what are saliant discussions of feudal debate? how this debate recognise the indian feudalism?

introduction to (feudalism)
the term feudalism derive from the german word (feud), that suggest the part of land, it was the work of
Mark Block, (feudal society, vol1. and vol.2), where the depiction of feudalism and it's different extracts
were discussed, eventually we are going to discuss the debate on indian feudalism, not in context of
europe, in terms of the indian feudalism, the works of R. S. Sharma, (indian feudalism) is the most
phenomenent work, in the terms of feudalism, before going into the debate of the indian feudalism, this is
necessary, that it's brief history should be discussed, that how feudal grants established in india and how it
made an environment of political change, so such kind of vast crieteria of feudal divisions was being
drafted and india hold on this pressure even still in the 21st century, the concept of the mansabdars and
zamindars may be inside the burials, but the motion of the social relations of this feudal system is still
alive in our society.
we can see a general change in premitive relation between 700 to 1200 c e. the rise of lord is an essential
in this period. there were eventually 6 or 7 gradations in between the peasants and land for the distribution
of work and cohersion.

historic background of the feudalism

chanakya was the first to prescribe the word (samant) in his book ardhashashtra, where he has discussed
about the neighbour as (samantas) for the principles of politics. eventually some regional literary works
also suggest that there was a kind of premiorship to this system in nand dynasty, but they are not accepted
though, the distribution of the land grants was established in period of satkarni's rule, he has menifested in
his produced coins about the distribution of the land grants to the brahamins, eventually he himself
reckoned him the best brahamin, ruling the dynasty.
historians like B. S. Yadav has suggested that before the 1st century c e, in early stage of satvahan
dynasty had the system of distributing the feudal grants, but they are not equal, because satvahans are
termed as (andhra bhratyas) that the place which they rule, it is also being ruling on them, so in such
evidence, it is tough to recognise their phonetic placement in early ancient history before gautami putra
satkarni.
the major fragrance of change came into the intellect, in the post gupta period, if we need to understand,
that why this occured in this period, we need to understand the post gupta polity first, which will itself,
suggest, that why the brahamins made their own kingdoms and why the regional peripheries became
smaller according to their autonomy in contemporary period.
political nature of the post gupta period
there are various themes or arguement which reflect the political structure of post gupta period,
in which the rise of decentralisation is a major theme, where the autonomy surrounded and all authorities
uphold their own centres for their political standings.
similarly, the urban centres started to decline with the downfall of urbanisation, even tsen tsang has
marked the use of cowrie as a currency, which also signify that the demonitisation started to take place in
contemporary period.
this is obvious that if the dimonitisation will take place, so it will provoke hinderence to the trade system,
this economic asspect hold on the direct apathy of the autonomy of the state and preserves the means to
the spread out of the feudalism in this period in heavy scale, with different kind of grants, who's varieties
will be discussed later.
here, this is necessary,that the decline of urban centres and the trade system promote the respect of the
local goods and traditions, in such variation, the rise of localisation took place and local themes became
dominant in the society.
the local regional methods made more dependence on the land, because once the trade system got stopped
or it faced a downfall, this is obvious that the outer integrity of the goods will not be promoted, which
bring to the conclution, that land is the only substance to be refered as the centre of resource, in such
character of the land, it promoted the increase in the pressure of the peasants, they were forced to do more
work, than they used to do in the previous sentiments, here this is to be noted, that the regional rebells
helped themselves to the promotion, we can hear in documents of raj taringini about the burning of the
rents and debt bills, but how influencial they are and how well promoted these evidences are, this is tough
to be note down and one lonely evidence is not enough to fix the crieteria of the historiography.
this period is seriously depicted by the fragmentation of the land holding, which brought out the serious
mode of crisis in the goods and their outreach to the each other. after the burdon to the peasants, a serious
hearkiri rose in the society and this went high, as observations are held about ten different kind of
grandage of riots, which were led bythe groups of peasants, specially who were rich in the social structure
and economic wellfare as well.
the progressive economic stagnation approached through whole range of series, which were led by lords
and their heirarchies in each other, so the groups couldn't dominate their structure in the feudal society.
eventually this won't be forget that the agriculture was the major source of sustainence, eventually the
internal cohersion was a truth matter of fact, due to high rate of the birth and members, this led to the
professional structure of slavery in the internal households which is also discussed by magesthenes. here,
this arguement comes, that any help or change in the technology reach the help to the increase in
population, but there is no revolution of technology, as far as the feudal society of the post gupta period is
being concerned and this arguement doesn't hold it's sustainence in regard to this period.
eventually we saw a dynamic of literature in the post gupta period, but this doesn't hold the theme, that
king was still a centre of the comodity of state, there were riters like kalidas, brahamabass, patanjali and
many others who hold the dynamism, but the land is the focal point of sustainence in all roots of the socio
political relations and where the land comes into the means of existence, then there is no crieteria left for
the demolition of the feudalism and here the feudalism achieve it's feet, as it has been discussed, that how
and why it did so as a benchmark in the post gupta period.

