Critically examine any two theories on the nature of early medieval state ?

To start with I would like to makes the terms clear and for that two terms that need
clarification are ‘ state’ and ‘early mediaeval’. (Theories would be rendered to as models
here). As far as state is concerned according to Lasson and John Burgess, a state is a
community of men which possess an organized authority as the highest source of all force.
A state comprises its population (the praja), the territory, and the government. State and
society are two indispensable terms that go hand in hand when we discuss the nature of a
state. Therefore at very least state suggest absence of Anarchy , to put in crudest words.

The second term i.e. early medieval is much contested as far as chronological bracket is
concerned as it beginning has been ascribed by some as early as 500 and as late as 1400
but for sake of this question we will focus mainly on the period between 600-1300 which is
the period marked by the clearest and most visible characteristics hat are associated with
medieval.

Historians are unanimous on the fact that this phase in indian history had a distinct identity
and as such differed from the preceding early historical and succeeding medieval. This in
turn brings 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. The perception of a unilinear and
uniform pattern of historical development is challenged. Changes are identified not merely
in dynastic upheavals but are also located in socio-economic, political and cultural
conditions. However, there is no unanimity on the nature of state in this period which is
defined differently by various scholars of distinct schools based on their approaches and
conceptual models. Therefore, in the course of the debate, it is not the Idea of early
mediaeval as a distinct stage in Indian history that is challenged, but the nature of changes
that the period witnessed is of debate.

To put it in the words of Upinder Singh this period is a classic case Of historiography,
overwhelming history. Perspectives on this period are Linked to larger issues such as
periodization of Indian past and nature of Indian culture and civilization.. But in this
question we will answer only one specific aspect of this debate, that is the nature of state.
This specific aspect Needs a special attention because it is the core of all the theories and
historiography surrounding The early mediaeval. And the changes it witnessed. As
mentioned before and as it will be reiterated again and again in the course of our answer.
The aspect of the state help us to understand the respective society, polity and economy,
all at the same time, therefore. In totality helps us to understand the nature of early
mediaeval itself. The study of existing theories and models helps us to question them and
to further develop new arguments As it will be seen in our answer as well that most of the
theories result from counter cautioning and questioning of the existing models in systems.
As is the case with integrated or Processual state model as well as the segmentary state
model.

At present there exist at least three different structural models or theories for the early
mediaeval Indian kingdoms of the post-Gupta and pre-Delhi Sultanate period (c. 550-1200
A.D)

(i) The "conventional model" of a rather unitary otherwise known as Indian historiographical
model, centrally organized kingdom with a strong central bureaucracy;

(ii) the Marxist-influenced "Indian feudalism model" of decentralized feudal states ( which,
presupposes the existence of an earlier rather strong central state which had been
weakened through feudalization of the society); a model of self-sufficient, relatively closed
rural economy characterized by an essentially bipolar world of lords and peasants and
proliferation of castes, everything under a decentralized state; and

(iii) the model of a "segmentary state" which allots the Hindu kingdom a position on a
continuum of governance formation between the tribal "stateless" form of government and
the unitary state, focusing on the pyramidal repetition of the structures in the numerous
autonomous segments (Nadus), as were available in the core.

( We will focus on the latter two for this answer as the first has seen a major blow in past
few years by historians like Romila Thapar and others and is outdated as well. )

A model that we will not discuss here but requires a special mention is the relatively new
and unique model of integrative state and social formation( Processual model )
demonstrating the phased structural evolution of imperial kingdoms or regional/supra
regional states and societies across regions. This is the most contentious model and is in
vogue at the present along with the predominant feudal model. This model is more
complex and fill the gaps and loopholes in feudal model and challenge the perception of
equating early medieval period with ideas of Indian Feudalism and has correctly pointed
out that the early medieval centuries were marked by the gradual shaping of regional
societies .( Hemram Kulke and BD Chattopadhyay are scholars associated with this
alternative understanding of early medieval).

