History

Lesson – 2.1.1
Paper-2: History of India (650 – 1550 AD)
Topic-1: Early Medieval Period – Historiography and
Debates
Lecture: 1

Glossary

Feudalism Debate – Debate between the historians regarding

the reasons for the rise of feudalism. Marxist historians see it as a
loss of sovereign authority and degeneration of urbanization and
trade. This is contested by other schools.

Agrahara System – System of granting of land to the Brahmins

by the monarch.

Land grant economy – An economic system where the monarch

makes rent free land grants to religious institutions and secular
people.

Monetary Anemia Thesis – Thesis that propounds that the king

made land grants in lieu of payments to the soldiers because of
dearth of currency.

Varnashrama Dharma – System of belief based on the

principals laid out in the scriptures of the Vedic tradition which
categorizes Hindus in four Varnas (social classes) and prescribes
specific duties for each.

Samanta – In the Artha Shasthra, Samanta it originally meant

the neighboring king but gradually it became akin to the feudal
lord who supplied army to the king.

Non-Aligning historians – Historians who conformed neither to

the Marxist Feudalism Debate nor the Segmentary thesis.
Harsha Charita – Biography of the Indian emperor Harsha by
Bana Bhatta. It was written in Sanskrit in the 7th century.

East African Alur Society – An ethnic group who live mainly in

the Nebbi district of Uganda.

Objectives

The students will

 Understand the various theories on the structure of polity.

 Realize the difference between the polity of the North and
South Indian states.

Summary

The Early Medieval Period instigated two debates among the

historians: Feudalism Thesis and Political Structure Thesis.
Regarding the political structure there were three kinds of
formulations – Centralized monarchical formulation, Fragmentary
State System and the Segementary State System. Apart from this
there is the fourth formulation propounded by the Non-Aligned
Formulation which talks about the integrative polity. Now
integrative polity is the hallmark of Early Medieval Polity.

The Marxist historians have regarded this period as a breakdown

of the civilization matrix of the society. Because of the land grant
economy they felt that the king lost his power. The Feudalism
theory was the backdrop where the king-vassal relationship of
Europe was though to be replicated in India.

There was a distinct difference in the polity of north and south

India. While in the north India, a centralized monarchical system
prevailed in the south the Segmentary state system prevailed.
 FAQs

1. How was the land grant economy perceived by the

Marxist historians?

According to the Marxist historians the grant of rent-free land by

the ruler to religious institutions was a sign of the diminishing of
the rights of the rulers. They believe that the coercive power of
the ruler i.e. Dandha was not in the hands of the monarchs
anymore.

2. Why were lands granted to the secular people?

According to R.S. Sharma the secular people were getting land

because the state was not in a position of having enough currency
and so in lieu of money or salary, these secular people who were
in service to the king were being given lands.

3. Differentiate between ‘feudalism from above’ and

‘feudalism from below’.

According to D.D. Kosambi ‘feudalism from above’ is when the

ruler grants an amount of land to a Brahmin or to a religious
institution thereby creating a landed intermediary. ‘Feudalism
from below’ meant that there were local/ village level persons who
were important and rose to the standard of the lord from below.

4. What were the three kinds of polity that can be found in

India in the early Medieval Period?

The three kinds of polity that can be found in India in the early
Medieval Period were:

a) Centralized Monarchical System – here the monarch holds the

power along with a centralized bureaucracy e.g. Mauryas.
b) Decentralized Feudal States – here there was fragmented polity
as envisage by the feudalism proponents.
c) Segmentary States – here the state has not reached the
centralized system but there is a kind of centralized pattern in it
which revolves around the capital.

5. Describe the polity of South India in the Early Medieval

Period.

In south India the Chola and the Pallava monarchs were all very
powerful. Chola polity had a segmented kind of Polity. The entire
kingdom was divided into segments that were not answerable to
the other or to the king. The ruler had the primacy and ritual
control but the entire segments were independent and they had
their own kind of administration. Also there were very strong
local/ village level bodies which were not encouraged in the
Centralized polity.