dimentions of feudalism
feudalism is taken by the politics and economy as well as the society of the contemporary period. between
the 700 to 1200, the lands became the major proportation, for the decentralisation. the beginning of land
grants was started in rule of gautami putra satkarni, where 5 to 7 types of revenue expansions were
promoted. in period of post gupta period, this spread up to the 15 types of revenues, up to increasing at a
level of the exicutive power. in period of this accumulation the power became static, but in period of
harsha, the benificiaries reached to the legislature, as there were 35 types of revenues; the process of land
grants covered the king all most, with increasing the dimentions up to the exicutive, the legislature and
the judicial system.
This made the hallmark of the ancient history deminished. with the straight fragmentation of authority in
this period. it can be directly reflected as there were 200 dynasties ruling between the period of 700 to
1200.
there were three major donations or land grants to the brahamins, which can be noted in such way:, the
first (brahamdei), which refer to the promoting grants to the brahamins; the second one (agrahar) refers
the exclusive donation to the brahamains or the sangh; and the final or the third one is on major religious
belief, (devdan) which is given on the name of the god, eventually the temples of the tamilnadu are the
best example of such kind of granting process.

the feudal debate

historians have differently debated about the system of the land grants. they believe that jan dhan have an
impact on the theoritical state of chief, but the problem is that there is difference in feudalism in europe
and the indian feudalism, what the concept of this indian feudalism accumulate will be recognised in
debate and it will be tried to prove that how it creates a bacground for this ideology of state.

foundation of the land grant accumulation

land grants became an issue for the rakhaits, which help it to made a personal bulley for the political
agenda. there are eventually 1000 lord with their lordship, which meant the weakening of the peasantry
power, or increase in surveyence of peasants, with reducing them to the serfdom, this saltitude rose with
impact on state.
in the south india, brahamins subdated with the peasants, as they were at the major menifest of the
benificiaries, they have representation in the officials of the administrations as well as the millitary
leadership, this is in terms of non religious state, which is been represented by a famous statement (as far
the moon stays, as far the grants). this means that the land will become sensitive and the danger will be to
the common wealth.

