FEUDALISM IN INDIA. APT ?

The Early Medieval Period in India (c. 700-1200 CE) has sparked debates among
historians, especially about its timeline and the best way to understand its societal
changes. Although scholars disagree on the exact dates, the period is generally seen
as a transition from the earlier ancient period.

One of the main debates centers around the idea of "Indian Feudalism," particularly
within the Marxist framework. Feudalism, similar to the system in Europe, involves a
structure where powerful landowners control resources and force peasants to give
up part of their produce. However, this idea has been heavily criticized in recent years
for oversimplifying the complexities of Indian society.

Earlier, some historians saw the Early Medieval period as a "Dark Age" of stagnation.
Historians such as D.N. Jha and Irfan Habib argue that instead of a static society, the
Early Medieval period was one of transformation, with changes in political, social,
and economic structures. The idea of Indian Feudalism, which initially applied
European ideas to Indian society, has been revised as scholars now focus on the
diverse and evolving nature of this era

Marxist thinkers, like D.D. Kosambi, also challenged this view in the 1950s. Kosambi
argued that instead of stagnation, this period was marked by significant changes. He
introduced the idea of “feudalism from above” (where kings gave control of land to
local chiefs) and “feudalism from below” (where local landowners gained more
power). However, recent scholars have moved away from this concept, as it
oversimplifies the period's complexities.

R.S. Sharma’s framework of Indian Feudalism divides the period into three phases:
the origins (350-750 CE), the second phase (750-1000 CE), and the height of
feudalism (1000-1200 CE), which saw signs of decline toward the end. Key features of
Indian feudalism identified by Sharma include
• land grants that conferred judicial and fiscal rights,
• the increasing incidence of forced labor,
• the decline of trade and coinage,
• and the payment of officials through land revenue.

We can divide R.S. Sharma’s theory of feudalism into 2 parts for our understanding,
Political and Economic Feudalism.
Political Feudalism refers to a new state structure characterized by two inter-
related phenomenon – decentralized administration and political hierarchy.

Decentralization
Decentralization arose through land grants, which conferred significant privileges to
local elites and weakened central authority. For instance, during the Gupta period, land
grants allowed recipients to collect taxes, administer justice, and govern villages. This
practice empowered local feudal lords, including the priestly and warrior classes,
eroded the state’s monopoly over the military, and led to multiple centers of power.
Merchant guilds also gained autonomy, often exempt from taxes and royal
interference, and could impose forced labor on artisans.

Political Hierarchy
The fragmentation of power created a complex hierarchy of semi-autonomous rulers
with titles such as ksatrapa and mahārājā. These titles reflected varying levels of
authority and obligations. Texts like the Aparājitaprcchā of the 12th century detail this
stratification, which extended administrative and military roles even to artisans and
merchants. Vassals were expected to provide military support, resulting in numerous
centers of authority during and after the Gupta period.

Economic feudalism stemmed from ruralization and the emergence of

intermediary landholders, which drastically altered land rights and the social fabric.
Land grants, initially communal, turned into private property, exacerbating peasants’
dependency and restricting their mobility. Grantees often received both land and its
inhabitants, imposing forced labor (visti) and various taxes. Subinfeudation further
reduced peasants to tenants-at-will. Over time, the status of producing and artisanal
classes declined due to reduced trade, a shift to a closed economy, and increased
dependence on landowners. This decline also contributed to the rise of untouchability.

WHY LAND GRANTS ?

Feudalism in India is linked to land grants, and the question arises why such grants
were made, especially since they gave away state sovereignty. According to charters,
kings gave grants to gain religious merit, and priests and monks received them to
perform religious duties.

R.S. Sharma explains this using a Theory of Causation, identifying two crises as causes
for land grants.
 • Economic Crisis: The decline of long-distance trade, particularly with Rome,
Iran, and Byzantium, led to reduced coin circulation, weakening the central
state. Officials were compensated with land grants instead of salaries, while
urban life and trade centers diminished.
• Social Crisis: The Kali Age, described in the Pūranas, brought famine, drought,
and oppressive taxes. Between the 3rd and 4th centuries, lower social classes
resisted paying taxes or fulfilling duties. To maintain control, the state issued
land grants, delegating authority to officials to manage the producing classes.

