Early State Formations

• Theories on the earliest formation of states in India are generally simplistic and lack depth, especially when compared to theories in other regions like Africa or Meso-America.
• The image of oriental despotism, projected by British administrators and historians in the 19th century, has persisted in discussions on early Indian states.
• The Marxist theory of the Asiatic mode of production has continued to be promoted despite contrary evidence, with Indian Marxist scholars’ attempts to refute it often being overlooked.
• The focus has been on the nature of the Asian state, but the process of state formation itself has not been adequately explored.
• Two main explanations for early state formation in India are:
  • Conquest theory: Suggests Aryans conquered indigenous populations, leading to state formation in the first millennium B.C.
  • Internal stratification theory: Argues that the emergence of castes marks the beginning of state formation.
• Recent research challenges both theories:
  • The idea of an Aryan race and systematic conquest is doubted, with the suggestion that Aryan should be seen as a cultural and linguistic concept linked to migration and technological diffusion.
  • The assumption that caste stratification equates to class stratification is questioned.
• The best approach to studying state formation in early India would be to reanalyze the process of state formation during the earliest historical periods, focusing on the transition from a non-state to a state society.
• A state is characterized by:
  • Political authority within territorial limits.
  • Delegation of power to functionaries.
  • Financing through revenue collected from people who contribute on an impersonal basis.
  • Integration of social segments by economic functions.
• The emergence of such a system in India is historically attested for the first time in the middle of the first millennium B.C., with a geographical focus in the central Ganges valley.
• Evidence from Vedic texts and archaeology indicates a society in the western Ganges valley at the start of the first millennium B.C., which was close to but not yet a state.
• In the central Ganges valley, chiefships gradually evolved into monarchical systems, with notable examples like the Kuru and Pancala.
• The Vrijjis in the central Ganges valley survived longer and may have evolved into states before falling to powerful monarchies.
• The analysis of these early forms is crucial for understanding state formation in India, as it was an ongoing process throughout the subcontinent.
• It has been suggested that there was a fear of anarchy in India, defined as the absence of a king or state, which justified the continual process of state formation.
• The emergence of the state in larger regions of the Indian subcontinent was not uniform but often began with small nuclei, making the change more dramatic.
• Studying these earliest forms may provide a pattern that was repeated, modified, or reorganized in later periods, with many constituents remaining similar.
• In the western Ganges valley, the transition from chiefship to kingship led to a condition of arrested development of the state, with some trends pointing towards state formation but others acting as impediments.
• Vedic society of the earlier first millennium B.C. was lineage-based, with the clan as the basic social unit.
• Territory and identity were tied to the clan, with clan names being given to territories like Gandhara, Madra, and Kekeya.
• These territories were termed janapada, meaning the area where the jana tribe placed its foot.
• The clan was made up of chiefs (rajanaya) and the rest of the clan (the vis). Land was originally owned in the name of the clan, and chiefs could not give it away without clan consent.
• The chief’s role was to protect the clan, which was vital in a society of pastoral cattle-keepers where rights over grazing lands and herd increase were crucial.
• Cattle raids were common, and a successful raid would lead to the division of spoils, with the chief and priests receiving the majority. The priests claimed their prayers ensured victory and communication with the gods.
• Pastoralism was not the primary occupation. The cultivation of wheat, barley, and rice grew in importance as clans settled in the western Ganges valley.
• Agriculture shifted the definition of wealth from cattle and horses to include land as an economic asset.
• The chief’s power base shifted from pastoral rights to territorial rights, with the rajanya becoming part of the wider ksatriya group (derived from ksatra meaning “power”).
• Ruling chiefs moved toward kingship through elaborate sacrificial rituals performed by brahmans, who legitimized their new status and improved their own position in the social hierarchy.
• The concentration of power in the hands of the ksatriya raja increased his control, but lesser chiefs retained their power independently, with minimal delegation of authority.
• The power of the king was weakened by the separation of sacred and temporal functions, with kingship often associated with fecundity and prosperity. Kings were sometimes seen as “rain-makers,” with unrighteous kings blamed for droughts.
• Support for kingship came from occasional tribute and prestations, with terms like bali, bhaga, and sulka eventually becoming terms for taxes. However, in the early period, these seemed to refer to tribute rather than regular taxes.
• The lesser members of the clan provided the tribute or prestations, and the texts describe the ksatriya as acting like the cattle of the clan.
• The vis or clan underwent a change, with the grihapati (head of the household) emerging as a distinct social entity.
• The grihapati is often identified as the vaisya, a term linked to the vis, and engaged in cattle rearing, agriculture, and trade.
• Grihapatis were likely the junior members of ruling lineages or wealthier clan members.
• The emergence of householding economy suggests that each patrilineal household was a unit, with cultivated land worked by family members and hired laborers or slaves.
• Handicrafts produced by household employees laid the foundation for exchange and trade.
• Laborers and slaves, referred to as sudras and dasas, were involved in these activities. These terms have unclear etymologies but may reflect the subordination of alien groups.
• The term dasa eventually became the technical term for slave.

