Q- Examine the nature of state in early medieval India.

Can it be termed as
feudal?
Q- In what ways have recent approaches to the study of early medieval Indian
history challenged the hypothesis of Indian feudalism
Q- Do you agree with the view that the land grants during the early medieval
period led to the integration of outlying areas into state societies rather that
emergence of feudalism
Q- How do you view transition from early historical to early medieval in
Indian history. Elucidate
Q- What are the major issues and arguments given by historians in the recent
debates about characterising early medieval India
Q- Give a brief account of various models of study of early medieval state
Q- Critically access major historiographical debates on early medieval
Q- Do you think period from A.D. 750 to A.D. 1200 was that of political, social
and economic decline
Q- Do you think period from 750 A.D. to 1200 A.D. can be called as the period
of dark ages. Discuss
Introduction
The early medieval period spanning from c.600CE to 1300CE is to be situated
between the early historical and medieval. Historians have brought in home
the presence of the elements of change and continuity in Indian history. It is
identified as a phase in the transition to the medieval.
B.D. Chattopadhyaya argues that current historiographic position on early
medieval has been viewed differently. By accepting the idea of the early
medieval as a phase of transition to medieval, we subscribe to one way of
looking at the course of Indian history. This is the perspective from which,
despite an awareness of the elements of the continuity, the course of history is
seen in terms of stages of change.
Central to the period of early medieval was the question of ‘feudalism’ which
has been highly debated and contested by scholars with their different
approaches and models. To indulge ourselves into these exotic ideas let’s get
acquainted with what feudalism actually was?
The term feudalism is a reference to the self-sufficient closed economy that
existed in Europe between the 5th and 15th century A.D based upon the ties
between the overlord and the vassal and the latter‘s authority to extract
surplus product and labor services from the serfs by extra economic means.
Early medieval India has been described by historians, largely as a dark face of
Indian history characterized only by political fragmentation and cultural
decline. Such a characterisation being assigned to it, this period remained by
and large and neglected one in terms of historical research. We owe it
completely to new researches in the recent decades to have brought to light
the many important and interesting aspects of this period. It was only in the
50s, that a considerable change took place in the research on the late classical
and early medieval states of India. Early Indian historians characterized the
Indian state as a large, united changeless body. Majority of the text were
marked by a nationalist fervour which viewed the period before the arrival of
the British as the ‘golden age’ in turn exaggerating many aspects.
The entry of Marxist historiography in the 20th century, best represented
initially by Kosambi, marked a departure from this style. At present there exist
at least three different structural models for the early medieval Indian
kingdoms of the post- Gupta and pre-Delhi Sultanate period. 1.The
conventional model of a rather unitary, centrally organized kingdom with a
strong central bureaucracy. 2. The Marxist influenced ‘Indian feudalism model’
of decentralized feudal states. 3. The model of a segmentary state.
DD Kosambi
He was the first to provide a conceptual definition of Indian feudalism. In the
subsequent years, the most important contribution towards the understanding
of this period through the feudalism approach was in the writings of R.S.
Sharma. But for Kosambi, feudalism in the early medieval India had a dual
character, existing from above and below. The former refers to the political
feudalism involving the transfer of physical and administrative rights by the
king to autonomous subordinate chiefs who paid him a tribute and the latter
during the Gupta period became landed intermediaries between the state and
the peasantry and gradually became very powerful with their own armies and
complete control over the local population.
R.S. Sharma
He proceeded to give an original and new framework for Indian feudalism
based on empirical evidence which Kosambi lacked. According to RS Sharma,
the origin of Indian feudalism has to be sought in the ever-increasing number
of land grants to Brahmins and religious institutions and later to
secular/government officials such as Buddhist monks and Satavahana ruler
such as Gautamiputra Satakarni. This gave them judicial and physical rights
over the population of that land, resulting in the disposition of the peasantry
and their consequent impoverishment. This endowment with more and more
immunities like freedom from taxation and inspection by Royal officers led to
the creation of a class of landed intermediaries which alienate it land and
people from the central Dynasty and deprive the villagers of traditional rights.
It was further aggravated by the decline of urbanism and inter-regional trade
and the scarcity of coins. According to him, the increase in the distribution of
land grants was the result of an economic crisis brought on by the collapse of
the Roman Empire in the third century AD. Economic feudalism was primarily
characterized by rural isolation. It had to do with the development of a closed
economy and the emergence of a village as a self-sufficient unit of production
as a consequence of land grants which gave the Donee a right to exploit the
resources of the land and demand unpaid labor. Hence, economic feudalism
had to do with the reduction of the erstwhile free peasants to source and the
decline in urban life. Sharma also speaks of a social crisis, based on the
accounts of the Kali age in the Puranas which focuses on the natural calamities
such as famine and drought; and more importantly oppressive taxes.
