• The post-Gupta period in Indian history saw the rise of numerous regional powers across the country, including in South India.

• The emergence of these regional powers also marked the rise of regional cultures.

• Some powers were unable to concretize into full-fledged states but still controlled significant regional power.

• Many of these regional powers had to accept the supremacy of larger, more powerful states.

• The Pallavas and Cholas were the two most important political powers in South India between the 7th and 13th centuries.

Aspects of Historiography

• Prof. Karashima pays tribute to pioneers in historical studies like Prof. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar and Prof. Nilakanta Sastri for producing foundational works, describing the period as “the first golden age of South Indian historical studies.”

• Prof. Karashima’s contribution is significant in the latter period, using computerized techniques and statistical analysis to offer a new perspective on South Indian society development, particularly during and after the Chola period under Vijayanagar-Nayaka rule.

• Prof. Karashima disagrees with the view that ancient and medieval South Indian society followed the Asiatic mode of production and cautions against the mechanical application of feudalism in South India, particularly by scholars like D.N. Jha.

• He critiques the argument that royal grants of villages to Brahmins and temples signify feudalism or serfdom, suggesting that such conclusions are premature without studying the conditions of non-grant villages.

• South Indian historiography was neglected in national historiography, with South India only mentioned in relation to North India in earlier colonial and nationalist histories.

• In the second half of the 19th century, South Indian historians began reconstructing the region’s history, but they couldn’t provide a comprehensive history.

• S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar is credited as the first true historian of South India, publishing works such as The Beginnings of South Indian History, Contribution of South India to Indian Culture, and Evolution of Hindu Administrative Institutions in South India.

• Aiyangar, along with Robert Sewell, edited the Historical Inscriptions of South India and began the project on sources of Vijayanagara history.

• Aiyangar’s approach was non-argumentative and non-interpretative, focusing on recording events from various sources without making value judgments.

• Aiyangar unearthed a wide range of source materials on art, society, culture, and political institutions.

• Aiyangar’s technological framework for South Indian history was later proven incorrect but laid the foundation for subsequent studies on early medieval South Indian history.

• Aiyangar was instrumental in inaugurating a new approach to historical research based on careful source material search and the diversification of historical writing in South India.

• K.A. Nilakanta Sastri is considered the first historian to write a comprehensive history of South India, building upon the work of Ayyankar.

• Sastri used a large number of epigraphical sources to reconstruct South Indian history, with notable works such as The Cholas (2 volumes), The Pandyan Kingdom, Development of Religion in South India, History of South India, Life and Culture of Indian People, and An Advanced History of India.

• Although primarily focused on political history, Sastri also addressed the economics of South India and provided a reliable chronology of political developments from earlier times to the modern period.

• Sastri’s major contribution was the reconstruction of Chola history, drawing from inscriptions to explore aspects like agriculture, land tenure, taxation, industry, trade and commerce, and coinage.

• Scholars such as Appadorai and Mahalingam followed Sastri’s approach, contributing works on the social and economic conditions of South India, including Mahalingam’s important works on Pallava inscriptions and Early Indian Paleography.

• From the 1960s, American scholars began offering new interpretations of medieval South Indian history using modern methodologies, including Burton Stein, George Spencer, Kenneth Hall, Richard Kennedy, and Southal.

• Burton Stein made significant contributions with his work, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India (1980), introducing the segmentary state system theory.

• Stein challenged the idea of a centralized monarchy proposed by Sastri, arguing that medieval South India had a loosely knit segmentary state system, where political sovereignty was confined to core areas.

• In a segmentary state, ritual sovereignty existed in peripheral areas, and political control of the segments was held by local elites, particularly Brahmin elites, who allied with the dominant peasants in a voluntary alliance based on mutual benefits.

• This theory proposed that political sovereignty in medieval South India was decentralized and involved several levels of subordinate foci, organized beyond the center but united through royal authority and ideology.

• Burton Stein has been criticized for introducing the vague concept of ‘peasant economy’ as a substitute for the Marxian theory of mode of production.

• Richard Kennedy has questioned stratification within the peasantry in Stein’s theory.

• Some argue that Stein’s ideas resemble the old theory of stagnation of Indian society, which was earlier propagated by imperialist historians.

• Some of Stein’s translations of old inscriptions are not accepted by indigenous scholars.

• Stein has been criticized for not providing convincing evidence to support his segmentary state theory.

• George Spencer argued that the Chola state thrived on large-scale plunder rather than periodic revenue collection.

• Kenneth Hall, in his book ‘Trade and Statecraft in the Age of Cholas’, criticized the concept of a centralized state during the Chola period, arguing that there was no powerful bureaucracy or military organization in South India at the time.

• Professor Noboru Karashima, a Japanese historian, rejected Burton Stein’s segmentary theory in his work ‘South Indian History and Society’ (1984).

• Karashima used fresh approaches, such as quantification methods in studying inscriptions, to respond to the segmentary theory.

• Karashima’s argument is based on the idea that in a predominantly agricultural society, the control of land is central to the social formation and power structure.

• Karashima rejected Stein’s assumption that the Cholas lacked a bureaucracy and argued for a centralized power during the Chola period.

• Karashima considered the Chola period as one in which the formation of a centralized state was nearing completion.

• Karashima argued that feudalism could only have emerged in South India after the decline of the Chola rule.