Scholars like D.N. Jha and B.N.S. Yadava expand on Sharma’s theory. Yadava emphasizes
class conflicts during the Kali Age and the rise in military land grants post-Gupta period.
Chattopadhyaya, however, argues that land grants emerged later as a tool for political
control by a powerful landed elite.

DEBATE

The theory of feudalism in early medieval India has sparked significant scholarly
debate, particularly around its applicability to the Indian context. Harbans Mukhia is
one of the main critics of the idea of Indian feudalism. He argues that feudalism,
which is defined by a structured dependency between landlords and peasants, does
not apply to India. In feudalism, the landlord owns the land, while the peasant is
merely a tenant. However, in India, land grants only gave peasants the right to use
the land, not ownership, and peasants had control over production (free peasant
production), including the means of production such as tools and decisions about
what to grow. Additionally, the high soil fertility and low subsistence needs meant
that peasants produced surplus without needing to be tied to the land in a way that
characterizes serfdom.

R.S. Sharma, in contrast, defends the feudal theory, arguing that while peasants may
have had some control over the land, they were heavily exploited by landlords. Taxes,
forced labor, and constant interference meant that peasants' control was not as
effective as it seemed. Evidence from ancient texts and inscriptions shows that
landlords controlled the production process. Sharma also contends that serfdom, the
forced attachment of peasants to the land, was present in several parts of India, as
evidenced in texts like the Skanda Purāna. Furthermore, he believes that feudalism in
India, though it might have had regional variations, had certain universal features
that defined it.
Mukhia also questions the notion that feudalism is a universal concept. He suggests
that we should instead focus on the interaction of ecology, technology, and social
organization. Sharma disagrees, asserting that certain characteristics of feudalism,
such as surplus collection and land distribution, remain consistent across different
regions and times.

Mukhia further argues that the exploitation of peasants was not as severe during the
early medieval period as it became during the Sultanate period. He believes the
absence of land grants and significant evidence of peasant subjugation at this time
casts doubt on the extent of feudal exploitation.

Other scholars, such as D.C. Sircar, criticize Sharma's interpretation of certain terms
used in inscriptions, arguing that they do not indicate ownership of land but only the
right to revenue collection. They also point out that many land grants were made to
temples and Brahmins rather than as a tool for exploiting the peasantry. According to
Kulke, land grants were primarily for ritual legitimization and not due to a social crisis,
and the state did not dilute its own power by giving away control over land without
obligations.

B.D. Chattopadhyaya challenges the idea that land grants led to exploitation. He
argues that the extent of land granted was small and unlikely to be significant in the
larger economy. He also disputes the idea of a decline in trade or urbanization,
providing evidence that trade continued, and certain cities remained occupied and
even expanded due to agricultural surplus. Chattopadhyaya suggests that urban
centers in early medieval India grew from agrarian expansion, and markets became
centers for new towns, indicating a new phase of urbanization.

John Deyell counters Sharma's theory of demonetization, showing that money

circulation and coin production continued in early medieval India. This challenges the
idea of a closed, self-sufficient economy.

Other critics, like Chattopadhyaya, question the connection between the growth of
land grants, feudal developments, and the decline of trade, arguing that these
changes were not necessarily related.
The debate has led to alternative theories of state formation, such as the
"Segmentary State" concept, which focuses on the dual sovereignty of South India,
and the "Integrative Model," which sees state formation as an intensive regional
development. Chattopadhyaya suggests that the early medieval period should not be
seen as a decline but as a time of agricultural expansion, social stratification, and
cultural integration, including the assimilation of tribes into the caste system.
In conclusion, the debate over feudalism in India remains unresolved, with scholars
offering alternative theories and critiques. The study of this period highlights the
complexities of state formation, social structure, and economic organization, which
cannot be easily explained by a single model. The ongoing discussion reflects the
need for a more nuanced understanding of early medieval Indian history, considering
regional variations and long-term historical processes.