DN Jha and BNS Yadava
RS Sharma’s theory is taken forward by the works of scholars like DN Jha and
B.N.S Yadava. Yadav gives more evidence of land grants being made to military
officials in the post- Gupta period. He focuses his attention on the Samantas
and Maha Samantas to try and highlight the lack of solidarity, stability and
political unity; claiming that those holding these ranks for essentially semi-
independent rulers.
But Jha was critical of the central argument of the Indian feudalism which
referred to the decline of trade and urbanization in India as it did in the
Europeans feudal ages. Sharma claimed that India’s overseas trade disappeared
with the decline of the Guptas. This led to the ruralisation and entire townships
disappeared.
Harbans Mukhia
Sharma‘s arguments were further critiqued by other scholars, out of whom the
most influential and substantive critique comes from Harbans Mukhia. He
highlights the absence of structural dependence between the serfs and their
overlords, which was a hallmark of Europeans feudalism. He justifies this by
referring to the control retained by the peasants in India over the process of
production. They owned the means of production and decided what crops
were to be sown. Hence according to Mukhia, what existed in India was a “free
peasant economy“ in contrast to the ‘closed state economy’ or feudal Europe.
Sharma responds to this criticism saying that the peasants control over the
process of production was not operational as the fruits of his labor were
enjoyed by the landlord. Furthermore, Mukhia emphasizes that European
feudalism developed as changes at the base of the society, whereas in India,
according to Sharma, the onset of feudalism was a result of measures carried
out solely by the state through land grants. This led him to question whether it
was possible for such a complex social structure as feudalism to emerge solely
through administrative and legal actions.
B.D. Chattopadhyaya
He questioned the theory of urban decay. He gives epigraphic evidence to
show a continuation of organization in early medieval Indian cities like
Kaushambi and Kapilavastu. While he agrees to the existence of land grants, he
says that this does not explain the emergence of feudal polity. He also
emphasizes the contractual relationship between the overlord and his vassal in
feudal Europe to point to its absence in early medieval India. He critics
Sharma‘s assertion of political disintegration as a consequence of land grants.
Instead, he refers to the emergence of multiple political foci in early medieval
India to showcase, on one hand the expansion of state society, and on the
other, the integration of new areas.
Chattopadhyay believes that the Samantha scheme, in this sense, was an
instrument of integration. This type of polity could sustain only through a
hierarchical feudatory system in which administrative powers and resources
had to be parcelled out. This explanation by BD Chattopadhyay is referred to as
the integrative polity model which was supported by Herman Kulke in his work,
‘The State in India’.
Chattopadhyaya explains the model through Kshatriyaization, any linear or
segment of a large ethnic group could make an attempt to assume political
power and establish a large state structure by the effective mobilization of
force. RS Sharma later modified his earlier stance and expanded its scope to
understand feudalism as an economic formation which evolved from an
economic and social crisis in society. Hence, he no longer holds the view that
feudalism is nothing but a consequence of state action any more.
Burton Stein’s segmentary state model
Recently, the analysis of the structure of Hindu kingdoms as carried out both by
conventional historians and adherence to the concept of Indian feudalism has
also been challenged by a group of American historians in the context of South
Indian history. Among them, burton Stein figures most prominently. He
proposed to the segmentary state model which refers to a form of political
organization characterized by numerous political domains with ‘autonomous
administrative capabilities’ and differentiated political power held by many
while recognising the sovereignty of a ritual king and state.
Stein adopted this formulation for the Cholas of South India. According to him
several levels of subordinate foci may be distinguishable, organized pyramidally
in relation to the central authority. The central and peripheral authority reflects
the same model, the latter being reduced images of the former. Similar powers
are repeated at each level with a decreasing range.
Conclusion
Considering the complex and diverse developments in the state organization in
early medieval north India, Romila Thapar characterized the period between
300 to 600 A.D. as ‘ threshold times‘. The debate on feudalism in India is one of
the most vibrant debates in history offering a plethora of arguments supporting
or opposing the issue in question. While some of these have stood the test of
time, others have been replaced with newly emerging evidence and counter
arguments. The feudalism debate still remains one of the most intriguing
discourses in Indian history.