6. Why does B.D. Chakraborty refer to this period as the

most maligned period in Indian history?

B.D Chattopadhyay has talked about this period as a much

maligned period in Indian history because the Marxist historians
have regarded this period as a breakdown of the civilization matrix
of the society.

7. What were the two important debates that surround the

medieval period?

The most important debate in Indian history i.e. the Feudalism

Debate centered on this period. Another important point of debate
was centered on the Structure of the Polity because in this period
there was multiplicity of powers. Although historians agree that
there were changes in the structure of the big kingdoms, there is
no unanimity on the causative factors of these changes.

8. Describe the views of Marxist historians regarding the

disintegration of kingdom.
In Marxist Historiography scholars like R.S. Sharma, B.N.S. Yadav
wanted to put this period within the backdrop of feudalism and
they think this was because of decentralization of power which
also led to disintegration.

9. Why did Col. James Todd see the replication of the lord-
vassal relationship in the Indian social setup?

When Col. James Todd was working in Rajasthan in 19 th century

he saw that the vassal supplied the lord with army and other help
and in return the lord gave him protection. There was also a sense
of loyalty from the part of the vassal to the lord. In this lord-
vassal relationship Todd saw a replication of the feudalism
prevalent in Europe.

10. Discuss the powers and functions of a Samanta.

A Samanta can be equated with the feudal lord of Europe. But in

the Indian context the Samanta is a little different. In the Artha
Shasthra, Samanta was originally the neighboring king. But
gradually there appeared different hierarchies among the
Samantas. There was the Loghu Samanta or the Maha
Mandaleshwaram or a Mandaleshwaram. These Samantas actually
helped in the rise of the political systems. The rulers had some
problems regarding the control of the army. The Samantas had
their own armies and when required they provided army to the
rulers.

QUIZ
1. Indian feudalism in the context of lord and vassal was first seen
by A) Col. James Todd B) Henri Pirenne C) D.N. Jha

2. The coercive power of the king was called

A) Vernashrama Dharma B) Samanta C) Dandha

3. ‘Feudalism from above’ and ‘Feudalism from below’ was

propounded by
A) B.D. Chattopadhyay B) D.D. Kosambi C) R.S. Sharma

4. The different categories of merchants, markets and trade

networks was posited by
A) Ranavir Chakraborty B) Harbans Mukhia C) D.N. Jha

5. Non-Aligned historians was a term coined by

A) B.D. Chattopadhyay B) Burton Stein C) Hermann Kulke

6. The practice of granting free land by the king to the religious is

called A) Agrahara system B) Dandha C) Vernashrama Dharma

7. The Third Urbanization was propounded by A) Harbans Mukhia

B) B.D. Chattopadyay C) D.C. Sarkar

8. ‘The Feudal Order’ is written by A) R.S. Sharma B) D.N. Jha C)

John S. Dell

9. The Raja Rajeshwara Temple was built by A) Asoka

B) Chandragupta Maurya C) Rajendra Chola

10. Burton Stein propounded the A) Segmentary thesis B)

Feudalism thesis C) Monetary Anemia thesis
Assignment:

1. How does B.D.Chattopadhyaya perceive the early medieval

phase in Indian history?
2. Write briefly on the contents of the Feudalism debate in
Indian history.
3. Explain the three different structural models for the early
medieval Indian kingdom.
4. Who propounded the Segmentary State theory? Discuss this
theory in the context of the Chola State.
5. What do you understand by integrative polity? What were the
modes of integration?
 History
Lesson – 2.1.1
Paper–2: History of India (650 – 1550 AD)
Topic-1: Early Medieval Period – Historiography and
Debates
Lecture: 1

1. Introduction

The Early Medieval Period in Indian History spans from c.600 CE

to c.1300 CE and this period is to be located between the early
historic and the medieval. This period signifies changes and
continuity in Indian History. B.D Chattopadhyay has talked about
this period as a much maligned period in Indian history because of
the fact that, Marxist historians have regarded this period as a
breakdown of the civilization matrix of the society. But the most
important debate in Indian history i.e. the Feudalism Debate
centered on this period. So the Feudalism debate and other kinds
of formulations that were actually working within the framework of
feudalism was becoming imminent in this period.