idea of semi feudalism: R. S. sharma

in this arguement, we will try to discuss, that how a non marxist approach try to settle down with the
marxist ideology and what kind of criticism it has to face generally in terms of the social indication.
the first point is that how we will mark out the difference between the indian feudalism and feudalism in
europe, different historians like R. S. Sharma and Harvansh Mukhiya have argued with their similarities,
but R. S. Sharma suggests in india, the feudalism, to be the synonym of the serfdom, and here firstly the
concept of semifeudal circumstance came into existence. but he has marked that the condition of labour
are different in indian subcontinent.
in india, the pressure of land grants on the villages was generally imposed by the sahukars and the king
could not afford the direct implification to the economy. due to the decline of the urbanisation, the
complex structure led by the trade with relation to the urban centre also fell down and localisation got
more saliant in the society, as discussed earlier in post gupta politics. it deeply effected the backdown of
the governance, by the supppliment of the free movement of the goods and services got moreheights.
now in the fourth century c e, a serious event took place, the roman civilisation declined and all trade
roots were closed to the links of the rich wealth which was imported and exported, this helped in the
strengthening of the local goods and the menifest of the trade became more weakened in the feudal state
of early medieval period, at the movement of time. the interesting point is that R. S. Sharma has been
criticised on the point, that the moment they say that the roman civilisation with it's decline help to the
localisation to the indian subcontinent, then he is comparing india to rome, as it has similar fashions and
cultural transactions, what rome had, but indian society, economy and political structure is totally
different with it's nature to rome, eventually there are some legal equalities, but they are the effect of the
trade and commerce, the varieties of cultural background has no matching whatsoever.
this is a general observation of the marxmen, that every society has internal contradictions and those
contradictions make the society of that persistance go fall from it's dynamic to that loophole, from where
it's began it's formulation, the interesting point is that R. S. Sharma is trying to make this understand in
non marxist perspective, eventually he has discussed that the ruralisation also came into existence in the
4th century which led to the direct impression to the trading sectors, similarly the change of salaries for
the people, who were working in all sectors of the society, specially who were high ranked, like the
brahamins; their salary changed from money to the feudal grants, and on such moment, when the feudal
grants once established, the structure founded for the demonitisation and this led to a serious crisis of
economy on prospect of a king and had a direct effect to the contemporary politics.
india had another social dimention of the pressure to the lower classes, the impact of the social system
and their direct transformation, such as the dowry and sati system are being prescribed by authors like
kalidas and they start to occur in the early post gupta period and they may be in the gupta period, but R. S.
Sharma is trying to explain that after the economy changed into the feudal dues and grants, the lower
classes were asked to give feudal grants and if those, who are not in this sentiment to provide the land
holdings,, they were directly given work to the own land, and here the concept of the semi feudal india
gain it's strength at more height.
R. S. Sharma believed in form of a new age (kaliage, or kaliyuga), which was a meaning of corruption of
king. he believed that this kaliyuga was generally assigned to the vashya and shudra's social system and
with such transformation, this made more possibilties of internal cohersion, and after it's limit it brought a
counter accuracy for the local people as well.
the kaliyuga is generally prescribed, as the rehersal of the performing activities of any authority in the
society, which means that the crisis of such kind of ideology will have an impact, that will be adverse in
nature to it's political background.
the major significance to the feudal grants in terms of the social dimention is that they were given in the
fertile areas, not in the farflung area, because the brahamins were generally given the feudal grants to
perform their religious action and to spread the brahamanic order in the society, in such case, this is
obvious, that lower classes who are not interested in such actions, they would be force to do the agrarian
activities, or those works, who are not in direction of the brahamins or those deeds, who are thought to be
unholy by these scholars in the early medieval india.
once brahamin observe the social strategy in the feudal grants or in that area, where the feudal grants were
been given to them, he took care of the social crisis, the deploy of the social order and in such case, he
also establish himself as a ruling aleet to the centre of the economy and this led to increase in more
pressure for the untouchables and they were made more pressurised, because the brahamins had the
autonomy to make their deeds possible in this period now. R. S. Sharma has believed that formation of
social order in these feudal grants by the brahamins help to meditate with the social crisis and the formula
of the kaliyuga will be deminished with their support to the brahamanic order.
R. S. Sharma has believed that the period between 700 to 1200 c e is generally marked by the sub-in-
feudation. this happened due to the burdon that is taking place due to the excemptions on the peasants.
this is also termed as (doosage) on his own land. due to the rise of the fragmentation in the land holdings,
the peasants were being forced to do more activities, as they used to do, because they were on the lower
position in the social order and this is being founded first in the post gupta period. the fragmentation
brought more internal contradictions to the local practice, it directly effected on the institutions of the
society, such as the families, where the riots between the members and brothers used to take place, due to
low cost of fertile lands, the agrarian sector and food supplies started getting low for this class and in such
state of posession, the one who is dominant, he observes to achieve the whole part of the sensitation and
this need of survival became more dangerous in this period.
it is believed that if the rehersal of the varnasharm would have taken place, then people won't be working
on their own accordes, they will be mentally or socially pressurised to all deeds, which they generally do
for the master, the relations of production will become more complex and the master inside the sub-in-
feudation will prefer to have more illustration from the fertile land for his own richness, which will
directly inheritt the range of semi feudation in the indian society.
the hallmark of the feudalism in india is the division of the land grants and their progress as a political
subduation with the brahamins with their ritual progress in the society. R. S. Sharma has used term (varna
shaka) the crisis of the varnas, after the decline of feudal distribution, in menifest to the social estability,
eeventually this is a non marxist perception, but this shows that if the political links of brahamins and
kshatriyas would be facing a serious uproot in the society, then the hollmark to the feudal upgradation,
that is the direct pressure on the lowest section of the society will finished, but this was challenged not to
be the dimention only of the feudalism by the historians of the 1970s and they brought back the concept
of the (prossecive history) which will be discussed later.

