State Formation in Early Medieval India

• According to Lasson and John Burgess, a state is a community of people with an organized authority as the highest source of all force.

• A state consists of population (Praja), territory, and government.

• State and society are two interconnected terms when discussing the nature of a state.

• Different scholars define the Indian state of the early medieval period (mid-6th century to 13th century CE) in varied ways, based on their approaches and conceptual models.

• Marx’s notion of Oriental Despotism and Asiatic mode of production depicted Indian society as static, unchanging, and composed of communally landowning villages with the absolute power of the “oriental despot.”

• Scholars supporting this model argued that the relationship between the ruling class (funding irrigation) and peasants (with no private property) was based on appropriation of surplus through coercion.

• This model was later discarded by historians like RS Sharma and BD Chattopadhyaya due to its view of stagnation and unchangeability in Indian society.

• The Indian Historiographical model by nationalist historians views the early medieval state as unitary, centrally organized, and territorially defined, with a strong bureaucracy.

• Nationalist historians tried to establish a centralized empire in the early medieval period, presenting it as a continuation of ancient empires and negating the changes in the state during this time.

• Both models depict the state in medieval India as strong and centralized.

• In the medieval period, the feudal model dominated the socio-economic structure, where peasants lived on the patron’s property, paying him respect, labor, and a share of the product in exchange for military protection.

• Nobility held lands from the king in exchange for military service, and vassals were tenants of the nobles.

Feudal Model of State Formation

• A Marxist influenced model of Indian feudalism was proposed by several scholars.

• D.N. Jha’s edited volume, The Feudal Order, explores the cultural and ideological aspects of feudalism, focusing on the Bhakti movement as a form of Brahmanical domination involving total surrender and loyalty to a deity, which could be transferred to the feudal lord.

• D.D. Kosambi in his book An Introduction to the Study of Indian History conceptualized the growth of feudalism in India as a two-way process of administrative action and local evolution.

• Feudalism from above occurred when kings granted land rights to officials and Brahmans during the Common Era.

• Feudalism from below began when a class of landowners emerged at the village level, wielding power between the state and the local population.

• R.S. Sharma further developed the concept of feudalism in India in his book Indian Feudalism.

• Sharma argued that feudalism in India was characterized by a class of landlords and a class of subject peasantry, both living in a agrarian economy with a decline in trade, urbanism, and metal currency.

• Land grants to Brahmanas, temples, and monasteries began in the first century BC and increased through the Gupta period.

• These land grants were hereditary, leading to the rise of powerful landlords (such as samantas, ranas, rawatas, ranakas), who further assigned their lands to landowners (thakuras) in a process known as subinfeudation.

• Beneficiaries of these grants grew politically powerful, acting independently, while state power declined and sovereignty became nominal.

• The economic essence of Indian feudalism was the rise of landed intermediaries, leading to the enslavement of the peasantry through restrictions on mobility, increased forced labor (vishti), tax burdens, and subinfeudation.

• R.S. Sharma explained that land grants weakened state sovereignty due to two main reasons:

  • Decline in long-distance trade, such as with the Roman Empire (ending in the 3rd century AD) and Silk trade with Iran and Byzantium (ending in the 6th century).

  • The paucity of coins during the period led to the state’s inability to pay officials in cash, leading to the practice of land grants as a mode of payment.

• Social crisis also contributed to the increase in land grants. Rural people were oppressed with taxes and forced labor, leading them to stop paying taxes.

• Without taxes, the state couldn’t pay priests, administrators, army, and other officials, hence land grants were adopted on a large scale in the 4th-5th century as an alternative means of payment.

• B.N.S. Yadava added details to Prof. Sharma’s work by studying northern India in the early medieval period, particularly the twelfth century.

• He pointed to the carving of independent principalities by military landlords who received land grants and grew immensely powerful, leading to the emergence of smaller empires, which caused instability.

• Criticism: The feudalism theory generated considerable debate about the nature of early medieval social formation.

• D.C. Sircar criticized Marxist historians for their inability to distinguish landlordism and tenancy in India from feudalism.

• B.D. Chattopadhyay questioned the theory of urban decay and decline of trade in the post-Gupta period.

• Harbans Mukhia proposed arguments against the Indian Feudalism theory of R.S. Sharma.

• Mukhia believed that feudalism could not have developed through state action alone.

• He argued that there was an absence of serfdom in early medieval Indian history.

• The Indian peasantry was relatively free and not tied to their lords, unlike in Europe.

• The Indian peasant controlled the process of production, owned the means of production (like tools), and made decisions about what to sow and when.