Another important point of debate was centered around the

Structure of the Polity. This was because in this period there was
multiplicity of powers. There were numerous ruling houses which
was different in the early historic period. Although historians agree
that there were changes in the structure of the big kingdoms,
there is no unanimity on the causative factors of these changes.
So there were different kinds of opinions regarding the changes in
the structure of the kingdoms.

In Marxist Historiography scholars like R.S. Sharma, B.N.S. Yadav

wanted to put this period within the backdrop of feudalism and
they think this was because of decentralization of power which
also led to disintegration. But there were oppositions to this view.
This came first in the writings of B.D. Chattopadhyay where he
was saying that we should not look at this period against the
backdrop of feudal formation. It was not that there was a total
change from the matrix of the early historic period, but we have
to perceive this period within three perspectives – 1) there was
local level state formation, 2) Structure of Verna and Jati
(Proliferation of Jatis) and 3) Acculturation of the tribes into the
main-stream Brahmanical mode of religion.

2. Feudalism Debate

The mooring of the Indian feudalism was brought from the ideas
that were persistent in the historiography of Europe. R.S. Sharma
and others borrowed the ideas of Henri Pirenne (1852 – 1935)
and Marc Bloch (1886 – 1944) from the European concept of
Feudalism and put it lock, stock and barrel into the Indian
scenario. In the Indian scenario R.S. Sharma saw it in the whole
process of the land grant economy. There was a time when the
rulers were granting lands to the Brahmins and the monasteries
and the other religious institutions like a Brahmanical Matha or a
Jain Vasadi. These granting of lands were actually rent free lands.
This is known as the Agrahara System in Indian economy. So
when this rent free land is given and thereby some sort of judicial
rights were also given to these donees, so the Marxist
historiography look at it as the diminishing of the rights of the
rulers. So they hold the idea of the coercive power of the ruler i.e.
Dandha is not there anymore in the hands of the monarchs. Here
is seen a total breakdown.

Marxist Historiography

The next step that a Marxist historiography looks at is the entire

process as a lord-vassal relationship. But looking at the Indian
feudalism in the context of lord and vassal was first started in the
historiography by Col. James Todd. When he was working in
Rajasthan in 19th century he saw a replication of the European
lord-vassal relationship where the vassal supplies the lord with
enough army and other help and in return the lord gives him
protection. There was also a sense of loyalty from the part of the
vassal to the lord. This whole system of the lord-vassal
relationship was seen by Todd as a replication of the feudalism
prevalent in Europe.

The second point in Indian feudalism came when D.D. Kosambi

wrote his famous book ‘An Introduction to Indian History’ and
there he tried to posit feudalism as ‘feudalism from above’ and
‘feudalism from below’. It means that when the ruler grants an
amount of land to a Brahmin or to a religious institution so he is
creating a landed intermediary and so it is ‘feudalism from above’.
‘Feudalism from below’ meant that there were local/ village level
persons who were important and rose to the standard of the lord
from below.

For R.S. Sharma actually the whole breakdown took place in the
context of the Social Crisis. The king was not exercising enough
power because a kind of landed intermediary was created between
the king and the actual peasantry. Secondly R.S. Sharma
visualized that gradually lands were also been given not only to
the religious donees but also to the secular donees. The secular
donees were getting land because, according to him, the state
was not in a position of having enough currency and so in lieu of
money or salary, these secular people who were in service to the
king were being given lands. But R.S. Sharma does not go much
into the decline of the concept of feudalism in India.

