Early Medieval India

Submitted BySHIKHA SINGH

II YEAR
ROLL NO.-81
DAULAT RAM COLLEGE

Assignment Question
Looking
at
various
social,
economic, political and cultural
aspects of the period 750 to
1200 A.D. in Indian history,
which mode of production
proposition according to you
explains the socio-economic
formation
of
the
above
mentioned
period?
Substantiate your argument on

the basis of recent historical

writings.

Looking
at
various
social,
economic, political and cultural
aspects of the period 750 to 1200
A.D. in Indian history, according
to
me
Feudalism
mode
of
production explains the socioeconomic formation of the above
mentioned period.
Feudalism generally refers to the
type of society that existed in
Europe in the 5th-15th century A.D.
based on self-sufficient economy.
It had dominant class of landlords

who extracted surplus, products

and
labour
services
from
Peasants.
Earlier the early medieval period
in India was seen as a Dark Age,
one of the stagnation and decay.
Marxs concept of the Asiatic
Mode Of Production depicted the
India as an unchanging world of
unstratified,
communally
land
owing village societies. But this
was contested for the first time in
the 1950s by D.D. Kosambi and
later by other Indian historians.
D.N. Jha and Irfan Habib have
shown that the discussion on the
Indian Feudalism began with
protracted Marxist debate on
Asiatic mode of production.

In
the
1940s,
writers
like
B.N.Datta and S.A. Dange spoke
of the growth of Feudalism in
India. Early scholars however,
simply transplanted an essentially
European concept of Feudalism on
to Indian soil, and spoke of an
Indian variant of Feudalism. A
new genre of empirical works
emerged in the 1950s, when,
through a reasoned argument,
Feudal Polity was shown to be a
stage
which
represented
a
structural change in the Indian
social
and
economic
order,
characterized by a hierarchy of
intermediaries between the state
and the peasantry.
D.D. Kosambi was the first to give
this
conceptual
definition
of

Feudalism in India in 1956. He

spoke of Feudalism from Above,
which was essentially Political
Feudalism, when during the pre4th century A.D. period, after
conquest and political expansion,
kings began to transfer their
fiscal and administrative rights
over
land
to
subordinate
autonomous chiefs. It reached an
advanced stage of development
during the Gupta period and later
when a class of land owners
developed
within
the village
between the state and the
peasantry, gradually to wield
armed
power
on
the
local
population, that is, Feudalism
from below, essentially socioeconomic in nature.

Niharranjan Ray, a contemporary

of Kosambi, in his book, Bangalir
Itihas, pointed to the emergence
of a new state structure in the
regional context of Bengal. This
was marked by a hierarchical
political order represented by
samantas
and
mahasamantas,
and tenuous bonds with political
allies and the new economic order
was
characterized
by
local
agrarian
economy.
He
also
suggested
the
characteristics
which, for him, define Indian
Medievalism-regional
ruling
dynasties, natural economy and
crystallization
of
regional
character of script, language and
literature, proliferation of sects
and sub-sects in religion and

development of art in same

context. He associated the advent
of Medievalism with Feudalism.
It was R.S. Sharma who brought
together all earlier attempts to
give new, original framework for
Indian Feudalism. He divided
Indian Feudalism into 3 phasesorigins and the first phase(350750 A.D.), phase two(750-1000
A.D.) and the third phase(10001200 A.D.), which towards the
end saw the beginning of its
decline.
Some of the features of Indian
Feudalism
outlined
by
R.S.
Sharma were- practice of making
land grants which gave the
beneficiaries judicial and fiscal

rights and rights over the people

of donated village as well as the
increasing incidence of forced
labour, decline in trade and
coinage and payment of officials
through land revenue.
R.S. Sharma traces the origins of
Feudalism to early centuries of
Christian era when the process of
land
grants
intensified.
The
earliest evidence of land grants in
India comes from 1st century B.C.
but
they
did
not
transfer
administrative
power
to
beneficiary. Perhaps these rights
were given for the very first time
in 2nd century A.D. to Buddhist
monks. From 5th century A.D.
onwards, these grants became
frequent and developed certain

