Can Early Medieval India be called feudal? Explain.
Dias Mario Antony, History (hons)-II
Medieval India-I, 2013

Ans: The question of feudalism in India is a widely debated topic. A plethora of arguments supporting and opposing the proposition of a feudal period in Early Medieval India has been published. The debated period can be roughly put in the time period from c. 700 CE – c. 1200 CE. Feudalism generally refers to a self-sufficient economy that existed in Europe in the 5th – 15th century A.D. It had a dominant class of landlords who extracted surplus product and labour services from peasants by extra-economic means. Peasants carried on the actual production, and also performed ‘forced labour’. They were attached to the soil held by these landed intermediaries.

The first proposition mainly put forward by Marx described polity in Early Medieval India as ‘changeless’, ‘traditional’ or as ‘Oriental despotism’. Marx postulated a special mode of production in context of India and pre-modern Asia termed as the Asiatic Mode of Production. However this was challenged by Indian Marxist historians like RS.Sharma and Irfan Habib. Hermann Kulke even went to the extent of saying that Oriental Despotism was an outcome of ‘occidental prejudice against an alleged oriental despotism.’ While the model looked at a changeless society, recent research shows a society which witnessed the dynamics of change.

In the 1940s, writers like B.N. Datta and S.A. Dange spoke of the growth of feudalism in India. They however, simply transplanted the European concept of feudalism onto Indian soil, and spoke of an Indian variant. However, a new genre of substantial works emerged in the 1950s.

The idea of a changing society was proposed mainly in the post-independence writings. One of these models which based on the assumption of dynamism or change was referred to as the ‘Indian Feudalism’ model. The Early Medieval state in India has been explained in context of Indian feudalism by historians like D.D Kosambi, R.S Sharma, D.N Jha, B.N.S Yadava and many other famous historians.

One of the first historians to write on the topic was DD Kosambi. He provided a concept of Feudalism which was based on ‘feudalism from above’ and ‘feudalism from below’. The former meant a feudal system which arose out of the king granting his sub ordinates the right to wield power over a territory in return of a tribute and in the latter a class of land-owners would develop in between the state and the peasantry within the village to wield armed power over the local population. The second kind according to him began in the Delhi Sultanate period and the taxes were collected by the intermediaries of which a fraction passed on to the hierarchy and in the first kind the taxes were collected directly by the royal officials.

Niharranjan Ray, a contemporary of Kosambi pointed towards the emergence of a new state structure in Bengal during the Gupta and post Gupta period which was localized in context. There was a system of Samantas and Mahasamantas and a hierarchical setup. The economy was locally agrarian in nature. This entire complex was called Medievalism and Ray associates this with the advent of feudalism.

After DD Kosambi, it was RS Sharma who came out with one of the most important thesis. He divided Indian feudalism into 3 parts – origins and the first phase (350-750 CE), the phase of the heyday of Indian feudalism (750-1000 CE) and the beginning of its decline (1000-1200 CE). RS Sharma captures our attention towards an increasing number of land grants made to Brahmanas, religious institutions and later to government officials in the post Gupta period. Gradually the ‘communal’ village land was encroached upon by the grantees and led to large scale peasant exploitation. These land owners gradually got the power to collect revenues, administrative powers like awarding punishments and exacting fines. RS Sharma mentions the existence of Vishti or forced labour. This was exercised by the Brahmanas and the powerful land grantees. As a result a kind of serfdom emerged in which the agricultural laborers were reduced to the position of semi-serfs. This is often compared with European feudalism which established a lord- Vassal relationship.

The earliest epigraphic evidence supporting Sharma’s idea of land grants comes from the 1st century B.C., but they did not transfer administrative power to the beneficiary. Administrative rights were perhaps given up for the first time in the grants made to Buddhist monks by the Satvahana ruler Gautamiputra Satkarni in the 2nd century A.D. These were – the right to collect taxes from the peasants and enjoy the revenue of the land along with the immunity from payment of taxes to the king; the right of land not to be encroached upon by royal officers or the army; judicial rights to punish thieves, as well as all offences against family, property, person etc. Consequently there was transfer of rights over resources of the land like pastures forests and wells and the right to enjoy the hidden treasures of the village, like mines etc.

Grants were also often made to merchant guilds. A set of charters from western India, dated to the close of the 6th century, addressed a group of traders and granted them various immunities like exemption from various dues; and freedom to deal with their laborers and impose forced labour on certain artisans. Sub infeudation also led to different strata of intermediaries and intensification of the exploitation of the peasantry. According to Sharma, evidence for the dispossession and impoverishment of peasantry comes from peasant protests. Migration was difficult and unviable so they asserted their land rights through revolts. There are some instances of peasant protests, though we do not find organized peasant revolts. The possibility of a clash is also indicated in some Bengal grants, but significant cases of localized, rural protest are found in the records of the Deccan and the South.