3. Controversy

It was not because the full feudalism thesis was based on the land
grant economy and it is said that between the land grant economy
and expansion of state and there is a kind of contrast. All these
things led to the decline of trade and urbanization. It was D.C
Sarkar the first among the non-Marxist historians, who first
opposed R.S. Sharma’s feudalism thesis. He said that the
proponents of feudalism are actually confusing landlordism and
overlordism with feudalism. Way back in 1979 Harbans Mukhia
questioned the entire formulation both empirically and
theoretically of Indian feudalism. He looked at it not only from the
economic perspective but also from the ecological perspective.
After Harbans Mukhia there were other historians also who
challenged the views of the Marxist historiography.

In the context of trade and urbanization there was some sort of

theories which were being questioned.

Social Perspective

R.S. Sharma himself said that the feudalism thesis is to be looked

at from the cultural matrix also. After that D.N. Jha in his latest
book ‘The Feudal Order’, wrote articles which are much related to
the cultural milieu under feudalism in India.

A number of historians have criticized the concept of the decline of

trade and the concept of de-urbanization. When we look at these
theses on the decline of long distance trade, we see that even
D.N. Jha who supports the feudalism thesis questions R.S.
Sharma’s view on long distance trade. He says that long distance
trade should not be taken as a marker for the decline of a change
in the economic scenario on early medieval India. But the
historians who actually took up the case against urbanization and
decline were B.D. Chattopadhyay and Ranavir Chakraborty.

B.D. Chattopadhyay with his strong empirical models showed that

there were no de-urbanization in this period and he was talking
about a phase which is called Third Urbanization. Ranavir
Chakraborty on the other hand showed that there were different
categories of merchants, markets and trade networks moving
around at this point of time. So the question of decline of trade
and de-urbanization does not exist at all.

Finally the Monetary Anemia Thesis which is very much a part of

the feudalism debate has also been question by B.D.
Chattopadhyay, B.N. Mukherjee and John S. Dell. They find that
lack of currency in this period does not stand good in history.
4. Nature of Polity

There was multiplicity of kingdoms in this period. All these

kingdoms have been studied by different historians to understand
the kind of structure of polity of these kingdoms. There is a
scenario in North India and there is a scenario in South India.
Whatever the kind of polity that was structured in north was
different from the south of India. Overall the whole Indian
scenario has been structured into 3 models:

1) Centralized Monarchical System – here the monarch holds the

power along with a centralized bureaucracy e.g. Mauryas.

2) Decentralized Feudal States – here there was fragmented polity

as envisage by the feudalism proponents.

3) Segmentary States – here the state has not reached the

centralized system but there is a kind of centralized pattern in it
which revolves around the capital.

For administrative decentralization there are two processes – a)

the practice of making land grants which led to the lack of
administrative privileges on the part of the ruler and b) the ruler
lost his control over the army. So the entire thing was looked
upon as the diminishing power of the ruler and so he did not have
his coercive authority.

This was situated in the backdrop of the Puranas where we find a

deep seated social crisis (the loss of the Vernashrama Dharma)
was located because of the lack of power of the king or lack of use
of Dandha by the king.

5. Samanta System

The hallmark of Early Medieval Polity can be seen in the Samanta

System. Who is a Samanta? It can be equated with the feudal lord
in the context of Europe. But in the Indian context the Samanta is
a little different from the feudal lord. In the Artha Shasthra,
Samanta was originally the neighboring king. But gradually there
was a change in the perception of a Samanta and there appeared
different hierarchies among the Samantas. There was the Loghu
Samanta or the Maha Mandaleshwaram or a Mandaleshwaram etc.
Even in the Harsha Charita there are different grades of Samanta.
So when there are hierarchies it leads to hierarchy in the vassal.
These Samantas actually helped in the rise of the political systems
and they were giving help to the rulers when they were in dearth
of army. The rulers had some problems regarding the control of
the army. The Samantas had their own armies and when required
they provided army to the rulers. This Samanta System had been
looked at from different angles by the historians. This is a very
important part of Early Medieval Polity.