features which led to political

decentralization.
These
wereright to collect taxes, enjoy the
revenue of land, autonomy on the
land and more. Dating in 6th
century A.D. grants were given to
merchant guilds also. They were
allowed the exemption from dues,
freedom to deal with labours and
more.
Economic Feudalism on the basis
of R.S. Sharmas conception of
Feudalism is characterized by
Ruralization. Its main aspects
are: emergence
of
intermediaries
presence of closed,
economy

landed
natural

 emergence of village as a selfsufficient unit of production

and distribution
Agrarian
expansion
on
a
substantially large scale.
These structural changes in the
economy traced to the growth of
land grants. This disturbed and
transformed the existing agrarian
order. After the transformation,
Land grants became permanent,
reducing the original cultivators
to the position of tenants who
could even suffer eviction. The
emergence of forced labour was
an
important
institutional
development and this right was
given to donees. Subjection also
increased due to the wide range

of taxes and levies which the

peasants had to pay.
According to Sharma, evidence
for
the
dispossession
and
impoverishment
of
peasantry
comes from peasant protest.
Migration
was
difficult
and
unviable so they asserted their
land
rights
through
revolt.
Gradually
subjection
of
all
producing classes took place,
marked by degradation in their
economic and social status. There
is decline in ritual status of many
artisanal
groups,
possibly
deriving from the fact that due to
decline of trade and development
of a closed economy, they were
now
localized
and
made

subservient
classes.

to

landholding

According to Sharma, in 600-1200

A.D., a process of acculturation
began. A number of social groups
came into existences which were
regarded as untouchables. They
were carmakara (leather worker),
rajaka (washer man), bamboo
worker and basket maker.
Since the rise of Feudalism is
traced to land grants, which gave
away the sovereignty of the state
were made. R.S. Sharma explains
them using a Theory of Causation,
citing two crises as the reason for
the prevalence of land grants.
Crises started with the decline in
Indias
long-distance
trade.

Decline of trade is demonstrated

by the paucity of coins from the
Gupta period onwards. Shortage
of coins implies that the urban
life began to disappear. The urban
commercial centre began to be
interpreted as village in some
post-Gupta texts and their seals
have also been disappeared. So
decommercialization,
demonetization and deurbaniztion
made land grants a device for
payment for services in lieu of
cash
salaries.
Sharma
also
considers the nature of internal
social dynamics as responsible for
land grants. He speaks of a social
crises based on the accounts of
kali age in puranans.

R.S. Sharmas theory is taken

forward by the works of scholars
like D.N. Jha and B.N.S. Yadava.
Yadava elaborates the concept of
kali age as a period of allegedly
sharp class antagonism, which led
to the emergence of Feudal order.
He provided an evidence for
increasing land grants to military
officers during the post-Gupta
period.
However
B.D.
Chattopadhyaya says that these
post-date the assumed genesis
Feudal polity. Hence service land
grants acted as a facet and not as
precondition to the emergence of
the overall pattern of political
dominance.
The Feudalism theory generated
considerable
debate
among

scholars about the nature of early

medieval social formation. The
most
influential
structural
criticism comes from Harbans
Mukhia. He says that applying
Feudalism to India is inapt,
because its defining characteristic
is absent i.e. the structure
dependence
between
the
landlords and the peasant where
the landlord is the land owner and
a peasant is merely a tenant.
Moreover, there is a free peasant
production
as
the
peasant
controlled
the
process
of
production. In addition, Mukhia
says that the landlords didnt
need to enserf the peasant
because of the high soil fertility
and the low subsistence needs of

Indian peasantry, which resulted

in high surplus.
R.S. Sharma responds to Mukhias
criticism, saying that the lord
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
very effective as the fruits of
production were taken by the
landlords. Land grants leave no
doubt that the landlord largely
controlled
the
means
of
production. The argument that
the landed beneficiaries were
mainly
concerned
with
the
problem of surplus collection also
needs to be re-examined. Mukhia

contends that serfdom is an

incidental feature in India. But
Sharma says that evidence from
the skand puranans produced by
Yadava leaves little doubt that
hundreds
of
people
were
compelled into forced labour.
Mukhia says that while there is
evidence of exploitation, the
degree of subjection of the
peasantry was not so substantial
in early medieval period, as there
would have been no scope for
intensification of exploitation, as
happened in the sultanate period.
He also blames Sharma for
producing
empirical
evidence
indicating similar developments
in India and Europe. He adds that
in India the establishment of

