifts
or prize. It would cover the relationship of the donor with the donees. Fourth Unit covers the topics like
land grants and expansion of agriculture and Indian Feudalism system.
Dear students hope you would enjoy reading this paper and would acquire knowledge about
agrarian techniques and its value as an economics system in ancient India.
 4

Syllabus
PAPER II: OPT. (I) AGRARIAN ECONOMY OF ANCIENT INDIA

COURSE CODE: HIS 713

Objective : This course enlightens the students about the beginning of food production and agriculture system
with special reference to bronze and iron ages. The role of agriculture and other allied trades to generate the
state revenue. It also acquaints the students with the duties of the state administration to bestow all peasants
and other vocational with various facilities and endowments to boost up the production and revenue of the
state. It throws light on the origin and evolution of Levy system in ancient India, its determination and mode of
collection.

Pedagogy : The students are taught with the help of slides, photographs, topographical maps, political maps
etc. In addition to it lectures, workshops, seminars and field trips are arranged to enhance the articulating skill
of the students and to understand the subject in a better way.

Note : The candidate will be evaluated on the basis of a written examination (80 marks) and Internal
Continuous Assessment (20 marks). In the written examination, the question paper will have the following
format:

The maximum marks in this paper/option will be 80 and duration of written examination will be 3 hours..
(i) There will be 9 questions in all. The candidate will be required to attempt 5 questions.
(ii) Question No.1 will be compulsory and carry 20 marks. It will consist of 15 short questions from the
list of concepts and terms given below. The candidate is required to attempt any 10 short
questions in 25-30 words each.. Each short question carries 2 marks.
(iii) Remaining part of the question paper will be divided into four units, corresponding to the four
units of the syllabus for each option. The paper setter will set 2 essay type questions from each
unit. The candidate will attempt 4 essay type questions, selecting one from each unit. Each essay
type question will carry 15 marks.
(iv) The paper setter is expected to follow the Essential Readings and set questions on the sub-themes
or parts of a theme, rather than the topic as a whole.

Concepts and Terms:

Mehargarh; Gramani/gramika; kutumbika; gahapatis; Dasa-karmakars; Bali/Bhaga; Paranaya; Sali/Vrihi;
Rajuka/Agronomoi; Sitadhyakasha; Sudarshana lake; Vishti; Agrahara; Brahamdeya; Deva-
agrahara/devagrahara; devadana; vaishyagrahara; Kara-shasana; Samanta; Bhumicchidra-nyaya; urban
decay; Kosambi’s two stage theory of feudalism; Araghatta/ghatiyantra; Kupa/vapi; Damaras; Kali age
crisis; tamra-patra/tamra-patta/tamra-sasana; hatta; mandapika; pentha; nagaram; Kaivartas; Kalabharas.
 5

Unit I:
Evolution of Agriculture : Neolithic Age (Beginning of Agriculture and Domestication of Animals); Bronze
Age (Agricultural Techniques, and Irrigation); Iron Age (Cultivation Techniques, Processes, Crop Patterns
and Irrigation).

Unit II:
State and Land Systems: Land Rights (Communal Rights, Individual Rights, and Royal Rights); State and
Private Property (Demarcation of Land, and Boundary Disputes); Land Revenue and Tax Relief Provisions.

Unit III:
Peasantry: Peasant Hierarchy in Early India; Political and Social Relationships between Peasantry, Donors,
and Donees; Peasant Unrests (Causes and Nature of Peasant Unrests; Kaivarta and Kalabhara Uprisings).

Unit IV:
Land Grants and Expansion of Agriculture: Land Grants (agrahara, devadana, vaishyagrahara and kara-
shasana); Study of the Krishiparasara (Agricultural processes and Techniques); Early Medieval Agrarian
Changes.

Essential Readings

Chattopadhyaya, B. D. (ed.), Essays in Ancient Indian Economic History, New Delhi: Primus Books, 2015
reprint.

Gopal, L., Aspects of the History of Agriculture in Ancient India, Allahabad: University of Allahabad, 1987.

Gopal, L., ‘Agriculture’, in History of Technology in India- Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 AD, ed. A. K. Bag,
New Delhi: Indian National Science Academy, pp. 391-436, 1997.

13 ________, The Economic Life of Northern India, circa A.D. 700-1200, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers,
Varanasi, 1989.

Sahu, B. P., ed. Land System and Rural Society in Early India, New Delhi: Manohar, 2003 reprint.

Sharma, R. S., Early Medieval Indian Society: A Study in Feudalization, New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, 2014
reprint.

Singh, Upinder, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From Stone Age to the 12th Century,
Pearson Longman: Delhi, 2009.

Suggested Readings

Chakravarti, Ranabir, ‘Agricultural Technology in Early Medieval India (c. AD 500-1300)’, in The Medieval
History Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 229-258, 2008.
 6

Chakravarti, Ranabir, ‘Interacting with Hydraulic Resources: Early Indian Experience’, in Science, Literature
and Aesthetics- Vol. 15, Part-3, ed. Amiya Dev, (HSPCIC) New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, pp. 343-369,
2009.

Chattopadhyaya, B. D., Aspects of Rural Settlements and Rural Society in Early Medieval India, New Delhi:
Primus Books, 2017.

Chauhan, G. C., Economic History of Early Medieval Northern India, Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 2003.

Ghosh, Suchandra, ‘Understanding Boundary Representations in the Copper-Plate Charters of Early

Kamarupa’, in Indian Historical Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 207-222, 2014.

Jha, D. N., Revenue System in Post-Mauryan and Gupta Times, Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1967.

Mandal, Krishna Kumar, ‘Note: Forms of Peasant Protest in the “Jatakas”,’ in Social Scientists, Vol. 35, No.
5/6, pp. 39-46, 2007.

Mozumdar, G. P., and Banerji, S. C., ed. & tr., Krisi-Parasara, Kolkata: The Asiatic Society, reprint 2001 (or
Any other suitable translation).

Thakur, V. K., and Aounshaman, Ashok, eds. Peasant in Indian History- I, Patna: Janaki Publishers, 1996.

.
 7

UNIT – I
Lesson - 1

NEOLITHIC AGE AND BRONZE AGE

STRUCTURE
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Neolithic Age: Beginning of Agriculture and Animal Domestication
1.3 Impacts on Human Lifestyle
1.4 Mehrgarh: Earliest Farming Settlement
1.5 Bronze Age Agriculture: Indus Valley Civilization
1.6 Summary
1.7 References & Further Readings
1.8 Model Questions
1.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand how human beings transformed from hunter-gatherers to food producers.
 understand the domestication of plants and animals and its impact on human lifestyle.
 acquire information about Bronze Age agriculture.
 gain knowledge regarding cultivated crops, agricultural tools, and irrigation methods.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The term Neolithic (Neo= new and lithic= stone) means ‘New Stone Age’ referring to a period
when economic and scientific revolution took place as now human beings became an active partner
with nature instead of parasite on nature. Neolithic age is associated with a warmer climate, termed
Holocene that set in by about ten thousand years ago. Advent of a warmer climate marked the end of
last ice age (Pleistocene) and a significant change in animal and plant worlds. Subsequently, humans
learnt that by keeping certain plants and animals in humanly controlled environment, their production
could be humanly managed. Once the art of animal domestication aand plant cultivation was learnt,
wider social, political and cultural changes happened in human life, which increasingly became
stratified and complex due to the availability of surplus. Now people could produce enough food for
sustaining those who were not directly involved in production, and as a result, eventually civilizations
came into existence. In context of Indian subcontinent, the Indus Valley saw the emergence of a
 8

Bronze Age civilization that arose from several regional rural cultures such as Amri-Nal, Kot-Dijji, and
Sothi-Siswal. Without the presence of a strong agrarian base, rise of the Indus valley civilization- a
Bronze Age civilization, was not possible.
1.2 NEOLITHIC AGE: BEGINNING OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL DOMESTICATION
Human beings domesticated plants such as barley, wheat, rye, and acquired knowledge of
seeds, land types, cultivation techniques, and so forth. They also domesticated several animals. As
the human beings became cultivators and herders, they began to settle down at sedentary
settlements. Permanent dwellings and huts made of mud, reed, wood and stone were built near
cultivable areas. In order to store both animal and plant products, human beings invented the art of
pottery making. Initially handmade pottery was made. Subsequently, wheel-thrown and well-fired
pottery was produced. Several types of ceramics such as storage jars, pots, dishes, bowls, and so
forth were manufactured. Cultivation required digging and harvesting tools such as axes, sickles,
adzes, hoes, etc. These tools were made by grinding, sharpening, and polishing stone tools. In
Neolithic age composite tools, which were made by combining stone, bone, and wood in various
shapes and sizes, were also produced. Sickles composed of microlithic teeth inserted into a support
of curved wood made it possible to harvest. Presence of grinding stones (e.g., mortar, pestle) to grind
grain and edible seeds in several Neolithic settlements, suggests their wider use by the Neolithic
peoples.
Scholars have identified six centres where earliest Neolithic cultures took birth, and these
primary centres are:
i) Near Eastern centre: At Syria-Palestine and nearby area farming communities arose
between ten thousand and nine thousand years ago.
ii) Central American centre: At Southern Mexico, farming communities arose between nine
thousands and four thousand years ago.
iii) Chinese centre: In Northern China (i.e., mid Yellow River area) farming communities arose
by about 8,500 years ago.
iv) New Guinean centre: In the centre of Papua New Guinean (i.e., a large Island in Pacific
Ocean, north of Australia) farming communities arose by about ten thousand years ago.
v) South America centre: In the Peruvian or Ecuadorian Andes area farming communities
arose by about six thousand years ago.
vi) North American centre: In mid-Mississippi Basin, farming communities arose between four
thousand and 1,800 years ago.
Scholars suggest that from these primary centres either people or technical knowledge spread
into other areas. According to V. Gordon Childe, “There is no Neolithic culture, but a limitless
multitude of Neolithic cultures. Each culture is distinguished by the variations in plants cultivated or of
animal bred; ...by divergences in the location of settlements, and so forth.” Plants such as groundnut,
manioc, long-fibber cotton, pepper, lima bean, sweet potato, pineapple, etc., were domesticated first
in the North West of South American continent. Likewise, Tropical Africa (north of equator) witnessed
 9

the domestication of plants such as sorghum, small millet, African rice, palm oil, okra, and so forth. In
South East Asia, broad bean, taro, turnip, lichee, sugarcane, banana, and mandarin orange were
domesticated. In a same way, animals such as ox, sheep, goat, pig, and pigeon were domesticated
by human beings in Near Eastern Area. In China, hen, pig, ox and dog were domesticated. Guinea
pig was domesticated in South America; and in Central America, turkey, and musk duck were
domesticated by the human beings. Different animals were domesticated at different times, and the
earliest animal that was domesticated by the humans had been dog. Dog was domesticated as early
as twelve thousand years ago. Domestication of dog was followed by the domestication of goat (9,500
years ago), pig (9,200 years ago), sheep (9000 years ago), cow (8,400 years ago), donkey (5,500
years ago), horse (5,500 years ago), camel (4,500 years ago), and water buffalo (2,500 years ago). It
is noticeable that unlike dog, sheep, goat and pig that were domesticated in west Asia, water buffalo
was domesticated first time by the people of Mehrgarh (now in Pakistan). The choice of animals fit for
domestication arises out of the following conditions:
1. Provision of food for these species was easily available through human beings;
2. Domesticated species were of some use to humans- e.g., these species provided meat, milk,
wool or fulfilled any other purpose;
3. Animals that were far too aggressive were avoided;
4. The pack of domesticated animals, kept in captivity and/or under tamed condition, was
capable of easily moving from place to place.
However, the principle urge for domesticating animals must have been to ensure the reserve
supply of food, in case hunting operations failed or proved inadequate. It would also naturally and
logically follow that the advent of domestication of animals and pastoralism was not only an extremely
slow process, but it did not bring about a sudden break from the hunting-gathering activities. In fact, it
was the hunter-gatherer’s minute observation of the animal species over generations that enabled the
accumulation of knowledge about the choice of animals to be domesticated.
The domestication of plants and animals marked a special kind of human interference in
nature and a new stage in the relationship between people, plants, and animals. It involved removing
plants and animals from their natural habitat, a process of selective breeding and rearing under
artificial conditions under human control for purposes of human gain. The domestication process must
have taken thousands of years, before enabling human beings to produce food at large scale.
However, hunting and gathering continued side by side. Domestication of plants and animals, as
being time-consuming processes, required humans to stay at relatively fixed places, and promoted
greater social interactions and cooperation. It is noticeable here that domestication is essentially a
biological transformation process, which is an almost automatic consequence of proto-cultivation and
proto-animal breeding, when these processes were applied to certain wild species of plants and
animals. Wild plant seeds and animals were grown in manmade control conditions involving their
careful selection, segregation, and observation. And it caused subsequent biological changes over a
long period of time in plant and animal species. Gradually characteristics required to survive in wild
conditions, disappeared. Plants or animals accommodated itself to survive and grow in manmade
controlled conditions.
 10

1.3 IMPACTS ON HUMAN LIFESTYLE

The foundation of agriculture as the mainstay of life brought unprecedented security and
steadiness to material life to those groups, which practised it. Human societies began to transform
from hunting-gathering to food-collecting societies, and finally, to food-producing stages, though not in
a uniform and unilinear manner, but with considerable diversity. Once certain cereal yielding plants,
especially wheat and barley were domesticated, then, over several centuries, the improvements of
agrarian techniques further facilitated the generation of excess agrarian products. This excess
agrarian production could then be used to sustain the non-agrarian and non food-producing social
groups, like the specialist craftsmen, the merchant, the ruler and the administrators and the
professional soldiers. Cultivation is a complex process, which required cooperation among individuals
and groups. Ploughing, sowing, removal of weeds, irrigation, protection of crop from wild beasts,
harvesting, and storing made human groups to stay at one place for a longer period. Therefore,
human beings, involved in agriculture particularly, began to stay near cultivable fields in order to
preserve crops and sustain production activities on regular basis. Cultivation and sedentary lifestyle
stimulated the formation of diverse crafts such as pottery, tool making, weaving and so forth. These
crafts were evolved in order to fulfil expanding requirements of humans. Initially handmade pottery
was manufactured, but after the discovery of potter’s wheel, pottery-making art developed
significantly. Ceramics were needed for storage, and cooking. Cultivation enabled human beings to
indulge in non-production activities ranging from artisanal to religious to political activities. It was
because now a section of society could produce enough food to fulfil the subsistence requirements of
even those who were not involved in production activities. A sedentary life and the diet associated
with agriculture would have meant less stress on women during pregnancy and more stable
conditions for mother and child after childbirth. Sedentary living would have been easier on children
and old people, and may have resulted in reduced death rates and increased life expectancy.
V. Gordon Childe suggests that a gender-based division of labour became more visible. At first
hunting, fowling, fishing, the collection of fruits, snails, and grubs continued to be essential activities in
the food quest of any food-producing group. Grain and milk began as mere supplements to a diet of
games, fish, berries, nuts, and ants’ eggs. Probably at first cultivation was an incidental activity of the
women, while their husbands were engaged in hunting. Similar was the case with pot making and
weaving. Women were required to stay at home and indulge in gathering activities, while men stayed
away for hunting; therefore, women could spent more time in observing the plants growth and animal
behaviour. As a result, human beings accumulated knowledge related to plants and animals that over
a period resulted in the domestication of plants and animals.
Nevertheless, the Neolithic age is also associated with innovations in stone tool technology,
specifically the making of ground, pecked, and polished stone tools. Paleolithic and Mesolithic tools
were generally made by striking one stone with another. However, during Neolithic age ground tools
were made by rubbing stone against stone, or by hand-rotating softer stone on a block of stronger
stone. Noticeably, several Neolithic stone tools were made for the purpose of cultivation (e.g., digging
tools, sickle, axes, etc.) and food preparation (e.g., mortar, quern, etc.). To obtain smooth surface
tools, very fine-grained igneous rocks – such as dyke basalt, dolerite, and epidiorite- were preferred to
the former quartzite and flint. This development resulted in the formation of factory sites near those
 11

places where required type of stone was available, such as Bellary in Andhra-Karnataka. Various
types of tools, particularly composite tools, are found belonging to Neolithic age, which are- celts or
axes, chisels, adzes, hammer stones, ring stones, querns, muller, scrappers, harpoons, sickles,
knives, spears, etc. Due to such phenomenal changes, V. Gordon Childe has termed the Neolithic
age as Neolithic Revolution.
1.4 MEHARGARH: EARLIEST FARMING SETTLEMENT
The earliest farming settlement in Indian subcontinent is Mehargarh, which was situated in the
Bolan valley, in the Kanchi plains of Baluchistan (in present day Pakistan). A Neolithic deposit of 10
meters was found out at Mehrgarh, immediately showing a very long occupation of the site since the
seventh millennium BC, if not as early as 7000 BC. The settlement continued up to about mid second
millennium BC. The site covers about 200 hectares area, and archaeological excavations have
brought several cultural occupation levels in light at this site. The very prolonged occupation at the
site cannot but point to the sedentary nature of the settlers, the bulk of whom therefore, must have
been farmers. The site has yielded indisputable evidence of crop production. Excavations have
brought into light the presence of cultivation, animal domestication, remains of houses, burials, and so
forth at this site. The occupation period is divided into four cultural phases, which are:
a) First Phase (circa 7000-5000 BC): This period has yielded remains of two-row hulled barley
(Hordeum distichum), six-rowed barely (Hordeum vulgare and H. Vulgare var. Nudum);
einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum), emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum), and bread wheat
(Triticum durum/aestivum) are also found. These securely dated data on grains leave little
room for doubt that the Mehrgarh people were not only agriculturists, but capable of
generating diversified and developed cereals. Remains of dwellings are found. Stone tools
such as querns, mortars, and grinding stones are discovered, which were used for food
processing. An integral part of the farming lifestyle at Mehrgarh was certainly the domesticated
animals. This will be evident from the bones of humped oxen, goat, and sheep. Some bones of
wild animals with cut marks suggest that the earliest settlers at Mehrgarh continued to practise
some hunting, though it dwindled with the consolidation of a farming economy. Another firm
indicator of the sedentary life at Mehrgarh is evident from the remains of dwelling houses.
These residential structures were made of sun-dried bricks of a regular size and consisted of
small rooms with assigned places for fire. This phase at Mehrgarh was aceramic, which
means pottery was possibly not in use. Ornaments made of conch-shell are noticed. Since
Mehrgarh is located far away from seacoast, the presence of conch-shell ornaments suggests
prevalence of local level exchange of goods. Burials with grave goods (e.g., ornaments,
animal remains, etc.) are found, suggesting a belief in after life.
b) Second Phase (circa 5000-4000 BC): This period witnessed considerable development in
agriculture. But more significant is the discovery of a large structure from where clear
impressions of large number of grains of barley and wheat were found. One particular
compartment in that structure also contained two sickles in excellent condition; the sickles had
three bladelets hafted in a slanted manner in bitumen. These sickles or sickle blades are the
earliest known harvesting tools in the subcontinent. This structure has been identified as a
granary. The construction of the granary speaks of a system of storage of grains, which were
 12

produced much in excess of the immediately required quantity. It is also a marker of a complex
socio-political organization, which oversaw the collection and storage in and possibly the
distribution of the stored grains from a non-residential (and therefore a ‘public’) structure.
Outside the granary lies a fireplace, containing several hundred charred grains. Among these
were found remains of cottonseeds (Gossypium species), datable to 4000 BC. The people of
the Mehrgarh were perhaps the earliest to have cultivated cotton for its oil or for its fibrous
properties or both. Elaborate dwellings with multiple rooms and store chambers are
discovered. This period witnessed the production of ceramics. Initially pottery was handmade
and crude in appearance, with basket marks. These were made by putting a lump of clay one
upon another in a basket smeared with asphalt or bitumen, the basket obviously being used as
some sort of mould. Subsequently, wheel-turned pottery began to be produced. Ornament
making continued. Particularly, beads of lapis lazuli are noticeable, which were not locally
available. It suggests lapis lazuli was procured by the local artisans through exchange from
Afghanistan.
c) Third Phase (circa 4300-3800 BC): This period witnessed copper smelting, and several
copper implements are discovered. Four varieties of wheat in addition to barley and oat are
noticed. Fully wheel thrown pottery in mono-chrome and bi-chrome styles were produced
during this phase. Variety of beads, for instance, lapis lazuli, carnelian, and turquoise are
found, which were used to manufacture necklaces, bracelets and other types of ornaments.
Like lapis lazuli, which was procured from Afghanistan, turquoise was obtained from Persia or
central Asia. A cemetery with ninety-nine burials is found. During this period, Mehrgarh
entered from Mehrgarh into the Chalcolithic phase.
d) Fourth Phase (circa 3800-2500 BC): Besides remains of houses, remains of pottery,
ornaments, agriculture, and seals are found in excavations. During this period, numerous
female figurines are noticed. Possibly these figurines indicate the popularity of mother
goddess or fertility cult among the local people. Presence of seals indicate emergence of
rudimentary administrative system.
At Mehrgarh, farmers for irrigation seemingly depended upon rains. They perhaps had also
channelized water into their fields by building embankments of stone or mud across local streams. At
Mehrgarh, from different phases, bones of both wild and domesticated animals are found. Evidences
suggest that water buffalo, cattle, goat, sheep, and pig were domesticated. However, hunting
continued side-by-side, and wild animals, for instance, deer, nilgai, and wild ass were hunted and
consumed. Just before 2500 BC, this site became a part of early phase of Indus valley civilization.
The remarkable site of Mehrgarh thus demonstrates continuous habitation and presents the evidence
of the changing contours of the settlement. Mehrgarh clearly shows how the ground was getting ready
for the emergence and efflorescence of the mature Harappan/Indus Valley civilization.
 13

Now Students let us do some activity:

Self Assessment Questions.
1. Write the name of earliest farming settlement in Indian subcontinent.
________________________________________________________________________
2. Where water buffalo was domesticated?
________________________________________________________________________
3. Write two important features of Neolithic Age.
________________________________________________________________________

1.5 BRONZE AGE AGRICULTURE: INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION

The Neolithic age was followed by the Indus valley civilization in the North Western parts of
Indian subcontinent. The advent and development of agriculture holds crucial clue to the emergence
and consolidation of complex and stratified society. As land assumes the most important social wealth
in an agricultural society, the possession, and control over land ultimately decided upon social and
political pre-eminence, particularly since the Bronze Age. The early phase (circa 3200-2600 BC) of
this civilization was followed by the mature phase (circa 2600-1900 BC) with the establishment of
common cultural, social and political patterns across a large geographical zone. A large area lying
between Shortughai (in Afghanistan) in north and Daimabad (in Maharashtra) in south and between
Manda (in Jammu) in North East and Alamgirpur (in Uttar Pradesh) in east and Sutkagendor (near
Pakistan’s frontier with Iran) in west had been associated with this civilization. This area comprised
alluvial plains formed by the Indus and its tributaries, mountains and hills, plateaux and extensive
seacoasts. The resource potential of this area was rich enough to generate the food surpluses that
are an important aspect of urbanization. The diversity of the subsistence base may also have been an
important sustaining factor- if one food resource failed, people could turn to others. Agriculture was
the mainstay, supplemented by animal husbandry and hunting. Riverine and marine food resources
were tapped, where available. The sources of information on the subsistence patterns of the
Harappans consist of plant remains, animal bones, artefacts, motifs on seals and pottery, and
analogies with modern practices.
There is little dispute that the economic and social life of an urban culture would be much more
complex than that in the rural areas. Though the city is usually populated by craftsmen, professionals,
merchants, administrators and religious personalities, the city must have had a secure supply of food,
since the bulk of the population in the city did not grow food. According to one estimate, the
population of this civilization ranged between one million to five millions, and about two lakhs fifty
thousand people lived in cities at the peak of this civilization. To feed such a large population, a solid
agrarian base must have developed. In addition, an elaborate administrative system would have been
put in place to mobilise agrarian resources from countryside to fulfil the requirements of urbanites. In
archaeological excavations, big granaries are discovered at two of the most famous cities of Indus
valley civilization, viz., Mohenjodaro and Harappa. In Mohenjodaro it was situated in the citadel; in
Harappa it was immediately adjacent to it. The structure of granary at Harappa measures 9000
square feet, more or less of the same size as the one at Mohenjodaro. The granary at Harappa has
two rows of platforms, each row having six platforms (50’x20’); in other words, there were twelve such
 14

platforms. The two rows of platforms are separated by a passage, 23’wide. Air ducts were provided
with a view to keeping the gains dry and free from moisture. This granary was located close to the
dried up channel of the river Ravi. It is likely that crops meant for storage was brought to the granary
by the river.
To the south of the granary at Harappa stood a large platform with circular pits (diameter from
10’9” to 10’11”). Mortimer Wheeler reported the discovery of hay, husk, wheat and barley grains from
within these circular pits, which he interpreted as pits for threshing grains; the platform was therefore
identified as a grain-pounding platform. To the immediate south of the pounding platform can be seen
two rows of tenements. These are one-room or two-room dwellings, meant for the residence of people
who are poorer than the residents of large structures in the city. Wheeler identified these houses as
coolie barracks, earmarked for workers employed for pounding grains close to the granary. According
to Wheeler, there existed a granary complex rather than isolated and disjointed structures. Presence
of granaries in cities, indicate that these urban centres were linked to the villages, and seemingly, a
surplus extraction mechanism was well established. Therefore, Bridget Allchin and Raymon Allchin
consider that the granaries probably functioned as central banks where grains were collected as
tributes or taxes. There is little room for doubt that the Harappan civilization was capable of
generating profuse amount of crops, much in excess of the immediate need of the cultivators, to
sustain the large urban population.
Cultivated Crops
Archaeologists have collected through systematic excavations remains of variety of crops:
wheat, barley, pulses, lentils, linseeds, mustard, bajra, ragi, jowar, sesame, cotton, and so forth. Rice
was also grown. Remains of wheat are found at Mohejodaro and Harappa; barley is found at
Mohenjodaro, Harappa, and Kalibangan. Sesame, watermelon, peas, and dates are noticed at
Harappa. Remains of rice are found at Lothal and Rangpur, both in Rangpur. Nevertheless, Harappa,
Surkotada and Shortughai have yielded remains of millets. At site named Balu (in Haryana) various
types of barley, wheat, rice, horse-gram, green-gram, chickpea, field pea, grass pea, sesame, melon,
watermelon, date, grapes and garlic are found. Apparently, both rabi (winter crops, sown in November
and reaped in March/April) and kharif (summer crop, sown in June/July and reaped in
September/October) were cultivated. According to Irfan Habib, wheat and barley were mainly
cultivated in Indus Basin and millets (e.g., bajra, jowar, and ragi) in Gujarat. He further adds that
though people knew two seasons of cultivation, but they did not knew the difference between rabi and
kharif crops. Peasants were thus mainly occupied with ‘rabi’ crops in the Indus basin, and with ‘kharif’
in Gujarat. Therefore, their double-harvest agriculture with the same crops sown in both seasons must
have been far less productive than in later times, when a better mix of crops was achieved.
Agricultural Tools
Seasonal floods in Indus River piled up much fertile alluvial soil in the Sind region, which
required neither deep ploughing nor manuring. As a result, peasant could prepare fields for sowing by
using wooden plough, digging sticks and hoes. Clay model of plough are found at Banawali (in
Haryana) and Jawaiwala (in Baluchistan, Pakistan), suggesting the use of wooden plough by the
peasants. Remains of ploughed fields are also discovered. For instance, Kalibangan (in Rajasthan)
 15

has yielded remains of a ploughed field, datable to pre-Harappan period. This field has clear vertical
and horizontal furrow marks. A ploughed field is also found at Shortughai (in northern Afghanistan).
Since copper had been very expensive due to a scarcity of its ores, its use by peasants in cultivation
appears to be less likely. It is also noticeable that iron smelting was not known to the people of Indus
civilization. Therefore, agricultural tools were made either of wood or of stone, and we do not find the
use of copper or bronze tools in farming activities. The fact that no actual ploughs have survived is no
doubt because they were made of wood.
Irrigation Methods
The peasants of Indus valley civilization had developed various types of irrigation techniques
in different regions. The Harappan civilization has a distinctive feature in the widespread use of wells,
which helped access water from underground. Wells are found in several cities (Harappa,
Mohenjodaro, and so forth). At Alahadino (near Karachi in Pakistan) a stone masonry well, built on
higher ground is found. It was placed so to irrigate lower fields. Perhaps pulley system was installed to
draw water from the well for irrigation. The Indus basin witnessed frequent floods in Indus River, and
in this area, floodwater was possibly utilized for irrigation. A traditional system of embanking water in
local streams by blocking it with large boulders (gabarbands) in lower Indus valley and Baluchistan
was prevalent during the Harappan times. For instance, in upper Hab valley bordering North Western
Sind a stone-block dam collected run-off water from hills for irrigation. Remains of canals are noticed
in Shortughai, drawing water from Kokcha River. Likewise, small canal networks in Haryana and in
Ghaggar-Hakra plain are discovered, possibly belonging to the Indus civilization. In addition to these
methods, agriculture largely depended upon seasonal rains for irrigation.
Domesticated Animals
Intimately linked with the agrarian economy was animal breeding. Indus people had
domesticated variety of animals. Remains of humped and humpless cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goat
are found. The humped bull also figures regularly and prominently on Harappan seals. The ox drew
the plough and the cart, the cow provided milk, and both formed a major source of animal food for the
Indus people. The water buffalo appears on the seal, but no bones of the water buffalo has been
discovered. Nevertheless, cattle and buffalo were used for milk, meat and also as drought animals.
Goats and sheep were in use for milk, meat, and wool, and also as pack animals. Several types of
wild animals were hunted. Bones of wild animals such as dear, boar, rhinoceros, elephant, camel,
rabbit, peacock, pigeon, duck, monkey, and wild fowl are noticed. Tiger and leopards were also
known to Indus people. Marine catfish bones are found at Harappa, suggesting a possible trade of
marine resources by the coastal people. Shikarpur (a Harappan site in Kutch district, Gujarat) has
yielded a large assemblage of animal bones, with cut marks and charred marks. These animals were
possible slaughtered and cooked for consumption. Remains of wild animals, viz., buffalo, nilgai,
chowshingha, blackbuck, gazelle, wild pig, wild ass, jackal, hare, rhinoceros, and various types of
deer are identified. In addition, remains of domesticated animals, for instance, cattle, buffalo, sheep,
goat, pig, and dog are recorded. Out of total number of bones, about 85 percent belong to
domesticated animals, particularly cattle. It suggests that domesticated animals were part of Indus
people’s diet.
 16