Centralized polity did not have many supporters among the

historians. They don’t talk much about the centralized polity that
existed in the Early Medieval Period. There was a kind of polity
(according to some historians) where some integrative processes
were at work in which the state society expanded and the
societies which were at the periphery they were integrated into
the mainstream state society.

As for the Feudalism Thesis, the feudal polity or the structure of

feudalism it is more restricted to the North Indian scenario. But
B.D. Chattopadhyay would like to see this kind of integrative
polity could be noticed in North India, in many parts of Central
India and also in South India. So the whole concept of Feudalism
Thesis being for the entire Indian scenario is not correct.

6. South Indian polity

South Indian polity is given a different kind of treatment. When

talking about south India, the historians mainly talk about the
Chola polity. The Chola monarchs were Raja Raje, Raja Rajendra –
they were all great monarchs who have been eulogized in history.
In the Chola regime, the kind of polity that was in practice was
different from that of North India. That is because here both in the
Pallava and in the Chola times there were very strong local bodies.
In the Centralized polity, this sort of local bodies at the village
level was not encouraged whereas in the Chola Period there were
active village level bodies.

Burton Stein posited the Chola polity (he began with the Pallava
and extended his idea till beyond the Vijaynagar Period) had a
segmented kind of Polity. The East African Alur Society acted as a
model for Burton Stein. According to Burton Stein the Chola
kingdom was divided into certain segments. In these segments
there is the ruler who has the primacy and ritual control but the
entire segments were independent and they had their own kind of
administration and each segment was not responsible to the other
segment or to the rulers. So he differentiated between the actual
political control and ritual sovereignty. For him the main ritualist
was the Chola ruler.
When differentiating between actual political control and ritual
sovereignty, the Chola monarch is relegated in the background.
He does not have the kind of control that he should have over the
other segments of his territory. This concept of ritual sovereignty
has been questioned by a German historian Hermann Kulke.
According to Kulke, ritual sovereignty should not be confused as
lack of sovereignty. He said in a traditional country like India ritual
is a very important part of the tradition. So, actually ritual
sovereignty is a pacemaker of power.

When the monarch made the Raja Rajeshwara Temple which was
built by Chola monarch Rajendra Chola in modern Tanjore, it was
reflecting the power and glory of the Cholas. For the proponents
of the Segmentary i.e. Burton Stein, this was showing the lack of
power of the Cholas monarch. He did not think that the Cholas
monarch was very powerful and therefore he was building the
temple. Taking cue from this there is another historian George
Spencer who talks about the Chola raids in South East Asia as a
politics of plunder. For him these plunder, raids and Chola control
over the South East Asian countries were with a plunder motive
and not otherwise. These things have been challenged by
historians.

7. Non-Aligned historians

B.D. Chattopadhyay has an opinion on the Segmentary State

Theory. For him it is not a kind of structure that should be
equated to the Indian scenario. After the fall of the Gupta(s) there
was fragmentation; there were small principalities that were
becoming powerful and became independent entities. But these
fragmented polities were having independent political status. But
the power of the rule was not fragmented. They were becoming
independent entities in their own rights.

The Non-Aligned group of historians was termed by Hermann

Kulke when he said that the historians who do not go by the
Feudalism Thesis or by the Segmentary Thesis should form a
separate group. He calls them the Non-Aligned group of historians
because they are not posited on either side of the pole. These
Non-Aligned historians are in favor of integrative polity. Integrated
polity was propounded at one time by B.D. Chattopadhayay.
Hermann Kulke believes that in India there is a kind of integrative
polity where the state societies, the regional local formations were
merging into the larger monarchical formation. So there is a
constant movement of the peripheral groups, the tribal, and the
autochthonous groups moving into the larger scenario of
monarchical polity. So there was no disintegration or
fragmentation or segmentation. It was a kind of integration. It is a
kind of polity which is being advocated by most of the historians
now where there is a kind of integration of the state societies and
local level formations.