Name- Mandeep Kaur Puri

Semester- 3

Course- BA (Hons) History

Name of the Paper- History of India III

Critically examine the debates relating to Indian Feudalism in North India in the early
medieval period.

After the collapse of the Gupta Empire, the ensuing period i.e., – c.750-1200 CE altered the course of
the history of the Indian subcontinent. The period witnessed significant developments and shifts in the
political, social, economic and religious realms. These events grabbed the attention of historians,
subsequently giving life to one of the most vigorous debates in Indian Historiography. Since the
onset of the debate, numerous historians have poured their arguments regarding the ‘Early Medieval’
period that in turn has enrichened and widened the debate. This period was a transitory phase-
between ancient and medieval- that set the stage for the Medieval period. Historians have sketched
this phase with the help of religious, numismatic, textual or literary and epigraphical sources. There
was a spurt in the number of inscriptions related to land grants. Many scholars have associated this
surge in inscriptions with feudalism (land grants indicated parcelization of sovereignty). This
interpretation emanated the famous ‘Indian Feudalism Debate.’ Hence, the discussion in this
assignment will be oriented around the arguments of the proponents of the scholars of Indian
Feudalism, the contestation against the concept of Indian Feudalism, the alternative models
introduced against the idea of feudalism, and arguments and counter-arguments between the scholars.

The Feudalism Debate came into the picture when Indian scholars were attempting to dislodge the
idea of a ‘changeless economy’- the concept presented by Karl Marx under the paradigm of the
Asiatic Mode of Production- of the sub-continent. The AMP model viewed the Indian sub-continent
as an inward-looking and self-sufficient village economy governed by a despotic monarch (lack of
private ownership of land).1 This bubble was burst by D.D. Kosambi’s work that came up in the
1950s. He critiqued the AMP model and argued that the economy in India was not stagnant. He
proposed the concepts of ‘feudalism from above’- when the state willingly dispenses its fiscal and
administrative authority over the land to the chiefs- and ‘feudalism from below’- when there was an
emergence of intermediary class i.e., landowners between the ruler and the peasantry who gradually
acquired power and authority. But his concepts were not embraced by the scholars. 2 Hence, the debate
received a breakthrough only in 1965 with R S Sharma’s writing- ‘Indian Feudalism.’ 3 According to
him, land grants were the fundamental cause that led to the germination of feudalism in India. He
asserts that the roots of feudalism can be traced back to the Satvahana period. But during the Gupta
Empire and the period following it, not only the number of grants escalated but also the nature of
these grants widened with the conceding of fiscal, judicial and administrative rights by the king to the
donee. Land grants were used as an alternative since there was a paucity of coinage with a subsequent
decline in trade. Hence, the urban economy was impacted too, gradually paving way for ruralisation
(this phase was marked by the expansion of agriculture- virgin or barren lands were converted into
cultivable areas). These changes had major repercussions on society. There was a rise of landed
intermediaries (samantas) who exploited the peasants excessively- the latter were burdened with huge
taxation, restrictions were imposed on their mobility, and they were forced to perform labour or
‘Vishti.’ As a result, peasants were ensurfed, yet the conditions of peasants in India were quite
different. Therefore, he used the word ‘semi-serf’ in the Indian context. 4

R S Sharma extended his thesis of feudalism and associated it with the Kali Age crisis as mentioned
in the Puranas. This phase was marked by non-performance of rituals, the dominance of heretical
sects, hostilities against brahmans, the rise of mleccha kings, an intermixing of Varnas i.e.,
varnasamkara- Vaishayas and Shudras both were indulged in agriculture. 5 But the ideas of R S
Sharma did not go well with D C Sircar, who regarded the use of the term ‘Feudalism’ as a
misleading label in the Indian context. He propagated that the land grants do not mention any sort of
obligation that the donee was bound to perform. Hence, he pointed out that instead of feudalism this
bout should be termed as ‘landlordism.’6 B N S Yadava also stepped into the debate and supported the
views of R S Sharma by providing further instances of land grants. B.N.S Yadava described the
tributary system i.e., the Samanta system as the hallmark of Indian Feudalism. 7 Moreover, he laid

