The Debate on Indian Feudalism: R.S.

Sharma, Harbans Mukhia, and

Beyond
The idea of feudalism has long been associated with medieval Europe, where the
economy, politics, and social relationships were deeply shaped by landownership,
military obligations, and hierarchical relationships between kings, lords, and
peasants. However, when historians began to explore whether a similar system
existed in Indian history, especially during the early medieval period (roughly from
600 to 1200 CE), it triggered one of the most influential and complex debates in
Indian historiography. At the heart of this debate were two of India’s most
prominent historians: R.S. Sharma, a Marxist historian, who argued in favor of the
existence of feudalism in India, and Harbans Mukhia, who challenged the
applicability of the term “feudalism” to the Indian context. Their opposing
viewpoints, supported by a range of other scholars over time, have helped to shape
the contours of historical inquiry into India’s early medieval period and continue to
influence academic discourse today.

R.S. Sharma was among the earliest and strongest proponents of the idea that India
did indeed have its own form of feudalism. In his groundbreaking work, Indian
Feudalism, Sharma proposed that beginning from around the 6th century CE, India
witnessed the emergence of what he called a “feudal economy.” For Sharma, the key
evidence lay in the large-scale land grants made by kings to Brahmins and officials,
which transferred not just land but also fiscal and administrative rights. These
landholders, according to Sharma, became the Indian equivalent of European lords,
wielding authority over the peasantry and enjoying semi-autonomous power. He
drew heavily on epigraphic sources, including copper plate inscriptions, to
demonstrate how these grants led to a decentralization of political power and the
decline of urban centers.

According to Sharma, the feudal lords in India were similar to the European nobility
in their economic dependence on land, their exploitation of peasants, and their
autonomous local authority. He highlighted inscriptions and records from the early
medieval period that showed how kings granted land not only for religious reasons
but increasingly for secular and administrative functions. In some cases, land grants
included the right to collect taxes, run local courts, and even command police
powers. This, he argued, led to the weakening of centralized monarchies and the rise
of a class-based, agrarian society that was characterized by hierarchical
relationships and surplus extraction. Sharma viewed this transformation as a crucial
stage in the historical materialist evolution of Indian society from an ancient slave-
based economy to a feudal mode of production.
However, Sharma’s interpretation was not universally accepted. Harbans Mukhia,
another influential historian, launched a powerful critique of the idea that India had
a feudal system. For Mukhia, the very application of the term “feudalism” to Indian
history was problematic. He argued that feudalism was a specific system that arose
in Western Europe under very particular historical, geographical, and social
circumstances. In Europe, feudalism emerged after the collapse of the Roman
Empire, in a largely militarized and fragmented society where loyalty and service
were exchanged for land. These relationships were underpinned by legally
sanctioned vassalage and military service, elements that Mukhia found largely
absent in the Indian context.

One of Mukhia’s strongest objections was that the Indian land grant system did not
always signify a breakdown of state authority. In many cases, kings continued to
exercise control and used land grants as a means of expanding their influence,
rather than as a sign of political weakness. Furthermore, Mukhia pointed out that
there was no real equivalent in India to the European class of vassals or knights who
owed military service to their lords. The Indian “feudal” elites, often Brahmins or
local chiefs, were rarely tied to their patrons through oaths of loyalty or obligations
of service. Instead, their power was often symbolic, ritualistic, and religiously
sanctioned, rather than based on clear legal or military structures.

The debate between Sharma and Mukhia was not just about terminology but also
about methodology and the nature of historical change. Sharma, working from a
Marxist perspective, emphasized the role of modes of production and class
relationships. He saw early medieval India as moving from a slave-based or peasant-
based economy to a feudal mode of production characterized by surplus
appropriation by landholders. This view allowed him to link economic changes with
broader shifts in political and cultural life, including the rise of regional kingdoms,
the growth of caste-based hierarchies, and the stagnation of urban centers. Mukhia,
on the other hand, advocated for a more culturally sensitive and historically specific
approach. He cautioned against applying European models to non-European
societies without critical scrutiny and argued for a more nuanced understanding of
Indian social formations.

