Origins and First Phase – Indian Feudalism

Origins and First Phase

Indian Feudalism

Chapter – 1

Harshit Sharma

Alumnus (BHU)

Contact

The term feudalism is difficult to define precisely, with varying definitions based on historical context and perspective.
Some scholars apply it to periods such as the interregnum in Egypt (2475-2160 B.C.) and the Chou period in China (c. 1122-250 B.C.), while it is most commonly associated with Europe from the 5th to 15th century A.D.
The focus of feudalism can either be its legal aspect, represented by the relationship between lord and vassal, or its economic aspect, seen in the manorial system.
The political essence of feudalism in Europe was based on the organization of administration around land, while its economic essence involved serfdom, with peasants bound to the land and paying rent in kind and labor.
Feudalism created a self-sufficient economy, where goods were produced locally for the use of peasants and their lords rather than for market exchange.
In India, feudalism began to emerge from the post-Maurya period, especially from Gupta times.
A key development in this transition was the practice of granting land to brahmanas, which was reinforced by Dharma Shastras, Epic, and Puranas.
Early Pāli texts and epigraphic records mention land grants to brahmanas by rulers of Kosala and Magadha but did not involve the abandonment of administrative rights.
The first instance of relinquishing administrative rights occurred with the land grants to Buddhist monks by the Sātavāhana ruler Gautamiputra Satakarni in the 2nd century A.D..
Land grants made to brahmanas from the 5th century A.D. were characterized by the transfer of revenue sources and the surrender of police and administrative functions.
Early land grants retained royal control over specific resources like salt, but later grants from rulers like Pravarasena II Vākātaka in the 5th century A.D. involved the surrender of control over nearly all resources, including pasturage, hides, charcoal, and mines.
The Raghuvamsa mentions that the mines were a form of royal wages for protecting the land.
Later grants also transferred the king’s ownership of mines and hidden treasures, marking the loss of the king’s sovereignty.
Feudatories during the Gupta period granted settled villages to brahmanas, where the inhabitants, including cultivators and artisans, were instructed to obey the brahmanas and pay taxes to them.
In post-Gupta times, royal commands were issued to government officials and soldiers to not disturb the brahmanas in their granted lands.
In the 5th century A.D., rulers still retained the right to punish thieves, a key aspect of state power.
As feudalism progressed, the king surrendered not only the right to punish criminals but also rights over matters of family, property, and personal disputes.
In Central and Western India, royal donors granted brahmanas the right to try cases in the donated villages.
The term abhyantarasiddhi appears in these grants, indicating the adjudication of internal disputes within the village, making the villages more self-dependent.
The technical term sa-danda-das-aparadhah was used in later northern Indian grants, limited to criminal cases, while abhyantarasiddhi extended to both civil and criminal cases.
The result of these powers was that feudal grants allowed brahmanas to make their holdings practically independent of royal authority.
Taxation system and coercive power based on the army are two vital elements of state power. If abandoned, the state power disintegrates.
Grants to brahmanas led to the abandonment of these elements, breaking the integrity of the state.
Land grants to priests can be traced back to pre-Maurya and Maurya times. Kautilya recommended land grants with freedom from taxes and punishments.
In the Gupta period, the position of land grants changed. Buddhaghosa‘s commentary on brahmadeyya grants indicates they carried judicial and administrative rights, reflecting a later period, not the pre-Maurya era.
The widespread practice of granting land in the Gupta period led to the rise of brahmana feudatories, who had administrative power almost independently of royal authority.
By around A.D. 1000, the Turks recognized the rise of powerful intermediaries, and brahmanas increasingly focused on land management, with secular functions becoming more important than religious ones.
The decentralization of state functions, like tax collection, forced labor, and law and order, shifted from royal officials to the priestly and later warrior classes.
In Gupta Bengal and Central India, grants conferred perpetual revenue rights to grantees, though they could not alienate or grant land to others.
