Nature of Society

Early medieval India’s social changes were primarily the result of economic developments such as land grants and large-scale transfers of land revenues and land to secular and religious elements, decline of trade and commerce, loss of mobility of artisans, peasants, and traders, unequal distribution of land and power, and so on. Thousands of castes arose in India as a result of increasing pride of birth, which was characteristic of feudal society, and the accompanying self-sufficient village economy, which prevented both spatial and occupational mobility.

Background

• During this time, a number of significant changes occurred in Indian society. One of these was the growing power of a class of people known variously as samanta, ranak, rautta (rajput), and so on by contemporary writers.
• Their origins were very different. Some were government officers who were increasingly compensated not in cash but by being assigned revenue-generating villages.
• Others were defeated by rajas and their supporters, who continued to profit from limited areas’ revenue.
• Others were local hereditary chiefs or military adventurers who had carved out a sphere of authority with the help of armed supporters.
• Others were tribal or clan leaders. As a result, they were organised in a hierarchy. However, their actual position changed depending on the situation.
• Some were only village chiefs, while others ruled over a tract of several villages, and a few ruled over an entire region. They were constantly at odds with one another, trying to expand their sphere of authority and privileges.

Features of the Society During 800-1200 AD

• In theory, revenue assignments (called bhoga or fief) granted by a ruler to his officers and supporters were temporary and could be resumed whenever the ruler wanted.
• In practise, however, this was rarely done, except in cases of outright rebellion or disloyalty. According to current beliefs, depriving even a defeated ruler of his lands was a sin.
• As a result, the kingdoms of this period included large areas dominated by defeated and subordinate rulers who were constantly on the lookout for ways to reassert their independence.
• Again, within the territories of these rulers, various officers regarded their assignments as hereditary fiefs. Over time, various government positions became hereditary.
• Most offices began to be regarded as a monopoly of a few families. The hereditary chiefs gradually assumed many governmental functions.
• They not only assessed and collected land revenue, but also assumed more and more administrative powers, such as the right to impose punishments and exact fines on their own, which were previously considered royal privileges.
• They assumed the right to sublet their land to their followers without the permission of the ruler, increasing the number of people who drew sustenance from land without working on it themselves.

Nature of Society in South India

• The administration structure in the Chola kingdom in South India was slightly different. The locals had a great deal of autonomy at the village level.
• They managed their administration with the assistance of self-elected local bodies.
• The records mention two types of village assemblies. Sabha and Ur were their names.
• Sabha was the assembly in villages populated primarily by brahmanas, whereas Ur was in non-brahmanical settlements.
• These assemblies were in charge of local public works, tax collection, temple management, and so on, with the help of members elected through a procedure established by the villagers.
• It was a distinguishing feature of the Chola administration because it represented a harmonious balance between central authority and local self-government.

Feudal Society

• Some historians refer to this type of society as “feudal,” despite the fact that features of European feudalism, such as vassalage, serfdom, and manors, did not exist in India.
• It is emphasised that the society was dominated by a class of people who derived their income from the surplus produced by the peasant but did not work on the land themselves.
• Also, the position of the primary producer, the peasant, was dependent. A number of other historians prefer to refer to this society as a “medieval society.”
• As previously stated, they regard feudalism as a distinct feature of medieval European society.

Impact

• The growth of such a society in India had far reaching effects.
• It weakened the position of the ruler, and made him more dependent on the feudal chiefs, many of whom maintained their own military forces which could be used to defy the ruler.
• The internal weaknesses of the Indian states became crucial in their contest with the Turks later on.
• The small states discouraged trade, and encouraged an economy in which villages or groups of villages tended to become largely self-sufficient.
• The domination of the chiefs also weakened village self-government.
• But the feudal order did not have disadvantages only. In an age of disorder and violence, the stronger chiefs provided safety of life and property to the peasants and others without which daily life could not have functioned.
• Some of the chiefs also took interest in the extension and improvement of cultivation.