the stairs of history in economic change in society

this is a general outline that if we have to look on the ancient society, we have to analyse the slavery in
context of it's analysis, in context of the capitalist society similarly we discuss about the change of the
labour and the class structure. this prescribtion is not different from the debate, it is only tried here to
justify, that what is (economic pressure) and how it had change according to the formation of states and
society from historic perspective.
in ancient society, the humans were themselves commodities and they were slaves, who were sold and
bought from the markets, then as a change in the feudal society, the humans were humane now, they were
bonded with the cohersion, but they didn't have independent sustainence. but this can't be denied that it
was still a part of the land and he can debate for his own property rights, but it is not the fragment of the
liberty before the rise of capitalism, where he can himself produce labour for lifestyle of his own in the
society.
eventually the ideology of revolt may be precise, but in the capitalism, eventually there is a trend of
exploitation as well, but the labour is free to join any in any subsistance.
the regional labour comes into the market and try to initiate his own strength between the culture of the
city states or the complex society, this is to show that how capitalism becomes more better mode of
production in terms of historic definition. the main arguement is that the human society, from it's earliest
form to the present is striving for freedom and this is the theme, which tries to initiate the change between
the people and skills to write their events, to bring back the strategies of resellection in the history.
in period of feudalism, the people are trying to free from bondage of lords, similarly the church also
creates pressure through the religious intervene. but when we prescribe about the economy of the
capitalism, the vage labour can made personal economy possible through trade in any stage of transaction.
karl marx believed that (government) means the freedom and the (private) means the bondage in the
society. he mostly emphasise that when rich society oblige more than what they necitate, then in such
stage the movement of freedom bring the ideology of pressure and the concept of class struggle brings
the new form of revolution; but we are not arguing about the foresight of the economic measures of the
society and we need to discuss now, that how R. S. Sharma's views were challenged by Harvansh
Mukhiya on the contrary.

free peasant economy: Harvansh Mukhiya

it took place in 1979 firstly, that in Walteyer history congress, Harvansh Mukhiya challenged the
arguement of R. S. Sharma and denied the existence of semi feudal economy between the period of 700 to
1200.
he believed that R. S. Sharma has not ratified the range and the scale of the serfdom in india, which is
necessary to hold on in terms of the economic history of this period.
he firstly prescribes that in all internal contradictions, there are two general classes: firstly the haves
(owners of the means of productions) and the havenots (those who are not in good condition, as subject to
the aleets), here the arguement of marx is being highlighted, that sharp conflict result in the means of
class conflict between the haves and the havenots and this may be resulted in means of revolution, but the
important is here, that what is free peasant economy? and at what scale this period is being a hallmark to
this ideology? he tried to measure the strength of development, with difference between the feudal model
of europe and indian feudalism, but this arguement was made separate, not in that way, which R. S.
Sharma did to hold own his equation of the semi feudal india.