1) The Feudal Order: State, Society and Ideology in Early Medieval India by D.N Jha- introduction page-2
2) The Feudal Order: State, Society and Ideology in Early Medieval India by D.N Jha- introduction page-3
3) The State in India 1000-1700 by Hermann Kulke- introduction page-8
4) The Origins of Feudalism in India by Ram Sharan Sharma
5) The Kali Age: A Period of Social Crisis by Ram Sharan Sharma
6) The State in India 1000-1700 by Hermann Kulke- introduction page-9
7) The State in India 1000-1700 by Hermann Kulke- introduction page-10,11
8)
emphasis on Hun invasions as the prime factor behind the rise of feudalism. Furthermore, just like R
S
Sharma, he gave attention to Kali Age, describing it as a period of all-around degeneration. Although,
he added that there wasn’t a uniform social in all the regions. 1 An article titled ‘Was there feudalism
in India’ by Harbans Mukhia jolted the concept of Indian Feudalism. He was against the
superimposition of the term Feudalism (a western phenomenon) in the case of India. Since the
conditions were quite distinct for the Indian peasants- they were free in economic terms (not legally),
possessed the means of production, had certain control over the production process, and were able to
fulfil their minimum requisites, the state of agriculture was conducive (the soil was fertile, techniques
such as transplantation and crop rotation were used, irrigation facilities were present) and the labour
was readily available- they were not enserfed. Hence, he coined the term ‘free peasant economy’
instead of applying the feudal model in India’s context. 2

R S Sharma wrote a rejoinder (in response to Harbans Mukhia’s article) -titled ‘How Feudal was
Indian Feudalism’ – to reiterate his arguments. He re-emphasised the prevalence of serfdom and
forced labour in Indian society by presenting epigraphical evidence that mentioned the tenancy
agreements. The authority of the landlords can be witnessed in the form of the ‘superior rights’
enjoyed by him as opposed to the ‘inferior rights' of the peasants. This implied that the landlord was
the ultimate owner and the peasants had minuscule (or no) rights. In the context of ownership of
means of production by the peasants, RS Sharma asserted that with the passage of time, mining rights
were also granted to the donee. As a result, the landlord acquired control over the means of
production. He argued that a certain level of exploitation did prevail since the landowners exercised
judicial rights. He accentuated that with a decline in trade and commerce, surplus appropriation was
affected tremendously. Hence, landlords started burdening peasants with excessive taxes. Moreover,
the landowners employed ideological coercion and used religion as a tool to inflict fear on peasants.
He also pointed towards the existence of sub-infeudation (use of terms in epigraphical evidence)
which led to the creation of different classes like halika (plough man), arddhika (sharecropper),
bhogapati (who enjoyed landed estates) and Samanta or mandalesvara (landed intermediaries).
Therefore, R S Sharma remained stiff on his idea of ‘Indian Feudalism.’ 3 Nevertheless, he was not the
sole propagator of this idea. His arguments and ideas were supported by D.N Jha. The latter
considered the exploitation of peasantry as central to Indian Feudalism. He, by and large, was in
consensus with Sharma’s arguments (he provided inscriptional evidence for the Kali Age crisis) and
made certain additions to the latter’s thesis. At the same time, he was not in the favour of laying
emphasis on the absence of long-distance trade (as pointed out by R S Sharma) as a crucial factor
leading to the emergence of feudalism. According to Jha, the dispensation of land grants in peripheral
regions preceded the ones in the fertile regions. He further highlighted that different sets of coercive
strategies were adopted in fertile and peripheral regions. In the fertile areas, the peasants received a
threat of eviction, whereas in the peripheral regions they received severe punishments if they tried to
flee away. He also factored in the religious and ideological aspects withal the aforementioned ones. 4
Hence, the concept of Indian Feudalism proposed by R S Sharma received support from B N S
Yadava and D N Jha.