The models mentioned here would be used and explored in our answer to understand the
nature of early mediaeval state in India and our focus will be on Indian Feudalism Model
and Segmentery state model. One need to understand that there could be existence of
more than one model in different spatial and temporal contexts within the subcontinent
and one need not to treat whole subcontinent as a single/unitary/homogeneous unit.

Despite their differences and their respective advantages, these ideas successfully
dismantled the traditional view of medieval regional kingdoms as unified, centrally
governed states in both North and South India. They also challenged the concept of the
Dark Ages, which was often applied to the early medieval period, by highlighting the
processes of change and potential for development during that time.

Theories in consideration depict the state in early mediaeval India as a kingdom which was
a weak and decentralized successor to an earlier strong and centralized state in form of
Indian Feudalism or as a state which has not yet reached the position of a strong and
centralized state although it did have some of its characteristics in its core around the
capital. Both of these model however puts the state formation of this era far below that of
the classical or early historic phase in terms of centralization while disagreeing on the
explanation of how that happened.

Therefore the models centers on the questions of how centralized the state and how the
state came into being i.e. from breakdown (force from above) or “ from below” but not able
to achieve a unitary system.

As argued in the models respectively i.e. The “Indian feudalism” concept views post-Gupta
state formation as negative, with smaller kingdoms forming at the expense of larger
political entities. In contrast, the “segmentary state” theory argues that Hindu kingdoms
evolved locally but were structurally limited, preventing them from becoming unified
states, rather than experiencing a decline from a previously centralized power.
These question when accompanied by the role of religious institutions in the polity, entails
the gist of what we refer to as ‘nature of state’.

• All of these models rely on phenomenon of land grants being central to change but
disagree on the details.)

The Feudal Model or Indian Feudalism

To define feudalism we can see it as a system based on land, where an land owning class
exercised over peasant in all dynamics including administrative and fiscal. Political power
was shared and parcalised among many ( hierarchy ) and the society was governed by ties
of interdependence allegiance and loyalty

In the year 1956 , DD kosambi’s famous work An Introduction to the study of Indian History
was published and in its two separate chapters on ‘feudalism from above’ and ‘feudalism
from below’ one can see the first conceptual definition of Indian Feudalism. The first one(6-
9th AD) meant a practice of giving land to local vassals, lesser chiefs by more powerful
kings. A feudal structure created by overlords from land grants . The later(9th CE afterwards
)refer to a practice of consolidation by local landlords who rise from village level to control
more land .

Only two years after Kosambi’s work that R.S Sharma started publishing articles on the
origin and development of feudalism in India to be enlarged in his book entitled Indian
Feudalism ( which tough not uncriticised, became a standard work on Indian feudalism).

R.S. Sharma’s theory of Indian feudalism posits that the system began with land grants to
Brahmins, temples, and monasteries during the Gupta period, which later extended to
state officials. These grants led to the decentralization of state authority, as the
beneficiaries were granted fiscal, judicial, and administrative powers, marking the rise of
independent local lords. The practice, initially designed to cultivate new land and maintain
law and order, resulted in a hierarchical system of intermediaries between the king and the
peasantry, contributing to the subjugation of peasants. The peasants faced restrictions on
mobility, increased obligations for forced labor (vishti), heavy tax burdens, and the
emergence of subinfeudation, where smaller lords held land from more powerful ones. He
disagree with 2 stage hypothesis of Kosambi and argue that land grants led to feudalism ,
as mentioned above.

Sharma argues that this shift was accompanied by a decline in long-distance trade,
urbanization, and the use of metal currency, leading to a more agrarian and localized
economy. This economic transformation, along with political decentralization, fostered a
class of powerful landlords (samantas, ranas) and a large servile peasantry, solidifying
what Sharma refers to as Indian feudalism. He also highlights how the state, unable to pay
officials in cash due to a decline in coinage, increasingly compensated them with land
grants, further weakening central control. Loss of central authority is accompanied by
glorification of central figure seen in hyperbolic representation of king.