differences between the feudalism in europe and the indian feudalism

Harvansh Mukhiya has not satisfied with arguements preserved by R. S. Sharma, in context, that is
effecting indian feudalism, he totally disagree and have a different asspect of presentation in terms of the
feudalism and way forward to the transition.
he believed that the feudal model of europe does not apply same to the indian one, because there were
different conditions. he believed that instead of the feudal model of the europe, india sustains free peasant
economy.
the first arguement he put forward is that in feudal model, the peasants are bonded to the land, hence they
had burdons, but in the free peasant economy, the labour is granted with pressure, but it helps the peasant
to be free as well.
the peasants are not subjected to the lords, thus the conditions are fertiled in indian feudalism, so the
pressure of semi feudalism, which is presented by R. S. Sharma is not applied to this model. by the
increase of the population, the pressure increases for the integrity and own land holding becomes easier.
the lords, who are demanding for their own workship with the peasants, it can also be preserved due to
increase in surplus, thus the equal division take place in india, which is seen no where in the europe.
in case, the dependence to the lord was having intertices, who are sufficient to the land, hence the
ideology of the freedom in mobility take place. labour is a major factor to show the differences between
the societys, the problem is that there must be freedom for the peasants with their holding,s but Harvansh
Mukhiya might have had put it hypothetically.
surplus labour can be used to create distinct between the land, if there is labour, then it could be in means
to it's expanditure as well.
the implification to the fertility move around the land and it's owning by the peasants. in europe the kings
have the initiative of direct control to these granting areas, who are thought to be under the lord, but in
context of the indian feudalism, the fertiled land is divided to improvise the groups of peasants, which
support the presentation of free peasant economy.
the theory is that if land will fertile, it will increase the labour and if the labour is increasing, then it will
go mobile; the subsistance will be low and there will be restriction in demand.
(objective suits the nature), hence if the environment practices and it's nature is sufficient in india, hence
the subsistance can be managed, but in europe the conditions were cold and it make the existence and
suffering in the harsher climate of europe directly, which suggest that they have to work and have to
present more expanditure to their peripheral substencials.
free peasant economy was diverted due to the living conditions.
when we discuss the european model of feudalism, there are generally two type of presentation, in
division of land. the first is (mennse): the land granted generally by the peasants; and the second
(demmense): the owned land by the lord, which is highly sufficient to their general luxurious curriculum,
hence these kind of prospects divert the strategy and structure of free peasant economy in europe and the
indiain feudal model have more flexibilty to preserve this notion.
the another consiquence regarding the difference between the europe and india is that the period of
harvest and cropping was short in european, thus in comparison to the inndian feudal system. in europe
the season was 15 days, in compare to india, where the season was up to 2 or three months. the reason
behind this arguement is that the environmental conditions make this adjustment in india. the duration of
such rotation brought the crop faliure which ended in more complex relations between the peasants and
the landlords. the lords, due to exploit more the peasants in europe. in such case all agrarian activities will
face more exploitation within the duration also. that actual state is that lord will increase pressure and
hence the climatic change will directly interfare as an impact to the personal relations.
the instance of turha certifies the means of division in terms of agrarian practices in indian feudal system.
the sector of vast land covered by lords is an another way of difference in europe, in terms of pressure.
compare to india, there are more small holdings, due to the fertility, which not only control the regional
rivalries, but it also help to satisfy the both groups in terms of the economy. here the peasants are more
comfortable, compare to their counterparts in european feudal system.
the minurity and irrigation system is also strong in india, hence compare to the structure of water supplies
in europe. the use and presentation of the persian wheel in the indian agrarian presentation is the direct
instance of the presentation of high efficient water supplies for agriculture.
there is a vast majority of land, eventually the ties are more strong in europe, but they don't have equal
presentation for the comfortable preservation of both groups.
non economic cohersion is presented in terms of the mental pressure, with political designation to the
dominence of the relations.
the general counter arguement in this thesis is that the economy is means of cohersion, eventually the
means of economy was much better in india, but it doesn't mean that the lord didn't have created pressure
on the families, the intercohersional presentations within the families of peasants and their ties in own
land equations, specially in context to the social presentation bring to the preservation of the pressure
created with own measurements and the ideology of the sustained semi feudal structure is still remained
here. there is no doubt that indian feudal culture was based on agriculture and the environment won't be
same with it's climatic impact in all regions, hence in small locality, this is necessary to put upon, that
these agrarian practices put forward the means of internal contradictions and internal feudal dues and ties
emerged in indian society.