An early epigraphic record from Indore (A.D. 397) shows a feudatory chief approving a religious grant, implying some feudatories could make religious grants without royal consent.
The Indore grant allowed the grantee to enjoy and cultivate the land, but under the conditions of the brahmadeya grant, marking the beginning of subinfeudation.
Subinfeudation began in Central India in the 5th century A.D., later seen in grants from the Valabhi rulers in the 6th and 7th centuries.
The heart of the Gupta Empire (modern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Bengal) saw grants made with royal consent, while grants in the outlying regions involved chiefs with nominal allegiance to the empire.
By the end of the Gupta rule, feudatory chiefs began making grants without royal consent.
Vākātaka king Pravarasena II‘s grant to brahmanas imposed secular obligations, such as not conspiring against the king, committing theft, or waging war, ensuring the priests adhered to the established order.
Priests were expected to maintain law and order, not through military force, but by encouraging the people to follow social and political norms.
There is no direct epigraphic evidence of grants to military or administrative officers in the Gupta period, though legal texts suggest land grants were used to pay officials.
Kautilya outlined a decimal system of territorial organization, with officials such as pāñcāgrami, dāśāgrami, gopa, sthānika, and samahartā, where land grants were used to pay officials in charge of villages.
Manu Smriti modified Kautilya’s provisions, recommending land grants for officials in charge of territorial units to collect royal dues and maintain law and order.
Gupta inscriptions do not mention these practices, but later Pala inscriptions show officials like gramapati (village head) and dāśāgramika (head of ten villages), similar to the roles outlined in Manu Smriti.
In earlier times, the state directly collected taxes through officials or village headmen. Kautilya’s system involved keeping a census of households for taxation purposes.
By the Gupta period, feudatories shifted the burden of collecting taxes, reducing the need for the state to maintain household records.
Chinese pilgrims, like Fa-hsien in the 5th century, noted that in the heart of the Gupta Empire, families were not registered, indicating a weakening of the central authority in taxation and executive administration.
Hsüan Tsang, in the 7th century, observed that official requirements were few, and families were not registered, signaling further decentralization and the rise of intermediaries in tax collection.
The lack of direct state involvement in tax collection and the shift to intermediaries indicates the feudalization of the state apparatus in the Gupta period.
In the post-Gupta period, there was a significant change in the payment of officers employed by the state.
According to Kautilya, during the Maurya period, most state officers were paid in cash, with the maximum salary being 48,000 ganas and the minimum 60 paras, likely per month.
Kautilya’s system involved paying royal functionaries high and low in cash, though some high priestly functionaries (like rtvig, ācārya, and purohita) were also granted brahmadeya land in new settlements.
In the new settlements, functionaries of middle rank (like elephant-trainers, physicians, and horse-trainers) were assigned salaries of 2000 pagas and recommended land grants, which could not be sold or disposed of.
Thus, while some officers in the Kautilyan state received land grants, most were paid in cash.
In the early centuries of the Christian era, the law-book of Manu (compiled in the 2nd century) recommended the payment of fiscal officers through land grants.
In the 5th century, Brhaspati mentioned that kings could grant land to those who pleased them, such as for services and valor, a practice repeated by Gupta lawgivers.
There is unclear evidence regarding the mode of payment to Gupta officers, though Chinese sources hint at the possibility of land grants for high officers.
Fa-hsien and Beal translate the Chinese evidence about officers differently: one suggests regular salaries, while the other suggests allotted revenues or emoluments.
By the time of Harsavardhana, high officers were not paid in cash; instead, royal revenues were earmarked for the endowment of public servants, with land grants assigned for their personal support.
Hsiian Tsang states that under Harsa, high officers, including governors, ministers, magistrates, and other officials, received land for personal support.
In the Gupta period, villages were granted to secular parties to manage for religious purposes, such as under the Satavahanas and Kusāņas, where cash endowments were given to guilds for religious needs.