The ox had no competition from the horse either. The horse is not depicted on any of the seal;
nor is it recognizable among any terracotta figurines. The bones so far attributed to the domesticated
horse are almost certainly those of the wild ass (onager), whose natural habitat once included the
whole Indus region and Kachchh, where it is still found. It is noticeable that bones of sheep and goats
are found in numbers large enough to show that they were kept partly at least for their meat. The fact
that sheep bones far outnumber those of goats at Harappa may mean that the sheep were in much
greater demand as a source of wool. A large number of animals, then, must have been kept by the
peasants; and inequalities in rural society could well grow on the basis of the numbers of cattle and
other animals possessed by individuals. Moreover, a separate pastoral economy could also now
develop, directed to meeting the peasants’ demand for animals and their products. Outside the
cultivated zone, which, in view of low population density of that time, must have been small in extent,
there were large tracts where animals could be bred by semi-nomadic communities for being sold to
sedentary populations, along with milk products, wool and hide.
1.6 SUMMARY
The Neolithic age witnessed the transformation of human beings into food producers. The
domestication of animals and plants had a phenomenonal impact on human life, and it freed humans
to indulge in non-production activities such as crafts, trade, and politics. Initially, people employed
stone tools for cultivation; however, gradually they learnt the art of metal smelting and copper was the
earliest metal that was smelted. Once the art of metallurgy was learnt, by mixing nickel or arsenic in
copper, bronze was produced. Due to these developments, eventually the Bronze Age civilization
evolved, which was based on an extensive agricultural production and cattle herding. Animals such as
oxen, cow, sheep, goat, and dogs were domesticated, while a section of people remained indulged in
hunting of wild animals.
1.7 REFERENCES & FURTHER READINGS
1. Habib, Irfan, A People’s History of India 2- The Indus Civilization, Aligarh Historians Society:
Aligarh and Tulika Books: New Delhi, 2002.
2. Habib, Irfan, A People’s History of India 1- Prehistory, Aligarh: Aligarh Historians Society and
New Delhi: Tulika Books, 2006.
3. Singh, Upinder, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From Stone Age to the 12th
Century, Pearson Longman: Delhi, 2009.
1.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:
1. Explain the process of plant and animal domestication in Neolithic Age.
2. Discuss the impact of plant and animal domestication on human lifestyle.
3. Highlight the important features of Mehargarh.
4. Analyse the technical developments related to agriculture during the Bronze Age.
 17

Lesson - 2

IRON AGE AGRICULTURE

STRUCTURE
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Iron Technology and Surplus Production Debate
2.3 Iron Age Agriculture: Techniques, Processes, Crops, and Irrigation
2.4 Summary
2.5 References & Further Readings
2.6 Model Questions
2.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand the character of iron technology and its socio-political impacts.
 acquire information about the agricultural developments in the Iron Age.
 gain knowledge regarding crop patterns, and cultivation techniques.
 understand the diverse types of irrigation methods.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Iron Age came after copper age across the world and marked a new technological
advance in the human history. The basic difference between copper and iron technology is the
requirement of heat for smelting. Iron requires much higher temperature i.e. 1534° C to melt in
comparison to copper, which melts at 1083° C. Therefore, the ancient societies needed an advanced
technological stage before producing iron implements for mass consumption. Earliest evidences of
iron implements found at sites such as Lothal, Mohenjodaro, Pirak, Allahdino, Ahar and Gufkaral
show the familiarity of certain chalcolithic communities with iron. However, it does not mean that they
were acquainted with the iron technology. It appears that iron artifacts found at chalcolithic levels were
accidentally produced while smelting copper ores with higher iron percentage. The scarcity of copper
ores in comparison with iron ores and a possible, decreased in the availability of copper ores, due to
the shrinking of trading networks, according to Upinder Singh, provided a stimulus towards the
increasing replacement of copper with iron. Once the people attained a required technological
expertise, they realized the hardness of iron over copper and bronze. And this facilitated a switch to
iron from copper at large scale. The Hittite records (circa 1700-1500 BC) mention about two types of
iron-ores: one, from the earth and second from heaven, which is the black iron.
 18

In context of Indian subcontinent, some scholars have suggested that the term ayas
mentioned in Rigveda refers to iron. But, recent studies no more accept this view. It has been argued
that the term ayas in Rigveda was used to refer either copper-bronze or iron or both. The Black
Yajurveda most likely mentions terms like syamam (black) or syamenayasa (black metal) for iron.
Terms like syamena asina (iron knife), karmarah (smith), and dhamantah (forging) mentioned in
Atharvaveda further indicates to the awareness of iron, and iron working. It has been suggested that
the term ayas definitely began to be used for iron only from the Satapatha Brahmana onwards, which
mentions about it in connection to ordinary people as well as agricultural activities. The Pali canonical
literature, providing valuable information regarding the 5th-4th centuries BC, mentions two general
terms, i.e., ayo or loha for copper-bronze or iron or simply metal. The Greek sources of fifth century
BC also shed some light on the use of iron in India. The Herodotus talks about the presence of Indian
soldiers in Achaemenid army. According to him, Indian soldiers, unlike Persian and Median soldiers
equipped with iron weapons, possessed only arrows with iron points besides bows. Contrary to
Herodotus, Ctesias mentions the production of high quality steel swords in India, and they were
exported to Persia. The literary sources (particularly, later Vedic corpus- circa 1000-600 BC) further
confirm the archaeological evidences which have established the increasing use of iron in India from
about the beginning of first millennium BC. In subsequent period with the greater advances in iron
metallurgy, its production, on large scale, became possible.
For a long period it was believed that iron technology reached India from outside and was first
introduced by the Indo-Aryans who migrated from the Central Asia. Mortimer Wheeler argued that iron
came into the Ganga valley as a result of Persian influence by about the late 6 th and the early 5th
century BC. Contrary to him, D. H. Gordon dated the introduction of iron technology from west into
India not later than the 4th century BC. But, on the basis of recent archaeological findings it is now
generally accepted that across the Indian subcontinent by about 800-700 BC iron came in general
use. However, its earliest date still can be pushed back to 10th-11th centuries BC.
2.2 IRON TECHNOLOGY AND SURPLUS PRODUCTION DEBATE
Scholars like D. D. Kosambi and R. S. Sharma have argues that iron technology caused the
expansion of agriculture in the Ganga valley, which resulted in the generation of surplus. This surplus
then caused the emergence of state system, second urbanization, and socio-religious developments
in the sixth century BC India. Kosambi for the first time connected the iron technology with plough
agriculture, and clearance of forests in the Gangetic plains. It, according to Kosambi, resulted in the
production of sufficient surplus to sustain non-producing sections of society, expansion of trade,
emergence of metallic currency as well as towns and heterodox sects like Buddhism and Jainism. He
further suggests that control over the iron ores of eastern India (i.e., particularly Dhalbhum and
Singhbhum in Chotanagpur) made Magadha a paramount political authority against its enemies.
Similar views are proposed by R. S. Sharma. Sharma has not only accepted Kosambi’s
arguments but also developed them further. According to Sharma, the iron technology made possible
the expansion of agriculture in the Ganga valley leading to the availability of surplus. Now kings were
in a position to collect this surplus and use it to maintain permanent army and bureaucratic structure,
which ultimately led to urbanization. The dense forests of lower Ganga valley could only be cleared
with the help of iron axes. So is the case with heavy soil (kewal) of Patna, in Bihar, which required the
 19

use of iron-plough-share for cultivation by breaking it. Likewise, D. P. Agrawal, has pointed out the
geographical and ecological differences between the Indus valley and the Ganga valley. He mentions
that where Indus alluvium was soft and easily cultivable with a wooden plough, the Ganga valley was
covered with thick and swampy forests due to heavy rainfall. In the Indus valley, copper and bronze
tools were sufficient to undertake agricultural activities. Contrary to it, the Ganga valley could only be
brought under cultivation by iron tools by clearing the forests and ploughing the hard soil of this
region. Owing of this, Harappans could not go beyond the Indo-Yamuna divide as they lacked iron
technology. According to Agrawal, the first wave of Indo-Aryans, user of Black and Red Ware (BRW),
lacked the knowledge of iron technology and as a result could not colonize the Ganga valley. It was
the second wave of Indo-Aryans, which introduced Painted Gray Ware (PGW) and iron technology
into India. And they used it to colonize the region of Yamuna-Ganga doab and further east. He further
argues that as the copper was scares and expensive it could not be used at mass level but it was not
the case with iron. Iron was available in abundance and therefore was cheaply available to make
variety of tools particularly with the advent of NBPW phase. The views proposed by scholars like
Kosambi, Sharma, Agrawal and others brought to severe criticism by the 1970s-80s.
It was A. Ghosh, who for the first time, raised doubt on the ability of iron technology as the sole
agent of historical change. He was soon followed by other scholars like Niharranjan Ray, D. K.
Chakrabarti, and K. T. S. Sarao. According to these scholars, surplus or urbanization is not a result of
a technical breakthrough. A. Ghosh says, surplus is not simply a technical outcome but is a product of
social or political developments. When certain socio-political institutions begin to force the peasants
for surplus production only then it began to be produced and diverted to other non-agricultural
activities. It has also been pointed out that though the iron technology was known in peninsular India
(megalithic culture) but here it did not give rise to urbanization. It shows that mere presence of some
technology cannot make possible socio-political and economic developments. It is also noticeable that
from only four places the iron-plough-share is found (i.e., Ropar, Jakheda, Kaushambi and Vaishali),
but hunting tool and weapons are found almost from all the PGW sites. It suggests that iron was used
for military purposes in the beginning; and only at later stage, it came to be used for agricultural and
craft production.
Same is the view expressed by Vibha Tripathi. She argues that the earliest iron artifacts were
generally made for small hunting and fishing. As the initial developments were achieved, the
importance of iron was also realized and efforts were made to develop the iron technology further.
Gradually it was put in use to make several new objects ranging from simple hunting-fishing tools to
weapons for war, and subsequently agricultural, and day to day domestic objects. The association of
iron with the emergence and expansion of agriculture has been brought to critical analysis by Dilip K.
Chakrabarti. He argues that knowledge of agriculture was already present in the Chalcolithic and
Neolithic cultures of India. Therefore, iron only stimulated, not created the already established village
economy based on agriculture as well as hunting. Based on geological surveys of India, he further
points out the availability of iron ores almost across entire India suitable for pre-Industrial smelting
except in major alluvial regions. On the basis of this, he has rejected the widely popular belief that the
earliest iron was produced in India only by extracting the iron ores of eastern India. Hence, according
to him, in the Indian subcontinent iron came into use in different regions at different times. According
 20

to K. T. S. Sarao, the first cities in the Ganga valley emerged from rural background and were seats of
political authorities. As the demands of these primary cities grew secondary cities began to emerge
which were craft, trade and commerce centric. In this way according to Sarao, the political
developments were the reasons, which led to the rapid urbanization, demand for surplus, and
expansion of trading network.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions
1. How according to R. S. Sharma the iron technology caused the second urbanization?
Write a short note.
________________________________________________________________________
2. Write a short note on A. Ghosh’s view on iron technology.
3. ________________________________________________________________________
4. Explain the term ayas.
________________________________________________________________________
2.3 IRON AGE AGRICULTURE: TECHNIQUES, PROCESSES, CROPS, AND IRRIGATION
Unlike Indus valley, the mid Ganga valley was densely forested due to heavy seasonal rains,
and the soil of this area was hard. Therefore, both iron technology and fire were employed in the
clearing of the Ganga valley forests. In the Sathapatha Brahmana, a story talks about Mathava
Videgha Brahmana, who carried fire up to the Sadanira River near Kosala. According to scholars, this
story implies the use of fire to burn the forests of upper Ganga valley (up to Allahabad), and
colonization of this area by the Indo-Aryans. In addition to fire, iron tools such as axes, spades, adzes,
etc., were used by the people to remove the stumps and roots of trees from ground. Since the soil of
this area was hard, iron ploughshare was needed to break it to prepare it for sowing. Iron implements
thus enabled people to colonize the Ganga valley, and establish their settlements here.
In the later Vedic period, with the expansion of agriculture, sedentary settlements began to
emerge in the Ganga valley. The Satapatha Brahmana compares furrow marks with the womb in
which seeds were sown. It is further mentioned that casting seeds into unploughed fields is like
sowing seeds into any place other than the womb. Likewise, the Tattiriya Samhita mentions that
barley was sown in winter and harvested in summer; paddy was sown in monsoon and harvested in
autumn; tila (sesame) was sown in summer and harvested in winter. It suggests that both rabi (winter)
and kharif (summer) crops were known to the people. The Atharvaveda calls Indra the ‘Lord of the
plough’, and Marutas are mentioned as Indra’s ploughmen. Interestingly, Indra who is mentioned as a
war-god and destroyer of forts (i.e., purander) in the Rigveda, now is associated with plough and
production. It was seemingly due to a change in the economy of the Indo-Aryans, who by the later
Vedic period had transformed from pastoral-nomads to sedentary agricultural society. The
Atharvaveda records a charm to do away the pests and droughts to protect the crop from any harm:
“O Ashvins, slay the borer, the hooks, and the mole, cut off their heads and crush their ribs, shut their
mouth, that they shall not eat the barley, free the grain from danger.” It shows that agriculture had
become so important for people that they began to perform prayers, rituals and spells in order to
preserve and increase their crops.
 21

Technique of paddy transplantation evolved by the post Vedic period, and Panini has used in
his text, Ashtadhyayi terms life sali, vrihi and dhanya for paddy. According to Panini, a well-ploughed
field is called ‘suhali’ and ‘vraiheya’ type of soil suited paddy cultivation; yavya type of soil suited
wheat cultivation, and tilya type of land suited tila (sesame) cultivation. The Satapatha Brahmana
informs us about four stages of cultivation, viz., ploughing, sowing, harvesting, and threshing. The
Chullavagga (a part of the Vinaya Pitaka) describes various activities of peasants such as: ploughing,
sowing, irrigation, weeding out of undesirable plants, reaping, and winnowing. In a same way, the
Milindapanhao (the Questions of Milinda) describes several stages of cultivation, which are: removing
of weeds, thorns and stones from the field, ploughing, sowing, irrigation, fencing of the field, watching
or protecting the crop, reaping and threshing.
The Amarakosha of Amarasimha (circa 400 AD) mentions that a good cultivator would
cultivate his land twice or thrice before sowing seeds. After that, a certain measure of seeds was
sown there. A spade or hoe was used for loosening the soil for the encouragement of seedlings.
When the crop was ripe, sickle was used for reaping, and it was gathered on the threshing floor,
where it was threshed and winnowed. The straw and grain were thus separated. Then after, a pestle
was used for pounding corn and then the husk was separated from the grin by winnowing basket; the
grain was thus sacked and carefully stored in granary. According to the Brihaspati-Dharmshastra, a
good cultivator should refrain from cultivating an enclosed pasture-ground, land adjacent to a town, or
to the king’s highway, barren soil, and ground infested by mice. The text further adds that a man
would enjoy his produce who sows in fertile land, which has many holes, is wet, is capable of
irrigation, is surrounded by fields of all sides, and is cultivated in due season.
Crop Patterns
In the Ganga valley, earliest crop remains are found at Mahagarha and Koldihwa (Allahabad
district) in the Belan valley (dated 5000-4000 BC). From these places, remains of rice (Orizya sativa)
are found. From Neolithic-Chalcolithic sites, viz., Senuwar (Rohtas district) and Narhan (Gorakhpur
district), several cereals are discovered. These cereals are kodon millet, pearl millet, pulses (e.g.,
chick-pea or gram, field pea, green gram, horse-ram (kulthi), grass pea, keshari, lentil, moth-bean,
and aconite bean), oil seeds (e.g., sarson, sesame, linseed or flax), and fruits (e.g., grapes, dates,
jackfruits, watermelon). Remains of rice, barley, dwarf wheat, bread wheat, sorghum, and millet are
found at Senuwar. However, it was in the Iron Age, starting by about 10 th century BC, a stable and
sound agrarian economy began to take roots in the mid-Ganga valley.
The literary sources provide a long list of cereals that had become commonplace in the later
Vedic period. These cereals are: barley, paddy, wheat, millet, lentil, kulthi, moonga, black-gram,
sesame, and so forth. Several types of rice such as dhanya, vrihi, shastika (ordinary paddy), sali (best
variety of rice), and plasuka (fast growing rice) are mentioned. Panini in the Ashtadhyayi refers to sali,
which was an improvised variety of the Vedic period vrihi that is sown by scattering the seeds during
the rainy season. Sali was grown by transplanting. In the Jain text, Nayadharmmkahoo (also called
Jnatadharmaktha, circa 300 BC) paddy transplantation technique is mentioned, which was in practice
in Bihar, Anga, Magadha, Mithila and Rajagriha. The Pali texts also refer to various crops such as
wheat, paddy, barley, millet, beans, rye, oats, lintels, sesame, and so forth. Oils made of cotton, flax,
and hemp, and dyes such as madder and indigo are mentioned in the Pali literature. It is mentioned
 22

that most of the dyes were made of roots, leaves, flowers, and fruits of various plants. Spices such as
long pepper, round pepper, beetroot, onion, turmeric, ginger, and garlic are also mentioned.
In eastern India, barley and rice were common and wheat was more popular in western India.
Double cropping or crop rotation was practised. Seemingly, rice, bajra, millets, horse gram, green
gram, moth bean, and black gram are grown usually in warm-rainy season, while wheat, barley, lentil
and field pea are the winter crops. According to Panini’s Ashtadhyayi, winter crops (rabi) were known
as ashvayujaka, summer crops (kharif) as graishmaka, and spring crops as vasantaka. Greek author
Eratosthenes (circa 230 AD, quoted in Strabo) provides a short list of two seasonal harvests that were
taking place in India. He mentions that flax, millet (possibly ragi), sesame, rice, bosmorum (possibly
bajra) were cultivated in summer-rainy season (kharif), and crops like wheat, barley, pulses and other
edible crops were grown in winter season (rabi). Eratosthenes also informs us about sugarcane or
large sweet reeds. Another Greco-Roman writer, Megillus (quoted in Strabo) informs that in India rice
required irrigation and transplantation.
From Sanghol several grains and plant remains are identified in excavations, which belong to
the Kushana period (circa 100-300 AD). These grains and plants are, viz., rice, barley, wheat, jowar,
chick pea, lentil, grass pea, green gram, black gram, cow pea, horse gram, sesame, cotton, black
pepper, coriander, date, anwla, custard apple, walnut, almond, jamuna, phalsa, and so forth. The
Arthashastra provides a long list of crops that were cultivated in India, and these crops are: rice,
‘kodu’ millet, sesame, Italian millet, common millet, mung or mudga, urad, poor man’s millet,
safflower, lentils, horse-gram, barley, wheat, flax or linseed, mustard, sugarcane, and long pepper.
According to the Arthashastra, though cultivation of sugarcane involved much expense and risk, profit
from it is also high. Making of guds (concrete sugar), khanda (candied sugar) and sharkara (hard
grained sugar) from sugarcane is also mentioned in the same text. The Amarkosha of Amarasimha
(circa 400 AD) and the Brihatsamhita of Varahamihira (circa 600 AD) inform us about sugarcane
cultivation, and sugar industry. It is mentioned that raw sugar and refined sugar were manufactured
from sugarcane’s juice.
However, neither the Arthashastra nor Panini nor Eratosthenes consider cotton as an
agricultural crop, information regarding it comes from Alexander’s admiral Nearchus. Nearchus
described cotton as being gathered from tree and not from the small bush, which forms the annual
crop. Noticeably, while Panini has a reference to nila for cloth dyed with indigo, the Katayayana (circa
250 BC) treats nila (indigo) as plant. Horticulture was well developed by the Mauryan period. Ashoka’s
edicts provide the earliest epigraphic evidence of mango-groves. Ashoka speaks of his planting
medical plants, roots and fruits in his Rock Edict-I. Likewise, Rock Edict-IV and Queen’s Edict inform
us about mango-groves. The Arthashastra refers to the cultivation of grapes. Nevertheless, in post-
Mauryan period, the most remarkable development in horticulture was the arrival of coconut tree from
South East Asia. The earliest archaeological evidence of coconut fibre (coir) in India has come from
the port of Arikamedu (Tamil Nadu). An inscription from Nasik (circa 100 AD) records the plantation of
32,000 coconut saplings in a village near Nasik by the Saka-Kshatrapa king Nahapana. Another Nasik
inscription records the plantation and donation of 8000 coconut trees to different religious groups.
Besides its fruits, the coconut plant provided coconut coir, which was widely in use as cordage to
fasten the wooden planks of watercrafts.
 23

The Periplus of Erythraen Sea (early centuries of the Christian era) reports the cultivation of
betel nut in western Karnataka, Kerala and Bengal. The black pepper was another important agro-
product, grown in the Malabar Coast of Kerala. It was exported to west, and according to Pliny’s
Naturalis Historia, and the Periplus of Erythraen Sea black pepper was highly in demand in Roman
Empire. The Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa records that the southern India was the home of pepper and
cardamom, and they were grown abundantly in the valley of mount Malaya (i.e., modern Nilagiri hills).
The Amarkosha informs us about various types of cotton plants such as wild cotton, silk cotton, and
black silk cotton. The same text refers to various agro-products, for instance, flex, hemp, mustard oil,
sesame, linseeds, tamarind, black mustard, aloe, indigo, long pepper, pepper, large cardamoms,
small cardamoms, spikenard, betel nut, ginger, turmeric, and so forth. Here it is noticeable that
plantations and groves are different from common agricultural fields, as their maintenance required
high investments. It suggests the emergence of a higher class of peasants different from ordinary
cultivators. Agro-products such as sugarcane, indigo, cotton, coconut, and betel nut were grown for
markets, and therefore, were important cash crops of early India.
Agricultural Tools
The later Vedic period informs us that ploughs were dragged by six, eight, twelve, and even
twenty-four oxen in fields. It suggests that heavy plough was used to break the hard soil of the Ganga
valley. The Atharvaveda refers to a plough of khadir wood. The Sathapatha Brahmana describes the
wooden plough to be as hard as of bone, and that it was being used considerably. Noticeably, the
Griha-Sutra attests the use of the iron ploughshare. In the Panini’s Ashtadhyayi we find a clear
reference to the iron ploughshare as ‘ayovikara kusi’ and ‘hal’. The Sutanipata (a Pali text) uses a
term ‘phala’ for ploughshare. In the Kapalika Sutta, term ‘kuddala’ or ‘kuddalika’ is used for hoe.
Agriculture, by the sixth century BC, became so intimately associated with people’s life that the
Baudhayana-Dharmasutra declared that a person equipped with implements like kuddalika could
make a living out of it, perhaps by tilling other people’s fields.
Information available in the early Indian literature has been attested by archaeological
evidences. For instance, remains of iron-ploughshare are found from post-Vedic levels at Ropar,
Jakhera, Kaushambi and Vaishali. From the Mauryan period levels at Ataranjikhera comes an iron
ploughshare fixed to the wooden frame of the plough. From the same level, iron sickles are also
discovered. The Manu-smriti (circa 200 BC-AD 200) describes it as a ‘wooden implement with iron
point that injures the earth and its creatures.’ From Taxila and Sanchi in excavations are found
several agricultural tools such as ploughshares, sickles, and so forth. The Amarakosha of
Amarasimha (circa 400 AD) informs us that the plough consisting of the following parts, viz., the pole
or shaft of the yoke, the pin of the yoke, the ploughshare, and the tie of the yoke, were used by the
peasants. According to the Brihaspati Dharmashastra, iron twelve palas in weight should be formed
into a ploughshare. It should be eight angulas long by four angulas broad or approximately six inches
by three.
Irrigation
The mid-Ganga valley received an annual rainfall ranging between 45 and 55 inches, and in
some areas, it is as high as 70 inches per year. This was conducive for agriculture, particularly paddy
cultivation. The Aparajitapraccha mentions that rivers, streams, wells, tanks, river-dams, machine-
 24

wells, and canals were the source of water. B. D. Chattopadhyaya on the basis of epigraphical studies
shows that in different areas geo-ecological factors played an important role in the organisation of
agriculture and irrigation. In Bengal, due to the presence of rivers and streams, irrigation depended on
rivers water; in south-Karnataka tanks and in South Eastern Marwar wells provided irrigation facilities.
A Jain text, the Brihatkalpa Bhashya, also highlights the regional variations in the organisation of
irrigation facilities in Indian subcontinent. According to this text, in Gujarat and Western India rain was
the source of irrigation; rivers were the source of irrigation in Sindhu region (North Western India);
ponds were the source of irrigation in Southern India, and in Northern India, wells were the source of
irrigation. In some areas, floodwater was used for irrigation. In addition, in the mid-Ganga valley
perennial rivers facilitated irrigation. However, the major form of irrigation remains the building of
embankments across small streams, converting them into tanks. It is noticeable that small-scale
irrigation projects such as wells, tanks and ponds, were often organised by the individuals or local
peasant groups; but state too in some cases financed and maintained irrigation works.
The Greek ambassador Megasthenes informs us about the Agronomoi officials, who were
supposed to supervise the sluices on rivers in countryside. Likewise, the Arthashastra talks about an
irrigation tax that ranged from 1/5th to 1/3rd of the produce. This text strongly recommends the state to
take up irrigation projects. Another famous state sponsored irrigation project was Sudarshana Lake,
which was constructed by embanking a local stream near ancient Girinagara (Girnar in Gujarat)
during the reign of the Mauryan king Chandragupta Maurya. The lake was constructed by the
provincial governor, Pushyagupta of Chandgraupta, and it was enlarged during the reign of
Chandragupta’s grandson Ashoka. Mauryan king Ashoka’s provincial governor, Tushapa adorned this
lake with conduits. Subsequently, the Saka-Kshatrapa king Rudradamana in about 150 AD repaired
this lake, when it was breached due to heavy storm. This lake was again repaired by Sakandagupta’s
provincial governor, Paranadatta in about 6th century AD. It shows that Sudarashana Lake was a state
maintained irrigation project that remained in use for more than eight hundred years. This lake
became so popular that several lakes or ponds constructed by Vakataka rulers were named after it.
For instance, the Ramatek inscription of the Vakataka times records the excavation of a tank, which
was donated to a temple. This lake is mentioned in the inscription as Sudarshana. Likewise, the
Hisse-Borala inscription (circa 500 AD) informs us about the construction of a Sudarshana lake in a
place near modern Wasim in Maharashtra.
Another important state maintained irrigation project was constructed in Kashmir. The
Rajatarangini of Kalhana informs us that during the reign of Avantivarman, his minister Suyya
embanked the river Jhelum to save Kashmir from devastating floods of the Mahapadma Lake. Suyya
deepened the bed of Jhelum of its two ends, cleaned the riverbed of the bottom, and built protective
stone embankments along the riverbank. In this way, he shifted the junction of Jhelum and Sindhu
from its old location to the existing position. On the land raised from the water, he founded many
villages protected by circular dykes and constructed extensive projects. Likewise, the king Lalitadiya
Muktapida reclaimed many hitherto water logged areas and constructed several series of
waterwheels.
Canals, which were also used for irrigation, were constructed by the rulers. For instance, the
Kharavela’s Hathigumpha inscription (circa 100 BC) speaks of a canal, which the Nanda rules of
Magadha had laid out in Kalinga (Odisha). This canal was restored by king Kharavela of Chedi
 25

dynasty of Kalinga. From Besnagar (ancient Vidisha) remains of a large irrigation canal (185’x7’x5’)
are found that was possibly built by the local rulers. Epigraphs also record the construction and
donation of wells and ponds by royal officials to religious establishments. According to an epigraph, a
Greek named Theodorus donated an excavated tank near Taxila (circa 100 AD). At Mathura, a state
official named Sodasa caused the construction of a tank. He also financed the strengthening of the
embankment of another tank. Besides kings and their officials, individuals and professional groups
also financed irrigation facilities. The Myakadoni inscription (Bellary district, Karnataka) of second
century AD, informs us about a reservoir that was dug by a gahapati, named Sambe in Vepuraka
village. The Kopparam plates inscription (circa 700 AD) refers to the construction of a water tank by
blacksmiths in Irabuli village. Likewise, a ninth century AD inscription mentions about a goldsmith and
washer-men’s tanks in southern Karnataka.
Literature and epigraphs also provide information about water-lifting device. For instance, the
Arthashastra informs us about two types of water-lifting devices. First type of device was hand-pulled-
water-bucket that was employed to draw water from a well by oxen by rope over a pulley-wheel. And
second type of device was moved by the shoulder. It was possibly a noria, an earlier, which was an
earlier form of araghatta. The term araghatta refers to a wheel with pots tied to its spokes. This device
subsequently became quite popular across Indian subcontinent. In the Chullavagga Nikaya (circa 350
BC), araghatta is mentioned as chakkavattaka (i.e., turning wheel). Pear-like-pots, suitable for such a
wheel, have been found in large number at the Mauryan period Bhir Mound at Taxila. Without gearing
and the chain of pots, the araghatta could have been worked only on ponds or streams with the wheel
turned by the pressure of human shoulders. Likewise, an earlier version of the Panchatantra (circa
300 AD) probably gives us the early reference to the araghatta, i.e., a wheel carrying pots tied to the
end f its spokes. It was technically is called ‘noria’.
A ‘noria’ is the scientific term for vertical wheel that has water containers on its rim. Set up
over a sheet of water, its rim-containers pick up water as these go down into the water and then
come-up with a rotation of the wheel. When they pass the top of the wheel and descend, they empty
themselves, pouring their water into channels prepared alongside. In the first millennium AD, the
device was further developed, and the pots were transferred from the spokes or rim to a rope chain or
pot-garland. Now water could be lifted from great dept, e.g., deep well. The earliest reference of it
appears in the Mandasor inscription of Yasodharman (circa 532 AD). The inscription presents a poetic
account of a fine well, which is expected to be as perpetual as the ocean and the moon. The said well
had the elevational grace of a mansion. It was notable for its rotary motion, resembling a garland of
skulls and discharged nectar like pure water.
According to Irfan Habib, development from ‘noria’ to ‘saqia’ (i.e., Persian wheel) happened in
two stages. At first, ‘noria’ without gearing mechanism was in use. Then saqia with gearing
mechanism was developed by the 13th century AD. But Harbans Mukhia argues in favour of three
stage development. According to him, ghattiyantra was an improvement in araghatta, as it had
bucket-chain but no gearing device. A ghattiyantra as an irrigation device is therefore often held as a
‘pot-garland’. However, in ancient Indian literature terms araghatta and ghattiyantra have been used
interchangeably. An araghatta, Hemchandra explains as a contrivance for raising water from a well in
which a horizontal beam – from one end of which a bucket hangs- see-saws on vertical post.
Nevertheless, it is noticeable that araghattas were mostly owned by the kings, royal officials,
 26

ministers, and rich merchants. It means establishment of this type of water lifting device required
considerable resources that were not easily available to ordinary peasants.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions
1. What is the meaning of vrihi?
________________________________________________________________________
2. Write a short note on araghatta.
________________________________________________________________________
3. Write a short note on Sudarashana Lake.
________________________________________________________________________
4. What is the meaning of ‘phala’?
________________________________________________________________________
5. Write a short note on cash crops.
________________________________________________________________________