B.N.S. Yadava added further depth to this by studying northern India in the early medieval
period, showing how military landlords who received land grants grew powerful, carving out
independent principalities and destabilizing central authority. He shifted the focus towards
the political sphere of feudalism. The term samanta( often translated as vassal or tributary
chief) became the key word of Indian Feudalism.

D.N. Jha’s edited volume, The Feudal Order, explores the cultural and ideological aspects
of feudalism, focusing on the Bhakti movement as a form of Brahmanical domination
involving the idea of total surrender, subjection, and loyalty to a deity. This surrender and
loyalty could easily be transferred on to the feudal lord and master.

Critiques

However, Sharma’s theory has been met with significant criticism. D.C. Sircar argued that
Sharma mistakenly equated landlordism and tenancy in India with European-style
feudalism, which involved military obligations tied to land ownership. In India, many land
grants were made to Brahmins and religious institutions without such military obligations,
making the comparison to European feudalism problematic. Sircar pointed out that these
grants were primarily religious or administrative, not military.

Challenging the premise of a dependent peasentry:-

Harbans Mukhia further challenged the idea of Indian feudalism in his work Was there
Feudalism in Indian History by contrasting it with European feudalism, particularly the
absence of serfdom in India. Mukhia emphasized that Indian peasants were relatively free,
with control over their tools and the means of production, unlike European serfs who were
tied to the land and lacked such autonomy.(In economic sense rather than legal). He also
argued that the Indian state’s role in granting land was not sufficient to create a fully feudal
system akin to that in Europe. ( The principle of absence of structured dependence of early
medieval peasentry). He argued that feudalism was specific only to medieval Europe and
concludes that Indian agricultural production was primarily free and did not constitute a
feudal system. Due to free peasantry and highly fertile land there appears a kind of
equilibrium, facilitating the state’s appropriation of surplus in conditions of relative
stability. However the notion of free peasentry has been overstated by him but he
concludes even in his later essay that the state remained uninvolved with process of
production. It’s coercive forces was therefore never rooted in production system.

DN Jha has critiques Mukhia for bringing in through backdoor the concept of AMP and even
legitimizing, under racial camouflage, the idea of medieval society as stagnant. ( 1987)

B.D. Chattopadhyay(continuation of urbanization and trade)criticized Sharma’s

Sharma responded to these critiques by refining his theory, particularly through the
concept of the “Kali crisis.” He argued that the descriptions of social and economic
disorder in epics and Puranic texts, such as the varnasamkara (intermixture of social
orders) and the decline of the Vaishya and Shudra classes, reflected a deep social crisis
that paved the way for feudalization. The breakdown of the traditional social order and the
increased reliance on land grants to sustain state officials and priests were seen as key
features of this transformation. Sharma acknowledged that internal social contradictions
played a major role, rather than merely external economic factors like trade decline. He
also agree that feudalism was not universal and therefore point out features of feudal like
conditions in India .

Despite Sharma’s modifications, his critics, including D.N. Jha and Chakravarti, continued
to question the emphasis on trade and urban decline. They argued that Sharma’s theory did
not fully account for the complexity of the period, particularly the evidence of sustained
economic and social activity. They pointed out that many areas experienced state
formation and consolidation rather than merely political fragmentation, challenging the
notion of an overarching feudal decline. Nevertheless, the economic and social
dimensions seem to have been largely subsumed the political.

BP Sahu has argued that The thesis of a decentralized, fragmented feudal polity is based
on the assumption that the Mauryan Empire had a uniformly centralized administration
across the country, which remained largely unchanged during the Kushana and Satavahana
periods, leading to the proto-feudal Gupta era. However, recent research has challenged
the notion of such centralization in the Mauryan Empire and highlighted the uneven
development and cultural diversity in the post-Mauryan states. This calls into question the
idea of a uniform, fragmented polity.