concept of state society

this concept first appeared in the mauryan period, where the organised system of governance appeared,
whereas saptang system is being discussed firstly by chanakya in his writing (ardhashastra). here the
mandal sidhant is being discussed with 2 counter arguement of adaptation, as being preserved. the seven
methods of division show the organised system of governance. it sensatise the features of politics, which
are linked to 700 to 1200 medieval politics, where in southern idia, with fragrence of political authority in
chola empire.
feudalism call upon the relation of production, with transformation of direct social relations. here the most
essential feature is relation to the land, which remarks the coinage of capital.
a new elimination arose between 1980 and 1990s, which was represented by Herman Bulkey, B. D.
chattopadhyay and B. P. Sahu with their prominent discussions. it is called (the processual history), which
is being characterised by (orrigin of regions), in referance to Orissa, Rajisthan, Gujarat and south india
and eastern indian provinces, hence it is the direct challenge to the two previous hypothesis, who don't
focus in rise of urban centres, with their decline not in all places.
we are going to discuss the emergence of (state societies), in fragrence to the coloberation of defending
the urbanisation in feudal india. in this period, the general prescribtion is the major decline of
urbanisation, which is generally presented. there are two major depictions here, the first one is that small
stats, who faced decline and new implification of the urban centres. we see a number of differently
producing urban centres, but they face a decline due to a deadlock in trade, as firstly mentioned by R. S.
Sharma, but the pan indian phenomena hurts this arguement with presenting the maritime trade in
southern indian peninsula, specially trichur and travankor, with rangpatnam and it's trade roots show that
the urban centres were also existed and the presentation of guilds, (special economic forums for various
social activities) also had their special presentation to the society. kulutungan preserved many religious
performances in temples with the support of these guilds.
the arrival of the (regions) in the states of contemporary feudal economy also show that the feudal system
was not lack to the trade economy, eventually it's true that some places of northern india provocated a
serious colapse, but analysing indian history only around the corner of gangetic valley and believing that
the whole indian centres were facing a serious agrarian and economic decline, it doesn't make sense for
the historic perspective of indian peninsula, hence this arguement of the rise of (state society) give
accomodation to the presentation of trade and values which change whole perception, earlier presented by
R. S. Sharma and Harvansh Mukhiya.
ahoms, pallavas, gangas, chalukyas and other king dynasties arose in the contemporary southern society.
these dynasties generally presented the temples, as the validation to their political structure, so these
stratifications can be made and the rich and wealthy community must had precisely contain it's roots to
the trading sector, hence the instence of temples of modern day tamilnadu reflects that how trade was
attached to the temples, who were deeply associated to contemporary regime and their political domane.
most of the kings of these dynasties used to represent their families or dynasties with peripheral diaties,
mostly in the southern indian peninsula, which consent on the fundamental system of belief, preserved by
various influxes of religius movements, who won't be discussed here.
these presentation directly invade the representation of decline of urbanisation, hence the region witness
the strong consent of the organised state, which is belonged to chera, cholas and pandeyes, eventually the
coinage system; as well as the ritual presentation shows us that the governance was highly profound and
social institutions were also in major activities in feudal system, hence this influx of new infrastructure of
the role of indian feudal system is necessary to build, so a new historic approach can develope in our
society.

the feudal society of contemporary southern india

a general observation has already been made about the consent of the influx of urbanisation and trade and
this new economic debate put by B. D. chattopadhyay and others, hence, here it will be testified that how
far the concentration of southern india enroll and force foreign and indian writers to put a different
glimpse to the political, socialand economic structure of contemporary india.