Feudalism is attributed primarily

to state action in granting land in
lieu of salary and the action of
grantees
in
subjecting
the
peasantry by means of legal
rights assigned to them by state.
Mukhia ends by saying that if
Feudalism ended in the 11th-12th
centuries as Sharma says, then it
remains to characterize the 6th
centuries falling between this
decline and Indias colonizationa sad comment on the lack of
rigour in the concept of Indian
Feudalism.
B.D. Chattopadhyaya says the
role of land grants as a mean of
exploitation is over emphasized,
because one doesnt know the
proportion of the total cultivable

land that was being granted. He

has
raised
conceptual
and
empirical
arguments
against
deurbanization
and
decommercialization. He provides
evidence to show that foreign
trade
did
not
decline
but
continued. Similarly, he says that
economic basis of the urban
centre was an agricultural surplus
generated by expansion and new
methods of cultivation. So cities
could not decline due to trade
decline because they were not
dependent on it. Chattopadhyaya
also says that even if some early
medieval
cities
did
decline,
agrarian expansion led to trade
and exchange which led to
development of local exchange

nodes from the 9th century

onwards, providing the kernel of
a new kind of urbanization in
early medieval times. Some of the
examples are- Siyadoni where the
presence of mandapika implies
outside trade.
Criticism of Indian Feudalism have
resulted in certain other schemes
being put forward to explain the
state structure in early medieval
times.
One
such
is
the
Segmentary State concept by
Burton Stein, which speaks of
dual sovereignty mainly in the
context of South India. The other
is an Integrative Model which
focuses
on
intensive
state
development at the regional

level, mainly by Herman Kulke

and B.D. Chattopadhyaya.
Chattopadhyaya
suggests
an
alternative way of looking at the
developments in this period. He
indentifies 3 major inter-related
historical processes that help us
understand the intense process of
state formation; and examines
their
crystallization
in
their
specific temporal and spatial
contexts. The first is economic,
i.e. agricultural expansion that
intensified
and
widened
its
geographical horizons in this
period. The social process was
consequence of the economic, as
due to the spread of agriculture,
the pre-existing indigenous tribes
got
incorporated
into
caste

system at lower levels, leading to

a spurt in untouchability. Agrarian
expansion into newer areas led to
a surplus, which was a prerequisite for the formation of
state society.
The Indian Feudalism debate has
led to a critical evaluation of
several important aspects of
medieval
Indian
history.
The
concept of Indian Feudalism broke
away
from
the
conventional
methods of history-writing and
took
a
definitive
ideological
position.
Supporters
of
the
Feudalism theory themselves say
that Indian Feudalism has yet to
achieve
greater
theoretical

sophistication
in
historical
analysis.
Others
like
Chattopadhyaya feel that view of
political formation needs to be
revaluated.
Subrahmanyam
notices the dependence of the
historiography
on
received
models, particularly from Europe
and complaints of the failure to
develop
adequate
asianist
models. However, before such a
model is elaborated, a number of
crucial
question,
which
the
prevailing models have raised,
require further clarification. The
fruitful debate about certain key
institutions of medieval Indian
society and their conceptual
meaning may have to continue for
rather a long time yet.

Bibliography
Sharma R.S.- Early Medieval
Indian Society:
A
society in Feudalization
Chattopadhyaya
B.D.The
Making of Early Medieval India(
second edition)
Kulke Hermann (ed.)- The State
in India: 1000-1700
Mukhia Harbans (ed.)- The
Feudalism Debate
Jha D.N. (ed.)- Feudal Social
Formation in Early India

Internet Articles The Early Medieval India

debate:
http://anaryasviews.blogspot
.in/2012/03/early-medievalindia-debate.html
Medievalism Defined:
http://www.frontline.in/static
/html/fl1813/18130740.htm
India between 750-1200 A.D.
:
http://download.nos.org/srse
c315new/History
%20Book_L08.pdf