The continuous expansion of agricultural frontiers and the significant socio-cultural shifts
during this period are evident in the emergence of new concepts like varnasamkara
(intermixing of social orders), apaddharma (duty in times of distress), and the Kali Yuga (age
of disorder), alongside an emphasis on dharma (duty). Additionally, Brahmins and religious
institutions, recipients of royal land donations from the Gupta period onward, are now
reconsidered as facilitators of royal authority rather than agents of decentralization.

The nature of land grants in early medieval India has been re-evaluated, revealing that
many were small—such as entire villages, hamlets, or parts of villages—which raises
questions about their actual impact on agrarian relations. Wealthy peasants may have
owned land comparable to that of Brahmin donees, complicating the perception of the
latter’s influence. Most early land grants were made to religious figures, with service
assignments emerging later, leading to debate about whether these donees should be
considered feudatories. If these donations indicated a weakening of state power, it’s
puzzling why kings continued this practice. Additionally, these grants appear to have local
origins, reflecting the context of local state formation, as demonstrated by dynasties like
the Matharas, Vakatakas, Kadambas, and early Pallavas. Overall, the relationship between
land grants and the spread of state societies seems to be mutually beneficial rather than
adversarial.
There fore we can successfully conclude , as far as theory of feudalism is concerned Key
questions about the hierarchy of feudatories, the political structure, resource transfers,
and the origins of feudal polity in North and South India remain unresolved. The role of the
populace has often been overlooked, and there is a need to connect with their experiences.
Although Bhakti has been discussed as an ideology of feudalism, legitimation of power
relies on ongoing engagement with popular aspirations.

Historians tend to create theoretical frameworks first and then search for processes to
support them, rather than starting with historical realities. This perspective shift is
becoming more recognized, especially in South India. To truly understand early Indian
history, historians must also adjust their methodologies.

Talking of change let us move to the other model or theory , however this need to be noted
that this theory is in all possibilities exclusive to south India and to be specific to Chola
state during the early medieval period.

The Segmentery state model

Nilakanta Sastri has been the most eloquent spokesman for the presumed centralized
state structure of the Cholas, and this notion of Byzantine like empire of chola has been
challenged by Burton Stein. Considering only the period of its dominance over most of
Tamil country, the Chola State lasted for three centuries, and, during its great days, from
about a .d . 950 to a .d . 1100 (the reigns of Sundara Chola to Kulot-Tunga I), Chola authority
covered most of the southern half of Peninsular India and it is in this regard and this is
context in which Segmentery state model has been postulated.

Burton Stein(in his work Integration and the Agrarian system of South India)1969, drawing
on B. Subbarao ‘s work, introduced the concept of “nuclear areas” as a key factor in the
historical development of South India. According to Stein, these nuclear areas, made up of
corporate institutions and densely populated settlements, were units of agrarian
organization located primarily in the river basins. These areas consisted of largely
independent and self-governing Brahmin and Sat-Sudra communities, functioning as
relatively autonomous economic entities( Core components were Brahmdeya and
Periyanadu). Apart from this, the nuclear areas had only minimal connections to the
prominent warrior dynasties of Kanchi or Tanjore, which were the centers of the Pallava and
Chola empires. Stein concluded that the political system in early medieval South India is
best understood as a multicentered system of power. His question of revenue is another
important one.

In 1973, Burton Stein advanced his critical perspective further. At a Duke University
conference on "Realm and Region in Traditional India," he presented a provocative paper
titled "The Segmentary State in South Indian History," which was later published in 1977.
(His 1977 work was based largely on Subbarayalu 1973).He developed the concept of the
segmentary state based on anthropologist A.W. Southall's studies of the Alur society in
East Africa. Stein acknowledged that adapting the segmentary state model, which
originated in African contexts, to early Indian society might create a "predictable culture
shock," especially for scholars of South Indian history.

This type of state formation is pyramidally segmented type of state , because the smallest
unit of political organization (e.g. a section of peasant village) was linked to ever more
comprehensive units of political organization of ascending order i.e. village, locality, supra
locality and kingdom . For him state has 4 elements: territorial sovereignty , centralized
government, administrative classes and monopoly of legitimate force by centre.