2.4 SUMMARY
Iron technology played an important role in the spread of agriculture particularly in the mid-
Ganga valley. With the availability of iron tools and implements, it became possible to colonise the
forested areas. Various types of crops ranging from wheat, barley, pulses, paddy, spices, vegetables,
fruits, sugarcane, cotton, and so forth began to be cultivated, and diverse types of irrigation methods
such as wells, lakes, canals, waterwheels, etc., were developed. Now peasantry could produce
enough food to sustain non-producing groups of ancient Indian society.
2.5 REFERENCES & FURTHER READINGS
1. Chakravarti, Ranabir, Exploring Early India up to c. 1300, Macmillan: New Delhi, 2013 revised
edition.
2. Sahu, B. P., (ed.) Iron and Social Change in Early India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
2006.
3. Singh, Upinder, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From Stone Age to the 12th
Century, Pearson Longman: Delhi, 2009.
4. Chakravarti, Ranabir, ‘Agricultural Technology in Early Medieval India (c. AD 500-1300)’, in
The Medieval History Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 229-258, 2008.
5. Gopal, L., ‘Agriculture’, in History of Technology in India- Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 AD,
(ed.) A. K. Bag, Indian National Science Academy: New Delhi, pp. 391-436, 1997.
2.6 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Write an essay on the iron technology and the surplus production debate.
2. Discuss the impact of iron technology on agricultural activities.
3. Critically analyse the various types of irrigation methods that were in use in the Iron Age.
 27

Lesson - 3

LAND RIGHTS (COMMUNAL RIGHTS,

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND ROYAL RIGHTS)
STRUCTURE
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Communal Ownership of Land
3.3 Individual Rights
3.3 Royal Ownership of Land
3.5 Summary
3.6 Reference & Further Readings
3.7 Model Questions
3.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:
 learn about the individual property rights.
 understand the nature of communal property rights.
 gain knowledge about the royal property rights.
 acquire knowledge of varied property rights, and their impact on overall property relations in
countryside.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In the case of common or communal ownership, the land was held in common, the community
having the collective ownership. Varieties of this were possible. Very often arable lands were divided
among the members of the community, while the wasteland, for grazing purposes, was kept in
common. In the case of the individual ownership, the different portions of the village were taken up or
held separately or individually. In addition to communal and individual property rights, the king too
enjoyed certain authority over the entire land of his kingdom that he utilised while making land grants
to individuals as well as institutions. Therefore, without understanding varied rights in land, the nature
of rural relations cannot be understood.
3.2 COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP OF LAND
The nature of communal rights in land had changed over the period, and in different contexts,
its character appears to have been different. For instance, the Rigvedic society was pastoralist and
agriculture was practiced in limited way; livestock breeding and cattle herding were major activities.
 28

Pastoralism depended on assured grazing grounds and the ability to accumulate and increase the
herd, and this being the primary source of wealth. Grazing grounds are liable to change since the
same pastures may not remain constant year after year, and cattle herders have to be mobile since
the economy depended on cattle herds, identification with land played a peripheral role, and the
search for more pastures remained important.
Pastures were owned communally by the clan members, who enjoyed utility rights over it;
during the later Vedic period, agriculture gradually expanded and became important. With it, land
came to be seen as a property, but it remained a clan holding. The Aitreya Brahmana and the
Satapatha Brahmana record that the raja (or tribal chief) was rebuked by the earth, i.e., Prithvi, when
he tried to make a land grant. It is mentioned that raja (or tribal chief) cannot settle people on land
without the consent of the clans. Noticeably, there is no reference related to sale or purchase of land
in the Vedic texts. It suggests that during the Vedic period, land had not become a private or individual
property, and it mainly belonged to all the clan members, who enjoyed utility rights over it. The Vedic
tribes were bifurcated into two groups, a) Rajana/ Rajanya and b) Vis during the early Vedic period.
The Rajana was a ruling group, while Vis section was indulged in production activities. Clan land were
held in common by both the groups (Rajana and Vis), but the land was worked by the Vis mainly.
When tribes settled down in specific territories, and land was converted into agricultural fields or
pastures, it came to be owned by entire clan. The rights on land were apparently usage rights, since
private ownership is not recorded in the Vedic literature. The land perhaps was redistributed among
different families of the clan and these families used it for production activities. This distribution of land
possibly was done by lots, and cultivation could have also been carried out by rotation, with no claims
to ownership.
Situation began to change in later Vedic period with the transformation of early Vedic social
structure. From the ranks of Rajana arose kshatriyas as they gradually extended their authority by
subordinating the Vis section. From the ranks of Vis emerged Vaishyas, who were intimately
associated with production, such as agriculture, cattle husbandry, and so forth. The land settled by the
tribe (jana) came to be known as janapadas. Household system and extended patriarchal family
system based on kinship tier emerged with the formation of private property in land. By the end of
later Vedic period, two political systems evolved: a) monarchy, which witnessed the disappearance of
clan-property, and b) Gana-sangha (oligarchy), in which society was divided into kshatriyas, who
owned the land and dasa-karamkaras (slaves and hired labourers), who cultivated their land. In Gana-
sangha, the land was held jointly by the kshatriya families/clans, having kinship ties, therefore the
ownership was based on birth. The produce as wealth was probably distributed among clan members
by following certain rules or procedure. In Gana-sangha, we find the absence of Vis section; it means
production was controlled and managed by the kshatriyas, who employed various non-kin labour
groups to undertake production work. The Gana-sanghas were oligarchies, and some of the important
ones are: Shakyas, Koliyas, Mallas, Moriyas, Jnatrikas, Lichchhavis, and so forth.
Contrarily, in monarchies we witness the emergence of individual private property along with
the emergence of varna-jati system, taxation, army, and so forth. Village emerged as the lowest
production unit, inhabited mainly by the cultivators, many of whom enjoyed property rights in land.
Besides private agricultural fields, cultivators enjoyed access to communal lands such as go-marga,
 29

go-vata, go-patha, go-cera, etc. Such common lands were communally owned and maintained in a
village by the inhabitants. Here it is noticeable that it was not the membership of a clan, which had
disappeared by now, but the residence in the concerned village provided the utility right over
communal lands to inhabitants of the village. In a village, communal land comprised pastures or
grazing grounds, water resources (e.g., tanks, wells, ponds, etc), village paths, entrance, and so forth.
According to Kautilaya’s Arthashastra, each village must be surrounded by the go-cara-bhumi, i.e.,
grazing-ground, and it has been laid that the cowherds shall graze in the forests, which are allotted as
pasture ground for various reasons. It is further added by Kautilaya that a village should have certain
objects such as village ponds, village gate, irrigation tanks, roads, bridges, parks, etc., as a common
property of the villagers. The Manu-Samhita mentions that the king should make special provisions for
the communal pastures. Even the Jataka stories show that the belt of meadowland around the
gramakheta (village land) and un-cleared waste and woodland were enjoyed by the villagers in
common. Epigraphs too indicate the presence of communal land.
Epigraphs too indicate the presence of communal land in early India. An inscription from Nasik
region (in Maharashtra) belonging to the post-Maurya period, records a gift of a village by the
“Nasikakas”. The term “Nasikakas” has been translated as “the people of Nasik”. Since the village is
donated by a group of donors, it is possible that they perhaps exercised a joint ownership over the
village in question. Likewise, another inscription from the Vaillabhattasvamin temple (in Gwalior) of the
ninth century AD, informs us about the land owned by a corporal body. It mentions that the town
Gopagiri (i.e., Gwalior) donated a piece of a land, situated in a village Chudaapallika, which was
town’s property to the temple of Durga. This land was donated to prepare a flower garden for temples.
The same town donated another piece of land in the village Jayapuraka, which was town’s property,
to the temples of Vishnu and Durga, for the performance of worship. The donated land comprised a
field cultivated by Dallaka and another field cultivated by Memaka. Noticeably, the city administration
was run by a board, comprising a merchant Vavviyaka, the trader Ichchuvaka, and others, which
donated land owned by the city.
The epigraphs also record the donation of land, particularly the revenue rights, to a group of
donors, and by doing so, land grants too created communal rights in land in ancient India. For
instance, the Khoh inscription of Parivrajaka king Hastin of the fifth century AD records a donation of a
village named Vasuntarashandika to six brahmanas with fiscal and administrative rights. Another
Khoh inscription of king Hastin mentions that the donation of a village Koparika to twenty-one
brahmanas with fiscal and administrative rights. These donees enjoyed the revenue and
administrative rights, but seemingly, land remitted in the hands of actual tillers. These donees could
not evict, sell, or mortgage the donated fields. In this way, these brahmanas enjoyed a join-right over
the donated land. The point is further reinforced by the Karandai plates of Rajendra Chola-I (1020 AD)
that records the creation of an agrahara (also mentioned as brahmdeya) benefitting 1080 brahmanas.
Noticeably, a brahmdeya was not exclusively a settlement of brahmanas, but was often inhabited by
non-brahmana cultivators or service personnel working for the village as a whole, and for the land
controlling brahmanas as well. There are also instances of pre-existing pastoral-cum-agricultural
settlements, which were clubbed together and granted as brahmdeya. The brahmana community was
a landlord body over a class of peasants, which collected certain shares of the yield from local
 30

peasantry. Seemingly, entire donated land belonged to the body of brahmana landlords that enjoyed a
control over revenue and dues, while local peasantry remained in control of their respective fields.
Contrarily, as G. R. Kuppuswamy has shown that a copper plate inscription of Kadamba
Tribhuvanamalla (1106 AD) from Goa records the creation of a brahmana’s settlement in which the
land ownership belonged to entire community. This epigraph informs us about the establishment of a
brahmana settlement at Gopaka of 12 families, belonging to various gotras. As the stipulations of the
settlement read:
‘All the land and houses were to be treated as common property and income accruing
therefrom was to be distributed equally among the 12 families. The sellers and purchasers of a
part of it were to be liable to a fine of 500 coins. A member was entitled to his share so long as
he remained in the settlement. In case he left the place, his portion was to be enjoyed by the
rest and the deserter was liable to a fine if he claimed his share. A new person can be
accommodated in the vacant house with the consent of the residents in general and
neighbours in particular.’
According to Kuppuswamy, this inscription shows that the common ownership was complete
and no part of the property could be disposed of except under heavy penalty. Residential qualification
was insisted upon and absentee landlordism was never tolerated. Perhaps it was with the expectation
of continued co-operation and to preserve the corporate atmosphere that the consent of all the
residents and particularly of neighbours was insisted upon before a new person could be
accommodated. More than anything else, the principle of equal sharing of income or produce
prevented the growth of proprietary interests, though it might have killed the spirit of individual
initiative and enterprise. An individual either fell or prospered with the community as a whole.
Now students let us do some activity:
Self assessment questions
1. Explain the term Rajana/ Rajanya.
________________________________________________________________________
2. What is the meaning of go-cara-bhumi?
________________________________________________________________________
3. Who controlled land in a gana-sangha?
________________________________________________________________________

3.3 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

There are evidence which points to the existence of private ownership of cultivated land even
in the post Vedic period. The Pali canonical works, reflecting the practice in the Age of Buddha, show
a developed sense of individual ownership. In these works, peasant proprietors are called khettapati,
khettasamika or vatthupati, who cultivated the arable land. There cannot be any doubt that the
conception of ownership in land had developed. Boundaries were set to distinguish the plots of land
possessed by different owners. The canonical literature reveals that land was classed with cattle and
 31

other moveable and immovable property as the personal property of a householder. The sale and
mortgage, etc., of land are also referred to. Stories in Buddhist literature record several instances of
gifts of land. For instance, a story in the Vinaya Pitaka describes the purchase of a garden, Jetavana
by a merchant named Anathapindika for the establishment of a Buddhist monastery. It is mentioned
that Anathapindika purchased Jetavana from its owner by making a payment in gold pieces. Later, he
donated this garden to Buddha. It implies that land could be owned by individuals, who enjoyed a right
to sale, or donate it to someone else. Noticeably, the Arthashastra prescribes an order of priority of
choosing buyers- kinsmen, neighbours and rich persons- when a piece of land is sold.
Likewise, information is provided by Jain literature. The Uttaradhyayana Sutra mentions land
(khetta) along with cattle, gold, dwelling places, etc., as means of obtaining pleasure. According to the
Brihatkalpa Bhasya agricultural land or khetta (land) is considered among the ten kinds of external
possessions, others being buildings, gold, conveyances, furniture, etc. There are many references
showing that lands and houses formed the main possessions of a householder. There are indications
in the Arthashastra too which show private ownership of land. Firstly, Kautilaya uses the word
svamyam or ownership while dealing with disputes about the sale of land and about a person driving
cattle through a field without informing the owner. The field of the different holders were demarcated
by boundaries, an encroachment upon which was an offence. The Arthashastra deals with boundary
disputes between individuals. The private ownership of land is further clear from the rules, relating to
the construction of irrigation-works on another cultivator’s plot. The cultivator had the right to
alienating his field. He could lease it to others for cultivation. The land could also be sold by the
cultivator. Dispossessing a person of his field was a penal offence. Kautilaya gives detailed rules
regarding all these points. Making improvements on another’s plot did not create any right of
ownership. Important evidence in favour of private ownership is the rule that a person, who steals
images of gods or of animals, abducts men, or takes possession of the fields, houses, gold, gold
coins, precious stones, or crops of others, shall be beheaded or compelled to pay the highest
amercement. At another place, the Arthashastra discusses the question of the fatherhood of a child:
Whether it belongs to the husband or to him from whom the seed is received? The analogy on which
the two alternative claims are based is that of the ownership of the crop: does it belong to the owner
of the field or to the person who sows the seed in the field?
The traditional Indian point of view on the question of the ownership of land is best reflected in
the legal texts. In early Indian legal literature, a clear distinction between the concepts of ownership
and possession are maintained. The pronoun svam and it derivatives are used to express ownership,
while the derivatives of the root bhuj indicate mere possession or enjoyment. It has been maintained
that the ownership (svatva) as property capable of being disposed of as one likes. The germ of the
concept of private or individual ownership of land is contained in the idea of first occupation, which
underlies the popular maxim of Manu: “The field belongs to him who first removed the weed and the
deer belongs to him who first wounded it”. The aphorism of Manu refers perhaps to that stage of
development when land was not scarce, i.e., the pressure of population on land was not so much as
to cause its scarcity. The prevalence of such a condition in certain parts of the country may be
inferred from a passage of the Milindapanho (Questions of Milinda), which refers to “an individual who
 32

clears the forest and takes other steps to make the land suitable for cultivation”. Evidently, in those
parts of the country where land was not scarce, it may have been possible the absence of any legal
title, though possession in this case was “fundamentally different from the notion of permanent
dominium”.
In those parts of the country, however, were conditions slightly advanced and demand for land
had increased Manu’s analogy of deer and land lost its validity. First occupation was no longer
considered a criterion of valid possession, so that the lawgivers suggest another mode of legal
acquisition of land. According to Brihaspati, he who had occupied land quite unopposed and
uninterrupted for a period of thirty years could not be deprived of such a property. Further, according
to the same lawgiver when enjoyment of property extending over three generations descendent to the
fourth, it became legitimate possession and a title was not necessary. However, their recognition of
simple possession of long standing as a criterion of ownership, the jurists themselves lay much
emphasis on its insufficiency and lay down that ownership is not possible without legal title. Another
lawgiver, Narada says that he, who can plead possession without being able to produce any legal
title, must be considered a thief, and the ruler of the land should inflict upon him the punishment
ordained for a thief.
That the ancient Indians were acquainted with individual holdings of land is further
substantiated by the various modes suggested by the lawgivers. For instance, the Apastamba
Dharmasutra grants to cultivators the right to lease their fields against half or any other fixed share of
the produce. Vyasa and Brihaspati also refer to the leasing of fields. Further, a cultivator had the right
to use his field as a pledge. Manu and Narada place lands, houses, etc., in the category of pledges,
which can be used. Bharadvaja gives a list of debtor’s possessions, by selling which a creditor is to be
paid if the debtor has no cash; these properties in order are: grain, gold, iron, cattle, clothes, land,
slaves, and conveyances, in the absence of his fields his garden, and lastly his house. Epigraphs also
corroborate the testimony of the Smriti literature, and reveal that arable land was divided into plots
over which farmers had proprietary rights. A Nasik cave inscription records the gift of a field for
providing clothes for ascetics living in one of the Nasik caves. The Junar inscriptions supply significant
instances of private transfers of land and of the gift of small units of agricultural land, owned by
individual proprietors. The evidence of the two Kangra inscriptions 804 AD may also be profitably
utilized here. These epigraphs record, among many donations by private individuals to a Shiva
temple, the gift of agricultural land. This evidence provides an example of the ownership of land by
merchants.
Apparently, power of gift, sale, and mortgage is the ultimate test of ownership according to
early Indian legal writers. It appears from above that not only the legal literature attribute the right of
alienation of land to individual. The right of cultivators to do with their fields as they liked establishes
full individual right over agricultural land. Therefore, Yajnavalkya treats dispossession of another’s
field as a penal offence. The fear of religion was also brought to bear on the question. Theft of land
was viewed as one of the four great sins. Hell is mentioned as the punishment for this sin, and lunar
penance has been prescribed to expunge its guilt. Thus we find that Indian legal texts grant a peasant
all the rights of sale, gift, mortgage, etc., which form ownership.
 33

Now students let us do some activity:

Self assessment questions
1. What were the ultimate tests of property ownership in early India?
________________________________________________________________________
2. How Kautilaya in the Arthashastra defines individual rights in land?
________________________________________________________________________

3.4 ROYAL OWNERSHIP OF LAND

There was a difference of opinion between two groups of ancient Indian writers as regards the
king’s ownership of land. One of these two schools, represented by Jaimini, Sabara and others, held
that the State was not the owner of all land, but was only entitled to levy taxes from the holders of the
land. This view emphasises the idea that the king collects taxes in lieu of the protection he offers to
the subjects. On the other hand, the second school, even acknowledging the king’s responsibility to
protect his subjects, lays emphasis on the concept that the king is not only the embodiment of various
divinities and a great god in human form, but that he is the lord of the soil. For instance, according to
the Manu-Samhita, the king was a human god, responsible for the protection of the people and as the
owner of all hand. The text further mention that all the treasure-trove found underneath the ground
and all the produce of the mines, belong to the king. It is because king affords protection and he is the
lord of the earth.
Likewise, Katyayana declares that the king has always been declared the lord of the soil and
not of other things, for otherwise he would not receive one-sixth of the produce. Since creatures
inhabit the land, the king is also declared their lord, and thus, he acquires the right to the agriculture
tax. Similar views are proposed by the Arthashastra, which says: “Lands may be confiscated for those
who do not cultivate them, and given to others”. This statement of Kautilaya in the Arthashastra has
been taken to imply king’s absolute ownership of land. Similar is the view of Megasthenes, who
mentions, ‘All India is the property of the crown, and no private person is permitted to own land.’ The
Chinese traveller, Fa-xian (present in India 399-414 AD) and Xuan Zang (present in India 630-644
AD), while describing land tenure in India have used the expression “royal land” for the whole territory
of the state.
The most important development of the post-Mauryan period was the expansion of agriculture
beyond the Ganga valley along with the emergence of new state polities like the Satavahanas in
Deccan. During this period for the first time, epigraphic records mention the donation of land to
Buddhist monasteries and individual brahmanas by the Satavahana ruling house. In the Nasik
inscription of Gotamiputra Satakarni (about 124 AD) is mentioned the land donation by the royal
house with all the immunities to Tekirasi ascetics. In an inscription, the king Gotamiputra Satakarni
calls the donated field in the village as his own. Later this field was taken back as it remained
uninhabited and uncultivated. In its place, a field from a royal village, situated near a town, was
donated to the same ascetic community. Another inscription mentions that the Satavahana king
Vasishthiputra Pulumavi (about 152 AD) donated a village named Samalipadra in a place of a village
called Sudasana, which had been donated earlier, to Buddhist monks residing in queen’s cave (or a
cave donated by the queen). In a same way, the Chendallur plates of Pallava king Kumaravishnu-I
 34

mentions that in the village of Chandalura in Kavacakarabhoga subdivision of the district of

Kammanka-rashtra, the king’s domain in the four directions amounts to eight hundred pattakas, and
that out of this a field amounting altogether to four hundred and thirty-two pattikas has been given as
a brahmdeya. The ability of the king to make a land grant has been interpreted by some scholars as
implying the complete ownership of the king over the entire kingdom.
These views have been questioned by the scholars by providing alternative views. It is
mentioned that though Manu-Samhita, assigns the king a complete ownership over all land, but he
himself also prescribes various norms regarding the private ownership. For example, Manu says that
if a person continued to cultivate, and enjoy the land for ten years he would become the owner of it. At
another place, Manu says that a person, who clears the forest to bring the land under cultivation, that
land would belong to him. Similar views are provided by other lawgivers. The Gautam Dharmasutra
says that if a person remains in possession and use of a land for about ten years, he becomes the
owner. Likewise, the Yajnavalkya-smriti prescribes twelve years, while the Narada-smriti and the
Brihaspati-smriti suggest about sixty years for the same. Manu’s list of private property comprises,
viz., fields, houses, tanks, and a garden. Both Manu and Narada prescribe that a house as well as
land could be pledged if required. Similarly, Manu refers to the merit of the gift of land. It clearly shows
that Manu and other lawgivers acknowledge the presence of private property.
As far as the views of Megasthenes are concerned regarding the king is being the ownership
of entire land of the kingdom, it appears that as being a foreigner he was not aware of Indian customs
and political ideologies. He was making sense of the Indian society and system in terms of his own
experience of a situation back home. He possibly assumed the functioning of Indian society and state
system as similar as it functioned in Greece. He was interpreting Indian social system and state
structure through preconceived notions and frameworks, which were based on his own experiences of
the Greek society and polity. Therefore, his views regarding the ownership of king over the land can
be seen as a miss-interpretation of an Indian situation. Same is the case with the Chinese travellers.
Like Megasthenes, Fa-xian and Xuan Zang (also written as Hsuan Tsang) miss-interpreted the Indian
situations. Hence, it is just that the foreigners could not appreciate the fine points of the agrarian
system and read their own native customs in the things they described. The possibility, however,
cannot be ruled out that they were influenced by those Indian thinkers, who believed in state
landlordism.
The Arthashastra no doubt mentions that in case a person fails to cultivate the land, the land
could be transferred to another person by the king, but it need to be studied in its specific context.
This norm apparently is prescribed in relation to the virgin land, which was newly colonised or in
relation to the states land only. The text mentions that the state settle down new villages
(Janapadanivesa, i.e., establishing new villages, and sunyanivesa, i.e., settling down deserted
villages), which consisted mostly the shudra families. The shudras were expected to make these new
settlements arable through their own labours; in addition, arable fields were not to be taken away from
one who was making it arable. However, if a field kept uncultivated it was to be taken away from the
defaulting allottee and was to be allotted afresh. As the purpose of the sate behind the colonisation of
new virgin territories, which of course was ownerless, had been to extend cultivation and thereby
revenue, the failure of an allottee to cultivate it would mean a loss of revenue of income. Thus, it was
 35

in the jurisdiction of the king to transfer this land from one to another cultivator. Similarly, the crown
land (i.e., Sita) was cultivated by employing the dasa-karmakaras, who were not the owner of the
land. In such a situation, if a person failed to cultivate the field, then he could have been replaced.
As far as land grants are concerned, then a perusal study shows that when land was donated by the
king, then it meant donation of revenue rights to donees. These revenue rights earlier belonged to the
state and by land grant these were transferred to the donee. Hence, land grant does not mean
transfer of property rights or displacement of already present cultivators or owners of land in the
villages. Land grant charters often addressed to the villagers and directed them to give to the donee
the revenue and other dues, which they owned to the state. There is nothing whatsoever in the
inscriptions to show that cultivators were to transfer to the donee their ownership over the land. They
were affected only to the extent that the person to whom they paid their dues, was now had changed.
Likewise, the list of the rights of a donee includes only the different taxes and dues, which he was to
receive from the village.
The land grant in some specific cases did record ownership rights. There are several
inscriptions that record the donation of a village along with specific field or tract or waste land piece to
the donee. In such a case land grants created new ownership rights. Otherwise, why a specific field is
to be enumerated while donating an entire village. The state has some proprietary rights over some
fields or waste land, etc., in villages. When such specific fields were donated, there were donated with
proprietary rights- in such a situation state transferred its ownership right over such fields to the
donee. It implies according to Lallanji Gopal that the king did not own all the arable land in a village.
The fields generally belonged to peasants, though there were some tracts owned by the king in
different villages, which alone he could grant. It thus follows that the references to the grant of a single
field as against a village really amount to a grant of the field, which the king owned in that village.
Such tracts were known as the Royal land. In a situation, where no land or field was available,
belonging to state/king, rulers bought the fields first to make land grants. For Example, the Nasik
inscription of Ushavadatta of the early centuries of the Christian era records that Ushavadatta
purchased a field from a brahmana named Asibhuti, after paying the price of 4000 karsapanas.
Asibhuti had received this land from his father. Ushavadatta after purchasing this land donated it to a
Buddhist monastery.
There are several references in legal texts prohibiting the king from confiscating someone
else’s property. In fact, the Arthashastra itself mentions that if the king confiscates someone else’s
land, it would cause resentment and alarm. The Brihaspati says that the king had no right to dispose
or dispossess a rightful owner of his property. He further adds that “when land is taken from any man
by a king actuated by avarice, or using fraudulent pretext, and bestowed on a different person as a
mark of his favour, such a gift is not valid”. Likewise, Narada-smriti says, “A householder’s house and
his field are considered as the two fundamentals of his existence. Therefore, let not the king upset
either of them, of that is the root of householders.” From it, it appears that the peasant was the
proprietor of the land in every sense of the term. The king, as the universal sovereign of everything in
his state, had no doubt some claim over the land. But, he was not the absolute owner of the entire
land of his kingdom.
 36

Now students let us do some activity:

Self assessment questions
1. Explain the term Janapadanivesa.
________________________________________________________________________
2. Why Megasthenes suggests that the king was the owner of entire land of his kingdom?
________________________________________________________________________
3. What is Sita.
________________________________________________________________________

3.5 SUMMARY
It appears from above discussion that the peasant was the proprietor of the land in every
sense of the term. The king, as the universal sovereign of everything in his State, had, no doubt,
some claim over the land. He received revenue, according to ancient Indian legal texts, from the
peasant as the wages for the protection he afforded to the people; but this in no way amounted to a
proprietary right over the land. Early Indian legal literature clearly attests the presence of individual
ownership in land. Likewise, communal rights in land too existed that were subjected to change over
the period. Without understanding the changing nature of property rights, it is not possible to analyse
the agrarian developments in context of early India.
3.6 REFERENCE & FURTHER READINGS
1. Gopal, L., Aspects of the History of Agriculture in Ancient India, Allahabad: University of
Allahabad, 1987.
2. Jha, D. N., Revenue System in Post-Mauryan and Gupta Times, Calcutta: Punthi Pustak,
1967.
3. Sahu, B. P., (ed.) Land System and Rural Society in Early India, New Delhi: Manohar, 1997.
4. Singh, Upinder, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From Stone Age to the 12th
Century, Pearson Longman: Delhi, 2009.
3.7 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the salient characteristics of communal ownership of land.
2. How ancient theoreticians have explained the individual ownership in land.
3. Do you think the king was the absolute owner of the entire land of his kingdom? Write an
essay.
 37