highly organised government: P. B. Mahalingum and Neel Khantha Shastri

in southern india, we come to know about the high efficient hierarchies, between the villages, the cities
and emperor, eventualy the lords had their presentations as well, which is a dimention of indian feudal
system also, but we see the presentation of naduki, first of all, an institution working in the herarchy and
then kulur as well as the ur. the ur is smallest in the hierarchy, which is an institution managing the affairs
of the village to produce the wealth of agrarian sector. here, this is necessary to mention, that these
organisation were used in a grassroot level, in terms of the state society in southern india, the (variyam)
was the best prescribed institution, which constitues of 30 member committees in this presentation, a
personal, who is professional as a brahamin, with knowledge of different vedic traditions was chosen as
the chief of the organisation.
this department of reflection in society had different departments and these departments had also
produced the instances of the herakiri by small rebells in the villages, the major factor, that bring out the
similarity is that the localisation was also promoted here, as mentioned by r. s. sharma, when he was
discussing, but this arguement has a different sustained presentation.
the means to discuss such ideologies to ratify that the organised system was preserved in contemporary
society. these all societies and organisations are highlighted in the inscription of 919 and 929 c e,
generally discovered from tolmandalam and cholmandalam, which reflects that the vast majority of
settled government with it's settled roots, influenced different odacious activities and music, art and
architect had different structures as well.
here, this is also necessary to know, how the legal system of this authorities, so the emmencipation of a
centralised authority could be discussed. the variyam is divided into three major divisions: (purukeli),
(purumakkalam) and (variyam purumallakam), who all have their different management. the judicial
committee appointed by this authority had a balanced structure and the villagers had to pay revenue
according to the due facilities, thus the punishment, (such as discrimination from the villages), were
common which were mentioned in an inscription found in 990 c e, near kanchi and madras, that also
stratify and preserve the actual state of the centralised government.

southern indian politics in feudal system: R. S. Sharma

here, we will discuss, that how different dynasties of southern indian peninsula helped to found the feudal
system and how according to the system, the political and economic efficiency were reflected for the
presentation.
rashtrakuts generally had the majority in the southern peninsula and they preserved the presentation of
different forms, as (dhara vvarsha), (the kal varsha) and different understanding of performance within
the society. eventually, the measured sentiment is being shown in geographical substence of maharashtra,
where we find the means of (jay vrishti), this kind of solitude bring the reputation, that the kings of this
dynasty had a progression to attain the devine kingship between the society. there were different custom
duties, which were confornted by lakshamidhar, a historian, with support of writers like aprark and
others. hence, the discussion of (bhuktis), as the villagers, with their progress to the feudal dues is being
menifested and the feudal system was highly in progress.
eventually in some parts, like rashtrakutas in gujarat and gangs of gangghar preserve this presentation in
more efficient way, where they are themselves distributing feudal ties and having taxation and other
qualification of autonomy in their own hands, the biggest illustration in founding of feudal system, in
some sort of arguement. there is also the discription of (nav gandluk), a professional personal, who was
appointed by the king, to manage the lord and kingship in region and he devided the hierarchy between
the village, cities and other provincial candidature as well.
in dakkan, the chalukya came into existence, who's popular capital was kalyani. we saw the titles like
(dandnayak), (mahaprachand nayak: the chief of the army) and (dharamadhikarin: the chief of the judicial
and religious rights), these performance saw that there was a hierarchy similar to the rashtrakutas. here
the nepotism, with it's highly intent came into existence with it's regard to the people, or the chiefs, like
the prime minister having all seats for his own personal account, or having gymnologic claims, such as
his, cousin, or some other relative would come into the power for the political framework, this shows that
the political substencials change in these hierarchies and had a direct influx to the economy, managed by
the profliterate states in contemporary period, but the feudal dues were still present and they were
subsequent promoting the brahamanic order, which is the best similarity, both in northern indian context,
as well the southern indian peninsula.
the readers may find that why all political stages of the southern king dynasties is not available here, the
only reason to do so is that the similarities between these kingdoms, who promote the feudal system in
south indian peninsula are already discussed in the proliferation of these two kingdoms, hence, the other
kingdoms are ignored, but later, readers can make the criticism, that they are not totally completed as
well, but due to limited presentation, they are hidden as well.