Stein described the segmentary state as "a position on the continuum of governance
formation." At its core, authority and political control were nearly absolute, showing
characteristics of a unitary state such as territorial sovereignty, centralized government,
specialized administrative structures, and a monopoly on coercion. However, as one
moved toward the outer areas, these elements faded into mere ritual hegemony. The
peripheral regions contained "several levels of subordinate centers" organized in a pyramid
structure. Both central and peripheral authorities followed the same hierarchical model,
with the latter being smaller-scale versions of the former. The political instability of
segmentary states was largely due to the unreliable loyalty of the peripheral regions, which
could shift their allegiance from one central authority to another.
Stein believed there was no regular chola army and military power was divided among
various groups including farmers, traders etc. Therefore there existed a clear distinction
between three levels or zones i.e. central, intermediate, and peripheral them being
cholamndalam , 3 intermediary zones( Tondaimandalam and other) and 2 peripheral zone
and each of these zones can be further differentiated in central, intermediate and
peripheral areas. . The political control being only in central zone and fades into mere ritual
sovereignty as one moves outwards. ( Pyramidal segmentation)
Acc to Stein one major constituent of Segmentery state model are complementary
oppositional elements within each segment eg, the right hand and left hand division of the
caste system , between peasants and low caste artisans and between caste populations
and tribal elements. These oppositional elements prevented chola state from collapsing
into statelessness on one hand and from being transformed into more unitary kingdom on
other. One aspect that has been criticised is his characterizing of a Nadu segment into a
ethic coherence.

The dual sense of territorial serenity as on the one hand an essentially ritual sort exercised
by the king in segmentary state and on the other hand an essentially political sought which
the king exercise in his own domain but is appropriately exercised by subordinate rulers. In
their domains is seen as an appropriate in the mediaeval India situation and this
constitutes the territorial sovereignty basis of segmentary state. The terms Rajadharma
and ksatra denote this distinction.
Stein makes a clear distinction between actual political control and ritual sovereignty. In
the segmentary state, all centers exercise direct political control over their own segment,
but only the primary center of the ruling dynasty has the authority to extend ritual
sovereignty beyond its own territory. Burton Stein supports his Segmentary State Model by
highlighting the ritual sovereignty of the Chola dynasty, particularly through the royal Shiva
cult centered around the Rajarajeshwara Temple in Tanjore, built by Rajaraja I( keystone in
system of ritual hegemony ) .Stein argues that by enshrining a linga named after himself,
Rajaraja I positioned the king as the protector of Dharma, equating his authority with that of
a deity. This ritual hegemony symbolically suggested that rebellion against the king was
tantamount to rebellion against God. Stein contends that the royal Shiva cult aimed not
only to secure the central area but also to assert control over local powers in both
intermediate and peripheral regions. The detailed inscriptions at the temple prominently
mention the king and his court, reinforcing his role as a protector of Dharma. Through grand
donations and the temple’s architecture, Stein argues, Rajaraja I sought to legitimize and
strengthen his political authority across all levels of society. This ritual sovereignty was the
ideological force that unified various local political systems into a segmentary state.

Additionally, G.W. Spencer’s recent work, though not explicitly mentioning the segmentary
state, adds another dimension. He describes the imperial Chola policy in the 11th century
as a "tax-tribute-plunder continuum." In the core regions of the Chola Empire, regular taxes
were collected, while tribute was imposed on autonomous smaller kingdoms in the outer
regions. In more peripheral areas, Chola warfare often focused on plundering neighboring
kingdoms, sometimes even targeting their central authorities.