Lesson - 4

BOUNDARY DEMARCATION, DISPUTES, LAND REVENUE, AND

TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS

STRUCTURE
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Boundary Demarcation
4.3 Boundary Disputes
4.4 Land Revenue
4.5 Tax Relief Provisions
4.6 Summary
4.7 Reference & Further Readings
4.8 Model Questions
4.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand how boundary demarcations were done in early India.
 understand the nature of disputes related to boundaries of landed property.
 acquire information about the norms for resolving boundary disputes.
 gain knowledge regarding the taxation, revenue officials, and tax relief provisions.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
As the state emerged in early India, revenue structure and bureaucracy too came into
existence in order to mobilise resources for the very sustenance of a state itself. For the assessment
of revenue, first determination of property ownership was required, and it was followed by the
formulation of norms for demarcating the private property in land as well as for resolving disputes
related to boundary demarcation. Due to various causes, it was not possible to collect taxes from
various persons or groups such as pregnant woman, children, old or insane or diseased persons, etc.,
of society, and therefore, provisions of tax relief too were conceptualised.
4.2 BOUNDARY DEMARCATION
The best treatment of the question of the proprietary claims of cultivators and the State is
found in the Mimamsa works. The Mimamsa writers start the discussion on the injunctions related to
State and cultivator’s writes in relation to proprietary rights that in the Vishvajit sacrifice a votary
 38

should give away all his belongings to the officiating priests. The natural question is: ‘What can a man
legally give as his own? Jaimini in the Mimamsa Sutra initiates the discussion by stating that land is
not to be transferred, for it belongs equally to all. The view of Jaimini has been explained by
Shabarasvamin in the following words:
‘Land is not to be given because men are found enjoying lordship over fields, and not over the
whole earth. It is said that then he who is the sovereign lord gives it. Even he cannot give the
land because in the case of fields of which he is the lord by actual enjoyment there is no
speciality in him. The difference due to his paramountcy is in this that by virtue of his
protecting the rice and other crop that grow on the earth he is entitled to a share of them as his
remuneration, but not to the lordship of the soil.’
According to Lallanji Gopal, the two points, which stand out from above are: first, a distinction
between the entire territory of the state and private fields, the former being incapable of individual
ownership; and second, a recognition that a king receives taxes not because of a title of ownership
but through his function of protection as sovereign. In this way, a clear distinction was maintained
between state land that belonged to the king and the land owned by individual proprietors. However, it
is noticeable that king enjoyed the right to claim revenue from those who owned land, and also the
authority to punish those who refused to pay taxes. In order to maintain law and order as well as to
keep the flow of revenue into royal treasury smooth, it was required on the part of the rulers to strictly
enforce the individual property rights, property demarcations, and resolution of boundary disputes. In
addition, several rules were formulated by the ancient lawgivers in relation to property inheritance,
sale, and purchase.
With the emergence of private property in land in post Vedic period, brahmana lawgivers
formulated numerous rules for the transfer of property within family from one generation to the next
generation. Sons were given right to inherit land, while women were not allowed to do so. By granting
a right to inherit land to sons, these lawgivers developed a property system in which immovable
property remained within a family. For instance, according to the Gautam Dharmasutra, “A natural
son, a son begotten on the wife, a given in adoption, a contrived son, a son born in secret, and a son
adopted after being abandoned by his birth-parents these all share in inheritance.” In a same way, the
Vashishtha Dharmasutra says that if a brahmana has sons from wives of brahmana, kshatriya and
vaishya castes, the son of brahmana wife should take a triple share, the son of kshatriya wife should
take a double share and others should get equal shares. A son, inheriting property from father, was
supposed to pass on it to his son or sons, and by doing so reinstate family’s control over ancestral
property. Therefore, only able-bodied sons were allowed to inherit the property. Vashishtha says that
those sons, who are mad or impotent or outcastes should not receive any share in father’s property. It
was because such people would fail to perform family-social duties and rituals as well as observe
varna-jati social norms. Here the noticeable point is the formulation of property rights in relation to the
varna-jati social hierarchy.
Moreover, since a girl was supposed to leave her father’s home after marriage, she was not
entitled to inherit immovable property such as fields, house, gardens, etc. For instance, Vashishtha
says that an estate should be partitioned among brothers; but before that one should wait until the
childless wives of their deceased brother bears a son. In case son is not born, property should be
 39

partitioned among brothers. Vashishtha also talks about the practice of Niyoga (levirate) and
enumerates that after the death of husband wife should wait for six months; after that she should
cohabit, after performing due rituals, with the younger brother of her deceased husband and if a son is
born then the property would belong to him. It implies that the property of the deceased husband, in
the opinion of ancient lawgivers, would go to either his son or his brothers after his death, but never to
his wife.
As the agriculture expanded in the later Vedic and post Vedic period, and private property
evolved, it became necessary to develop norms for defining and demarcating individual property in
order to differentiate one person’s property from another person’s property. Generally, the lands had
been classified as cultivable land, wasteland, habitation land, pastures land, gardens, and forestlands.
However, from the king’s point of view, according to D. C. Sircar, the land of the country could be
divided into the following categories:
i) State land- the fields belonged to the king or royal household, and these were cultivated by
employing hired labourers, slaves, sharecroppers, etc.
ii) Land in occupation of the peasants who paid the king’s dues according to agreed rates,
and
iii) Land in more or less uninhabited and uncultivated areas, over which the effectiveness of
State’s control varied under different circumstances.
In ancient India, state instituted departments for maintaining land records. The officials called
Rajuka or Rajjugahaka-amacca or Rajakamikka are mentioned in the Jatakas and Mauryan king
Ashoka’s royal edicts. These officials were associated with the measurement of land in countryside in
the post Vedic and the Mauryan period. They acted as settlement officers holding rope to measure the
land. In post Mauryan period, we have officials associated with the land grants, who were supposed to
keep land grant records like lekhaka, divirapati, pushtapala, akshapataladhikrita, etc. These officials
as a state representative preserved land rights of individuals or communities, looked after land
demarcations, and maintained land records for future reference. For instance, a Valkha inscription of
the fourth century AD records the donation of a village called Rohyavahaka-grama in Dasilakapalli-
rashtra as brahmdeya to several brahmanas. Initially the grant was made verbally by the king, but
after sometime at the request of the donee brahmanas, it was written down on copper plates. It shows
that at local level land records were maintained by the officials, who could be approached in order to
determine the boundaries of donated land or village.
The Manu-Smriti says that one should demarcate boundaries by planting boundary trees such
as banyan, fig, silk cotton, sal, Palmyra, bamboos, etc. Manu further adds that mounds of earth with
vines, reeds, and thickets could also be established as boundary markers of a field. In addition,
hidden signs are also suggested for demarcating fields or landed property. It is mentioned that stones,
bones, the hair of cow’s tails, husks, ashes, potsherds, dry cowdung, bricks, cinders, pebbles, sand
and whatever things of this sort the earth doe not corrode in time, should be put down and hidden
where boundaries meet. To avoid boundary disputes, according to the Arthashastra, the boundary of
a village should be demarcated by a river, mountain, raised mound, forest, cave, artificial buildings,
tanks, wells, temples, fountains, trees having long life, and so forth. Likewise, Brihaspati, another legal
 40

writer, mentions that the determination of boundaries should be settled at the time of any change in
property rights or ownership, and it should be marked by both visible and invisible signs to dispel
doubts. He further adds that the wells, tanks, pools, large trees, shrubs, or piles of stones, anthills,
artificial mounds, slopes, hills, and the like generally served the purpose of the boundaries of a field or
landed property. Brihaspati also says that dry cowdung, bones, chaffs, seeds, and ashes should be
placed in a vessel and one should keep them underground at the extremities of the boundary. One
should take care to point them out to youth and infants. These youths and infants again should show
these boundaries to their children in future, after having grown old. By knowledge thus passed from
one generation to another doubts regarding boundaries may be averted.
In the epigraphs, a village, or granted land are often defined by enumerating their boundaries.
According to B. D. Chattopadhyaya, when an area was transferred through a land grant, it could be
specified in any of the following terms:
a) Cardinal directions in which it was located in relation to the village,
b) Adjoining plots or local landmarks,
c) Landmarks defining the territorial limits of the village itself, e.g., a moat or a river, and
apparently, recognisable but unspecified limits of another village.
For instance, the Nogwa inscription of Dhruvasena II of seventh century AD records the
donation of a field to two brahmanas in Malavaka-vishaya and it boundaries are mentioned as follows:
i. In the east of the donated village was another village named Dhammanahaddika-grama,
ii. In the south of the donated village was Devakulapataka-grama,
iii. In the northern-western side was a water tank; and
iv. In the western-northern side was a field of a person named Mahattara Viratara-Mandalin.
Likewise, an inscription of Parivrajaka king Hastin of fifth century AD records a grant of a
village named Koparika as an agrahara to brahmanas and its boundaries were demarcated by the
amtrata-trees, a water tank, boundary trench, a field of another person, and other villages. Suchandra
Ghosh, in context of ancient Assam, says that the copper plates charters recording land grants
contain regular references to rivers, streams, rivulets, dikes and embankments thereby identifying
them as land marks in the agrarian landscape. For instance, the Nidhanpur copper plates of
Bhaskarvarman of seventh century records the donation of Mayurasalmali agrahara in Chandrapuri
vishaya, granted to 205 brahmanas.
The boundaries of the agrahara are:
i. Dry rivulet in east,
ii. Dry rivulet marked by a fig tree in south-east,
iii. Gangini (river) in west,
iv. Potter’s pit and Gangini (river) bending towards east in north-west,
v. Jatali tree in north,
 41

vi. Pond of a merchant named Khasoka in the north-east,

vii. Dry (river) in the north-east.
In this way, it appears that various boundary markers such as rivers, ponds, wells, trees,
trenches, fields of other persons, and other villages were employed to specify the limits of a village or
granted land in ancient India. In this way, the boundaries sometimes correspond to natural landmarks,
sometimes they are cultivated plots held by individuals or by religious establishments such as temples
or monasteries and yet at other times they indicate where contiguous village begin. The boundaries
specified in land grants, thus imply a limit imposed by man in the vast expanse of rural landscape, and
the limit essentially connects the demarcated area to a human settlement. The field was an extension
of the habitat within the framework of a socially demarcated rural settlement comprising dwellings,
pastures, and cultivable fields. Boundaries chosen by man often coincided with limits imposed by
nature, and therefore, often rivers, wells, hills, trees, etc., were used to specify boundaries.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions
1. What is Niyoga?
________________________________________________________________________
2. What are the visible markers of boundary?
________________________________________________________________________
3. How, according to Manu, were invisible markers of boundary established?
________________________________________________________________________

4.3 BOUNDARY DISPUTES

As the agriculture expanded by colonising the forests and wasteland, and subsequently, it
intensified over the period, boundary disputes and disputes related to ownership rights arose. As a
result, various lawgivers provided rules to resolve such disputes. For instance, Katyayana describes
six causes of boundary disputes, which are as follows:
1. Claiming that another person is entitled to less than he possess,
2. Claiming a share in someone else’s property,
3. Denying a share to a claimant,
4. Seizing possession when there was none previously,
5. Claiming more land than entitled, and
6. Violating the boundaries.
As we have already discussed above, fields were properly demarcated and accordingly
ownership was determined in ancient times. But, when a property right of a person was challenged
by another person in any of the above form, then it would have lead to a dispute. In order to resolve
the dispute, it was necessary to produce evidence supporting the ownership right of the person
claiming a field or a house, etc. Legal writers have enumerated several methods as well as forms of
 42

evidence, which could be utilised for resolving a dispute. For instance, Brihaspati says that in disputes
regarding a field and a house, the decision lay with the neighbour, the inhabitants of the same town or
village, the other members of the same community, and the senior inhabitants of the district. They
were to determine the boundary and to indicate the marks deposited underground as evidence. In
case of a dispute, Vashishtha opines that written evidence, witnesses, and possession are the three
types of evidence for claiming title to a property. In this way, an owner may claim a property that
previously belonged to him. He further adds that when there is a dispute regarding a house or a field,
the testimony of neighbour provides the proof. In case neighbours provide contradictory evidence,
then written documents are produced or used as a proof. When written documents are conflicting in
nature, then the proof is based on the testimony of the elders of the village or town, and that of the
guild.
Manu, another lawgiver, refers to boundary disputes regarding fields, wells, tanks, houses and
gardens. He says: “If a dispute about a boundary has arisen between two villages, the king should
determine the boundary in May or June, when the ridges of earth that divide the earth or fields are
clearly visible. He should make boundary trees of banyan trees, fig trees, ‘pseudo-parrot’ trees, silk-
cotton trees, sal trees, Palmyra palm, and trees with milky sap, thickets, various sorts of bamboos,
fire-stick trees, mounds of earth with vines, reeds and thickets of hump-back plants; In this way, the
boundary will not disappear.” Manu further adds that by such visible signs a king should determine the
boundaries. Even if some doubt still remains, the settlement of a boundary disputes then depends
upon the proof given by witnesses. The witnesses about the boundary should be questioned about
the signs of the boundary in the presence of the village families, and the two disputing parties. The
king should fix the boundary in place according to the decision about the boundary that the witnesses
give unanimously when they are questioned, and he should make a record of all their names.
According to Manu, the witnesses should put earth on their heads and wear garlands and red
clothes, and when each of them has sworn an oath, they should determine the boundary cordially. In
case, they determine it wrongly, they should be fined 200 panas. It is also mentioned that if there are
no witnesses, then neighbours from the four bordering villages, having been purified, should
determine the boundary in the presence of the king. If there are no original inhabitants of the
neighbouring villages, the king may call as a witness even the following men, who frequent the forest,
viz., hunters, bird-catcher, fisherman, men who dig roots, snake-catchers, a man who lives by
gleaning corn and gathering single grain, and other men who move about in forest. As they, when
they are questioned, describe the mark where the boundaries meet, the king should in justice
establish it between the two villages just like that. However, if boundary cannot be established by
following above means and methods, the king’s decision should be final. In a same way, Narada
associates boundary disputes with landed property, such as bridge, dike, a field, a tilled piece of land,
or wasteland. He says that the boundary should not be decided by one man, single-handedly,
because it is a matter of great importance. It should be done by a plurality of persons.
The possession of property was one of the ways besides inheritance and written evidence and
witness, to establish property claim. Hence, Vashishtha says, a property is lost if someone has used it
for the years, without the interference of the owner. However, Brihaspati says that he had to occupy
the land unopposed and uninterrupted for a period of about thirty years for attaining ownership over
 43

the property. In case, as Narada says, if the owner of a field is unable to cultivate it, is dead or is not
heard of, and a stranger cultivate the field without objection from anybody, the stranger shall enjoy the
produce of the field; if the owner or his son returns. While the field is being tilled by a stranger, he can
get his field back on repayment to the stranger of all the money expensed on making the land read for
crops. If the owner is unable to return the expenses, the stranger may retain 7/10 th of the produce
every year for eight years, giving 1/8th to the owner every year, and should hand over the field to the
owner, when the eight year arrives.
Legal texts also recommend punishments for property transgression. For instance, according
to Yajnavalkya, punishment for making breaches in the boundary between two or more fields and for
ploughing a field beyond the boundary of one’s field comprises fines. In a same way, the Vishnu-
Smriti stipulates a fine of 1008 panas for transgressing the whole of the boundary of the field. Manu
mentions that the decision about the boundary of a field, a well, a pond, a garden, or a house that
depend on the proof given by the neighbours should be recognised. If the neighbours lie about a
boundary ridge that men are disputing, the king should make each of them individually pay the
middle-level fine. He further adds that if a man takes away a house, pond, garden, or field by power or
threatening, he should be fined five hundred panas; but if he did it through ignorance, the fine should
be 200 panas.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions
1. What are main causes of boundary disputes?
____________________________________________________________________
2. Write a short note on the role of a king in boundary disputes.
____________________________________________________________________

4.4 LAND REVENUE

In the post-Vedic period, territorial state began to emerge and along with it emerged taxation.
A state comprised seven limbs (saptanga), which according to the Arthashastra, are, viz., king
(swami), ministers (amatya), treasury (kosha), territory (janapada), fort (durga), justice or force
(danda), and ally (mitra). Out of seven, treasury was most important as it enabled the ruler to maintain
other limbs more efficiently. Justice or force (i.e., army) and ministers helped a king to coerce the
people to pay taxes and dues to the state. It is maintained in ancient legal literature that people paid
taxes in return of protection provided by the king, and revenue enabled a king to maintain a strong
army and bureaucracy. For instance, the Shanti-Parva of the Mahabharata mentions that in the early
stage of human society, there was no state, and private property. It implies the absence of rulers.
Then people began to steal other’s property and women; and it caused chaos. Thus, golden age
disappeared with the advent of ‘selfishness’, ‘hatred’, and ‘malice’. It means, emergence of private
property, family, and varna-hierarchy. Then the state power arose to protect the institution of property,
family, and varna-hierarchy. The Shanti-Parvan further adds that if the king does not exercise the duty
of protection, then nobody would be able to protect and preserve his wives, sons, food, and other
 44

kinds of property. Therefore, R. S. Sharma says the institution of kingship and state is needed to
maintain private property, family, and varna-hierarchy.
Likewise, the Digha-Nikaya says: There was a time, when people were perfect and lived in a
state of happiness and tranquillity. This perfect stage lasted for ages, but at last, the pristine purity
declined and there set in rottenness. Differences of sex manifested and there appeared distinctions of
colours. Now shelter, food, and drink were required. People gradually entered into a series of
agreement among them, and set up the institution of family, and property. There appeared theft and
other forms of unsocial conduct. Therefore, people associated and agreed to choose as chief a
person, to maintain social order and protect other’s property. In return, people agreed to contribute to
him a portion of their paddy. According to R. S. Sharma, the speculation made in the Digha-Nikaya is
the product of advanced stage of social development, when the tribal society had broken up, giving
rise to clash of interests between men and women, between people of different races and colour, and
between people of unequal wealth. In contrast, to several obligations of the king, the people are
assigned only one duty, namely, to pay a part of their paddy (i.e., agricultural produce) as contribution
to the king.
The Baudhayana-Darmasutra says that the king should protect the people in return for 1/6th of
the produce. Likewise, the Arthashastra mentions that overtaken by a state of anarchy the people
elected Manu-Vaivasvata as their king, and undertook to pay 1/6th of their grain, and 1/10th of their
articles of merchandise in addition to a portion of their gold. In return, king guaranteed social welfare
to the people by suppressing acts of mischief, afflicting the guilty with taxes and coercion. In this way,
in ancient literature kingship and revenue system are associated with social necessity of a society that
was increasingly becoming complex. The idea that a king received taxes as wages for the protection
he affords to the people is enumerated in several law books. Noticeably, several terms in the
Brahmanical literature of the post Vedic period stress the tax-enjoying aspect of kingship, e.g.,
balishadbhagharin, bhagabhuj, sadbhagabhak, and sasthavritti. A king also assumed new titles such
as nripa, nripati, nareshvara, narendra, naradhipati, etc., which suggests king’s authority over the
people.
Revenue Officials
As the state system evolved and taxes were imposed on the people, elaborate bureaucracy
also came into being. The lowest administrative and revenue unit of taxation was village, managed by
the village headman, who were called gramika or gramani. The Milindapanho uses the word
gramasamika in the sense of village-headman, and the Jatakas call him gamabhojaka. According to
the Manu-Smriti, village headman undertook the task of collecting royal dues in the form of grain,
drinks, fuels, etc., before handing it all over to higher officials. In a same way, the Milindapanho refers
to a village-headman, who summoned all the village householders through his messenger to the front
of their houses for levying taxes from them on the behalf of the king. Several state officials are
mentioned in the Buddhist and Brahmanical literature. Nityukta or Niyukta collected bali and other
royal dues, while Tundiyas were special class of collectors, who had been employed to collect bali
from people by subjugating, by binding and beating them. Akasiyas were oppressive tax collectors,
who could perhaps dispossess the cultivators of their earnings. Seemingly, Tundiyas and Akasiyas
were special tax officers to receive taxes on behalf of the king in times of emergency or to collect
 45

additional taxes. Unlike these two, the Balisadhakas or Balipatiggahaka were ordinary tax collectors,
who normally collected bali from people.
According to the Arthashastra of Kautilaya, Samaharttas collected revenue from several
sources such as cities, rural areas, mines, pastures, forests, trade routes, and irrigation. In Ashoka’s
edicts and Jataka tales, Rajuka or Rajjugahaka-amacca or Rajakammikas are mentioned. Ashokan
edicts indicate that Rajukas looked after people of the district, and enjoyed the power to either reward
or punish people. They also functioned as settlement officials holding a rope to measure fields in
countryside. In the Indica, Megasthenes refers to Agronomoi, who collected revenue, supervised
irrigation facilities, judicial administration, and maintained roads. Scholars suggest that the term
Agronomoi in fact referred to Rajukas. Nevertheless, Sitadhyakasha looked after the royal land, while
Akaradhyakasha managed mines.
By the early centuries of the Christian era, land grants began to be made, and with them
several new officials also emerged, particularly those officials who had been associated with record-
keeping. Several of these officials are mentioned in epigraphs of different ruling houses. For instance,
Lekhaka was the drafter of land grants in post Mauryan period. However, in the Gupta records
Divirapati is mentioned as a drafter of inscriptions and land grants. In the eastern India and Deccan,
Aksapataladhikritas were present, who copied government records related to title deed, royal grants,
etc. They functioned at village level. They are also mentioned as Grama-aksapatalika. Pushtapalas
were also record keepers. Likewise, epigraphs of the post Gupta period, inform us about Kayasthas,
Karanas, and Karanikas, who were also land record writers and keepers. Initially, these writers were
appointed from brahmana varna. However, gradually people from non-brahmana varnas were also
appointed as Kayasthas. Gradually, the Kayasthas practising varna/caste endogamy and gotra
exogamy, and it resulted in the emergence of a distinct caste of record writers and keepers, i.e.,
Kayastha. Noticeably, due to their ambiguous origin they have been assigned both brahmana and
shudra identities in the Brahmanical texts. In fact, in recent times, the Calcutta High Court has
characterised Kayasthas as shudras, while the Allahabad High Court considers them as brahmanas.
Apparently, over the period a distinct profession of writers was transformed into a caste identity.
The inscriptions from the Gupta period onwards mention an officer called agraharika, who is
not known from earlier sources. This officer was associated with the transaction of land. The term
agrahara, from which this word is derived, means a piece of land or a village given to a brahmana for
his subsistence or settlement therein, or for some religious purpose. Thus, J. F. Fleet rightly points out
that agraharika is a technical official title, denoting probably an officer in special charge of an
agrahara. He was required not to allow the taxpaying people from other villages to settle in an
agrahara village because this would mean a loss of income to state. In the view of D. N. Jha,
agraharika was perhaps in charge of tax-free gift-villages, fiscal and other administrative matters of
which may have been his chief concern. Unlike agraharika, the shaulkika seems to have been known
throughout post-Maurya and Gupta times. The term shaulkika occurs in the Mahabhashya of Patanjali
and the Divyavadana. The Milindapanho speaks of an officer styled shulkadhyaksha, who has been
taken as a tax-gatherer. Inscriptions of the Guptas and Maitraka rulers refer to shaulkika. The term
shaulkika is derived from shulka, which was an item of commercial tax, and he appears to have been
a superintendent of tolls and customs.
 46

The officers called audrangika were collector of the tax called udranga, and
hiranyasamudayika collected a tax called hiranya. Unlike them, dhruvadhikaranika was an officer who
superintended the realisation of land revenue by the king’s collectors. It means he did not collect
taxes directly from farmers. He had a department (adhikarana) presumably of regular officers working
under him. Thus, his task was to supervise the collection of taxes by the officers under him. The word
mahattara occurs in several land grant charters of the Gupta and post-Gupta period in different parts
of India. The word mahattara is a comparative formation of ‘mahat’, i.e., great, and it signified older
and hence respectable inhabitants of a village. They were also associated with the land transactions.
The ayukta was an officer in-charge of vishaya (district), who was connected with the land
administration. The viniyuktaka was probably a subordinate officer under the ayukta. Uparika was in-
charge of bhukti (province), and officers such as ayukta, etc., were under him.
From the forgoing account, it is obvious that in Gupta times, unlike the post-Mauryan period,
the machinery for revenue administration was perhaps fairly well developed. Although it is not
possible to precisely state the duties and functions of these officers, we gather the impression that
most them were associated with fiscal and land administration, some of them being entrusted with the
task of general superintendence.
Important Taxes
In the Vedic period, bali, and bhaga were voluntary tributes, which by sixth century BC were
standardised and became compulsory taxes. The Gutama Dharmasutra says that Bali should be 1/6th,
1/8th and 1/10th, which was a land tax. This variation marks the stages in the development of the
capacity of the peasants to pay. This capacity depended on the nature of tools, the nature of crops,
and the fertility of soil. Once the maximum potential was achieved, the tax was fixed to 1/6 th of the
total yield. In a same way, bhaga was another tax, which is not clear. However, it was a part of the
agrarian produce. The Rumindei inscription of Ashoka records that when Ashoka visited Lumbini-vana
(birthplace of Buddha, in the terrain area of Nepal), he reduced the rate of bhaga to 1/8th and totally
exempted the village from the payment of Bali. The Arthashastra of Kautilaya talks about various
taxes such as bali, bhaga, kara, udaka-bhaga and shulka. Panini refers to kara, which possibly was
collected in cash. The appearance of metallic currency centralised the fiscal system with the
circulation of karshapanas or kahapanas (Punch marked coins). It was a periodical tax paid, different
from land tax, by people to the king. Bhattasvamin, a commentator on Manu, mentions that kara was
paid as: a) gifts of commodities, b) a fixed gold payment on land, c) contribution in the form of grass,
wood, etc., d) contributions from villages or townsmen either monthly or annually during the month of
Vasanta (spring), etc. While udaka-bhaga was water tax, shulka was a toll tax.
According to the Arthashastra, shudras, slaves, labourers, artisans and craftsmen should
provide certain services or manual labour (Vishti) to king without any remuneration instead of paying
taxes. The Vishti (labour without remuneration) could be used on various occasions by the kings, for
instance, in warfare to clean the camps, the roads, the bridges, wells and landing stages. It could also
be used in warfare to carry machines, weapons, armours, instruments, and provisions, etc. However,
the Kamasutra of Vatsayayana (about fourth century AD) peasant women could be forced to provide
Vishti (unpaid labour) by village-headman for various types of works, e.g., filling of granaries, taking
things out and in of the house, cleaning the house, working in the fields, etc.
 47

D. N. Jha says that by the Gupta period bali and bhaga became synonymous and referred to
principle land tax. Both of these terms are used interchangeably in the Gupta records. The Bhaga
amounted to 1/6th of the produce generally. However, in practice its rate of assessment varied
according to soil type. For instance, Manu recommends that a king can take 1/6 th, 1/8th or 1/12th of the
crop depending on the soil’s fertility. Likewise, Brihaspati opines that rate of land tax should be 1/10 th
on khila (cultivable waste) land, 1/8th on land exposed to rain water, and 1/6th on the land, where crop
was harvested in Vasanta (spring). It means khila land, which required much resources for cultivation
paid less-tax. Land prone for the danger of rainwater or flood paid less tax than the land, which
yielded crop every spring as it had less risk. The Vishnu, Narada, and the Shanti-Parvan (the
Mahabharata) recommend 1/6th of the produce as land tax. Therefore, king is often mentioned as
‘Shadbhagin’. In a same way, Kalidasa recommend that a king should claim 1/6th of the produce.
The Gupta and post-Gupta epigraphs, recording land grants, frequently mention several taxes
such as hiranaya, uparikara, udranga, and halikara besides bali/bhaga, shulka, kara and Vishti.
According to Manu and Vishnu, the rate of assessment of hiranaya was 1/50th. Seemingly, it had been
a tax on agricultural products, which was paid in cash and was perhaps associated with cash crops.
Likewise, uparikara was an additional minor tax, which was unfixed and it was levied from temporary
tenants. Udranga, a fixed land tax, was paid by the permanent tenants. Halikara, according to Y. B.
Singh, was paid by the ploughmen. In this way, large plough (hali) and the ploughman (halika) behind
the plough are connected with this particular type of tax. It seemingly was one type of Vishti tax,
collected by landlords from cultivators of the entire village, whose teams of oxen/plough were thus
forced into tillage. Thus, grant of halikara to a donee by donor refers to a practice of allowing the
donee the right to exact such customary employment of plough teams of the village for the cultivation
of land.
A notable feature of revenue system is that it not only contains a scheme of taxation for normal
times; but it also seeks to provide for exceptional needs of the king or the state. The Arthashastra also
informs us that during the time of emergency a ruler should demand a very high rate of taxes from
peasants, artisans, animal breeders, merchants, and even courtesans. It is mentioned that in the time
of crisis in order to replenish a depleted treasury, a king should levy benevolences (pranaya) from the
people, which, however, should not be resorted to more than once. Kautilaya recommends the king to
undertake various emergency measures such as confiscation of temple treasure, setting up of new
cults, and putting up sudden miracles, for procuring money from people through fraudulent means.
The Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradamana-I (150 AD) mentions that the king had met the
expenses of the construction of the dam of Sudarshana Lake out of his own treasury, which was filled
with taxes, e.g., bali, bhaga, and shulka. Thus, he did not oppress the people with kara, Vishti, and
pranaya. It suggests that bali, bhaga and shulka were general taxes, while kara, Vishti and paranaya
were additional and oppressive taxes.
Likewise, Bashim plates of Vindhyashakti-II, a fourth century AD epigraph, records that the gift
of a village to several brahmanas and they were exempted from the payment of pranaya (emergency
tax) to the king along with several other dues. Even in the Mahabharata also discusses emergency
measures that a king could employ to over an emergency. For instance, in Rajadharma Section of the
Shanti Parva in the Mahabharata Bhishma is asked to suggest the course the king should pursue,
 48

when his friends are declining and foes increasing, when his treasury is exhausted and army non-
existent. Then Bhishma replies that in such condition, the king should seize the wealth of all persons
except ascetics and brahmanas. In this way, emergency taxes were also present that a king could
collect in emergency; however, such taxes were recommended to be levied only once by Kautilaya.
4.5 TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS
Early Indian literature also discusses in detail the tax relief provisions that were supposed to
be granted to different sections of society. For instance, the Apastamba Dharmasutra directs that
women of all classes, boys before attaining men-hood, those who live with preceptors/teachers for
study, the virtuous ascetics, the shudras who live by washing the feet of dvijas, and those who are
forbidden to acquire property are exempted from taxes. In a same way, the Vasishtha Dharmasutra
mentions that a king should not collect taxes from: brahmanas, renouncers, young students, king’s
men, infants, helpless, old persons, maidens or unmarried girls, widows, and wives of royal servants.
In Manu’s view people, who should not be taxed are, viz., blind, idiot, cripple, and man of seventy
years of age. In addition, brahmanas, students of Vedas, women carrying two months or more
(pregnant), ascetics, and hermits should not be taxed.
It appears plausible that the different classes of persons were exempted from the payment of a
tax because of the humanitarian consideration for their incapacity to work and earn their living, but the
shudras were entitled to this privilege perhaps because they were not the property-owning class.
Women including housewives, pregnant ladies, unmarried girls, and widows were exempted from
taxes because they were not supposed to inherit property except Stri-Dhana (clothes, jewellery,
utensils, etc.) from their parents or in-laws. Furthermore, they depended upon their parents or
husbands or in-laws for subsistence and protection, therefore, they were not supposed to pay taxes.
However, it is noticeable that according to Arthashastra, courtesans could be taxed by the rulers. It
means that not all women were exempted from taxes. As far as infants, blinds, handicaps, idiots and
old persons are concerned, it appears that since they were incapable of earning their livelihood they
were exempted from taxes. Ascetics, hermits and renouncers were also not involved in production
activities, and as a result, they depended upon others for subsistence. Therefore, they too were
exempted from taxes.
Among those exempted from taxation, by far the most important were the brahmanas,
especially the learned ones. For instance, Kautilaya says that when a king settle or re-settle a
territory, he should make tax-free grants of land to certain classes of brahmanas, such as the
sacrificial priest, the spiritual preceptor, the purohit, and learned brahmanas. Likewise, Narada says
that a wise man should abstain from imposing a toll on a Shrotiya brahmana’s property, which
belongs to his household. However, the property used for trading purpose of a brahmana is not
exempt from taxes. Contrarily, some other lawgivers exempt all brahmanas from taxes. It was opined
by lawgivers, for instance, Vasishtha that a king shares 1/6th of the brahmana’s spiritual merit
acquired through the performance of sacrifices and charitable works; thus, a brahmana is not to be
taxed because a king shared in the religious merit accumulated by the brahmanas. In a same way,
Vishnu advises that the king should not realise any tax from the brahmanas, because they pay taxes
to him in the shape of pious acts.
 49