the segmentry state: Burter Stein

when do we believe to have such state, are southern indian political and feudal states really segmentry?
before justifying the positin of southern indian states, within the arguements of burter stein, let's discuss,
what is the (segmentry state) and what does this generally refer to? in short discription, the segmentry
states refers to a state, or a political geocompatibilty, who has strong feudal ties, within the ruling
dynasties, thus by support of lords and equal position. sir Burter stein believed that in southern india,
eventually with support of different trade and systems of guilds, the feudal dues were made for the
variyams like institutions and the rashtrakutas have strong belief in distribution of the economic wellfare,
hence the trade was generally used to have export and transfering of goods, necessary for a state.
now, the meaning of segmentry state, as generally understood, it's the prelifiration of a strong economic
position in a highly constructive monarchy, which is dominent with support of the devine kingdom, and
the same kind of position is being justified by Burter stein for the presentation of southern indian
peninsula as well.
then, why are states like chola and chera are not presenting the inscriptions, promoting the numismatic
access to show that their states are monarchies, strongly in belief of the political expectations, hence they
are not showing, because their numismatic data, generally found in suthern kerala and madras tried to
show, that the king is polite to the public and the temples are the progress of his power to the state and
they generat an issue of his political dominence, which is no doubt a strong position in the contemporary
society.
burter stein made the influx of the southern indian economy, that the trade roots were generally dued by
those high efficient traders, specially like nav gandluk in rashtrakutas, who are deeply involved in the
feudal activities and the majority was equified by the support of the king, the king was interested in the
collectivisation of money, thus he was not working for the social activities, but his involvement was
majorly in the social curosities and thus, the feudal dues were concerned as well, which shows that feudal
system of segmentry state reflects the centralised economy, that is the grassroot of the southern indian
peninsula.

conclution
after writing feudalism's history, that it was founded by efforts of satkarnis, and their demand increased
contunously, as it was discused in starting prescribtion, that it led the foundation and we discussed that
what was position of post gupta period, such as, the decline of urbanisation, the demonitisation and other
internal communal standerds; hence, dr. R. S. Sharma, harvansh mukhiya, b. d. chattopadhyay, p. b.
mahalingum and burter stein put their arguementn critically to understand, what should be ratify and how
deep and interesting these settle construction were in the previous historic tradition, so their demarkation
led to the strong illustration of the feudalism.
they also discussed that how the pressure to the peasants was merely different from the conditions of the
european continent, r. s. sharma's view of roman civilisation with it's decline was challenged also,
eventually the mode of free peasant economy was also discussed, but we found later, that how it was put
hypothetically and how it's subordinate were not deeply indulged, as they were expected to be.
similarly, we found the structure of the state society, discussed by b. d. chattopadhyay, that how the
states, with their deriving strategy in the contemporary society made feudal society a more complex to
study the post modern historians, a different entity and how deeply it put itself as characterised, into the
soil of the historic research.
at last not but least, p. b. mahalingum, r. s. sharma and burter stein showed that how southern indian
conditions were different and we came to know, that how the (regional history) is different from (history
of regions), when we discuss (regional history: it means that we are discussing about the regional
character, specially the local traditions with it's economy, the agriculture), but when we will discuss
(history of regions: it means the history of regions, who are developing with more complex structure,
which support the human tendency, because he has always been progressive, with his nature, but these
states show that how strong they were, specially the instances of temples and maritime trade in the central
kanchi, madras, cholmandalam, tichura and other centres); hence this is a measurement, which we have to
understand, when we will critically analyse the structure and diagramme of feudal system in
contemporary india.