Since the rise of feudalism is traced to land grants, the question remains of why such grants, which gave away the sovereignty of the state, were made. The charters say that this was probably an action to legitimize the rulers. R.S. Sharma explains them using a Theory of Causation, citing two crises as the reason for the prevalence of land grants. The Economic Crisis started with the decline in India’s long-distance trade. Trade with the Roman Empire ended in the 3rd century A.D. due to its decline; and silk trade with Iran and the Byzantium stopped in the middle of the 6th century. The coastal areas of India continued some commerce but this had little impact on the economy of the country. Paucity in coins is also seen in the country during the period. Accounts of travelers state that cowries formed the common medium of exchange. Finally officials were also paid in grants or in kind. This gradually led to decline in urban life and commerce. So decommercialization, demonetization, and deurbanization made land grants a device for payment for services in lieu of cash salaries.

Shrimali supports RS Sharma with references to the Vakataka Empire. He argues that there is a decline in trade and urban economy and asserts that the inscriptions convey demonetization, small scale village economy, an expansion of rural settlements, a contraction of urbanism and an early onset of feudalism. There are hardly any references to urban centres and only about 16 or so settlements could be identified as urban settlements. He also brings to our notice that there was limited use of money despite the revival of trade, growth in agricultural activities, urbanization and multiplication of exchange centres in northern and western India. The use of coins remained extremely localized and did not permeate deep into the economic sphere.

RS Sharma’s arguments however drew in a lot of criticism from a lot of Historians. D.C Sircar for instance does not refute that large number of land grants were made during the period to Brahmans and other religious institutions but there was scant evidence of existence of land grants of a secular nature. He questions the interpretation made by Sharma of certain terms used in the inscriptions. He says the key terms were misunderstood by Sharma, e.g. there is no transfer of ownership rights of the land but only the transfer of revenue. He also questions the assumption of transfer of artisans and peasants with the land from the inscriptions. Sircar also raises a very important point – the overwhelming majority of the land grants are made to the temples and Brahmanas. Service grants begin to be made only towards 1000-1200 CE onwards. Building upon this argument by Sircar, Kulke suggests that the purpose of the land grants was ritual legitimization, and not reflecting a crisis.

B.D Chattopadhyaya has also questioned the theory of urban decay and the decline in trade in the post-Gupta period, a very essential foundation of the feudalism argument. He used epigraphic evidence to show that no major de urbanization really took place during the period. He gives evidence to show a continuation of urbanization in early medieval India. Certain cities like Ahicchatra, Kaushambi, and Kapilavastu etc. showed a continuation in occupation. R. Champaklakshmi has similarly demonstrated this for Tamil Nadu. In fact, in Tamil Nadu, land grants were actually responsible for the spread of urbanization as they led to agrarian expansion, with led to growth of urban centers. Chattopadhyaya also says that even if some early medieval cities did decline, agrarian expansion led to trade and exchange, which led to the development of local exchange nodes from the 9th century onwards, providing the for a new kind of urbanism in early medieval times. Markets called hatta became centers around which new towns developed

Some have been even harsher with their criticism for instance Harbans Mukhia questions the very existence of Indian Feudalism. He cites a lack of evidence. He points out that in the European context feudalism emerged due to changes in the society, whereas in India, it has been attributed to state practice of making land grants. He believes feudalism could not have been a state imposition. He expresses huge disbelief in the existence of serfdom. He argued that Indian peasantry had always been predominantly free. There is free peasant production as the peasant controlled the process of production. He owned the means of production, e.g. tools, and controlled decisions such as what to sow and when. According to him, it was the forces of consumption rather than profit motive which drove pre-capitalist mode of production and it thus limited its capacity to expand beyond local or regional level and even at regional level the variations were numerous.

R.S. Sharma responds to Mukhia’s criticism, saying that land does not mean anything without its products. The peasant may have possessed land, labour, cattle and agricultural implements but his ‘control’ over the means of production was not effective as the fruits his labour were enjoyed by the land lord. In fact, land grants leave no doubt that the landlord largely controlled the means of production. The terms used for peasants in the inscriptions also do not show him as the owner of the land.

Harbans Mukhia focusses on three main things and compares them with Medieval Western Europe to drive his argument- ecological conditions, technology available and the forms of labour used in agriculture in the two regions. Indian soil was much more fertile, and therefore did not require deep or intensive labour. The plough placed on the humped Indian bull also made the work of tilling all the more easy, which was not the case with European bull and the productivity was also much more in the Indian farms as up to two crops could be cultivated during an year. Thus Mukhia argues that tied or unpaid labour was seldom part of production. Harbans Mukhia is of the opinion that Medieval Indian economy was therefore marked by a ‘free peasant economy’ unlike the feudalism in Medieval Europe where serf labour was used for purposes of agricultural production, which was set under the control of the lord. The labour of the Indian counterpart was under his own control; what was subject to state’s control was the amount of produce of the land in the form of revenue. The resultant tension from the control of labour in Europe led to the rise of capitalism from the 12th century whereas in India it happened only in the 20th century under a completely different set of circumstances.

But Sharma again disagrees with this, and says that though there can be enormous variations in the nature of feudal societies, certain characteristics remain the same. It is merely to distribute production and extract surplus. It may have certain traits typical of a time and territory but it has certain broad universal features.