The land grants with fiscal immunities seem to have become frequent in Central and North
India from the fifth century AD. The immunities recorded, for instance in the Vakataka inscriptions are
specified in the more complete examples as consisting of (a) not pay taxes, (b) not to be entered by
regular and irregular soldiers, (c) not to supply cattle for the transport of touring officers, (d) not to
provide hide and charcoal, (e) not to supply milk, etc., to officers, (f) free from the purchase and
digging of salt, (g) not to supply animals for sacrificial purposes, (h) with the right to treasure-troves,
and so forth. If we take the Satavahana and Pallava inscriptions into account, it would appear that
fiscal exemptions in land grants to brahmanas first began in South India and then spread to Central
and Northern India. Likewise, the epigraphs of the Uchchakalpa rulers record land donations to
brahmanas along with several tax exemptions. Usually they transfer land to donees with udranga and
uparikara, with the exemption from the entrance of regular and irregular soldiers, and in two cases,
with halikara. Further, the inhabitants of the village are ordered in their epigraphs to pay to the donees
(recipient of land/village) the customary tax called bhagabhogakara, hiranya and other revenues.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions
1. What is bali/bhaga?
____________________________________________________________________
2. What is shulka?
____________________________________________________________________
3. Why a king was called ‘Shadbhagin’?
____________________________________________________________________
4. Why were the brahmanas exempted from the payment of taxes?
____________________________________________________________________

4.6 SUMMARY
For a successful functioning of a revenue system, the legal writers of early India developed
various norms and methods for demarcating landed property, and also for resolving boundary related
disputes. State’s role was of supervisor in case of disputes, and only in the absence of reliable written
documents and verbal testimonies, a king was required to intervene in boundary disputes. A king was
seen as the final authority in all type of disputes and matters. Nevertheless, the state collected several
taxes from peasantry, and for the collection of revenue, elaborate bureaucratic system was put in
place by different rulers. In addition, certain tax relief provisions were also formulated by the legal
writers in order to save those persons or sections of society, who due to various social or biological
reasons had not been in a position to pay taxes, from harassment.
4.7 REFERENCE & FURTHER READINGS
1. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., Aspects of Rural Settlements and Rural Society in Early Medieval
India, Calcutta: K.P. Bagchi, 1990.
2. Ghosh, Suchandra, ‘Understanding Boundary Representations in the Copper-Plate Charters of
Early Kamarupa’, in Indian Historical Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 207-222, 2014.
 50

3. Gopal, L., Aspects of the History of Agriculture in Ancient India, Allahabad: University of
Allahabad, 1987.
4. Jha, D. N., Revenue System in Post-Mauryan and Gupta Times, Calcutta: Punthi Pustak,
1967.
5. Sahu, B. P., (ed.) Land System and Rural Society in Early India, New Delhi: Manohar, 1997.
4.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:
5. How the boundary was demarcated in early India? Write an essay.
6. Discuss the various aspects of boundary disputes.
7. Highlight the important tax relief provisions.
 51

Lesson - 5

PEASANT HIERARCHY IN EARLY INDIA

STRUCTURE
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Peasant: Definition and Character
5.3 Peasant Hierarchy
5.4 Summary
5.5 Reference & Further Readings
5.6 Model Questions
5.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand the various views related to rural social structure of ancient India.
 acquire information about different groups of cultivators.
 understand the nature and character of different peasant groups.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The study of rural life commenced without necessary consensus on the concept of peasantry,
but scholars invariably have agreed that a peasant society (and, thus their village) does not form a
whole in itself, and therefore, in its study, the larger society of which it is a part becomes extremely
important. A peasant society is a part of a larger vertically and horizontally structured social unit.
5.2 PEASANT: DEFINITION AND CHARACTER
Before analyzing the peasant hierarchy in early India, first we need to define the term pesant.
A rigorous definition of the peasant is desirable, though it is naturally elusive. For instance, Julian
Steward described peasantry as a “horizontal segment” defined mainly in terms of the economic
activities of its members. Eric Wolf was more specific. For him, a peasant was an agricultural
producer, and in this definition, he specifically excluded fishermen, and craftsmen. Further, the
peasant effectively controlled the land on which he worked. Thus, absentee landlord cannot be
designated as peasant. Production is primarily for household consumption, but a peasant sells his
crops, the surplus, for obtaining the things he does not produce, i.e., salt, kerosene oil, utensils,
clothes, medicines, etc., and for maintain his status. The peasant primarily aims at subsistence, and
when he aims at reinvestment and maximization of gain and profit, he ceases to be peasant. Once a
 52

peasant began to produce for investment, he becomes a farmer. Contrary to a farmer, a landlord is a
peasant, when he himself tills the land and aims at subsistence, primarily involving domestic labour
force. However, when he abstains from tilling because of status reasons, or in specific cases because
of religious injunctions, and has right over the produce, the term ‘peasant’ cannot be used for him.
Peasant, thus, becomes a particular historical type of the people, with dynamism at both its ends. In
anthropological literature, a self-sufficient producer, having no relationship with the market, is not
considered a peasant. A peasant by definition is not self-sufficient, and thus, to acquire the goods and
services, he (and also his community) does not produce, he has to sell or exchange a part of the
produce- his surplus. He may receive his necessities through barter mechanisms or by entering the
complex of cash economy, or by combining both of them. Depending on the context, he has to part
with his surplus to pay taxes to the state. Therefore, the peasants, like other communities, are
governed by the state- the law and order maintaining agencies.
Here it is noticeable that a village cannot be equated with peasantry because not all the
people or villagers, who inhabit the village, are peasants; there are groups of people, which do not
practice agriculture. According to Raymond Firth, a peasant lives primarily by cultivating the soil; he is
not a landless labourer, but has individual rights or collective claims over the land. Since, agriculture is
a seasonal exercise a peasant keeps changing its occupation at different times. During agricultural
season, a peasant practices agriculture; but in non-agricultural seasons he indulges in artisanal
activities. A peasant can assume various roles in accordance with agricultural seasons. In this way,
according to Firth, the peasant category will include in addition to the tillers of the land all those who
live by the various forms of labour, which are associated with a community of tillers.
V. K. Srivastava says that the term peasant is not a uniform and undifferentiated connotation;
it has many layers of people and multitudinous relations between them. A peasant household is both
a unit of production and consumption. Though it is true that peasants are engaged in production
processes- they are not absentee landlords. Peasants do not produce all they need for survival.
Peasantry is an economic category of small-scale producers, who are engaged in agriculture as per
the facility and constraints of the ecological cycle of their region. If the agricultural production in their
area is not adequate to provide optimum subsistence to the entire household, or if they have only rain-
fed crops, they combine their agricultural pursuits with other economic practices of which pastoralism
is the most outstanding. The relationship of peasants with the markets and merchants is regulated by
their need of cash to meet other necessities of life and contingent expenditure.
Contrary to both Firth and Srivastava, in Irfan Habib’s view, the peasant means a person who
undertakes agriculture on his own, working with his own implements and using the labour of his
family. Following a Marxist classification, Habib opines that besides rich peasants (with extensive use
of hired labour), the middle peasant (mainly using family labour) and the poor peasant (with land
insufficient to absorb the whole of family labour), landless labourers too formed an important
component of Indian peasantry. It is noticeable that while landless labourers are not peasants, they
form with the peasants the working agricultural population; and their history too remains a part of
peasant history. In this way, Habib ignores the factor of land-control, and thus he implies that a
peasant may be an owner, a tenant or, in a broader sense, even a labourer without any right of
ownership or occupancy. Such definition makes the peasant a vague category limiting him by some
 53

only to the owner-cultivator and stretching him by others to include even the landless labourer.
Therefore, to define the term peasant, V. K. Thakur opines that the element of land control needs to
be taken into account. This element of land control requires to be situated in the milieu of actual
agricultural operations and it needs to be suggested that a peasant is one who owns land and
engages himself in agriculture either in the capacity of direct supervisions or cultivators.
The usages of the terms gahapati and kutumbin/kutumbika, in the early texts can be put in a
hierarchical and somewhat functional separation from such terms as kinasa, krisivala, ksetrajiva,
krisika, karsaka, etc., and also from such terms like pamara, halavahaka, dasa-kammakara, etc. In
Thakur’s view, an interesting element of commonality inherent in all these terms is the lack of a varna-
jati basis of their structuring. These terms also recognize the element of land-control as vital to any
attempt aimed at laying bare the dynamics of structured relations in the countryside. That the
pamaras, the halavahakas, and the dasa-kammakaras were landless groups but their labour was of
crucial importance for sustaining the mechanism of agrarian production will make their blanket
exclusion from the peasant category unwarranted, and in turn, shall disorient our perception of
production relations in the villages. Though most of these terms undergo changes in their respective
connotations with the passage of time, the element of land-control, which remains a key hierarchy-
determinant, requires a qualified inclusion of landless groups in the peasant category. Ignoring this
reality will amount to negating the emergence of certain key components of the structured peasant
society.
The peasant is integrated with his family household, a typical and the most representative unit
of production. Peasant household grow crops on their lands by primarily they physical efforts of
members of these families. The household may include a slave or two, a domestic servant or even a
hired hand. However, the total contribution of these non-family members to actual crop production
must be much less than that of the family members. One of the essential features of a peasant society
will be its ability and capacity to produce half or more of the total agricultural output by households,
which depend mainly on the labour of their respective family members.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions.
1. Write a short note on Irfan Habib’s definition of peasant.
________________________________________________________________________
2. Write a short note on V. K. Thakur’s definition of peasant.
________________________________________________________________________

5.3 PEASANT HIERARCHY

The stage at which peasants originate within a society must naturally arrive only after the
pursuit of agriculture is established as a major provider of food. A family can then spend the larger
part of its labour-time on the cultivation of plants and the harvesting of the seed. In this process, not
only do the food-gatherers (mainly hunters) turn into producers; the monogamistic family itself evolves
as a basic unit of social organization. The domestication of plants and, possibly later that of cattle,
marked a notable stage in human progress. Noticeably, a full-fledged peasant economy emerged
 54

along with the formation of the Harappan civilization. The fabric of Indus agriculture rested
undoubtedly on plough cultivation. The Indus culture not only gave India its first cities in Harappa and
Mohenjodaro, but also its first peasantry. Full-fledged agriculture meant creation of surplus enough to
feed a certain number of food producers. Without emphasizing the Harappan urban centres as
manifestations of surplus production, and epitomes of the appropriation of that surplus, it can be
asserted that the very emergence of this peasant groups tantamount to the crystallization of
differentiated society. Though one cannot empirically reconstruct the peasant of the Harappan times
because of the purely archaeological nature of the sources, a few suggestions based on
circumstantial evidences might not be completely out of place. Even a casual survey of the settlement
pattern of the Harappans, suggests that a peasant hierarchy was present. Small-scale irrigation
methods such as dykes, dams, wells, floodwater, short distance canals, and so forth were in use. The
labour resources required for these irrigation methods need not have been larger than those that were
already at the disposal of the individual community, kin group or even a family. These operations
could be carried out simply through a pattern of reciprocity and, in turn, they encouraged social
stratification based on small land-holdings.
The decline of the Harappan civilization did not affect the dissolution of peasant groups. The
Vedic period witnessed the spread of Indo-Aryans across the Ganga valley, and subsequently, the
emergence of agriculture based sedentary settlements. The Rigvedic society was divided into
rajanyas (ruling elites) and vis (producers), both sharing kinship ties. Agriculture was practiced, but
pastoralism was more wide spread. Private property was absent in land, and ownership of cattle was
the marker of wealth and status. However, situation began to change towards the end of the Vedic
period with the emergence of cities and state polities in northern India. Agricultural conditions in the
Gangetic basin were vastly different from those of the Indus culture. Flood lands and dykes were of
only marginal significance here. The bounty of the monsoon liberated the peasant from those narrow
strips to which alone the flood gave fresh doses of moisture and silt. By the middle of the first
millennium BC, the long period of agricultural penetration eastward had created a complex social
formation marked by peasant communities created within tribes, interspersed with settlements of
servile or semi-servile labourers working under landowning masters.
Peasantry between circa 600 BC and 300 AD
In the later Vedic period, society was increasingly stratified, and Brahmanical texts particularly
associated specific economic activities with different varnas. For instance, brahmanas were supposed
to take up priestly works, teaching and learning, khastriyas to take up statecraft, military, and vaishyas
to take up production activities such as agriculture, trade, and crafts. Unlike these, shudras were
denied any control over land and resources, and they were supposed to provide services for upper
three varnas and to obey their commands. However, the terms used for peasants in early Indian
literature, though, more than not, lacking connotative sophistication and definitional rigor, tend to
suggest a hierarchy based on land-control. In such a hierarchy, often Brahmana varna-caste based
professional norms did not work strictly. For instance, the Pali literature and the Jatakas refer to
brahmana-gahapatis (land owning brahmanas). There are also evidences suggesting shudra’s
association with cultivation. The post-Vedic period led to a more noticeable differentiation within the
peasantry. Private ownership of land and payment of taxes demarcate this period as one in which a
 55

peasant economy is evident. A noted feature of this period is the tremendous expansion in agrarian
economy. The expansion of agriculture manifests an extremely significant aspect of economy- the
pattern of landholding. The landowners included both landlords, who possessed large estates, and
the owner of medium size plots. These estates belonged to gahapatis/setthi-gahapatis,
kutumbins/kutumbikas, and so forth. It is they, who exploited the labour of others outside the family by
making use of slaves and hired labourers, thereby suggesting the emergence of a class of rich
peasants.
In Jatakas, large estates belonged to brahmanas, khastriyas and gahapatis. A private estate of
a brahmana mentioned land measuring 1000 karisas in a Jataka was worked out by slaves and hired
labourers. A similar private estate, mentioned in another Jataka, was owned by a brahmana, who
leased half of the land and the other half was worked out by slaves and hired labourers. The
gahapatis frequently mentioned in the Pali canons, ranged from wealthy Mahasala brahmanas and
wealthy landowners, who cultivated their farms with the help of slaves and hired labourers. These big
farmers also carried on a money-lending business, which helped them in perpetuating their control
over other segments of the peasantry, i.e., the kassakas. Thus, the ordinary peasant increasingly
came to be subjected to the authority of the local superior class itself, a situation, which indicates
some sort of an alliance between the richer peasantry and the outside forces of exploitation.
Sanskrit term grihapati refers to a simple householder, but in the Pali literature gahapati
appears to have been rich and fabulously wealthy landowner associated with agricultural activities. A
Jataka indicates that the gahapati was the controller of primary means of production and so in the
court of king the gahapatis on account of their importance and wealth, played a significant part, and
occupied the third place along with the ministers. For example, a story in a Jataka, mentions that the
son of Mendaka gahapati paid in cash six-month salary to the dasa-karmkaras at a time, while
Mendaka’s daughter-in-law paid six-month salary in kind to them. Unlike Brahmanical lawgivers, the
Buddhist texts conceptualizes a different type of social hierarchy in which after brahmana and
khattiyas, are placed gahapatis, all three belonging to high family (uccha kula). It is noticeable that
gahapatis paid taxes to the king, and in Pali texts, they are intimately associated with kingship. They
appear to be a part of a list of seven jewels, viz., chariots, elephants, horse, treasury, women,
ministers and gahapatis, that were linked to kingship. Gahapatis were the base of economy, system of
production and taxation. In some Jatakas, gahapati is also mentioned as gamani or gramika (village
headman).
Setti-gahapati or setti was a person, who was involved in both, agriculture and trade. It has
been suggested that when a gahapati became increasingly wealthy, he invested his resources in
trade and other commercial activities, and gradually came to be known as setthi-gahapati or setthi.
They lived in cities as well as villages, and also managed exchange of goods between villages and
cities. The Jataka stories show that setthi’s property comprised, grain, oil, honey, dasa-karmkaras,
fields, cattle, herds, etc. A setthi, unlike a simple trader, invested and financed trade, crafts works, and
manufacturing. He also acted as a banker, besides paying taxes to the king. Setthis were extremely
wealthy, and even provided financial assistance to the king in some cases. According to one Jataka
story, when the king’s officers came to a village in the province to measure the fields, the setthi living
there requested the brother of the king, who was living with him, to send a letter to the king asking for
 56

exemption from taxes; it was granted eventually by the king. Apparently, setthis or setthi-gahapatis
were not directly involved in cultivation, and employed slaves and hired labourers for cultivating their
fields. The term kutumbika or kutumbin (derived from kutumba meaning household) is also associated
with agriculture and land, and therefore, it refers to a peasant householder of the family unit. Tough
the term grihapati is apparently synonymous with kutumbika (both meaning householder), the Pali
derivative, namely gahapati, is hardly used in the sense of a mere peasant householder. That the
gahapati signified an exalted epithet fit to be assumed by a man of vast wealth and social pre-
eminence is already indicated above.
Like, gahapatis, the term kutumbika or kutumbin regularly appears in the Jataka stories and
epigraphs. For instance, an inscription from Nasik of the reign of Satavahana king Vasisthiputra
Pulumavi (130-154 AD) records the excavation of a cave for Buddhist monks by a peasant
householder (kutumbin), namely Dhanama. Another kutumbika, Usabhanka, figures in an inscription
from Sailarwadi. A resident of Dhenukakata, Usabhanka is expressly described as a ploughman
(halakiya) and mentioned along with his wife and son. The main purpose of the inscription was to
records the donation of cave to Buddhist sangha by the wife and the son of the kutumbika. Seemingly,
Usabhanka was a well off peasant, otherwise his wife would not have arranged for the construction
and donation of a cave for Buddhist monks. One of the Jataka tales narrates that the Buddha was
born in one of his previous births in a family of kutumbins, and he earned his livelihood by selling corn.
The Jataka story indicates that in some cases kutumbins were reaching to markets to sell their
agrarian produces. Kutumbins also appears as moneylender and city dwellers in Jataka tales. In
some cases, kutumbins, who primarily were well-off peasant householders, could accumulate wealth
by selling their agrarian resources in markets, and settle down in cities. However, they could hardly
ever match the status and wealth of gahapatis. Both, gahapatis and kutumbins formed the upper
layers of peasant hierarchy, and they could be placed in a category of well-off peasant householders,
who could employ slaves and wage labourers to cultivate their fields in addition to their family labour.
They were landlords; several of them had started investing in non-agrarian pursuits, and had settled
down in cities.
The second category of peasants was constituted by owners of small plots. They worked on
their holdings, essentially a family unit, primarily with the help of family labour, occasionally with
restricted use of slaves or wage labourers. They may be identified with kassakas/karsaka, halakiya,
and kinasha, who were small tillers, and owned small plots of land. The existence of private owners
referred to as khettapati and khettesamika (‘owner of a field’, ‘owner of cultivated land’) suggests
differentiation in peasantry. The landowners included both rich landlords, who possessed large estate,
and owners of medium plots. Together with the community members, who possessed smaller plots,
the latter constituted the main group of landowners. The third category includes sharecroppers,
landless peasants like kassakapurisa, dasa/dasi (slave), and kammakaras/kammaris (hired labourer).
They formed the backbone of agricultural production, and their labour contributed significantly in the
formation agricultural surplus. The position of dasas was very bad; very often, they were struck merely
because of their master’s being out of temper. They were treated with contempt and were considered
property of their masters.
 57

The Mauryan period marked a further division within the peasantry. The peasant economy that
emerged by the sixth century BC, further crystallized during the Mauryan period. During this period,
transition to agriculture was completed and it became the population’s basic economic activity. Fairly
well organized agriculture was firmly established in the upper and middle Ganga valley, and
knowledge related to agriculture also disseminated in outlying regions. The Rummindei inscription
suggests that the state employed royal officials to collect taxes directly from the peasants. References
indicate that the Mauryan state was the biggest landholder. The Arthashastra mentions two primary
categories of land- the state land and the private land. The state lands, managed and operated by the
superintendent of state farming (sitadhyaksha), were mostly put to cultivation directly by state. It was
mainly a labour-employment-oriented operation in which dasa-karmkara, and dandapratakartr, etc.
were employed. Kautilaya says that dasa and karmkara are to be paid one and half pana per month,
that is eighteen panas per annum, and they and their families were to be provided with food. Patanjali
in the Mahabhashya refers to slaves and hired labourers together as persons working for food and
clothes. It means that dasas and karmkaras were paid small cash wages besides food. The quality
and quantity of food supplied to them do not appear to have been above the bare-subsistence level.
Dandapratakartr (criminals or offenders) of course received no payment. Those criminals or offenders,
who were unable to pay fines imposed on them, had to render certain types of labour services to
state.
However, state found it impossible to put under direct cultivation all the land, the remainder
had to lease out. There seems to have been two categories of leased out land. The two categories of
lease were ardhasitikas and svaviryopajivins. The former were clearly doing cultivation on half-share
basis and the latter seem to have been sharecroppers, paying one-fourth or one-fifth of the produce to
the state. It seems possible that in the former case, the cultivators were to bring their own implements
such as bullocks, seeds, labourers, while in the latter case the tenants depended on the state for
implements.
State participation in agriculture by deliberate initiatives and agricultural activity in the state’s
domain and transportation of landless people to cultivate virgin land played important role in the
expansion of agriculture. For instance, the Arthashastra informs us about various strategies that could
be employed by state to expand agriculture in outlying areas. The term Janapadanivesa refers to the
colonization of forest and wasteland by shifting particularly the shudras and free tenant-peasants
(karada) from already settled areas to new areas to establish new villages. Likewise, the term
Sunyanivesa meant the repopulating of deserted villages. The cultivators (shudrakarsakas) received
financial assistance, agricultural tools, seeds, cattle, food, and so forth from the state to transform
hitherto forest or wasteland into arable fields. Initially, tax exemptions were also given to these
cultivators to promote cultivation. However, when agriculture was well established in new villages, the
cultivators were made to pay taxes. It is noticeable that these cultivators did not enjoy the right to sell
or mortgage their plots (vikrayadhanavarjani), and these plots were given to them for personal use. In
case, a cultivator failed to bring a forest or wasteland under cultivation, the plot could be taken back
by the king, and transferred to another cultivator. These plots were not linked to hereditary ownership.
Rather, these plots were given for lifetime (aikapurusikani) only. Plots of the deceased tillers
immediately reverted to the state, not to their heirs. In this way, ownership remained with the king. In
 58

Krishna Kumar Mandal’s view, it was primarily such tenant-peasants and also shudras, who tilled
plots received from the state, thus becoming a kind of state-tenants. Here it is noticeable that state
policy transformed a substantial population of shudras into peasants. The vaishyas as a varna in the
context of agriculture are rarely mentioned in the Arthashastra, however in their occupation as traders
they formed an important part of the society.
By this time, a superior class in land can be located. In the beginning, the gahapatis and
kutumbins were the primary taxpayers. Subsequently, in the Mauryan period the wealthy gahapatis
and kutumbins, who were the controllers of the means of production, were recognized under the
category of the paura-janapada, the town and country ‘citizenry’. Nevertheless, the land grants of the
period created a class having superior rights in land. The Arthashastra recommends gifts of land to
priests, preceptors, and others as grants to brahmanas (brahmdeyani) were exempt from fines and
taxes and brought an appropriate income. Such grants were made of uncultivated lands and their
status differed from that of private owners’ land. The state seems to have exempted the brahmanas
from duties normally imposed on such owners and granted them unrestricted right to use produce
received from those plots. It should be noted that only few categories of brahmanas priests received
these plots. It is recommended that the king could give land of brahmdeya type from his own land,
suggesting that Kautilaya never took steps to curb the growth of big landholders. Noticeably, such
grants were a purely personal privilege, not extending to children. It must refer to the lifetime of the
donee. This admittedly created a class of landholders who did not cultivate their pieces of land
through their own physical labour. They may be equated in terms of their status in peasant hierarchy
with earlier gahapatis and kutumbins who now came to be recognized as paura-janapada.
The brahmana donees, who were granted land, would engage ‘others’ for tilling, and they
appears to have been absentee landlords. They employed tenants (upavasa), sharecroppers and
leaseholders (bhuktika) in addition to slaves and hired labourers to cultivate their fields. The upavasas
were tenant-at-will. Unlike upavasa, who were tenants, and bhuktika, who were leaseholders, in the
Arthashastra the term kshetrika means a peasant, who owned some land. It appears that the
kshetrika is also included in the category of peasants, it may further be surmised that many of them
also employed tenants, sharecroppers and hired labourers. They were rich peasants. Contrarily, the
term karsakas were virtually small-scale tillers, who either owners or as tenants, held small plots of
land which enabled them to satisfy the needs of their families and their farms and they did not hire
outside labour. The pre-Gupta times saw the beginning of the practice of land grants and the
consequent restructuring of landed relations marked by the gradual emergence of a visibly more
stratified peasantry. The Satavahana land grant inscriptions of the second century AD speak of
exemptions of all kinds made in favour of the donee by using the term, sarva-jati-parihara. These
grants aided the peasantisation of Deccan and by introducing new elements in the mechanism of
agrarian production inaugurated the formation of a structured peasant order in the region.
Peasantry between circa 400 AD- 1200 AD
By the Gupta period, the practice of land grants became widespread, and it caused the
emergence of a new landowning groups. Technical terms like bhokta, bhogi, bhogika, bhogijana,
bhogapati, bhogapatika, bhogikapalaka, bhogirupa, mahabhogi, brihadbhogi, and brihadbhogika are
used generally for those who enjoyed landed estates in the Gupta and post Gupta period. Other terms
 59

such as raja, ranaka, samanta and mandalesvara referred to big landed intermediaries. However, at
the top in hierarchy was the king, theoretically whose general authority over land was recognized by
numerous epithets used for him in the early medieval records, viz., avanisha, avanindra, kshitipati,
kshitindra, kshitisha, kshiteradhipa, parthiva, prithivipati, parthivendra, prithivinatha, bhupa, bhupati,
bhubhuj, bhumipa, bhumishvara, mahipa, mahipati, mahipala, mahindra, maha-mahindra, samanta-
bhumishvara, and so forth.
The land grants increased the number of land-owning brahmanas, some of whom gradually
shed their priestly functions and turned their attention towards the management of land with the help
of temporary and permanent peasants. These land grants, mainly the agraharas, also led to the rise
of land-owning monastic institutions, the proto-types of later mathas. For instance, I-Tsing (seventh
century AD) shows that usually the Buddhist monasteries leased out their lands to sharecroppers,
giving them sometimes oxen, but never anything else. Simultaneously, land grants to temples
transformed these into land owning institutions. As a result, on the one hand brahmanas, recipients of
land grants, emerged as landowners, and on the other hand, temples and monasteries became land-
owning institutions. With their superior knowledge of the calendar and agricultural meteorology, the
brahmanas who received village-grants, especially in the outlying regions, must have played a
considerable role in the expansion and improvement of agriculture and also in the assimilation of tribal
groups particularly as agricultural workmen.
The post Gupta period saw the culmination of this trend towards greater peasant stratification
in early India leading to the establishment of an intensely structured peasant order. In terms of social
relations, the period saw the completion of the great division between the peasantry and landless
labour. Irfan Habib suggests that presence of a repressed landless labour was of advantage to almost
every other class of rural society, the peasant as well as his superiors. This class of landless
labourers in India was largely created out of the food-gatherers and forest folk who had been already
converted into ostracized jatis during the five centuries before Christ. Nevertheless, the kutumbins
particularly in the context of rural Bengal, during the Gupta period appears to be firmly rooted in their
rural milieu. According to Ranabir Chakravarti, the previous inclination on the part of the
kutumbika/kutumbin of the Jatakas to prefer an urban residence (at least occasionally), without
severing his rural ties, is not seen in the case of their counterparts of the Gupta records. The
kutumbins of the Gupta period are found neither to have participated in the trade of agricultural crops
nor practiced money lending like their counterparts during the early centuries of the Christian era.
During the period from the 4th to the 6th centuries AD, the kutumbin emerged as a rural landed
interest-group, which could not raise itself above the stage of middle peasant (who mainly uses family
labour). Chakravarti further shows that there was a sudden decrease in the number of references to
kutumbins in the sources of the post-Gupta period. The kutumbins became almost a rare social
category. Two factors caused, according to Chakravarti, caused the dwindling presence of
kutumbikas in the post-Gupta period: first, widespread land grants created a new class of
intermediaries between the state and the peasantry, undermining the position of rich landowning
kutumikas. Second, kutumikas were intimately associated with the joint family system that formed the
base of typical production unit. The divisibility of the joint family landed property seems to have
adversely affected the family production unit. These factors may have contributed to the gradual
 60

fading away of the kutumbika as a social category, and it was replaced with the terms like kinasa and
karshaka in the early medieval period. According to Yajnavalkya, the karshaka is a mere cultivator in
the service of landowner or kshetrasvamin, whose field lay under the general control of the king.
During the early medieval period, we find an increase in the number of lexiconised Sanskrit
terms, such as halika, pamara, karsaka, etc., for peasants and agricultural workmen, and a number of
Prakrit words denoting the people engaged in agriculture were also listed in the lexicons. In the
Ashtadhyayi of Panini, the term halika appears to have connoted an ox utilized for ploughing. Some of
the earlier occurrences of this word in literature in a clear sense of ploughmen or petty peasant, who
did the manual work of tillage, etc., are found in the Panchatantra (belonging to the Gupta or a little
earlier period). Noticeably, poverty, hunger, and lowliness have not been attached, to any noticeable
degree, with the halika in these earlier sources. However, by the 9th century AD, halika came to be
seen as a low-lived and ignorant person, whose feet were covered with dust. The halika now was
reduced to a produce-sharing worker, or a sharecropper. In the texts like Kathakosha (circa 12th
century AD) and the Chakkammu-vaeso (circa 13th century AD), provide a graphic picture of halika’s
dependence, poverty, and misery. The term pamara, which appears in the Gatha Saptasati of Hala,
figures as poor, low villager engaged in agricultural work. In the Amarakosha also the term means,
inter alia, a low man; peasant or agricultural labourer is not the meaning assigned to it in this text. It
occurs in a clear sense of petty peasant in the Gaudavaho (8th century AD) of Vakpatiraja. The
pamaras are depicted here as pitiable, poor peasants. Gradually, the term pamaras came to be used
for petty peasants, who had emerged from tribal background.
The term karsaka in the Arthashastra has been used for vaishya agriculturalists. The vaishyas
thus constituted the bulk of agriculturalists in early times. But in the Gupta and post Gupta times we
find some change in the situation. The evidence of the Vishnu-Purana shows that all those whose
occupation was agriculture were regarded as karsakas. By the 12th century AD, as we gather from the
Aparajitaprchchha (a work on architecture) the term karsaka, in its wider sense, began to denote a
broad, though not clearly defined, social category corresponding to dependent ploughmen,
sharecroppers, and petty tenant-peasants, and perhaps poor owner-cultivators (in restricted sense).
In some cases, karsakas were also placed below shudra landholders, who apparently were
mahattaras and mahamattas. Karsakas in this way had been placed below well-to-do peasants.
Krsivala like karsaka too referred to dependent ploughmen, sharecroppers. In addition, sharecroppers
were also known as arddhika, arddhasirika or arddhasirin. B. N. S. Yadav suggests that there was an
improvement in the status of shudras, who were gaining access to land, and at the same time,
degradation is noticeable in the status of the lower sections of vaishya. Presya is another term,
signifying a dependent worker, which began to be used in the context of peasants. In a context, the
word has been explained by Medhatithi as one who was liable to be engaged like a slave. The term
langalopajivin, or one who lives by ploughing, is also used in the Brihatsamhita.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions.
1. Explain the term dasa-kammakara.
________________________________________________________________________
 61