This difference in approach led to further debates among historians about how to
characterize Indian society during this period. Some scholars, like B.D.
Chattopadhyaya, took a middle path. Chattopadhyaya acknowledged that while
there were elements of decentralization, land grants, and agrarian expansion, these
did not necessarily amount to a “feudal” system in the European sense. Instead, he
suggested that Indian society saw the emergence of regional polities and agrarian
structures that were unique and could not be easily classified under Western
categories. He argued for a more regionally differentiated analysis, emphasizing the
importance of local contexts in shaping historical developments. Chattopadhyaya’s
work highlighted the role of temples, religious institutions, and merchant guilds as
alternative centers of power and influence that defied neat categorizations.

Another important dimension of the debate involved the nature of peasant society.
R.S. Sharma argued that peasants in early medieval India were increasingly
subjected to exploitation by landlords who were given control over land and
revenue rights. He saw the decline in trade and coinage as signs of growing
ruralization and economic stagnation. Harbans Mukhia and other critics, however,
questioned whether there was really such a drastic decline in trade or urban life.
They pointed out that many regions, especially in South India, continued to show
signs of economic vitality and commercial activity. The Chola Empire, for instance,
maintained overseas trade links with Southeast Asia, and urban centers like
Kanchipuram and Madurai thrived as religious and commercial hubs.

Indeed, regional variations became an important issue in the debate. The idea of
Indian feudalism was largely developed by studying North Indian sources, especially
inscriptions and grants from the Ganga-Yamuna doab and central India. But when
scholars began to study South Indian history—such as the Chola, Chera, and Pandya
periods—they found a very different picture. In the Tamil region, for example, there
was evidence of vibrant village assemblies (sabhas), continued trade with Southeast
Asia, and powerful merchant guilds like the Ayyavole and Manigramam. These
developments challenged the narrative of feudal decline and suggested that early
medieval India was marked by regional diversity rather than uniform structures.
This further complicated attempts to impose a single, overarching label like
“feudalism” on the subcontinent’s varied historical experiences.

Despite the disagreements, the debate itself proved to be immensely valuable. It

forced historians to look closely at land grant charters, inscriptions, taxation
systems, and village economies. It also encouraged a more critical and comparative
approach to concepts like “state,” “class,” and “power.” One of the lasting legacies of
this debate is the realization that historical categories are not neutral—they carry
assumptions, often drawn from specific cultural and historical experiences. The
term “feudalism,” for example, may help identify broad patterns of agrarian control
and social hierarchy, but it also risks obscuring important differences between
societies. As a result, historians today are more cautious about using such terms and
more attentive to the specificities of time and place.

In recent years, the debate has evolved further. Some historians have moved beyond
the question of whether India was “feudal” or not, and instead focused on what kind
of agrarian and political structures existed, and how they changed over time. There
is growing interest in the agency of peasants, local politics, rituals of kingship, and
the role of temples and religious institutions in shaping power. Scholars are also
paying more attention to gender, caste, and ecology as factors in historical change,
moving the conversation beyond purely economic or political frameworks. This
interdisciplinary approach has enriched our understanding of early medieval India
and opened up new avenues for research.

Additionally, scholars such as Hermann Kulke and Burton Stein have offered
alternative frameworks to understand Indian polity and society. Kulke’s integrative
model emphasizes the role of rituals and symbolic authority in sustaining kingship,
while Stein’s “segmentary state” model argues that Indian kingdoms functioned as
loosely connected segments with varying degrees of central control. These models
challenge the idea of a uniform feudal structure and instead propose that Indian
states were held together by religious ideology, kinship ties, and flexible networks
of authority. Such perspectives further complicate the notion of Indian feudalism
and underline the diversity of political arrangements in the subcontinent.

In conclusion, the debate on Indian feudalism has played a central role in the
development of Indian historiography. R.S. Sharma’s influential argument that India
had its own form of feudalism helped frame a powerful narrative of economic and
political transformation in early medieval India. His emphasis on land grants,
ruralization, and class exploitation shaped several decades of research. Yet, Harbans
Mukhia’s critique of the feudal model helped challenge its Eurocentrism and
encouraged historians to reconsider the specificity of Indian historical experiences.
Together, their works have deepened our understanding of Indian history, fostered
methodological pluralism, and paved the way for new questions and insights about
the past. While the question of whether India was “feudal” may never be fully
resolved, the richness of the debate ensures that it remains a fertile ground for
scholarly inquiry and historical imagination.