Indian Feudalism

The Orientalist, Imperialist and Nationalist historians periodised India into Ancient India, associated with the Hindu era, Medieval India, associated with the Muslim era and Modern India, associated with the British era. The period of transition from ancient India to Medieval India is known as the 'Early Medieval Period'. This Period is characterised by intense debate with respect to its chronology, nature and features. Generally viewed as a period of transition between c.700-1200 A.D., it is evident that certain processes of change are prevalent in this period which is distinct from the earlier ancient period. Post 1950's began a trend of correlating aspects of this pre-modern history with the Feudal Mode of Production. This application of feudalism, a Marxist interpretation ushered in a period that expands the notion of historical interpretation from political and dynastic towards the social and economic. This period is seen as marked by momentous transformations in polity, society, economy, language, script, art and architecture, religion and intellectual life. The features of this period which are highlighted are - the landed aristocracy and the subject peasantry, intermediaries and land grants, urbanism and ruralisation, agrarian expansion, peasantization and trade.

The question which arises now is what is feudalism? Feudalism, which originated in the Europe (5th-15th century A.D) refers to the type of society where there exists a hierarchy between those who own land - the dominant class of landlords and those who toil the soil - the peasants who carry out voluntary and at times 'forced labour'. These landlords extract surplus product and labour services from peasants by extra-economic means within their landed estates- self-sufficient economies. The discussion on Indian feudalism was a by product of the debate that contested the belief that the Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP) was characteristic of Early medieval society. Today, this notion of stagnant Asiatic societies and 'Oriental Despotism' has been replaced by the belief that this is a formative period.

In the 1940s the debate regarding the nature on Indian Feudalism begins to emerge with writers like B.N. Datta and S.A. Dange who speak of the growth of feudalism in India, but by infusing an essentially European concept onto Indian soil. However, 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 (1956). He spoke of "feudalism from above" and "feudalism from below". The former was essentially political feudalism, when during the pre-4th century A.D. period, after conquest and political expansion, kings began to transfer their fiscal and administrative rights over land to subordinate autonomous chiefs, who recognized the importance of the central authority and paid him tribute. It reached an advanced stage of development during the Gupta period and later, when "a class of landowners developed within the village between the state and the peasantry, gradually to wield armed power on the local population", i.e., "feudalism from below", essentially socio-economic in nature. Recent writings have largely bypassed Kosambi's idea of the dual processes operating towards the emergence of Indian feudalism, although the essential variables of the Indian feudalism construct are also present in his formulation. Sharma suggests that we may look for "feudalism from below" in the initial stage also, as the grants from lower officials, village elders and heads of tribes, clans or families are not recorded.

Niharranjan Ray, a contemporary of Kosambi, says that the emergence of a new state structure in the regional context of Bengal, as part of a pan-Indian phenomenon from the Gupta and post-Gupta times. This was marked by a hierarchical political order. The new economic order was characterized by local agrarian economy. This entire reasoning was called "Medievalism", which existed approximately between the 7th/8th-12th centuries. He also suggested the characteristics which, for him, define Indian medievalism - regional ruling dynasties; natural economy; crystallization of a regional character of script, language and literature; proliferation of sects and sub-sects in religion; and development of art in the regional context. He associated the advent of medievalism with feudalism.

It was R.S. Sharma who brought together all earlier attempts to give a new, original framework for Indian Feudalism, based on substantial empirical research. He also gave a Theory of Causation, by which he attributed Indian feudalism to the process of making land grants. He divided Indian feudalism into 3 phases - origins and the first phase (350-750 A.D.), phase two (750-1000 A.D.), and the phase of the heyday of Indian feudalism (1000-1200 A.D.), which towards the end, saw the beginning of its decline. Some of the features of Indian feudalism as outlined by him were - the practice of making land grants, which gave the beneficiaries judicial and fiscal rights and rights over the people of the donated village as well; the increasing incidence of forced labour; decline in trade and coinage; and payment of the salaries of officials through land revenue assignments.

We can divide R.S. Sharma's theory of feudalism into 2 parts for our understanding, Political Feudalism and Economic Feudalism. Political Feudalism refers to a new state structure characterized by two inter-related phenomenon - decentralized administration and political hierarchy. Decentralization refers to the erosion of the power of the monarch, which heightened the role of autonomous towns and military elements. The process which led to administrative decentralization is essentially seen to have derived from the practice of making land grants along with a range of privileges and the breakdown of the state's monopoly over the army. The weakness of central authority is also indicated by the existence of several capitals. Also, loss of authority was made up for by deifying the king. All kinds of achievements, especially military, were attributed to him, and hyperboles were used to build the image of the king as the greatest conqueror. From the 5th century onwards, land grants became very frequent, and its certain features paved way for the rise of brahmana feudatories, who became a new source of authority or state power. Diffusion of authority is seen through the granting the right to collect taxes from the peasants,