2. Define the term gahapati.

________________________________________________________________________
3. What is the meaning of the term kutumbin or kutumbika.
________________________________________________________________________
4. Who were brahmana-gahapatis?
________________________________________________________________________
5. Explain the term langalopajivin.
________________________________________________________________________
6. Who was a halika?
________________________________________________________________________
7. Who was bhuktika?
________________________________________________________________________

5.4 SUMMARY
As appears from above study, the rural society was not a homogenous group of people. It was
divided into different layers ranging from rich landlords to humble landless tenants. However, this
peasant hierarchy never remained static, and it was subjected to change over the period. Peasant
groups that were present in the post-Vedic period were replaced by the new rural categories in the
early medieval times. Particularly, the land grants introduced phenomenal changes in the countryside,
and rearticulated the social identities by creating a class of intermediary landowning class, including
brahmanas, temples and monasteries, between the state and cultivators.
5.5 REFERENCE & FURTHER READINGS
1. Chakravarti, Ranabir, Exploring Early India up to c. 1300, Macmillan: New Delhi, 2013 revised
edition.
2. Chauhan, G. C., Economic History of Early Medieval Northern India, Delhi: Atlantic Publishers,
2003.
3. Sahu, B. P., (ed.) Land System and Rural Society in Early India, New Delhi: Manohar, 1997.
4. Sharma, R. S., Early Medieval Indian Society: A Study in Feudalization, Calcutta: Orient
Longman India, 2001.
5. Thakur, V. K., and Aounshaman, Ashok, (eds.), Peasant in Indian History- I, Patna: Society for
Peasant Studies and Janaki Publishers, 1996.
5.6 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Critically analyse the peasant hierarchy.
2. Write an essay on the character of different peasant groups.
3. How peasant hierarchy in the early medieval period was different from earlier period? Write an
essay.
 62

Lesson - 6

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

PEASANTRY, DONORS, AND DONEES,
AND PEASANT UNRESTS
STRUCTURE
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Donors, Donees, and Peasantry
6.3 Peasant Unrests
6.4 Summary
6.5 Reference & Further Readings
6.6 Model Questions
6.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand the relationship between the donor, donee, and peasantry.
 understand the nature of donee’s rights and authority over peasantry.
 acquire information about peasant unrests.
 gain knowledge regarding the Kaivarta and the Kalabhara revolts.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The land grants instrumentalised the relationship between peasantry, donors, and donees by
creating a web of interdependence in which donors, usually the kings, deliberately created a class of
intermediary landlords between the state and the peasantry. The beginning of land grant system can
be observed from the early century of the Christian era onwards, which by the early medieval times
practically spread across the Indian subcontinent. Temples emerged as estate-owners in south India,
and many brahmanas enjoyed a similar position in the upper and middle Ganga basin, central India,
the Deccan and Assam. In north India, religious grantees did not have to pay taxes to the state
although they fulfilled other obligations. However, in Odisha and south India, in many cases, they had
to pay taxes. Non-religious landed intermediaries also appear in different forms in various parts of
Indian subcontinent. In certain regions of India, for example, in Odisha, we find tribal chiefs elevated
to the position of landlords. In other regions, many administrative officials enjoyed taxes from the
peasantry. In spite of these variations, the basic factor, namely presence of a controlling class of
landlords and a subject peasantry, remained the same in early medieval times.
 63

6.2 DONORS, DONEES, AND PEASANTRY

Available evidences show that land grants were made either by the king or by a member of
royal family. Comparatively less number of gifts of land by others (e.g., merchants, officials, etc) has
been made in early India. Here it is noticeable that the king, as the universal sovereign of everything
in his State, had, no doubt, some claim over the land. He received revenue, according to ancient
Indian legal texts, from the peasant as the wages for the protection he afforded to the people; but this
in no way amounted to a proprietary right over all land of his kingdom. The fields generally belonged
to peasants, though there were some tracts owned by the king in different villages, which alone he
could grant. In addition, forests, rivers, hills, and wasteland, where no private ownership was present,
all belonged to the king.
In the pre-Maurya and Maurya times, the land grants were made to the priests. For instance,
the Arthashastra recommends that brahmdeyas, which were exempt from taxes and fines and brought
appropriate income, were to be granted to learned and religious brahmanas as ‘freeholds’, and
estates without the right of alienation to certain categories of state officers. Such grants were made of
uncultivable lands and their status differed from that of private owner’s land. The sate seems to have
exempted the brahmanas from duties normally imposed on such owners and granted them
unrestricted rights to use the produce received from those plots. The king could give land of
brahmdeya type from his own land (sita). Under perfectly normal conditions, also landgrants were
made in favour of important dignitaries and people, who mattered for the government and
administration. Gift of land has been recommended as an important instrument in Kautilayan
diplomacy. It has been specially recommended as bait for winning over the supporters of enemies. It
is mentioned in the Arthashastra that in case an enemy such as forest chief, a principal officer of the
enemy or the enemy himself could be won over by gift of land, then the king should win his support
with the grant of land without excellences. Even in order to avoid internal revolts of a son, a brother or
another member of the royal family, a king is advised to gift land to the concern person, when all other
means have failed. Such grants were tax-free, accordingly their records were maintained by the state
officials. However, such grants were not made with judicial and administrative rights to the recipient of
land, and they were not for perpetuity.
However, the nature of landgrants changed in post-Mauryan and particularly by the Gupta-
Vakataka period as the brahmadeyya grant was also made with several judicial-administrative rights,
giving much power in the hands of the beneficiary. For example, the Vakataka princes at Berar gave
up their control over all sources of revenue like pasturage, hides, charcoal, liquor, forced labour
(vishti) and all hidden treasures and deposits. These land grants paved the way for the rise of a new
land owning class of brahmanas, many of whom were not the direct cultivators. They employed
sharecroppers, hired labourers, and leaseholders to get their land cultivated. The system of giving
land grants however was a mutual give and take process as in return for land grants the brahmanas
had to render religious services to the donor. In the beginning, land grants were made in the outlying
forest areas beyond Ganga valley. This was done with the idea of bringing new lands under cultivation
through brahmana donees, who spread the knowledge of new methods of cultivation along with the
knowledge of seasons (astronomical), irrigation, and social hierarchy in new areas. In addition, the
 64

brahmanas now could have brought the forest people into the fold of varna-jati. It gradually increased
state income by integrating forestland as well as people into a new economic order.
Copper plate charters often speak of the grant of land as a tax free holding in accordance with
the bhumicchidra-nyaya or the principle of the bhumicchidra. D. C. Sircar explains the term
bhumicchidra as ‘the land unfit for cultivation’ or ‘waste or fallow land’, and therefore, bhumicchidra-
nyaya would means ‘the maxim of the waste land’. It implies that a person brings the waste or fallow
land under cultivation then he would be entitled to enjoy it without any payment of taxes. Since a plot
of waste land could be regarded as a gap in the cultivated area in one’s possession, reclamation of
such land might be technically known as ‘covering up the gap.’ Nevertheless, land grants in hitherto
forested and in virgin territories resulted in the expansion of plough agriculture beyond Ganga valley.
Agricultural expansion meant an introduction of agricultural and irrigation technology in regions
outside Ganga valley, which were yet to experience the emergence of state-society. In addition, this
led to the establishment of new relations of production, control over means of production, and
institutional management of agricultural processes. The donee had to introduce in virgin territories and
wastelands, a) advance production activities (i.e., agriculture, cattle husbandry, crafts, etc.) and b)
new types of production relations. The donees were expected to ensure the cultivation of the
endowed area for their sustenance. Even in case, the area, where a donee was granted land, was
under the occupation of tribesmen, indulged in less-advance production activities (e.g., hunting and
gathering), the donee introduced much advance production activity (i.e., agriculture, cattle husbandry,
crafts, etc.), and thereby, initiated a structural change in tribal population.
Although, the majority of royal land grants were made to brahmanas, instances of land grants
to Buddhist and Jain monasteries are also recorded in epigraphs. The earliest epigraphic record of a
land grant belongs to the Satavahana dynasty that refers to a grant of a village as a gift in an
Asvamedha sacrifice. Chronologically, the land grants appeared on a widespread scale first in the
fourth-fifth centuries AD over a large part of central India, northern Deccan, and Andhra.
Subsequently, land grants were made in the eastern India (Bengal and Orissa) and then they began
to appear in Western India (Gujarat and Rajasthan) in the fifth-seventh centuries AD. By the seventh
and eighth centuries AD, the areas of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka witnessed land grants at large scale.
This was followed by the spread of land grants in Kerala in the ninth century AD, and then by the end
of the twelfth century AD the practice of land grant almost spread across the entire subcontinent with
the possible exception of Punjab.
Nayanjot Lahiri, while discussing the Brahmputra valley, shows that land grants were made to
brahmanas along with both fiscal and administrative-judicial rights. However, the basic point is that
the donated lands in most of the cases were in settled village areas where agriculture had long been
practiced and where the peasant cultivators were obviously supposed to give to the donees what they
were originally supposed to give to the king. The inscriptions show that the land donated in the
Brahmputra valley were not in waste lands, which were colonized by the brahmanas but in the valley
proper where all the granted land was clearly settled and contributing revenue to the state. The
description of the donated property which was made up of land, along with the homesteads, paddy
fields, dry lands, ponds, grazing grounds, refuse land, etc., is evocative of an existing rural settlement.
The peasants who were occupying and cultivating the land, surrendered that part of their produce to
 65

the brahmanas which earlier had accrued to the king. It means that the land grants, made in already
settled villages, did not mean eviction of the erstwhile residents. Rather, it implied that instead of
state, the inhabitants were expected to pay taxes or dues to the donees. Land grant, hence, meant
transfer of revenue rights to the donees by the king. Land grants in already settled areas further
implies that the purpose of it was not the expansion of agriculture rather it seems to have been an
attempt on the part of the rulers to consolidate as well as legitimize its political authority.
Apparently, when a land or village, inhabited by the peasants associated with agriculture,
primarily, was granted, the donee introduced changes in the production relations, while the production
activities remained the same. In this way, in different contexts the relationship between donee, and
peasant were structured differently. Obviously land was the primary means of production. But thinking
in terms of exclusive control over land by one party makes it extremely difficult to understand the
distribution of land. It should be made clear that in early medieval times, on the same piece of land,
the peasants held inferior rights and the landlords held superior rights. The law books of Yajnavalkya,
Brihaspati and Vyasa specify four graded stages of land rights in the same piece of land. Thus, we
hear of mahipati, kshetrasvamin, karshaka, and sub-tenant or leaseholder. It is important that the
medieval jurists understood svamitva in the sense of ownership and svatva in the sense of property,
and his was considered to be a significant distinction in Hindu law. The svamin, therefore, could be
equated with the landed beneficiary and the karshaka or the kshetrika with the rent-paying peasant.
Likewise, at one stage under the Cholas, there were as many as five grades in its landed hierarchy. It
consisted of the king on top followed by the assignee and then the occupant, who leased land to the
sub-occupant who finally got it tilled by the cultivating tenant. R. S. Sharma says, the peasants were
allowed to stay alive and multiply themselves, but were not given effective control over the means of
production. In fact, land grants leave no doubt that the landlord largely controlled the means of
production. The beneficiary was entitled to collect taxes, all kinds of income, all kinds of occasional
taxes, and this ‘all’ was never specified. Similarly, he was entitled to collect proper and improper
taxes, fixed and unfixed taxes, and at the end of the list of taxes, the term ec cetra was added. All this
enormously increased the power of the beneficiary.
For instance, according to a sixth century AD, Majhgawam inscription of Parivrajaka king
Hastin a village named Valugarta was donated as an agrahara to brahmanas. The donees were
granted several fiscal and administrative rights ranging from udranga (the tax on the permanent
tenants) and uparikara (tax paid by the temporary tenants) along with the immunity from the entrance
of regular and irregular soldiers. However, the donees were not given the right to collect fines from the
thieves. Likewise, Karitalai inscription of Uchchakalpa king Jayanatha (fifth century AD) records the
donation of a village Chhandapallika to a brahmana Mitrasvamin. The donee was also granted the
right to collect shulka (tolls and custom duties), bhaga (king’s share of the produce), bhoga (periodical
supplies made by the tenants to the king), kara-hiranya (tax to be paid in grains). Entry of regular and
irregular soldiers was restricted in the donated village; however, donee was not given the right to
collect fines from thieves. The Karitalai inscription further commands the village inhabitants, including
brahmanas, cultivators, and artisans to pay the mentioned dues to the donee brahmanas.
Interestingly, the same epigraph also directs the future kings not to take the tributes and taxes, which
 66

by custom do not belong to the king, from the donated village. These epigraphs show that in certain
cases, rulers retained certain fiscal and administrative rights over the gifted land or village.
It appears from these epigraphs that the donees enjoyed income from the donated village or
land, tilled by the cultivators, who were also expected to obey the commands of the donees. Yet, it
does not mean that the kings had given up all their claims and rights over the donated villages or land.
The kings, in fact, by keeping the right to impose and collect fines on thieves and wrong doers in their
own hands, firmly held donated villages under their commands. Apparently, the thieves or wrong
doers of the donated villages were tried and fined by the local authorities, implying the presence of
royal authority in the villages or land, even after their being gifted to the donees. Moreover, the
prohibition to future kings, not to collect the dues, which were not subjected to the king clearly
suggests that certain dues or taxes were never given up to the donee(s). And the kings retained a
right to collect such dues even from the donated villages or lands. Same was the case with temples
and monasteries that were granted villages with several fiscal and administrative rights. For instance,
the Khoh inscription of king Samkshobha (528-29 AD) records the donation of a half village, Opani to
a temple of goddess along with certain fiscal rights except the authority to collect the fines from
thieves and mischief doers. Here again, it was not the ownership but rights to collect dues and taxes
along with some administrative rights a village was granted to the temple. Nevertheless, since donees
such as brahmanas, monasteries, and temples never kept personal armies to protect their claims over
donated land or village, they remained dependent upon the king for protection and support.
It is noticeable that land grants along with fiscal and administrative-judicial rights to donees do
not mean that the king relinquished all his rights over the donated area. In spite of receiving lands or
villages in donation, the donees were required to observe certain rules and regulations. For example,
the Chammak inscription of Pravarasēna-II records the donation of a village named Charmanka to a
thousand brahmanas. This inscription clearly states that the donee brahmanas could enjoy the land
grant as long as they would not commit treason against the kingdom. In addition, if any of them would
be found guilty of either brahmana’s murder, or theft, or adultery, the king will take back the land from
them. It shows that the land was not granted to brahmanas with absolute rights over it. Rather the
king kept a firm control over the donated land and donees, and he had a right to take back the
donated land from the donees in certain situations.
The fact that most of the land grants carried with them a tax-free status meant that villagers
were supposed to hand over various dues to the donees. Sometimes, inscription refers to taxes in a
very general way. At other times, they specify a long list of tax exemptions- i.e., taxes that the
villagers had to pay to the donees instead of to the state. In any case all such privileges create for the
beneficiary superior rights in the land, occupied by the cultivator. Most grants after the seventh
century AD give away villages along with low lands, fertile lands, water reservoirs, various trees and
bushes, pathways and pastures. Charters from eastern India grant the village along with mango trees,
mahua, and jackfruit trees and various other agrarian resources. They also grant cotton, hemp,
coconut and acrecanut trees, though this happens mostly after the tenth century when cash crops
assume importance. Such provisions render the agrarian production dependable on the beneficiary,
for almost all communal agrarian resources are transferred to him. Without free access to community
resources the peasant’s autonomy in production cannot be ensured. Plough agriculture depended
 67

entirely on the use of cattle. For this purpose, continued unrestricted use of the common pasture
resources was essential. But the grant of these resources to the beneficiary created a difficult
situation. We could visualize several restrictions on the use of the common pastures. The beneficiary
could appropriate the best pasture grounds for his own cattle, could allocate the resources to peasant
families on certain conditions or even bar their access to the grazing fields as a measure of coercion.
Therefore, the grant of pasture resources to the beneficiaries considerably curbed the autonomy and
process of peasant production.
Furthermore, most village-level disputes had been settled by a section of the village
community, comprising village elders. Therefore, when inscriptions transfer judicial rights or the right
to collect fines for criminal offences to the donees, then it means an undermining of the rights of the
village community. In economic terms, the relationship between the donees and other rural groups
was marked by dominance and exploitation. In place of state exploitation, the control by the more
close-at-hand exploitation by the donees would no doubt have meant higher levels of subjection of the
average farmer. The basic social unit of production in a village was the family. Land was cultivated
largely through family labour, which was geared mainly to production for the basic consumption needs
of the family as well as for the enforced dues to the donees.
The social formation that emerged out of the widespread practice of landgrants was dominated
by the landlords. The royal charter which gave lands tended to deprive a large number of peasants of
communal rights, which they enjoyed in respect of pasture grounds, pathways, fisheries, forests,
orchards, etc. The new assignees had the right to enjoy these communal resources at the coast of the
village or the tribal community. The assignees were given the right to collect not only the fixed taxes
which hitherto went to the king but were also empowered to levy fresh taxes. The list of land taxes in
early medieval charters gets longer and longer. On the one hand it presupposes agrarian expansion
and increase in productivity. On the other it shows that the burden of taxes was becoming heavier and
heavier particularly in the areas that were granted by it.
The situation was different in the erstwhile uninhabited/waste land or forest areas, where land
grants resulted in the introduction of advance production activities and relations. Such grants by the
rulers introduced agriculture in new areas, where it was not present earlier, and thereby, increased
state’s resources. For instance, the Ghugrahati inscription of king Samachara-deva (circa 600AD)
records the donation of an uneven wasteland, which was infested with wild beasts, and was neither
profitable nor of any use to the king as it did not provide revenue and religious merit. Hence, it should
be made useful by granting to a brahmana so that it could fetch both revenue and merit to the king
himself. Land grant, in this way, was perceived as a tool to enhance the state’s income and the
sphere of state’s influence besides its being a religious act. In fact, as it appears from inscriptions,
state authorities took special initiatives to establish people in hitherto forested or deserted areas. In
such areas, donees were expected to either undertake cultivation or employ others for it. And in such
a situation, donee would become a landowner, and the cultivator tilling the fields would either do it as
hired labourer or leaseholder.
Furthermore, an inscription of the fourth century AD records a donation of Rohyavahaka
village as brahmadeya in Dasilakapalli-rashtra to several brahmanas by king Bhulunda. It is
mentioned that in the granted village Rohyavahaka agriculture was stopped due to unknown reasons,
 68

and these donee brahmanas were expected to resume cultivation at this village. The donor king
directs his officials to allow the donee brahmanas to enjoy and inhabit the granted village. Hence, a
deserted village was donated to a group of brahmanas to resettle it. Similar information is provided by
another inscription from the same area. It records a donation of an uninhabited village, named
Bhutilakhaddaka in Dasilakapalli-pathaka to a brahmana, who was allowed to inhabit, enjoy, cultivate
and get the land cultivated by others. And in his tasks, he should not be disturbed by the royal
partisans, their relatives, and other royal officials. In such contexts, land grants to donees transformed
them into landowners, who were exempted from the payment of taxes and dues to the king.
Evidently, the land grants in those areas where tribal population was present, initiated
interactions between the donees, who had the knowledge of advance production activities, and the
forest tribes. For instance, according to an inscription of Parivrajaka king Hastin, a village named
Navagrama was situated in a rashtra of Pulinda chief, and it was donated to brahmanas as an
agrahara along with several fiscal rights. As we know from other sources, the Pulinda was a tribal
community, appears in the Ashokan edicts (Rock Edict XIII) as Palidas. The Pulindas, residing in the
region between the River Narmada and the Vindhyas, are mentioned in the Arthashastra along with
trap-keepers, Sabaras, Candalas, and several other forest-communities. The epigraph of king Hastin,
thus shows that the Pulindas were brought into contact with brahmana donees through a land grant
by the king. Several post Gupta epigraphs refer to the villages of forest tribes such as Pulindanaka-
grama (village of Pulindas, see, Nogwa inscription of Maitraka king Dhurvasena-II), Atavipataka-
grama (village of atavikas or forest tribes, see, Sankheda inscription of Gurjara king Dadda-II) and so
forth. The landgrants in forests or tribal areas brought brahmanas in contact with forest tribes, and as
a result several of these tribes were assimilated into the Brahamanical social structure. It means an
internal restructuring and organization of the tribal communities on the lines of Brahmanical social and
political ideology.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions.
1. Explain the term bhumicchidra-nyaya.
__________________________________________________________________________
2. How land grants to brahmanas facilitated the expansion of agriculture?
__________________________________________________________________________
6.3 Peasant Unrests
The notion of peasant protest in the Jatakas is interwoven in songs and stories, figures and
images that stand in open defiance to the social order which the peasant supports with his labour.
Such outbreaks are manifestations of the latent opposition that separates the peasant from those who
siphon off his surplus fund. The Jataka stories highlight the exploitative relation of production that had
evolved in early India. Peasant migration was a common form of peasant protest in the Jatakas.
There is a fear of peasants’ migration from their lands when the regime became oppressive. When
flight was not possible, the peasants had no choice but to stay in their villages and to try to delay or
refuse payment. Migration was thus a threat against taxation. In the Jatakas there are instances of
slaves gaining freedom by flight. The dasas and karmkaras, in absence of control from the master,
 69

run away with his possession. All these instances show that usually the members of working class
expressed their resentment against the existing order by fleeing from their work. A Jataka suggests a
tiller went to a foreign land out of frustration caused by usurer and sang a song of relief that there he
might live without anxiety. Generally, famine, heavy taxation and king’s atrocities caused migration of
peasants into frontier areas.
The Jatakas also suggest that blocking the way is a method to express one’s dissent. For
instance, one of the Jataka stories suggests that a young merchant made a contract with a labourer to
pay two coins per cart, or thousand coins in all but the young merchant paid five hundred coins, or at
the rate of one for each cart. So as a mark of protest the labourer stood across the path of the leading
wagon and blocked the way until he paid the full amount. The most formidable form of protest in the
Jatakas is abusive language and body language or movement. The use of abusive language and
body movement on the part of slaves and servants towards their masters indicates an attempt to
subvert the existing exploitative nature of their relationship. A Jataka story mentions that a household
slave named Nand abused his master and in reply the master rebuked him and directed him to live
like a slave. In another story, an old man of the village, the ploughman, and his master, an old
woman, village boy, and all including even the frog are heard to curse the king. To reinforce the power
structure legal codes and customs were formulated and enforced upon people. Slaves, servants and
employees were expected to respect and obey their masters, and speak accordingly. Anyone not
following such socially expected behaviour was chastised by his or her master, and if required, was
punished or fined by the village or state authority. For instance, a Jataka story mentions that a
fisherman’s wife was fined and beaten for her abusive language. Another story describes how a tiller
and his wife are beaten by a gahapati, when he heard their mocking imitation of his voice.
In addition, peasants protested by taking advantage of royal visits to complain to the king.
When Harsha’s army was passing through the countryside, a large number of rural folk came out to
welcome him, but at the same time they complained to him against the oppressions of the bhogpatis
who had been given the right to enjoyment of revenues from the villages. Self-immolation, particularly
in south India, was another form of protest. People registered protests by killing themselves in public.
For instance, a story narrates how a dancing girl threw herself from the temple tower to fight for the
right of her relations to till the land assigned to her for her maintenance. More importantly a brahmana
immolated himself to establish the right of the temple guards and servants who also died for the same
thing.
The Jatakas manifest robbery as a technique of defiance. In the post-Vedic period both the
state and big private land owners tried to expand the bases of exploitation by encompassing ever
greater section of immiserized community members within its fold and compelled them to sell their
labour for subsistence Out of frustration some people adopted robbery as a means of their livelihood.
One of the Jataka tales suggests that there was a great famine, and men being unable to live took
recourse to robbery. Drought, dearth, and high prices constituted the most readily identifiable factors
in the incidence of dacoity. Dacoits living in forests attacked caravans, landowners, and merchants of
city and looted them. Another Jataka tale mentions that the robbers made disturbances on the border
of the kingdom and after two or three engagements with the robbers, the troops sent a letter to the
king saying that they were unable to carry through, and the king himself had to go to vanquish them.
 70

Several instances of violent conflict between the landlords, who were brahmanas, and the
peasants in the eleventh-thirteenth centuries in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have been cited. The
peasants launched armed attacks on brahmana landlords, and the landlords burnt a whole village and
the standing crops, and carried on war against peasant villages. In Jatakas, the most aggressive form
of peasant protest appears to be an armed rebellion against an unjust king. For instance, the
Sachchamikiva Jataka mentions that the nobles, the brahmanas and all the classes rose against an
unjust king, and killed him. They dragged the corpse of the king by the heels to a ditch and flung it in
it. Then they anointed the Boddhisattva king and set him to rule them. In another Jataka, (i.e.,
Pudakushalmanava Jataka) Boddhisattva is mentioned to have exposed the king as a thief before the
gathering of the people, who, in turn rose against the king and beat him and his priest to death. Then
they anointed the Boddhisattva and placed him on the throne.
Records full of cases of turmoil, social disorder, and anti-state activities are found towards the
end of the reign of Chola king Rajaraja-III. On account of such cases there are many instances of
confiscations and public sale of property. A record of the twenty-third year of Rajaraja from Tanjore
district gives details which can be considered typical of several others of its kind. According to it two
temple priests who were called Shiva-brahmanas were punished by the congregation of Shaiva
worshippers called maheshvaras who were joined in this act by the village assembly consisting of
non-brahmanas. The temple priests were punished for raja-droham and Shiva-droham, i.e., treason
against the king as well as Shiva. The accused had handed over to a concubine the jewels of the
goddess, misappropriated the temple funds placed in their charge, refused to pay dues on the lands
held by them and had misbehaved in other ways. They ignored royal commands and ducked the
king’s messengers. They had committed indescribable sins through the Kannadigas and are said to
have collected 50,000 kashus. For all this they were expelled from the temple and ostracized, and the
property, moveable and immovable including servants, was confiscated by the state. This record
shows non-brahmana Shaiva to be enthusiastic supporters of the temple grant system which was
being violated by some brahmana priests serving in the temple of Shiva.
Around the sixth century in south India, we have the famous case of the revolt of Kalabhras,
who seemed to have been a tribal people. The Kalabhra chief are called evil kings, and they are
charged with the resumption of brahmadeya lands enjoyed by the beneficiaries. The Pandya
inscriptions of the eighth and ninth centuries speak of the loss of such lands in the wake of the
Kalabhra aggression and also of the encroachment of the shudras on a donated village. For instance,
the Velvikudi grant says that after that village, which had been granted as brahmadeya by
Mudukudumi of many sacrifices- a king known to the Sangam literature- was enjoyed by the donees
for a long time, it was abrogated by a Kali king named Kalabhran who took possession of the
extensive earth after displacing numberless great kings. The period for which the Kalabhras
dominated the scene in Tamilnadu, especially at the cost of the Cholas, is called a dark age. Although
their rule lasted only for seventy-five years or so, they upset the existing social and political
relationships. The Kalabhras seized the lands granted to the brahmanas, and were probably more
egalitarian. The Pandya king Kadungon and the Pallava king Simhavishnu brought to an end the so-
called dark period inaugurated by the Kalabhras.
 71

The Ramacarita, a biography of Pala king Ramapala, of Sandhyakaranandi informs us about

the revolt of the Kaivartas in eastern Bengal. They were both fishermen and cultivators. As a tribe the
Kaivartas were absorbed in Brahmanical society as a low mixed caste. According to Manu, the
Kaivarta was a boatman. But in east Bengal most of them seem to have been peasants, and as such
were identical with the Mahisyas, who were considered to be the offspring of a kshatriya father and
vaishya mother. Some Kaivarta chiefs were given land as service tenures by the Pala rulers. These
lands resumed b Mahipala-I around the end of the tenth century, and the Kaivartas were oppressed
with taxes. Eventually they revolted against Mahipala-I around the end of the tenth century, and wiped
out the Pala authority for a considerable period of time. It is mentioned that the Kaivartas rode
buffaloes and fought with bows and arrows. It is significant that the buffalo appears as the vahana or
conveyance of Lord Yama who is the God of Death. The fact that the buffalo was also associated with
the Kaivartas shows them to as fierce as Yama. At any rate it is clear that the Kaivartas retained their
tribal identity under the leadership of Bhima. We find repeated references to the slaughter of the
kinsmen of Bhima in the Ramacartia of Sandhyakara Nandi. Although Ramapala is depicted as one
who never caused any injury to his kinsmen, he put down the Kaivartas not with the support of his
kinsmen, but a large number of vassals (samantas). Many of these vassals were tribal chiefs ruling
over forest tracts. It therefore appears that the protracted struggle between Ramapala on the one
hand and the Kaivartas on the other caused a dent in the supra-tribal solidarity, with the result that the
Kaivartas were left alone to fend for themselves. The Kaivartas apparently wanted the lands that had
been resumed from them by Mahipala-I and transferred to the Buddhists. They also sought relief from
oppressive taxes imposed on them by the Palas. The brief period for which they supplanted the Pala
rule did not bring about any transformation in social and political relationships; only the place of the
Pala ruler was taken by the Kaivarta chiefs, Dibyoka and his son Bhima.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions.
1. Who were Kaivartas?
__________________________________________________________________________
2. Who were Kalabharas?
__________________________________________________________________________

6.4 Summary
Land grants restructured the relationships between the kings and peasantry by creating a
class of intermediaries, who enjoyed revenue, judicial and administrative rights. Earlier, villagers
including cultivators paid taxes to the king directly via royal officials, but now with the emergence of an
intermediary class the direct link between the king and villagers ended. Over the period, land grants
increased the oppression of peasantry at the hands of intermediaries, and in some cases, it resulted
in peasant unrests in the form of migration, disruption of work, abusive language, and violence.
6.5. REFERENCE & FURTHER Readings
Sahu, B. P., (ed.) Land System and Rural Society in Early India, New Delhi: Manohar, 1997.
 72