The debate was further ignited with the intervention of Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya’s critique of the
Indian feudalism school. He was against the idea of generalisations and argued that different regions
in the sub-continent underwent different changes. He stated that the evidence of land grants indicated
that they belonged to a period after the emergence of the feudal polity. Hence, it was not possible that
land grants paved way for feudalism in India. Moreover, he highlighted the absence of contracts in the
land grants. He also found it absurd that a state would have willingly given away its power which
would ultimately lead to the weakening of its authority. Further, he was antithetical to the idea of the
kali age crisis. He was averse to the idea that the early medieval period experienced a significant
decline in trade followed by the decay of urbanism. He pointed out that the trade did not decline
completely, only the centres of trade shifted from the hinterland to other regions. Hence, he argues
that there is a necessity to look for alternative explanations. 5 He came up with an ‘integrative polity

1) The accounts of the Kali age and the social transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages by B N S Yadava
2) The State in India by Hermann Kulke – Chapter 3- Was there Feudalism in India? by Harbans Mukhia- page-113 to
128
3) How feudal was Indian Feudalism? by Ram Sharan Sharma
4) The Feudal Order: State, Society and Ideology in Early Medieval India by D.N Jha- introduction
5) The Making of Early Medieval India by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya- introduction and chapter 8 Political Processes
and Structure Polity in India.
model’ through which he emphasised that multiple kingdoms existed in the sub-continent in the early
medieval phase (not due to political disintegration) primarily due to the emergence of newer regional
kingdoms once they transformed from a pre-state stage (Tribal regions at the periphery of erstwhile
kingdoms) to a state stage. In the course of the advancement of a tribal society into a monarchical
structure, various aspects come into play. Hence, the political process is interrelated with and
determined by social, economic and ideological aspects. Further delving into the argument, he
highlighted that legitimisation held considerable importance not only for the emerging polities but
also for the pre-existing kingdoms and empires. Yet, both the ‘temporal’ and ‘sacred domain’ relied
on each other- implying that brahmadeyas and devadanas were a socio-religious necessity and didn’t
mean parcelisation of sovereignty. According to him, the horizontal spread of state societies along
with agrarian expansion, integration of various local cults into a supra structure as well as the
peasantisation of the tribes were the key traits of the period under consideration. 1 On similar grounds,
Hermann Kulke also proposed his ‘Processural Model of Integrative State formation’. In a nutshell,
the integrative polity model propagates the idea of a shift from rajavamsa to the mandala stage. In the
course of this shift, the local polities fought with each other and often engulfed one another to expand
their authority or area of influence. In some cases, the samantas (neighbours) aided the local polity in
making this transition. Therefore, the ones who were able to turn the social, political, ideological and
economic conditions in their favour emerged victorious (BD Chattopadhyay and Hermann Kulke used
this model to throw light on the origin of Rajputs and the kings of Orissa, respectively). 2 Hence the
aim of this model was to understand the sprouting of regional kingdoms from the grass root level.

From the above discussion, it can be deduced that there is no consensus among the scholars regarding
the structure that prevailed in early medieval India. The scholars of the Indian feudalism school
superimposed a European phenomenon in the Indian context- they had a pre-determined picture of a
structure and then looked for the evidence- which is definitely not an ideal approach. The thesis was
extended to South India as well. Nevertheless, the debate added a new horizon to our understanding of
the past- moving from archaic notions of a centralised, glorious empire to the emerging regional
kingdoms keeping in mind the socio-economic and political milieu in which they emerged. The
alternative models of integrative polity and the segmentary state (given by Burton Stein) allowed a
shift in the trajectory of history writing. Yet, it cannot be argued persuasively that these models are
free from loopholes and are the most accurate representation of early medieval society. Herein lies the
beauty of this field (history), one can never be sure of what our past looked like yet it never restricts
us from making assumptions, or presenting a thesis and provides a space for alteration of the thesis
from time to time.

1) The Making of Early Medieval India by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya

2) The State in India 1000-1700 by Hermann Kulke- Chapter 7 The Early and the Imperial Kingdom: A Processural Model
of Integrative State Formation in Early Medieval India
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 The Origins of Feudalism in India by Ram Sharan Sharma- Indian Feudalism (third
edition)

 How feudal was Indian Feudalism? by Ram Sharan Sharma (Updated and revised,
1992)

 The Kali Age: A Period of Social Crisis by Ram Sharan Sharma

 The Making of Early Medieval India by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya second edition-

2012

 The State in India 1000-1700 by Hermann Kulke (1995)

 Was there Feudalism in India? by Harbans Mukhia- 1979 Presidential address

 The Feudal Order: State, Society and Ideology in Early Medieval India by D.N Jha
(published in 2000)

 The accounts of the Kali age and the social transition from antiquity to the Middle
Ages by B N S Yadava