Criticism of R.

S Sharma’s feudalism theory

1. Some scholars criticize the point of Sharma saying that trade
disappeared , Sharma says that he didn’t say so .
2. Harbans muhkiya refutes the feudalism thesis . He says that Indian
feudalism compared to medieval Europe isn’t justified . The variations in
India are so numerous that the use of the term feudalism can be avoided
altogether .
3. He came up with a comparative study between Europe and India on the
basis of technology , ecological conditions & social organization of labor .
4. His first argument says that India if compared with Europe on ecological
basis is completely different . India sees 10 months of sunshine while
Europe saw most of a cold weather . The upper crust of the soil in India
becomes more fertile due to the monsoons so it didn’t require any
artificial fertilizers as such . Digging Indian soils was also easier . Crops
were more rotational in India as compared to Europe .
5. If you see the Indian hump bull which was used for cultivation in India it
is unique to the subcontinent . European counterpart couldn’t support
the plough due to no hump . In India the plough and the bull were at the
disposal of the peasants . There were no dearth of tools , land , means of
production , labor . European peasants were required to carry out
intensive labor .
6. There was seldom any beggar . The technological breakthrough which
transformed Europe wasn’t witnessed in India , because it was already
existing .
7. Cash crops were capitalized on in India by the britishers only .
8. Medieval Indian system was marked by free peasant economy . Indian
peasants were burdened only by the revenue and not by other things .
He could produce anything he wanted .
9. Tension over revenue in the Indian system didn’t cause transitioning .
10.B.D Chattopadhyay in his book making of early medieval India also
criticized Sharma . He agrees to one point that the system of land grants
was present and it cant be denied . There was presence of ardhikas /
sharecroppers as well . There was then a definite change in agrarian
relations but this doesn’t help to explain the origin of feudal polity .
[Link] secular grants are important in understanding the feudal polity . He
said no system can be completely centralized . He also tried to highlight
 one cant say that trade declined and the old urban centers declined and
in turn feudalism had set in .
[Link] says there are references of new urban centers emerging as well .
There were centers were trade was going on Ahar in Bulanshehar ,
Siyodani , Gopagiri , Prithudaka . In fact in Prithudaka King Bhoja
mentions horse trade from this region in one of his inscriptions .
[Link] he goes on to say that early medieval India can be highlighted
without getting into the feudalism by pointing out the process of
Kshatriyaization ( integrative polity ) along with Sanskritization . He
highlights the emergence of Rajput’s/ formation of ruling lineages from
the perspective on social mobility in early medieval India . (origin of
rajputs).
14.B.D Chattopadhyay says secular land grants led to the rise of ruling
lineages and different state politics . He talks in a political sense . Sharma
on the other hand says that there was a social and political change
mainly sparked off from economic change . He hints at Sanskritization
and tantricism due to the coming up of mixed castes . Chattopadhyay
says land grants isn’t a solid reason to conclude that feudalism
developed .
[Link] grants intensified exploitation of peasants , beggar , and other
forms of economic exploitation .
[Link] land grants along with the expanding of agricultural land a.k.a
peasentisation of tribes . Ruling lineages owe their coming up to the
agrarian expanses . This helped in colonizing new areas and the rise of a
state structure by mobilization of force . There were many ruling
lineages couldn’t find permanent home in geographical locations and so
they faded with time . There were lineages who were offshoots of such
clans and they came up later on . (Chattopadhyay).
[Link] gives the example of chhana rulers moving from Gujarat colonized
the meds .
[Link] model of integrative polity talks about the change in contemporary
economics , religion , society .
[Link] has drawn no analogy with Europe in this model of his .
[Link] also points out the bhramadeya and devadana grants
were the two types of grants which provided legitimacy to the temporal
powers in the areas occupied by them. During the process of spread of
 the lineage society many were bought under unitary framework . The
idea of bhakti provided the basis of such integration .
[Link] in the tribal areas , Sanskritization of these people and
even assimilation of their gods in the Brahminical order which leads to
development of a new/mixed caste is something Chattopadhyay hasn’t
pointed at .
[Link] Kulke talks about Kshatriyaization . The process of expansion
of state society and how the pre state polities are converted into state
polities and one of the things for the transformation was the emergence
and horizontal expansion of ruling lineages which was achieved through
a process of kshatriyaisation .New state polities and cults like Orissa and
the jaganath puri cult comes up . He was reluctant to accept any model
and he focused on structural development and changes in the given
state system. It is because of this is process and the multiplicity of the
local and regional power because of the extension of state society into
certain areas resulted into rise of new states .
[Link] political process and the idea of kingship are important in
understanding the culture of any period . He had basically studied the
kingship ideology and the temple structures of Orissa and the process of
state formation on both sides of the bay of Bengal . The Gajapati
kingship in Orissa and Devaraja kingship angkar .
[Link] basically studied the temple cities and the rise of regional powers in
such areas . Jaganath was worshipped in Orissa here the maharaja was
gajapatis , they were praised as the sons and deputies of jaganath . This
rise of temple cities happened as ruling lineages were patronizing cults
and involved in building temples for legitimizing their rule.
25.B.P Sahu questions the validity of evidences of Kaliyuga indicative of
prices . He doubted the self sufficient village system of R.S Sharma .
[Link] Burton stein always in your answer .