Herman Kulke criticizing this model argues that Stein’s distinction between political
control and ritual sovereignty in medieval Hindu kingdoms is valuable but requires deeper
analysis. He argues that Chola inscriptions in peripheral areas reflect ritual sovereignty
rather than direct governance. However, the political significance of these rituals may be
underestimated, as traditional societies, particularly in India, often merged ritual and
political power. Ritual acts, like public ceremonies, have historically reinforced authority,
making Stein’s strict separation between ritual sovereignty and political control too
simplistic. Rather than seeing rituals as weak substitutes for political control, they should
be understood as integral to projecting and legitimizing power, functioning alongside
economic and military strategies. The relationship between the imperial center and local
segments was likely more direct and varied in intensity, with ritual sovereignty playing a key
role in maintaining political authority in these regions. Thus, ritual acts were a significant
part of the broader power structure in medieval South India. Stein, who initially had also
argued. In the favour of clear distinction between the two spheres of authority is now
convinced that Lordship for Hindus always and necessarily combined ritual and political
authority.

Burton Stein's Segmentary State Model has been criticized for underestimating the political
authority of kings over their segments. Critics argue that after Rajaraja I, local chieftains in
the Nadus were replaced by royal officials, indicating a shift towards centralization. Stein's
reliance on Nadus as segments overlooks the Valanadus introduced by Rajaraja I to
streamline administration.

Additionally, while Stein emphasizes ritual sovereignty through temple construction, such
as the Rajarajeshwara Temple, this also reflects political authority. The king's ability to grant
villages for temple building, including those in conquered areas, demonstrates that
political sovereignty supports ritual hegemony. Overall, while Stein's model suggests
decentralization in the Chola state, it fails to account for significant elements of the Chola
administration and the role of political power in maintaining ritual dominance.

Critiquing, R.S. Sharma states that this model is unable to explain changes within the state
structure, as it analyses the state system from the Pallavas to the Vijayanagara kingdoms
as almost changeless.
On the basis of his analysis, Y.Subbarayalu argued that the Segmentery idea could not be
applied to entire phase but He divides 400 years of rule into 4 periods i.e. the formative
period ( before 985) , the imperial period (985-1070), period of gradual revival of chiefly
rulers(1070-1178) and disintegration of chola kingdom(1178-1270). And argues that the
segment re state idea can be applied to the first phase only as second period had powerful
monarchy and subsequently there was a sort of feudalization in later phases.

Conclusion

These models and their proponents use source material ranging from numismatics to
epigraphic sources , inscriptional records are of different nature as well but the main type
is that of donative genre ( recording land grants). Therefore both Segmentery as well as
feudal model uses land grants as key elements of state and therefore fails to provide a
distinct material basis, but what they succeed in doing is; providing a different
interpretations of the same sources to such an extent that they are even contradictory.

The land grant policy required local landlords and chieftains to pay tribute and fulfill
military and administrative roles, thereby integrating them into the integrative model.
Simultaneously, their autonomous rule over local areas led to a segmentation of authority.
Therefore, it is essential to analyze the nature of different regions individually.
Consequently, models describing the nature of the state should account for the
simultaneous existence of various models.

Thus, for defining the nature of the Indian states in the early medieval period it is important
to hold the view that in this period the Indian states were at different levels of progress and
one single model cannot define the nature of state very thoroughly.

A couple of observation I would like to make are ,and can also be inferred from this answer
are :-

(1) Early medieval India cannot be equated with the idea of Indian Feudalism and more
certainly not to whole of India and the society was far more complex. (2) The appreciation
for Integrated model should be more as the early medieval centuries were marked by the
gradual shaping of regional societies. (3)The introduction of the segmentary state concept
and debate around it Have to be regarded as one of the most important contribution to
South Indian historiography. Despite all the disagreements. A major advantage. Of this.
New development. Is an integrated. Study of the socio-economic and political structures
and religious movements of the mediaeval South India, this overcoming the dynastification
in conventional historiography.

The debate surrounding the characterizing of early medieval India over the last thirty years
has enriched our understanding of the times. Today it is agreed that it was the formative
period in the making of regional societies. These centuries were marked by agrarian growth
and spread of the peasant frontier, peasantization of the tribes, emergence of new social
groups and their placement within the varna/jati framework, local state formation and the
Extension of state society into pre-state areas, and the integration of local indigenous
deities into Hinduism through a process of universalization or Brahmanization.