Introduction

• Prof. R.S. Sharma is the main exponent of the theory of feudalism in ancient India, specifically in the post-Gupta period.

• Feudalism is used to characterize a socioeconomic formation based on a predominantly agrarian economy, with a class of landlords and a class of servile peasantry.

• In this system, landlords extract surplus through social, religious, or political methods, known as extra-economic means.

• The Marxist view of feudalism is similar, considering features like serfdom, scalar property, and sovereignty as part of the Western European version of feudalism.

• R.S. Sharma emphasizes that land was the primary means of production, with peasants holding inferior rights and landlords holding superior rights over the land.

• Land grants provide evidence that landlords exercised significant control over the means of production in India.

• Hierarchical control over land emerged, particularly from the 8th century, leading to the creation of graded types of landlords, different from actual tillers of the soil.

• In the feudal system of production, landlords shared agricultural surplus (rent) in labour, cash, or kind, often in a patron-client system between the peasant and the landlord.

• Unlike in the West, India’s feudalism was not based on the rise of landed magnates or the decomposition of the slave mode of production. Instead, it was linked to the declining control of the peasant over the unit of production and restricted access to communal agrarian resources.

• Feudalism was often assumed to be linked to freedom, but in India, exploitation of peasants was more through general control exercised by landed intermediaries rather than serfdom.

• In India, where land was abundant and fertile, there was no scope for the rise of serfdom or forced labour.

• The practice of land grants led to the emergence of a landed aristocracy in the post-Gupta period, but private lands also existed, and the state sometimes purchased lands for donation.

• Land was commonly assigned by rulers to Brahmins, religious institutions, vassals for military service, family members, and even officers, resulting in various types of rights and interests over land.

• The state was considered the owner of all land, but those in possession of land were regarded as its owners, subject to land tax and the state’s right to reclaim land.

• The rise of samantas (overlords) and the landed aristocracy complicated the idea of royal ownership of land, with monarchs and overlords granting land in their territories and estates.

• The rights over land held by overlords and samantas depended on their actual power and prestige.

• There is evidence of private ownership of land by the aristocracy, as seen in law books and inscriptions.

• Sources like the Rajatarangini reveal a state of insecurity and violence, which likely affected the land rights of peasants.

• There was significant growth of dependent peasantry and collective rights over pastures in the post-Gupta period.

• Scholars supporting the emergence of the feudal system in the post-Gupta period emphasize the role of increasing land grants and changes in the socio-economic structure, presenting a different view of the land ownership pattern.

• The subject of land ownership in the post-Gupta period is complex and vexed, as contemporary sources offer conflicting accounts.

• Medhatithi mentions that the King is the “Lord of the soil” but also states that the land belonged to whoever made it fit for cultivation by clearing it.

• Prof. Lallanji Gopal interprets Medhatithi’s views, suggesting that when Medhatithi speaks of the King as the master of the soil, he refers to the sovereignty of the King rather than the King’s legal ownership of all cultivable land.

• Literary works and inscriptions from the period hint at individual ownership of land.

• Some inscriptions record land grants and land sales by private individuals, supporting the evidence of private ownership and rights.

• Certain inscriptions mention fields owned by cultivators, described as kautamba-kshctra, owned by individuals as sakta and tilled by others as prakrsta or krsta.

• Increasing land grants extended theoretical ownership of land, including grasslands, pastures, water reservoirs, and groves, to the donees.

• The growing number of land grants reflects an increasing claim of the King over land, sometimes transferring existing cultivators to the donees.

• The practice of rewarding state officers with land grants led to the rise of a landed aristocracy, granting those individuals some claim to ownership.

• The granting of villages to vassals, officials, Brahmins, and religious institutions created a new class of landlords.

• These land rights could be transferred, bought, and sold, like other commodities, increasing the power of feudal chiefs.

• The growing influence of feudal chiefs weakened the claims of cultivators over the land, imposing various restrictions on peasants.

• Unlike European serfs, Indian cultivators were not tied to the soil and could migrate if oppressed.

• Some inscriptions from northern India indicate that Kings claimed some form of ownership over the inhabitants of villages, suggesting a system similar to the manorial system.

• The Chandella grants describe villages carrying rights over artisans, cultivators, and merchants living within them.

• This system was not uniform across northern India.

Development of Feudalism in North India

• The political essence of feudalism in India was based on the organization of the administrative structure around land, while its economic essence lay in the institution of serfdom, where peasants were attached to the land held by land intermediaries.

• These intermediaries were placed between the king and the actual tillers, who had to pay rent in land and labour to them.

• According to R.S. Sharma, the system was based on a self-sufficient economy, where things were produced mainly for the local use of peasants and lords, not for the market.

• The land grant system was the central factor in transforming ancient Indian society into medieval society.

• The practice of making land grants to Brahmins, monks, and priests began in the post-Maurya period, especially from the Gupta period.

• The land grants emerged due to a social crisis affecting the ancient social order, with the varna system based on the producing activities of peasants and labourers.

• The tax collected from the Vaishyas was used by the king to pay officials and soldiers, but a deep social crisis in the 3rd and 4th centuries led to efforts to resolve it.

• The lower orders attempted to arrogate the status functions of the higher orders due to heavy taxes and oppression, seeking protection from the landed elite.

• To address the crisis, land grants were made to priests and officials as salaries and remuneration, shifting the responsibility of tax collection and law enforcement to the beneficiaries.

• Implanting Brahmins in conquered tribal areas taught the tribal people the Brahminical way of life, the importance of obeying the king, and paying taxes.

• Initially, land grants were temporary, but by the Gupta period, they became hereditary.

• Earlier grants mainly affected the right of land usage, but the new grants provided certain privileges and administrative rights to landowners, allowing them to perform legal functions.

• The king exempted landowners from admitting royal functionaries to their lands, meaning royal troops could not enter, and government officers and district police could not interfere.

• Feudal landowners were entitled to administer justice, acting as local governors and granting portions of their land for service without seeking approval from the ruler.

• Two significant features of such grants from the 5th century AD were the transfer of revenue sources and the surrender of police and administrative functions.

• Some grants from the 4th and 5th centuries show that Brahmins were granted the right to enjoy the treasury and deposits of villages, symbolizing the transfer of royal ownership over mines, an important indicator of the king’s sovereignty.

• Donors not only abandoned their revenue rights but also the right to govern the inhabitants of the granted villages.

• The Gupta period contains several instances of land grants to Brahmins by feudatories in central India, where residents had to pay taxes to the donees and obey their commands.

• Other post-Gupta grants issued royal commands to officials and soldiers, instructing them not to disturb the Brahmins.

• The widespread practice of making land grants during the Gupta period led to the rise of Brahmin feudatories who performed administrative functions independently of royal officers.

• These grants helped create powerful intermediaries with considerable economic and political power.

• The number of land-owning Brahmins increased, with some gradually shifting focus from their priestly functions to managing land, making secular functions more important than religious ones.

• As a result of land grants to Brahmins, the centralized control of the Maurya state gave way to decentralization during the post-Maurya and Gupta periods.