B.D Chattopadhyaya agrees to the existence of land grants and the presence of contractual element in these land grants. He however says that this does not explain the emergence of feudal polity. He considers land grants mainly secular important for understanding the feudal polity but not the sole criteria. He looked at the inter-relationship between socio-economic and political processes to understand the polity. According to him and his followers the process of change has been a result of a gradual development of a ‘state society’. B.D Chattopadhyaya explains that the establishment of larger polities took place in nuclear areas.

Hermann Kulke who is proponent of this argument adds saying that this transformation was based and progressed along with the emergence and spatial expansion of the ruling lineages. B.D Chattopadhyaya goes on to explain that any large ethnic group could make an attempt to assume political power by effective mobilization of force. Ruling lineages thus owed their origin to the expansion of agricultural settlements. The development was heightened by better technology and transformation of tribal groups in peasant groups, which led to colonization of new areas and the emergence of a state structure. New political powers emerged through expansion into new regions. Administrative measures like brahmadeyas and devadanas helped in providing legitimacy to the temporal powers in the area occupied by them. The principles of Bhakti became and instrument for legitimizing state power. This model developed by Chattopadhyaya is called the ‘Integrative Polity’ which links the formation of polities with economic and social processes. Chattopadhyaya believes that the Samanta scheme was an instrument of integration. The expansion of ruling lineages horizontally was brought due to many factors like a growth in the agricultural settlements and the transformation of the tribes in peasant groups. This type of polity could sustain only through a hierarchical feudatory, in this case the Samanta system in which administrative powers and resources had to be parceled out.

RS Sharma later in his paper called ‘How feudal was Indian feudalism?’ modifies his earlier stance and expanded its scope to understand feudalism as an economic formation which evolved from and economic and social crisis in society, thereby invoking the idea of Kaliyuga. RS Sharma no longer holds the view that feudalism is nothing but a consequence of state action any more.

BNS Yadava at this point also supports RS Sharma with detailed study of the notion of Kaliyuga in Early Medieval Indian literature and suggested the notion had all characteristics of a crisis, which would hasten the process of change. He gives more evidence of land grants being made to military officials in the post Gupta period, which affected the mobility of the peasants. Yadava pointed at the political aspect of feudalism. He focusses his attention on the ‘Samantas’ and ‘Mahasamantas’ whose main intention was to reinstall the feudatories and court dignitaries in the new conception of empire. According to Yadava such an empire lacked solidarity, stability and political unity. The Samantas and Mahasamantas were semi-independent rulers.

B.P Sahu questions the validity of evidence from Kaliyuga as period of crisis. He sees it as a reassertion of Brahmanical ideology rather than a crisis. He also points out that evidence points towards forced labour falling into disuse after 1000 CE.

The proponents of Indian feudalism model cite the absence of trade and paucity of metallic medium of exchange, there came up an essentially self-sufficient and enclosed village economy. DN Jha says that this led to a decentralized polity and parcelised sovereignty. They say that the lack of metallic money resulted in service grants being made to the royal officials who gradually amassed a lot of wealth and became powerful. This is however being questioned by John Deyell. He says that metals like gold; silver and copper were not the only form of money but even cowries functioned well as a medium of exchange. He suggested procuring cowries in India involved long distance trade for cowrie shells were obtained from far off Maldives and this highlights its significance. By a study of the coin hoard finds, metrology and metal composition, he concludes that money production and money circulation in the area between Afghanistan and middle Ganga basin, and between Kashmir and northern Deccan extending to the western coast were in full swing and went beyond their localities.

Ranabir Chakravarti agrees that there was an unprecedented agrarian expansion in India in the Early Medieval period. This resulted in an agrarian surplus, a major prerequisite for city formation in early India. This expansion led to greater concentration of population in some villages, which consequently underwent changes leading to emergence of smaller towns. Thus revisionists feel that the old towns did show signs decline but many new urban centres came up instead.

The debate on feudalism in India is one of the most vibrant debates in history and has yielded many arguments, some which have stood the test of time and some others have perished with newly emerging evidences and counter arguments. RS Sharma without any argument can be credited with starting this active debate on feudalism in India. However RS Sharma’s work missed out on many other regions of India which showed vibrant trade and urbanization during the period. Currently the idea of an integrated polity in early Medieval India has gained ground among the academic and intellectual community due to its capacity to be more inclusive and convincing. The feudalism debate still remains unresolved and one of the most intriguing discourses in History.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. S. Sharma – Indian Feudalism, AD 300-1200 (3rd edition).
  2. Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya – The Making of Early Medieval India (edition II).
  3. N. Jha (ed.) – Feudal Social Formation in Early India: State, Society and Ideology in Early Medieval India.
  4. Harbans Mukhia (article) – ‘Was There Feudalism in Indian History?’ in Hermann Kulke (ed.) “The State in India 1000-1700”.
  5. Ranabir Chakravarti (ed.) – Trade in Early India.
  6. Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya (article) – State and Economy in North India: Fourth Century to Twelfth Century.
  7. Harbans Mukhia (article) – Peasant Production and Medieval Indian Society.