The Theory of Varna

• Society became sufficiently stratified, necessitating a theoretical structure for explanation, expressed through the theory of varna, often translated as ‘caste’.
• One view suggests ritual ranking, where the Brahman is considered the purest and highest, with others ranked based on impurity, with the untouchables emerging later in the post-Vedic period.
• An alternative hypothesis argues that the varnas indicate class stratification, signaling the existence of the state, even though other state elements were not yet fully developed.
• The key criterion for differentiating each varna was closely tied to lineage and marriage alliances. Three patterns are evident:
  • Brahmans follow exogamy based on gotra subdivisions, where marriage within the subdivision is prohibited.
  • Ksatriyas and Vaisyas typically marry endogamously within the vamsa (lineage).
  • Sudra marriages are based on the notion of ‘mixed castes’ (sankirnajati), with the rank determined by the inter-caste combination of parentage.
• The reconstruction of Sudra castes origins remains speculative due to the infinite permutations of inter-caste combinations and inconsistent Sudra lists in the texts.
• Food taboos associated with each varna reinforce the concept of ritual ranking. In non-Brahman Buddhist and Jaina literature, the ranking of Ksatriyas is placed higher than Brahmans.
• The varna system primarily applied in regions dominated by Brahmanical values. Economic status was not always linked to varna, as there were impoverished Brahmans and wealthy Sudras.
• The unity and internal harmony of society were sought through the varna structure, with no formal legal procedures for redressing wrongs, relying instead on social pressures and expiatory rituals.
• The office of the Raja or chief provided external protection, with the senani (commander) closely associated with his retinue, highlighting the link between leadership and battle.
• Wealth was primarily consumed in prestigious rituals, and gifts exchanged in sacrificial ceremonies, such as Yajnas, established the status of both the chief and priests.
• Yajnas, vast sacrificial ceremonies that could last for months or years, functioned like a potlatch and established status among chiefs. The distribution of gifts by the yajamana (sacrifice holder) validated his status and that of the priests.
• These rituals, while legitimizing the chief’s authority, diverted wealth from more economically productive channels, but such investment changes occurred in the subsequent period.
• The story of Videgha Mathava illustrates the change of geographical location to the east, where agriculture, specifically wheat and rice, became more dominant as pastoralism faced difficulties in low-lying, wetter areas.
• Rice cultivation was common in Kosala (eastern Uttar Pradesh) and further east in north Bihar. Rice, a single-crop cultivation, required irrigation to ensure regular crops.
• The need for larger surpluses led to the extension of agriculture, with references to fields under rice expanding to hundreds of acres owned by wealthy landowners.
• Larger acreages of land were either held by clans or individual owners, with the latter regarded as private ownership with full rights of alienation.
• Irrigation was typically managed by the clan or local landowners, not the state, and this pattern persisted for centuries.
• The extension of plough agriculture and irrigation has often been seen as a sign of state formation, but the emergence of the state was not automatic, as evidenced by the co-existence of two political systems.
• In the central Ganges valley, two political systems co-existed: the gana-sangha (republics, oligarchies, or chiefdoms) and the monarchies, the latter becoming the norm for early Indian states.
• Chiefdoms existed in multiple regions of India into the first millennium A.D., but those in the central Ganges valley are most detailed in early Buddhist sources.
• Chiefdoms could be either single clans (e.g., the Sãkyas, Buddha’s clan) or confederacies of clans (e.g., the Vrijji confederacy).
• Ruling clans were of ksatriya status, owning land and sitting in clan assemblies; their members held higher social status than the hired labourers and slaves, who were excluded from political rights.
• Private property in land is not mentioned in chiefdoms, and conflicts like water disputes were resolved through group action by the ruling clans.
• Chiefdoms followed a complex system of administration, with members of ruling clans having equal status and discussing important matters in an assembly hall.
• Religious rituals in chiefdoms involved ancestral worship rather than brahmanical sacrifices, making the ksatriya clans’ status higher than the brahmans in the caste hierarchy.
• The varna system was largely irrelevant in these areas, with social functioning based on the ñati (lineage) and jäti (occupation-based group), which were divided into high and low.
• Chiefdoms often aligned with heterodox religious movements like Buddhism and Jainism, with figures such as Gautama Buddha (Sãkya) and Mahavira (Vrijji confederacy).
• The shift from chiefdoms to monarchies in places like Kosala and Magadha signified the emergence of fully formed states.
• Key changes leading to the rise of states included the growth of professional commercial groups and a peasant economy, breaking the limitations of the earlier prestation system.
• Urban centers often started as residences of ruling clans, but many transformed into commercial hubs, eventually becoming mahänagara (“great cities”) mentioned in Buddhist texts.
• Trade played a crucial role in the development of these urban centers, with the advent of coinage facilitating transactions and the rise of the banking profession.
• Grihapatis (household heads) gained wealth from agricultural expansion and eventually entered the banking profession, becoming sresthins (respected bankers).
• Brahmanical sacrifices remained important but became less central, as more wealth was diverted into trade and commerce, leading to a shift in economic focus.
• Brahman specialists were rewarded with land grants, and some of the wealthiest landowners were brahmans, despite the legal prohibition against them profiting from agriculture.
• The grihapati system led to the privatization of land, and peasants (formerly labourers) became tenants who paid a share of produce to the landowner.
• State involvement in agriculture increased, particularly in waste land settlement, enabling the state to claim ownership and expand its revenue through a direct relationship with cultivators.
• Over time, the südras were associated with peasantry, and the vaisyas (landowners) and südras became the primary tax payers, making taxation central to the state theory.