Sharma, R. S., Early Medieval Indian Society: A Study in Feudalization, Calcutta: Orient Longman
India, 2001.
Singh, Upinder, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From Stone Age to the 12th Century,
Pearson Longman: Delhi, 2009.
Mandal, Krishna Kumar, ‘Note: Forms of Peasant Protest in the “Jatakas”,’ in Social Scientists, Vol.
35, No. 5/6, , pp. 39-46, 2007.
6.6 Model Questions
1. Critically analyse the relationship between the peasantry, donors, and donees.
2. Discuss the various types of peasant protests against their exploitation.
3. Write an essay on the Kalabhara and the Kaivarta revolts.
 73

Lesson - 7

LAND GRANTS AND EXPANSION OF AGRICULTURE

STRUCTURE
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Land Grants (Agrahara, Devadana, Vaishya-agrahara, and Kara-Sasana)
7.3 Study of the Krishiparasara (Agricultural processes and Techniques)
7.4 Summary
7.5 Reference & Further Readings
7.6 Model Questions
7.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand the nature and type of land grants.
 understand the impact of land grants on agricultural production.
 acquire information about the Krishi-parasara.
 gain knowledge regarding agricultural tools, rituals, and production methods.
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The land grant charters uses several terms connoting gifts of land such as agrahara,
devadana, vaisya-agrahara and kara-sasana to individuals as well as institutions like monasteries,
temples, etc. Such grants played an important role in the expansion of agriculture and restructuring of
production relations in countryside. However, the texts like Krishi-parasara inform us about various
agricultural techniques, tools, methods, and rituals that were in use in the early medieval period.
7.2 LAND GRANTS (AGRAHARA, DEVADANA, VAISHYA-AGRAHARA, AND KARA-SASANA)
D. C. Sircar in the Indian Epigraphical Glossary translates the term agrahara as tax-exempted
village in the possession of brahmanas. However, according to Ranabir Chakravarti, the term
agrahara stands for the donation or creation of revenue free plot(s) or even the entire village in favour
of a religious donee or a group of donees or a religious institution (a Brahmanical temple, a Buddhist
vihara or a Jain monastery) by issuing a copper plate charter under royal instruction or approval. The
agrahara villages, also sometimes referred as brahmadeya, mangalam, agaram, brahmapuram, agra-
brahmadeya, brahmadesam, and brahmamangalam, were villages granted to individual brahmana or
 74

group of brahmanas or a monastery or a temple. However, compared to Buddhist monasteries the

number of agraharas granted to brahmanas is much higher. Nevertheless, when the term agrahara
and brahmdeya are used interchangeably in an epigraph, it referred to a grant of land/village to
brahmana(s). For instance, an epigraph of Valkha king Svamidasa of fourth century AD, records the
donation of a brahmadeya village (village inhabited by the brahmanas) as per the norms governing
agrahara grants, to the Aryya-Chaturvaidyas. Upinder Singh argues that the brahmadeyas (land gifted
to brahmanas) had a political dimension. These settlements were created by royal order, and the
rights of the brahmana donees were declared and confirmed by royal decree. Noticeably, in increase
in royal land grants indicates higher levels of control over productive resources by kings compared to
earlier periods. It is not contended that a brahmana village included only those who belonged to the
community of brahmanas; on the other hand we have clear evidence to show that it accommodated
other classes as well-potters, black smiths, goldsmiths, washer men and village servants also lived
there, though in separate quarters close to the brahmana quarter of the village.
Though the beginning of land grants for religious purposes goes back to the first century AD in
the Deccan, agrahara became a really regular and palpable institution from the fifth century AD
onwards. The size of the plot held by grantees varied considerably. In the Vakataka realm, it ranged
from a plot as meagre as twenty nivartanas to an area as large as 8000 nivartanas. In one instance, a
large area covering 2000 nivartanas was donated to only four brahmanas. The Vakatakas mostly
donated land or villages to a group of brahmanas. While the transfer of a plot implied full ownership of
the donee, the grant of a village did not lead to the transfer of ownership rights to the donee. It
resulted in the transfer of a number of revenues, normally payable to the ruler by villagers, to the
donee(s). The brahmana community, which was a landlord body over a class of cultivators in
agraharas, collected certain shares of the yield. The noteworthy features of the brahmana settlements
were: it was a settlement of a non-cultivating caste; it was in general a settlement of a landlord class
placed over a body of cultivating peasantry, and there were some elements of common ownership of
land in the community. An appreciable increase of the prestige, status and material conditions of
donees- mostly brahmanas- is not difficult to imagine. Apart from enjoying ownership rights of soil, the
brahmana donee was hardly expected to have been a cultivator himself. The granted area may have
been actually tilled by agriculturalists, who were not necessarily the owners of plots they ploughed.
Socially, as the settlers of agraharas, the brahmanas were seen as a ‘repository of wisdom’,
and they represented the intellectual serenity of the day. They, as ‘keepers of conscience’, served as
a cohesive force of the state and society in one way or the other. They were the centres of learning of
Vedic, Brahmanic, Itihasic and Puranic commentaries. In recognition of their services to the state and
society, they were granted agraharas or brahmdeyas for their maintenance. The accruing income
from these grants went a long way in keeping the brahmanas free from all economic maladies. These
land grants played a vital role in deciding the economic structure of the society and thereby played a
key role in shaping the economic condition of the state. An agrahara, in a same way a brahmdeya,
was not exclusively populated by brahmanas, but was often inhabited by non-brahmana cultivators or
service personnel working for the village as a whole, and for the land controlling brahmanas as well.
Hence, a kind of landlord-tenant or service relationship evolved in the newly established agraharas,
wherein the lordship and management rights were given to the grantees.
 75

In several cases, agraharas were also created in hitherto non-arable and fallow (including
forest) tracts. Te donees in such cases had to ensure the cultivation of the endowed area for their
sustenance. This certainly speaks of the possibility of the expansion of agricultural settlements in
areas, which had rarely experienced such sedentary settlements before the fourth century AD. For
instance, in Bengal, most of the transferred plots were uncultivated and fallow, which were under royal
authority (early Indian theoretical treatises upheld royal rights over non-arable, unfilled areas). Thus, it
appears that creation of agraharas also played a crucial role in the expansion of agriculture in hitherto
forested and virgin areas by making brahmanas to migrate into gifted areas. Particularly, from the 5 th
century onwards, land grant inscriptions document the influx of brahmana immigrants from the Ganga
valley into the areas of Maharashtra, Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, and Odisha. The phenomenon of
migration intensified in the 8th century. As a result, a broad division that had emerged by the 10th
century was that of the Pancha-Gaudas (the northern brahmana group, comprising Sarasvata,
Gauda, Kanyakubja, Maithila, and Utkala) and the Pancha-Dravidas (the southern brahmana group,
comprising Gurjjaras, Maharashtriyas, Karnatakas, Trailingas, and Dravidas). In some of the
epigraphs, terms such as agraharin, and agraharika are used, which are translated by D. C. Sircar
either as an owner of agrahara or the superintendent of agraharas.
In a same way, D. C. Sircar translates the term devadana as a gift made to a god or a tax-free
land in the possession of a temple. In several epigraphs, devadana is also mentioned as deva-bhoga,
deva-deya, deva-daya, and deva-agrahara. For instance, an epigraph of Valkha king Bulunda of the
fourth century AD records a donation of a village to a local deity as per the norms of deva-agrahara
for performing temple rituals. Here it is noticeable that the construction and embellishment of religious
establishments was the result of patronage from diverse sources. Hermann Kulke has pointed out that
early medieval kings tried to buttress their authority by extending land grants to temples. Royal
patronage was important in the case of specific shrines and reflected the close relationship that kings
sought to establish with certain deities and temples. An example is the Brihadishvara temple (built by
Chola king Rajaraja I) at Tanjavur (Tanjor), which dominated the city landscape and constituted its
centre. The area around the temple formed the city’s inner circuit. This was where political and priestly
elites lived. Outside this was an outer residential circuit, which housed other urban groups such as
merchants. There are references to the four markets in the city. The temple generated a demand for
material such as milk, ghee and flowers, as well as services of various kinds such as those by priests,
temple women, musicians, washer men, and guards. Special performances were staged in the temple
on days marking the birth asterisms of members of the royal family. Apart from the king, members of
the royal family made many gifts to the Brihadishvara temple. This was a major building project, and it
may have taken 7 to 8 years to be built. The temple drew many areas and groups into its economic
web. Inscriptions state that over 600 employees were drawn from villages and towns in various parts
of the Chola kingdom to serve in the temple. Revenue from many far-flung villages, including some in
Sri-Lanka was assigned to it for its maintenance. The management of its financial resources was in
the hands of brahmana sabhas of several villages. Farmers, herdsmen, and artisans living around
Tanjavur supplied many of its requirements.
In South India, a large number of inscriptions record royal donations to temples, mostly of
gold, land, and some of livestock and paddy. The number of such donations went up dramatically
 76

from the Pallava to the Chola periods. For instance, among the donative inscriptions at Tirupati, 11
belong to the Pallavas, and 31 to the Cholas. Royal land grants (devadanas) to temples were made in
perpetuity and were associated with several tax exemptions and privileges. Temples also leased out
to tenants. For example, an inscription belonging to Sundara Chola states that the temple
management gave out 124 veli (a standard measure) of devadana land to a certain person, who was
supposed to hand over 2,880 kalam (a grain measure) of rice every year to the temple at the rate of
120 kalam per veli. Temple emerged as one of the largest employers, and brought professionals from
diverse backgrounds such as dancing women, dancing teachers, drummers, tailors, goldsmiths,
accountants, and various ritual specialists priests. Temple employees were generally paid in kind,
specifically in rice. However, in the Chola period, some of them were also paid in the form of revenue
assignments. Temple patrons included chieftains, landowners, merchants, villages, and town
assemblies besides king and members of royal household.
According to Rajan Gurukkal, temples possessing considerable wealth, surrounded by
brahmana settlements, scattered through early medieval south India, played a pivotal socio-economic
role. The temple gained a great deal of control over society through agrarian management, by
integrating the landed intermediaries, tenants, sub-tenants, and the tillers into a system of production
and distribution based on ties and obligations from the base to top. The temple received devadana
grants primarily to use earnings from the gifted lands for its own upkeep as well as for organising
various temple rituals, festivals, and sacrifices. The responsibility to manage temple affairs was of a
brahmana’s committee, which looked after not only the temple income from donated land but also
managed the expenditures of the temple. Sometimes land was leased out to the tenants, who were
made responsible for providing the requirements of the specified rituals or ceremonies for the
maintenance of which the endowments were made. This shows that how the tenancy dues could
provide a definite and regular resource-base for the perpetuation of the rituals and ceremonies in the
temple. Noticeably, the members of the trusts or temple committees were made the trustees of the
land endowed to the temple with responsibilities of maintaining the respective rituals or ceremony out
of the accruing revenue. Here the trustees were virtually enjoying proprietary rights.
As a result, each temple emerged as the nucleus of a brahmana settlement and the dominant
brahmana caste was the custodian of the temple as well as the proprietor of the village. The
brahmana held almost all the agrarian tracts of the settlement as individual landholdings and,
collectively, temple property. In Kerala, the executive work of administration of the temple affairs was
discharged by various committees and sub-committees, mainly comprising brahmanas. As a result,
the brahmanas acquired power through their control over the economic functions of the temple. The
temple was the institutional manifestation of their superior religious merit, and ritual status in the
society. Since the temple was the chief landowner, it acquired a central place in the realm of the
agrarian economy. In the light of available records, it can be said that large agrarian tracts were
acquired by the brahmanas in the form of royal endowments and private donations to the temple. The
centralisation of agrarian activities under the institutional supervision of the temple resulted in the
establishment of an elaborate agrarian order and an unprecedented expansion of agriculture.
The term vaisya-agrahara has been translated by D. C. Sircar as a privileged landholding
created in favour of members of the mercantile community. For instance, the Sohawal Copper-Plate
 77

inscription of king Sarvanatha of the sixth century AD records an indefinite grant of the village
vaisyavataka as an agrahara to two merchant brothers, named Visakhadatta and Shakti for the
maintenance of the temple of Kartikeya. Interestingly the name of the village vaisyavataka
(vaisya+vataka) possibly referred to a settlement of the vaisyas or merchants, or a place associated
with commercial activities. It reminds us of vaisya-agraharas mentioned in epigraphs emerging in
subsequent centuries, which referred to privileged holdings made in favour of certain vaisyas.
Nevertheless, a later date epigraph of the Ganga king Madhukamarnava informs us about the
donation of three villages to a merchant called Eriapanayaka as vasiya-agrahara. However, the
villages were granted as agrahara, the donee merchant was expected to pay an annual due at the
rate of 150 silver coins per year to the donor. Apparently, agraharas were also gifted to merchants in
some cases; however, the number of such gifts is small.
The term kara-sasana is also translated by D. C. Sircar as a charter recording a grant of land
for which the donee had to pay dues. In other words, kara-sasana either was a grant for which
revenue in full or at concessional rate was fixed. The word sasana means ‘a royal charter’ and tamra-
sasana ‘a royal charter engraved on a plate of copper.’ The few instances of kara-sasanas come from
Odisha, Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh. From early Odisha several epigraphs are found employing the
term kara-sasana for certain types of land grants. Sircar says, the term can refer to a piece of land
either sold, the purchaser being allowed to enjoy some privileges, or given away, subject to the
payment of the assessed due regularly. For instance, the Bengal Asiatic society’s plate of
Gayadatunga informs us that a village named Torograma was made a kara-sasana with its annual
due fixed at 9 palas of silver. The village was divided among brahmanas, each of whom received a
certain number of plots. Likewise, the Ganjam copper-plate inscription of Ganga Prithvivarman of
Svetka records the donation of a village by the king as a kara-sasana with the fixed rate of four palas
of silver to be paid every year by the done as due. In a same way, the Patna plates of the
Somavamshi king Mahabhavagupta-I Janamejaya mentions that a village was granted by the king as
a kara-sasana, and its annual rent was fixed at eight palas of silver. An interesting fact is that the
deeds called kara-sasana often quoted the usual imprecatory and benedictory verses meant for the
tamra-sasana or charter recording revenue-free gifts of land. Of course, a kara-sasana could claim
some merit when the land was given free of cost or at a reduced price and when the rent accepted
was less than the usual rate of the age and locality.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions.
1. Explain the term Agrahara.
__________________________________________________________________________
2. Explain the term Devadana.
__________________________________________________________________________
3. Write a short note on Kara-sasana.
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Write a short note on Vaishya-agrahara.
__________________________________________________________________________
 78

7.3 STUDY OF THE KRISHIPARASARA (AGRICULTURAL PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES)

The Krishiparasara is the only available independent text on agriculture prepared in ancient
India. The text contains 243 verses, which can be divided into two parts, the first relates to the
forecast of rainfall and the influence of planets and stars on agricultural operations. The second parts
deals with the practical details of agricultural operations. It is to be noted that the text gives details of
agriculture with reference to rice cultivation. Lallanji Gopal dates this text to the middle of the eleventh
century, and suggests that the author of the Krishi-parasara was familiar with the condition in the
eastern India (more specifically Bihar and Bengal). It is not to be supposed that all the knowledge was
only stored in books without being put to practical use. The very fact that books on the subject of
agriculture were composed in Sanskrit suggests their usefulness to the class, which knew the
language and at the same time was interested in the practical aspect of agriculture. The
Krishiparasara merely collects the fund of knowledge, which cultivators at that time possessed. Such
practical knowledge transmitted from generation to generation when once acquired is generally not
allowed to be relegated to oblivion.
The first section describes in detail the influence of planets on agriculture and rainfall. This is
followed by suggestions for ascertaining annual rainfall and indications of immediate rainfall. The
technique of forecasting weather involved the study of astronomy and depended on the experience
and observation of natural phenomena accumulated over centuries. The text shows how the two
approaches were utilised for predicting monthly, yearly, and immediate rainfall. In the first instance,
the text describes the rainfall in any year according to the planets who happen to be its king, minster,
superintendents of water and crop. Later in the text, we read about rainfall or drought in any year as
determined by the movement and position of the planets. It classifies clouds into four, avartta,
samvartta, pushkara and drone, and describes annual rainfall according as one of them is supreme in
year. Then it gives directions for predicting rainfall on the basis of observations made in different parts
of the year. The text maintains that by dividing the 30 days of Pausha into 12 equal parts of 2½ days
each, corresponding to the 12 months in order, one can know the rainfall in the 12 months by
observing the course of the wind in their corresponding parts of the Pausha month as ascertained by
the flag attached to a post. Another devise is to divide each day of Pausha into 12 parts of 5 dandas
each, and to observe the rainfall throughout the month; the rainfall in the earlier or later half of those
parts will indicate rainfall by day or by night respectively in the corresponding month. Then follow
indications of rainfall in the rainy season as they may be gathered from the climatic conditions, wind,
lighting, rain, frog, clouds, etc., in the months of Pausha, Magha, and Phalguna. In Chaitra the rainfall
on the first day of the bright half of the moon is taken to foretell the annual rainfall according to the
week day on which it happens to occur.
The text further adds that the position of the nakshatra Citra in Chaitra also suggests the
amount of rainfall as floodwater. A shower in the months of Jyaishtha and Shravana in certain
nakshatras is said to indicate the nature of the rainy season. The direction of the wind during the full
moon in Ashadha also forebodes the weather in the rainy season. Rain on the ninth day of the bright
half of Ashadha also foretells the rainy season. In Shravana rain in certain nakshatras indicates the
nature of the rainy season. In the month of Bhadra also rains are predicted on the basis of the
nakshatras.
 79

Then the Krishi-parasara mentions the behaviour on the part of living beings as indicating
immediate rainfall:
i) a water-sprout near or in the water,
ii) the rising of ants from their holes with eggs,
iii) the sudden croaking of frogs, cats, ichneumons, serpents, other beings living in holes, and
moths running in an excited condition,
iv) boys making bridges with sand,
v) dancing by peacocks,
vi) pain in the body of men afflicted with wounds or rheumatism,
vii) snakes climbing to the top of the trees,
viii) aquatic birds drying their wings in the Sun, and
ix) the noise of crickets.
The second section about the agricultural practice is of real historical value. The importance of
bulls is appreciated and certain rites are enjoined for the health of cattle. The proper use of cow dung
as manure is emphasised. The Krishi-parasara recognises the importance of manure for crops and
says that without manure, the paddy simply grows up, but does not yield any fruit. It describes the way
in which cow-dung, the chief form of manure in India, was formed, and used. It says, “In the month of
Magha the heap of cow-dung should be worshipped faithfully and on an auspicious day the dung
should be dried in the Sun, and made into small balls. In the month of Phalguna these balls are to be
placed into pits dug in every field and at the time of sowing the manure is to be spread over the field.”
Without suggesting that the passage implies knowledge of the component in which modern science
analyses cow-manure we can hold that it indicates an awareness of its fertilising property and an
appreciation of the way in which this property could be preserved and augmented. R. Gangopadhyay
analyses this method of preparing dung-manure. He has shown that the injunction not to disturb the
dung-heap reduces to a minimum the loss of nitrogen, the chief fertilising element. He further adds
that drying dung into balls results in reducing active ammonia, which may be injurious to the plants,
while that of placing the dung balls in pits increases the humus that contributes to the fertility of the
soil.
The principal agricultural implements are enumerated and their proper shapes and
measurements are prescribed. The text mentions the effects of the commencement of ploughing on
different days and indicates some omen and portents. The text emphasising the need for proper
implements, says that they should be firm, otherwise the cultivator faces difficulty at each step. In
proportion to the importance of the plough, the Krishi-parasara devotes considerable space to the
different parts of the plough and their measurements.
These are
(1) yuga (yoke) which is described as extending up to the ear of the oxen;
 80

(2) addacalla or the pins of the yoke where the bullocks are tied which measure 12 angulas
(9 inches);
(3) yotra or yoke-tie which is to be 4 hastas (6 feet);
(4) rajju or string 5 cubits (karas) long (7 feet 6 inches);
(5) isha or the pole of the plough to be 5 hastas (7 feet 6 inches) long;
(6) niryola or the rod of the plough exclusive of the pole and the share and measuring 1½
hastas (2 feet 3 inches);
(7) shaula or an extra piece of wood that tightly fixes the niryola to the pole and measures an
aratni (cubit);
(8) abaddha or a rod of iron which prevents the niryola from getting out of the pole is circular
in shape and is 54 angulas (3 feet 4½ inches) in length;
(9) niryola-pashika or the plates that fix the ploughshare to the niryola and measure 12
angulas (9 inches);
(10) phala or ploughshare which is 1 hasta and 5 angulas (1 foot 9¾ inches) or 1 hasta (1 foot
6 inches) long;
(11) halasthanu (the handle of a plough) or a piece of wood fixed to the niryola at the end
opposite to which the ploughshare is fixed, which the cultivator holds while ploughing and
which measures 5 vitastis (3 feet 9 inches). The Krishi-parasara requires the goad to be
of strong bamboo with an iron top and measuring 12 ½ or 9 mushthis (fists) in length.
The Krishi-parasara also mentions two other implements, which appear to have been used as
harrows. Of these viddhaka said to have 21 spikes (shalyas) and madika is described as measuring 9
hands (13 feet 6 inches) in length.
The text lays down the performance of the ceremony called hala-prasarana before the
commencement of ploughing and observes that he who starts cultivation without performing hala-
parasana does it in vain. The ceremony consists in invoking a number of deities and worshipping
them with offerings and also in whetting the plough shares and besmearing them with honey and also
besmearing with butter and ghee both the sides of the faces of the oxen. The Krishi-parasara requires
the furrows to be continuous and without break and to be one, three or five in number. By the number
of the furrows, the text probably means the number of times the field is to be ploughed. The text also
refers to the nature of soil and its suitability for ploughing at different periods of the year. Having
paddy cultivation in mind, he regards Hemanta as the best season and the rainy season the worst.
The text requires actual ploughing to be commenced on an auspicious occasion. It gives a long list of
nakshatras, days, tithis and rashis (zodiacal signs) auspicious for this purpose, and it goes on to add
another list of effects on the farmer and his bulls and crops and even on other people. Such
superstitions ideas appear to have had quite a hold on the minds of the cultivators. The Krishi-
parasara further mentions several superstitions, concerning the effects suggested by some portents in
the course of ploughing, e.g., the raising of a tortoise by the plough, when it is driven across the field;
the breaking of the ploughshare, plough, pole, yoke, shaula, or yoke-tie; exhaustion of the cultivator or
 81

falling down; sudden running, bellowing, the licking of their noses or the passing of dung or urine by
the oxen, drawing the plough.
The utility of a good plough depends upon the oxen that draw it. The Krishi-parasara gives
much space to the proper upkeep of cows and bulls. The text requires cultivation to be carried without
cruelty to the oxen. It is mentioned that if one earns a fourfold crop by oppressing the oxen he is
reduced to the condition of pauper by their sights. The ideal of a humane treatment of the oxen was at
the base of the suggestion to increase the number of oxen yoked to a plough. Thus, the text remarks
that a plough should have eight oxen yoked to it: one who yokes six is just a businessman: those who
employ four are cruel, while those employing two are but beefeaters. Such considerations of
compassion and pity imply the realisation that the larger the number of the oxen the better is the
ploughing. It is, however, not clear how far this knowledge led to the practice of deep ploughing by
using more oxen. It is not unlikely that in a few cases, more than two oxen were yoked to a plough,
but the modern practice would suggest that the six or eight oxen in the text referred to above were to
be used by rotation or relay. The Krishi-parasara favours black or red or black-and-red oxen and
discards those having big waists, or with their tails and ears cut off or all-white ones. The text realises
the practical need of keeping the oxen, like the cultivator, free from diseases. Strength-giving fodder
for the oxen is advised in the text, and it is observed that if they are allowed to graze in the morning
and evening they always thrive. It enumerates the nakshatras and days auspicious and otherwise for
a cow’s yatra and pravesha, probably referring to its going to the field and entering the cowshed for
the first time. The Krishi-parasara appears to be full of concern for the welfare of cows and bulls. It
provides for a spacious cow-stall in clean and hygienic condition. Its interest in the welfare of cattle is
reflected in some of the superstitions it records including those on the auspicious periods for
constructing cow-stalls. It describes certain festivities which performed on the tithi called
lagudapratipat are supposed to render cows free from diseases for one year. On this occasion, the
cows were marked with heated iron and their tails, hairs, and ears were slightly cropped.
The Krishi-parasara gives advice about the suitability of the soil in different months, the
collection, preservation, and sowing of seeds, the levelling of the field after sowing, the transplantation
of seedlings, the weeding, and the preservation of water in the field. In agriculture, much depends
upon the quality of the seeds sown. The text says that if the seeds are unproductive the efforts of
other factors in cultivation become futile; the seeds are at the root of the crops, hence one should pay
attention to the seeds. The text advises that all kinds of seeds should be collected in the month of
Magha or Phalguna. They are then to be well dried in the Sun and exposed to dew at night. The
seeds are to be kept in small bundles. Mixed seeds (presumably seeds of more than one species
sown together) result in bad crops and seeds of the same class yield a rich harvest; hence, one
should collect with care seeds of the same class. After placing the seeds in it, the bundle should be
closely tied up, and the seed should be purged of grass particles, otherwise the crop will be full of
grass. The Krishi-parasara then requires the seeds to be kept away from impure associations. These
suggestions though superstitious, by attributing a degree of sanctity to the seeds, emphasised their
importance in agriculture. It is thus said that the seeds should not be kept on an anthill, in a cowshed,
a room where a woman has given birth, or a house inhabited by a barren woman. Seeds should never
be allowed to be exposed to the remnants of food, and a woman who has just delivered a child. A
 82

farmer should not even unknowingly place ghee, oil, whey, a lamp or salt over the seeds, and should
avoid using seeds affected by lamps, fire, smoke and rain, and also those placed in pits. One should
never sow seeds, which have already germinated or mixed seeds.
Sowing had grown to be a technical and specialised procedure demanding careful attention.
To bring home the importance of the process the Krishi-parasara converts it into a veritable ritual. The
proprietor of the field should himself sow three handfuls of seeds moistened with cold water, with a
pure and concentrated mind and meditating upon Indra. He should invoke the goddess of earth for the
rice growth of crops, seasonal rainfall, and the welfare of the cultivators. He should then feed the
cultivators with ghee and other delicacies. Sowing has to be done on scheduled dates. The text,
thinking in terms of paddy cultivation, observes that for sowing of seeds Vaishakha is the best,
Jyaishtha middling, Ashadha bad, and Shravana worst. It also mentions those nakshatras, which are
auspicious for sowing and those, which are less so. Saturday and Sundays are to be avoided and
certain tithis and special periods are not auspicious for sowing. The text also describes interesting
rites, for example, nala ropana (for averting all evils to paddy), mushthi-grahana (before harvesting
the crops), medhi-ropana and pushya-yatra (when the harvesting is not yet over). It further describes
the methods of separating grains from the stalks, weighing them, and storing them in the granary.
From the Krishi-parasara we learn about the details of the different processes of cultivation.
The text requires that after the sowing of seeds the field should be levelled with a harrow otherwise
the growth of the plants is not even. The text further adds that if a sown field is not hoed, the crops
cannot grow in abundance, nor yield a good harvest. It adds that if hoeing is done in the month of
Shravana or Bhadra, the harvest is doubled, even if grass grows again, and that if another hoeing is
done in the month of Ashvina, corn grows plentifully. In addition, the text describes an interesting
mantra (hymn) which if written on the leaf of ketaki and fastened in the north-east corner of the field is
said to protect the crop from diseases, insects and animals. The incantation requests Rama to direct
Hanuman to drive away from the field with his tail the insects, birds, and animals, of which many are
named, which destroy the crops. The Krishi-parasara further require that on the occasion of the
Karttikasamkranti a cultivator should plant a leafy reed at the north-east corner of the field and
worship it with suitable offering to ensure a uniform and luxuriant growth of crops.
Before the actual commencement of reaping, the Krishi-parasara requires the performance of
the ceremony called mushtigrahana when the cultivator after worshipping the plants cuts off two and a
half handfuls of plants in the north-east corner of the field and returns home with the plants on his
head. Non-observance of the rite is said to create difficulties for the cultivator at every step and to lead
to the loss of the crops. The expression, mardayitva, used in the text for threshing refers to the
process of separating grain form straw by making oxen thread on the corn. A great significance is
attached to the threshing post, and the text describes in details the rites accompanying the fixing up of
the post. It enumerates trees, which are auspicious and inauspicious for making the post and also
notes the days on which the rites is to be performed. Threshing was sometimes done by human foot,
probably when the crops were not abundant or when the farmer could not afford to have it done with
the help of cattle. For separating the grain from the husk, the corn was first pestled and then
winnowed. The Krishi-parasara requires that after all this has been done the grains are to be
measured and kept in the granary. It then mentions the nakshatras and days, which are auspicious for
 83

storing the grains in the granary. It again mentions two mantras, which are to be written and kept in
the granary to augment prosperity.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions.
1. Write a short note on the preparation of manure on the basis of Krishi-parasara.
__________________________________________________________________________
2. What types of superstitions are mentioned in the Krishi-parasara in relation to seeds?
__________________________________________________________________________
3. What are the important components of a plough according to Krishi-parasara?
__________________________________________________________________________

7.4 SUMMARY
Above discussion shows that land grants had been known from several names such as
agrahara, devadana, vaishya-agrahara and kara-sasana, and their nature was different in different
contexts. Without taking into account their different nature, it is not possible to understand the rural
society that had evolved in the early medieval times in Indian subcontinent. Previously, cultivators
paid taxes directly to the king through several officials; however, the land grants created a class of
intermediary landlords, or land owning institutions between the king and the peasantry. Now instead
of the king, it was these landlords, who enjoyed revenue rights along with certain administrative and
judicial rights. Thus, these land grants not only played a crucial role in the expansion of agriculture,
but also restructured the production relations in countryside. Nevertheless, the Krishi-parasara
informs us about various production activities, techniques, tools, and rituals that were in practice in the
early medieval times particularly in eastern India.
7.5 REFERENCE & FURTHER READINGS
1. Chakravarti, Ranabir, Exploring Early India up to c. 1300, Macmillan: New Delhi, 2013 revised
edition.
2. Gopal, L., The Economic Life of Northern India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965.
3. Mozumdar, G. P., and Banerji, S. C., ed. & tr., Krisi-Parasara, Kolkata: The Asiatic Society,
reprint 2001 (or Any other suitable translation).
4. Singh, Upinder, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From Stone Age to the 12th
Century, Pearson Longman: Delhi, 2009.
5. Sircar, D. C., Studies in the Political and Administrative Systems in Ancient and Medieval
India, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1974.
7.6 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Write an essay on agraharas.
2. How are agraharas different from devadanas? Write an essay.
3. Write an essay on the Krishi-parasara.
 84

Lesson - 8

EARLY MEDIEVAL AGRARIAN CHANGES AND THEIR

THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS

STRUCTURE
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Indian Feudalism
8.3 Integrative-Processual Model
8.4 Summary
8.5 Reference & Further Readings
8.6 Model Questions
8.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand the Indian feudalism model.
 acquire information about the criticisms of Indian feudalism model.
 gain knowledge regarding the Integrative processual model.
 understand the differences between Indian feudalism model and Integrative processual
model.
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The two dominant historiographical standpoints – feudal polity and the segmentary state-
follow two clearly dissimilar approaches and methodologies, each critical of the other. However,
these two models also show a striking consonance in their perception of early medieval polity. Both
the models highlight the traits of disintegration, fragmentation and segmentation as opposed to an
integrated state structure by largely relying on the same evidence, viz., landgrants. The availability
of landgrants for this period, especially in large number in south India, naturally called for rigorous
analyses by both genres of scholars. On the other hand, statistical enquiry into the agrahara,
devadana and brahmadeya types of grants in the Tamil areas alone have effectively proved that
these grants areas were in the minority in relation to the available total land in the Tamil area. The
non-brahmadeya, non-agrahara and other non-grant tracts in the Tamil area and beyond it must
have outnumbered the total granted area during a given period. At present, it is impossible to
ascertain whether the material and political milieu in the non-grant areas was the same as or
 85

different from the conditions in the agrahara zones. Hence, it would be hazardous to label the
politico-administrative set up as feudal or dismembered on the basis of land grants alone and any
such formation cannot but remain open to question.
8.2 INDIAN FEUDALISM
The concept of feudalism in context of ancient and early medieval India was first proposed
by D. D. Kosambi. According to him, it was a result of two way process. A) From above, when kings
began to transfer their fiscal and administrative rights over land to their subordinate chiefs from the
earlier centuries of Christian era onwards. B) From below, when during post- Guptas and Harsha’s
period a class of landowners began to emerge within the villages between the state and peasantry.
According to Kosambi feudalism continued to up to the arrival of Britishers in India (c. 18 th Century).
Kosambi’s views were later accepted with some modifications and further elaborated by R. S.
Sharma in his monumental work, Indian Feudalism, c. 300-1200 (1965). In this work origin and
development of feudalism is worked out:
1. First phase (c. 300-750 AD) is characterised with the origin of feudalism.
2. Second phase (c. 750-1000 AD) is associated with the crystallization and consolidation of
feudalism under three regional kingdoms, viz., Rashtrakutas, Gurjara-Pratiharas and Palas.
3. The last phase was c. 1000-1200 AD after which feudalism withered away with the arrival of
Islamic rulers.
In subsequent writings, Urban Decay in India, c. 300- c. 1000 (1987), Early Medieval Indian
Society: A Study in Feudalisation (2001) and others, Sharma developed his hypothesis and brought
new insights.
Origin of Indian Feudalism
From the post-Maurya period, and especially from Gupta times, certain political and
administrative developments tended to feudalise the state apparatus. The most striking
development was the practice of making land grants to the brahmanas, a custom which was
sanctified by the injunctions laid down in the Dharmashastras, the didactic portions of the Epic, and
the Puranas. The early Pali texts of the pre-Maurya period refer to the villages granted to the
brahmanas by the rulers of Kosala and Magadha, but they do not mention the abandonment of any
administrative rights by the donors. The same is the case with the earliest epigraphic record of a
land-grant, a Satavahana inscription of the first century BC, which refers to the grant of a village.
Surprisingly enough, administrative rights were perhaps given up for the first time in the grants
made to Buddhist monks by the Satavahana ruler Gautamiputra Satakarni in the second century
AD. The land granted to them could not be entered by royal troops, molested by government
officials, or interfered with by the district police. The significant features of such grants, which
became more frequent from the 5 th century AD, were the transfer of all source of revenue, and the
surrender of police and administrative functions. The land grants multiplied by the Gupta period and
post Gupta period, when villages began to be granted along with a) the fiscal and administrative
rights, and b) with a complete control over the inhabitants. The donee, usually a king, not only
abandoned revenue rights but also judicial and administrative. For instance, the Gupta period
 86

furnishes at least half a dozen instances of grants of apparently settled villages made to the
brahmanas by the subordinate rulers of the Guptas in Central India. In the records of these land
grants, the residents, including the cultivators and artisans, were expressly asked by their
respective rulers not only to pay the customary taxes to the donees, but also to obey their
commands. Once the judicial and administrative rights were granted by the rulers along with land,
state power disintegrated.
The taxation system and coercive power based on the army are two vital organs of a state.
If they are abandoned, the state power disintegrates. But this is the position created by the grants
made to the brahmanas. The land grants are usually granted for as long as the existence of the sun
and the moon, which implies the permanent break-up of the integrity of the state. The practice of
making land grants in the Gupta period paved the way for the rise of brahmana feudatories, who
performed administrative functions not under the authority of the royal officers but almost
independently. As the number of the land owning brahmanas went on increasing, some of them
gradually shed their priestly functions and turned their chief attention to the management of land.
The functions of the collection of taxes, levy of forced labour, regulation of mines, agriculture, etc.,
together with those of the maintenance of law and order, and defence, which were hitherto
performed by the state officials, were now step by step abandoned, first to the priestly class, and
later to the warrior class. During the post-Gupta period, there seems to have taken place a
significant change in the payment of officers employed by the state. If we rely on the authority of the
Kautilya, in the Maurya period all the officers of the state from the highest to the lowest were paid in
cash, the maximum salary being 48,000 punch-marked coins and the minimum 60 punch-marked
coins, probably per month. Contrary to the Mauryas, in the time of Harshavardhana high officers
were not being paid in cash. Instead, as it appears from the writing of Hsuan Tsang that the
governors, ministers, magistrates, and officials had each a portion of land assigned to them for their
personal support. Thus under the king Harshavardhana revenues were granted not only to priests
and scholars, but also to the officers of the state.
Factors Causing the Emergence of Indian Feudalism
The central factor that ultimately transformed ancient Indian society into medieval society
was the practice of land grants. This practice seems to have originated because of a serious crisis
that affected the production relations on which the ancient social order was erected. Varna society
was based on the production activities of the peasants called vaishyas and of the labourers called
shudras. The taxes collected by the royal officers from the vaishyas enabled the kings to pay
salaries to their officials and soldiers, make gifts to their priests, and purchase luxury and other
articles from merchants and big artisans. But between the third and fourth centuries AD Puranic
texts complain of a situation in which varnas or social orders discarded the functions assigned to
them. The lower orders refused to pay taxes and render labour services. This led to intermixing of
social classes. Varna barriers were attacked because the producing masses were oppressed with
heavy taxes and impositions, and denied protection by the kings. This state of affairs is known as
Kali Yuga in the Puranic passages of the third and fourth centuries AD. It seems to have appeared
in the Deccan and central India, which were less brahmanised. Several measures were adopted to
overcome the crisis. The most important step to meet the situation was to grant land to priests and
 87

officials in lieu of salaries and remuneration. Such a practice passed the burden of tax collection
and law keeping in the donated areas to the beneficiaries. They could deal with the recalcitrant
peasants on the spot. The practice could also bring new lands under cultivation.
Indian feudalism is associated with the decline of long distance and overseas’ trade, causing
urban decay and paucity of coinage. From the sixth century onwards long-distance trade began to
decline. Trade with the western part of the Roman empire ended in the third century, and silk trade
with Iran and the Byzantine stopped in the middle of the sixth century. India continued some
commerce with China and Southeast Asia, but its benefits were reaped by the Arab middlemen. In
the period before the seventh century, the Arabs practically monopolised the export trade of India.
The decline of commerce for well over three hundred years after the sixth century is demonstrated
by the near absence of gold coins and the paucity of other types of coins not in north India but also
in the south. For instance, the Vakatakas had issued no coins. In a same way, the Palas, Gurjara-
Pratiharas and Rastrakutas did not issue any gold coin. Even the Pallavas, Pandyas, Badami
Chalukyas and the Cholas are credited with very few coins. However, Harsha, Sashanka,
Jayanaga, Samacaradeva and Kadambas had issued gold coins, but their number is very less in
comparison with the Kushanas and the Guptas. Metallic currency in this way was absent in parts of
northern India, central India, Bengal, Orissa, and the Deccan in the early medieval period. Even in
south, the situation was not much better.
The decline of trade led to the decay of towns. Towns flourished in west and north India
under the Satavahanas and Kushanas. A few cities continued to thrive in Gupta times. But the post
Gupta period witnessed the downfall of many old commercial cities in north India. Excavations
show that several towns in Haryana and east Punjab, Purana Qila (Delhi), Mathura, Hastinapura
(Meerut district), Shravasti (Uttar Pradesh), Kaushambi (near Allahabad), Raghat (Varanasi),
Chirand (Saran district), Vaishali and Pataliputra began to decline in the Gupta period, and mostly
disappeared in post-Gupta times. The Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang visited several towns
considered sacred on account of their association with the Buddha but found them almost deserted
or dilapidated. In the early medieval period according to R. S. Sharma, there emerged cities, which
were either religious or political centres (skandhavara) as indicated by various inscriptions. It,
Sharma argues, clearly proves his hypothesis that absence of trade, currency, and urban centres
lead to land grants and ruralisation of Indian economy in the post fourth century AD. A restricted
market forced artisans and merchants living in these towns into the countryside to take up
cultivation. On account of the decay of trade and towns the villagers had to meet their needs in
respect of iron, oil, salt, spices and cloth either themselves or through weekly fairs. The mode of
production, which emerges as a result of land grants and the decline of towns, both of which tie up
with the Kali crisis, creates a kind of self-sufficient economy.
Agricultural Communities in the Feudal Age
The early Middle Ages in India saw a great spurt in agrarian expansion. This was partly due
to the decline of towns in which soldiers, administrators, artisans, merchants, brahmanas and
others were concentrated. The feudalism has to be seen as a mode of distribution of the means of
production and of the appropriation of the surplus. Feudalism appears in a predominantly agrarian
society, which is characterised by a class of landlords, and a class of servile peasantry. In this
 88

system, landlords extract surplus through social, religious or political methods which are called
extra-economic. Land grants/royal charters enabled landlords to enjoy greater control over the
means of production, i.e., land. Land grants gave powers to landlords along with revenue,
administrative and judicial rights. In several cases by 7 th century AD onwards, donees were
donated land or village along with a control over waste land, pastures, water reservoirs, all kind of
trees and bushes and pathways, etc. Such provisions transferred almost all agrarian resources to
the donees and peasants’ access to agrarian resources like water sources, pastures, trees, etc.,
was restricted. Land grants were often made by the rulers with a direction to the villagers to obey
the commands of the donees. The land charters authorised the beneficiaries to punish people guilty
of ten offences, including those against family, property and person, and also empowered them to
try civil cases. Further, royal officers were not allowed to enter the territory of the beneficiaries, and
cause any kind of obstruction in their functioning. The right to try cases on the spot involving the
imposition of fines could seriously interfere with the process of production. The political and judicial,
that is, non-economic rights thus helped the beneficiaries to exploit their estate peasants
economically in an effective manner. At the same time, these non-economic rights served to
enforce the general economic authority of the beneficiaries over both the means and the process of
production. It hence implies general control of the donees over the labour power of the peasants.
And political and judicial rights, which were extra-economic, helped the donees to carry out the
economic exploitation of the peasants in an effective manner living in his estate.
In pre-Gupta period, the surplus was mainly collected by the agents of the state in the form
of taxes, or by priests in the form of gifts. The rise of feudalism in India is linked with the erosion of
peasant’s control over his unit (land) of production, coupled with his restricted access to the
communal agrarian resources. Serfdom too developed along with feudalism. In many cases, land
charters clearly transfer the peasants, artisans, and even traders to the beneficiaries. In most of the
cases these villagers, peasants, and other inhabitants are asked to stay in the village and carry out
the orders of the donees. In the Ganga basin the vaishyas seem to have been peasant proprietors
for long, but land grants created landlords between the peasants on the one hand and the king on
the other, so that the vaishyas became servile peasants. Large numbers of tribal peasants were
enrolled as sudras. Consequently, the sudras, who served as slaves, domestics, agricultural
labourers and low grade artisans in earlier times, now emerged as farmers, like the vaishyas.
Literature shows a pronounced tendency to lump together the vaishyas and sudras from the Gupta
period onwards. For instance, I-Tsing (seventh century) states that most Indian monasteries
possessing lands had them cultivated by servants and others. He adds that the monasteries
provided the oxen and the fields and generally received one-sixth of the produce, which was the
same as the conventional share payable to the state. Hsuan Tsang describes the sudras as
agriculturalists, which suggests that they cultivated the land as they did in the past and also
occupied it temporarily. Apart from Hsuan Tsang, Asahaya, a legal commentator of the seventh
century describes the shudras as cultivators.
The law books of the Gupta and post-Gupta times leave no doubt that the king enjoyed
superior rights regarding land. He granted it to the feudal lords, who assigned it to the cultivator,
and sometimes the cultivator assigned it to the sub-cultivator. Therefore, on the basis of land,
 89

society was divided into the three or even four classes. This division is clearly attested by the land
grants. From the Gupta period onwards, the varna and jati differentiation based on functional and
ritualistic grounds is aggravated by a new type of differentiation caused by the possession of land
and the acquisition of power in the management of village affairs. Different parts of northern India
show the rise of a class of rich substantial peasants called mahattaras who included the shudras.
They are repeatedly mentioned in land charters, which are addressed not only to the various castes
inhabiting the village but also to a class of elders. These village elders enjoyed a high status and
played an important role in the management of rural affairs. Further, from the Gupta period onwards
inscriptions mention the existence of cultivating groups called kutumbin, although in the sense of
householder the term occurs in earlier inscriptions. However, they were involved in cultivation. From
the term kutumbin have been derived many cultivating caste names such as the Kurmis and
Koeries of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, and the Kunbis of Maharashtra and Odisha. Most seem to
have been sudras, who emerged as the principal paying peasants in medieval times. It appears,
therefore, that apart from the landed beneficiaries or the agents of the king who were entitled to
rent or tax, as the case may be, the rural areas came to have two strata consisting of the
mahattaras on top and the kutumbins below. Of course, the land assignees formed a higher rung in
the rural ladder. This pattern prevailed in northern and western India and a large part of the Deccan
and eastern India.
The early medieval period is also marked by the appearance of forced labour imposed on
the villagers as a whole. Epigraphs show that Vishti was imposed on the common people by the
king or beneficiaries in central India, Maharashtra, and Gujarat. In these areas, peasants were not
generally forced to labour on the fields of their masters; forced labour was levied for the
construction of roads, palaces, fortresses and also to help transport the royal army and officials in
the countryside. However, in south India the situation seems to have been different. Vetti, which is
very frequently used in Chola and Pandya land charters and also in those of the other south Indian
dynasties, especially in Andhra, refers to bonded labour used in agriculture. Vetti, therefore, in the
context of south India may signify the lowest agricultural stratum engaged in ploughing for pittance
or for maintenance. In this way, R. S. Sharma suggests that the decline of international trade and
urban decay caused the formation feudal economy, which was essentially land based.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions.
1. Write a short note on R. S. Sharma’s periodization of Indian feudalism.
_________________________________________________________________________
2. What is Vishti?
_________________________________________________________________________
3. Comment on D. D. Kausambi’s conceptualisation of Indian feudalism.
_________________________________________________________________________

8.3 INTEGRATIVE-PROCESSUAL MODEL

The survey of the period from AD 300 to AD 600 suggested the slow spread of a more
complex state society into areas marked by relatively simpler pre-state polities. The growing
 90

number of regional and local powers embracing virtually the entire subcontinent may better be
judged in terms of steady expansion of the monarchical state system and the emergence of multiple
foci of power, rather than as an outcome of the breakdown of a centralised power. The Integrative
processual model basically refers to the process of integration through which dispersed socio -
cultural elements are integrated in a dominant socio-cultural and political edifice. According to B. D.
Chattopadhyaya, important features of the integrative model are: (i) Expansion of state society
through the process of local state formation; (ii) Peasantization of tribes and proliferation of castes;
and, (iii) Cult appropriation and their integration into Brahmanism. Here it is noticeable that the
integrative or processual model of state formation focuses on processes of change and not on
dramatic breaks in explaining the transition from early historical to early medieval and from the
latter to the medieval. Its explanations are based on change coming from within local and regional
societies and internal processes, deriving from a network of trans-local linkages. In the Making of
Early Medieval India, B. D. Chattopadhyaya focuses on the importance of regions outside the north
Indian plains, and he concedes the local and sub-regional levels their due share. It locates the
domain of ideology and legitimization in the arena of continuous competition and negotiation, which
has constantly to be redefined.
The transformation of pre-state societies into state-societies led to the formation of distinct
regional political, economic, and socio-religious orders. The post 4 th century AD period witnessed
the emergence of several state-polities in hitherto forested and isolated regions from obscure tribal
backgrounds. In this process of transition from pre-state to state society, local tribal population was
peasantized and new caste identities were attributed to them. A section of tribe (chiefs and priests)
was assimilated into upper two varnas –brahmana and kshatriya, while rest of the population was
assigned a shudra identity. These new state-polities required resources to sustain it. Thus, they felt
a need to expand agriculture in hitherto forested and waste regions. Therefore, we find most of the
land grants made to brahmans, temples and others during the early medieval times in the
peripheral and forested regions. In such a task, brahmans were useful because of their knowledge
of agriculture, season and irrigation, which they spread among those who lacked it earlier. In a long
run, land grant arrangements created a solid agricultural base for the newly emerged state polities.
Generally, the brahmanas donees, which were granted land or village, are projected as the main
driving force leading to the expansion of agriculture, the transformation of tribesmen into peasantry,
and the assimilation of the local tribal cults. It implies that with the formation of regional states
Brahmanical ideology expanded in peripheral regions and among pre-state societies. The aspiring
chieftains build and control popular cultic shrines and pilgrimage centres and through this process
automatically become closely associated with the enshrined deity. Such chieftains as being human
representatives of these religious centres acquire the much needed religious sanction and popular
backing for their political power.
 91

Indian Feudalism: Criticisms

The regular creation of agraharas in favour of religious personages and establishments
(Buddhist viharas, Jaina vasadis and Brahmanical mathas and temples)- a process initiating from
the fourth-fifth centuries AD- bestowed the donees with distinct material advantages. The donee(s),
whether individual, collective or institutional, emerged as major or landholders. Nalanda, the
famous Buddhist vihara and educational institute in present Bihar, figures prominently in the
accounts of the Chinese pilgrim I-Tsing (in India from AD 675 to AD 695). He had documented that
the monastery received no less than 209 villages for the maintenance of the establishment. To this
were further added five more villages during the time of the Pala ruler of Yavadvipa (Java). The
Buddhist establishment with its jurisdiction over as many as 214 villages is therefore viewed as a
landholder. That individual brahmanas too could enjoy extensive holdings is clearly illustrated by
the grant of as much as 339½ unmanas (a particular unit of land measurement) of land in favour of
Halayudhasarman, a leading religio-scholarly figure in Bengal under the later Sena rulers. Many
grants were made in the Pratihara realm but interestingly enough, only to individual brahmanas and
not to a group of donees or a religious establishment. The Rashtrakuta kings took considerable
pride in their inscriptions for having created numerous agraharas and also renewed older grants. In
the Tamil areas, two types of grant are encountered: (i) the right to possess land or village, mostly
associated with brahmdeya endowment; and (ii) the right to enjoyment of revenue from a land or
village, generally found in the instances of devadanas or endowments to temples.
The widespread practice of issuing landgrants created a distinct class of landholders, who
would not normally cultivate the soil themselves. The priestly community did not engage in actual
tilling of the land that was granted to them. The granted area could also have been too large or
scattered to be tilled by the donee himself (for example, in the case of Halayudha’s land holding).
This assumes a special significance in the interpretative model of Indian feudalism. There has been
epigraphic injunction to the donee to cultivate the donated plot or to get it cultivated, to do the work
himself or get it done, to enjoy it himself or get it enjoyed. The profusion of the use of causative
verbs in the grant has led to the belief that there emerged a distinct group of workers employed by
the donees for the utilisation of lands granted to them. An inscription from Bengal (AD 675) speaks
of the enjoyer of the land, who is clearly distinguished from the actual tiller. Owning to this sharp
distinction between the two categories in the land system it is likely that the actual tiller of the soil
did not own any land. The inscription also seems to have distinguished the enjoyer of the land from
Mitravali, an owner whose name figures in the record in the sixth case-ending, thereby suggesting
the ownership of a plot. This seventh century AD inscription speaks of a complex land system in
eastern Bengal, consisting of at least three distinct tiers- the owner, the enjoyer and the tiller of the
soil.
According to R. S. Sharma’s classic study of Indian feudalism, the donee enjoyed the
transfer of many local resources of considerable importance besides receiving the grant of land,
e.g., with low areas, high areas, marshy areas, dry areas and ditches, and so forth. Such transfer of
revenue resulted in the transformation of royal rights over land into private individual rights. This
further corroded the economic prerogative of the state authority. The emergence of landed
intermediaries is diagnosed as a typical symptom of the Indian feudal economy. Their role is hardly
 92

considered beneficiary to the economic and political interest of the ruler, their growing strength
seriously impoverished the peasant. The arguments presented in the formation of the feudal milieu
highlight that the large number of grants enjoyed by landed intermediaries- exploiting both the ruler
and the peasant- resulted in the emergence of the self-sufficient, enclosed village community.
D. C. Sircar effectively questioned whether the transfer of revenue to the donee by royal
charter would at all amount to the corrosion of the ruler’s economic prerogatives. The numerous
instances of kara-shasana, especially form early medieval Odisha, suggest the king’s retaining his
right to collect levies even from granted areas. The perpetual relinquishing of royal power over
granted areas (at least theoretically) can be questioned. In view of the brahmana’s known
dependence on material support (landgrants) from the ruler, it may be logically posited that the
ruler’s position possibly was strengthened by creating a loyal group of recipients of royal favour.
Hermann Kulke demonstrated how the grant-holding brahmanas became a major support-group for
the ruler in Odisha. A major critique to the idea of Indian feudalism lies in the absence of
contractual elements in landgrants either between the ruler and his vassals or between the
landlord, and the ‘subject peasantry’. The absence of this trait- one of the features of feudal society,
economy, and polity- in so many documents have been taken to negate the prevalence of any
feudal element in the Indian scenario. Commenting on R. S. Sharma, Herbans Mukhia concluded
that the peasant’s control over the production process remained intact and was not jeopardised with
the issuing of landgrants. A thorough study of epigraphic evidence has led D. C. Sircar to conclude
that the granting of revenue transfer need not be interpreted as detrimental to the economic
interests of the king, since the person or the vassal or the administrative officer requesting for such
a concession was to pay to the royal treasury a lumpsum amount beforehand. Seen from this point
of view, the disastrous consequences of issuing landgrants have been doubted.
Land Grants and Expansion of Agrarian Economy
One cannot deny that large numbers of landgrants were made in hitherto uncultivated areas.
When such grants were made in non-arable forest tracts in Samatata and Srihatta (in eastern
India), these were invariably meant for expansion of agriculture in AD 675, with a view to clearing
this forest tract and thereby transforming it into a sedentary settlement. Similar grants were made in
the same area in the eighth and early tenth century AD. The grant made in AD 930 led to the
settlement of 6,000 brahmanas and also an impressive number of craftsmen and other service
groups; the brahmanas met the requirement of the religious establishment and priests thereof. The
Pallavas in south India are also known to have followed a similar policy of granting land for the
expansion of cultivation. The period from AD 600 and AD 1200 is unmistakably marked by
cultivation of diverse type of crops. Sanskrit manuals on agriculture like the Krishiparasara, etc.,
indicate a growing agricultural sector. It is not surprising that agriculture is hailed in early medieval
texts as the occupation per excellence and harbinger of bliss. The possibilities of agrarian
expansion by issuing landgrants seem to have encouraged a highly favourable attitude to
agriculture.
Rich epigraphic data are available on the expansion of agriculture in the hitherto untilled and
fallow areas in early medieval Karnataka. In the sixth century AD Goa under the Kadamba rulers, a
grant of land enabled a brahmana to clear a forest tract and make it fit for ploughing with the help of
 93

agricultural labourers. It is also interesting to find in this record a reference to the transformation of
a coastal tract into paddy fields by damming seawater, Goa being located in the coastal tract.
Another instance of forest clearance by the issuance of copperplate charters is furnished by an
inscription of AD 762 from Goribidnur taluk. In AD 904, a Taittiriya brahmana, living in a settlement
of Ahichchhatra brahmanas in the Nanjangad taluk, caused to construct a huge irrigation tank,
which was fed by three streams emerging from a nearby forest. The improved irrigation facilities
must have led to agrarian expansion, increased the output of crops and therefore resulted in the
growth of population. In peninsular India, the sluice-weir device in tank irrigation seems to have
considerably boosted crop production. There are instances of growing preference for canal-feeding
of irrigation tanks with the help of nearby streams/rivulets to the previous dependence on rain-fed
irrigation canals. This proved conducive to the conversion of virgin tracts into cultivable and settle d
areas that supported agricultural population. This reduced the dependence of peasants on annual
rainfall for filling the tanks.
In early medieval Bengal, there were plenty of natural resources of water enriched by
monsoon rains and riverine sources, ditch, channels, and wells. In more or less contemporary
Rajasthan, an area well-known for its aridity and desert-like conditions, kupa and tadaga were more
numerous. Early medieval inscriptions from Rajasthan contain significant information about the use
of water wheels or araghatta, also called ghatiyantras as regular device to produce irrigational
water. In Gujarat too, early medieval inscriptions and textual materials are replete with references
to vapi or vavi. While the term vapi has been known for a long time in Sanskrit literature as any
reservoir, in the early medieval context they connoted step wells, excavated to a great depth to tap
the ground water. The term vapi being derived from the root vap (to sow), it is logical to assume
that the vapis provided water for cultivation. The introduction of the vapi in early medieval Gujarat
has a close correspondence to the overall growth and diversification of crops in Karnataka, an area
with uncertain precipitation. Irrigation was largely provided there by tanks, which were established
and maintained as local-level sources of precious water by individual and group initiatives and only
rarely by the ruling authority. The tanks were so excavated as to form the pattern of a chain from
the higher to the lower levels. The excess water of the tank at higher level could thereby seep into
the lower one and so on and thus irrigate a considerable area.
Non-indigenous authors, especially the Arab geographers, were much impressed by the
flourishing agricultural conditions in early medieval times and the diversity of crops. Paddy was
undoubtedly the most important crop. Some villages in south-eastern Bengal with boraka name-
endings were probably so called for the cultivation of boro variety of paddy. The Sunyapurana
enlists fifty types of paddy in early medieval Bengal, which was also particularly famous for sugar-
cane plantations. Pundra or north Bengal being well-known for quality sugar-cane, the term
paundra (grown in Pundra) became a synonym for sugar-cane. There was expansion of the
plantations of coconut, betel and areca nuts, betel leaf and cotton, especially in the littoral tracts
and the Deccan. Indigo plantation, closely allied to the textile production, seems to have been well
established in Gujarat. The far south figures very prominently in the account of foreigners as an
area that was rich in spices; the most frequently mentioned spice was the pepper from Malabar.
Some improvements in the cultivation of oil seeds may logically be inferred in the light of increase d
 94

number of references to oil-presses and oilmen. Inscriptions also record availability of green
vegetables as exchangeable commodities.
The traditional use of ox-drawn plough continued. The use of the large plough may logically
indicate some improvements in the technology and manufacturing of ploughs. The early medieval
period had good knowledge about the mechanism of pounding and husking grain with udukhala.
The Desinamamala of Hemchandra, significantly enough, enlists several synonyms of Sanskrit
udukhala in deshi; the deshi vocabulary was the forerunner of many modern regional vernacular in
India. This once again underlines the spread of agriculture in different regions of the subcontinent.
In some areas, like the Kalachuri realm in Dahala (present day region around Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh), known for its relative isolation, the regular use of khala or udukhala resulted in the
imposition of new levy. This may be an indicator to the generative aspects of some of the new
elements in the agrarian life during the early middle ages.
Now Students let us do some activity:
Self Assessment questions.
1. How land grants caused the expansion of agriculture? Comment.
_________________________________________________________________________
2. Explain the term Vapi.
_________________________________________________________________________

8.4 SUMMARY
The explanatory model that characterises the early medieval economy of India as feudal has
been questioned in recent historiography, and its several weaknesses have been brought into light.
In recent historical writings, particularly of B. D. Chattopadhyaya, Ranabir Chakravarti, B. P. Sahu,
Hermann Kulke, Upinder Singh and others integrative processual model has been developed as an
alternative explanatory model for the study of early medieval Indian economy besides polity and
society. Emergence of regional states in the post-Gupta period, that have made large number of
land grants, did imply the breakdown of earlier political systems as well as economic structures.
Rather, it implies the spread of state system in new areas where it was absent previously, and such
spread of state system was accompanied by the expansion of agriculture in erstwhile forest areas,
virgin territories, and wasteland.
8.5 REFERENCE & FURTHER READINGS
1. Chakravarti, Ranabir, Exploring Early India up to c. 1300, Macmillan: New Delhi, 2013
revised edition.
2. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., The Making of Early Medieval India, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, revised edition 2012.
3. Kulke, H., 'Fragmentation and Segmentation Versus Integration? Reflections on the
Concepts of Indian Feudalism and the Segmentary State in Indian History', in Studies in
History, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 237-264, Old Series, 1982.
 95

4. Sharma, R. S., Early Medieval Indian Society: A Study in Feudalization, Calcutta: Orient
Longman India, 2001.
5. Singh, Upinder, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From Stone Age to the 12 th
Century, Pearson Longman: Delhi, 2009.
8.6 MODEL QUESTIONS
Essay type questions:
1. What are the key characteristics of the Indian feudalism model?
2. What are the criticisms of Indian feudalism model?
3. How Integrative processual model explains the spread of agriculture?
4. Highlight the differences between Indian feudalism model and Integrative processual
model. Write an essay.

Printed by: Chanakya Graphics, 570, K.R. Complex, Sec. 45, CHD.
USOL (326) 150 \ January 2023