An early example of land grants for religious purposes is found in Central India (A.D. 496-7), where Jayanātha granted a village as an agrahāra to a scribe and his descendants for religious management.
The scribe was responsible for ensuring inhabitants paid bhaga bhoga, kara, hiranya, etc., to the beneficiaries, while the donor retained the right to punish thieves.
Other grants by Sarvanātha (Jayanātha’s son) in A.D. 512-3 show villages granted to secular parties for managing religious purposes, with administrative immunity from troops.
The ultimate beneficiaries of these grants were temples, for the worship of deities and the maintenance of their shrines, but secular parties managed the fiscal and administrative rights.
A half-village grant by Sarvanātha to Chodugomika followed similar terms, with the endowment used for the worship and repairs of Pistapurikadevi’s temple.
Another grant made in A.D. 533-4 by Sarvanātha bestowed two villages to a secular chief, Pulindabhata, who granted them for the worship of Pistapurikadevi.
The land grants were initially made with secular charters, and later transferred for religious purposes.
Secular assignments of land in the Gupta period may have been more common, but they were not often recorded on stone or copper due to their lack of religious connection.
Inscriptions from the post-Gupta period refer to secular assignees, with examples from the Ashrafpur copper-plate grants (7th-8th centuries) in East Bengal.
The grants show that plots of land given to the head of the Buddhist monastery were alienated from previous holders, as indicated by terms like bhojyamāna or bhujyamanaka.
In some cases, the same land was transferred from multiple holders to the monastery of Buddhist preceptor Samghamitra.
Specific instances show land grants made to a queen, a woman for services to the king, and a sāmanta for loyalty to the overlord.
These land grants were likely service grants and could be resumed either at the end of the term or for other reasons, without compensation for the previous holders.
This indicates that in the 7th-8th centuries in East Bengal, some services were remunerated by land grants for a limited period.
Religious services were paid via land grants, and secular services were likely paid with cash, a practice which declined due to coin scarcity in the post-Gupta period.
The Kusāņas and Satavāhanas used coins for payments, but as their use declined, both religious and secular services shifted to land grants.
Inscriptions support the practice of land grants for religious services, but raise the question of how officers were maintained.
Gupta administrative officers had titles like bhogika and bhogapatika, suggesting they were assigned land to enjoy revenues rather than exercise authority over subjects.
The bhogika title was sometimes held alongside the office of amatya, and was generally hereditary, with several generations of bhogikas mentioned in inscriptions.
Bhogikas became powerful overlords, often free from central authority control.
A bhogapatika was listed in the Vardhamāna hukti during Vijayasena’s rule (A.D. 507), likely as a jāsīrdārs or feudal functionary.
The Harsacarita mentions complaints against bhogapatis oppressing villagers, though these complaints were not believed by Bana.
Another feudal title in Harsavardhana’s time was mahābhogi, not commonly mentioned in northern Indian inscriptions but found in some epigraphs from Orissa.
Mahābhogis were likely warriors or retainers living on state bounties, possibly similar to medieval European retainers.
The Kalacuri inscriptions introduced a bhogikapalaka (superintendent of bhogikas), which might indicate a feudal system of land management.
Bhogikapalaka sometimes held the position of mahāfīlupali (head of the elephant force), although the exact relationship between these titles is unclear.
The titles bhogika, bhogapatika, and bhogikapalaka reflect the feudal system in the Gupta period.
The idea that land or territory was meant for the enjoyment of those who held it was prominent in the Gupta period and has its roots in earlier Vedic texts, which stated that vaiśyas and śūdras were to serve the higher varnas.
This idea is also found in Ashoka’s inscriptions, where territories (janapada) were divided into ātāras, meaning territories to be enjoyed by their holders, similar to modern districts.
Under the Satavāhanas, bhuktis (territorial units) continued to be used as terms for administrative divisions, later appearing in Kalacuri and Gupta inscriptions.
Bhukti referred to territories meant for the enjoyment of the governor, which became an administrative term in later periods.
The term bhukti appears in Samudragupta’s Allahabad Stone Pillar inscription, where it indicates regions under the control of local rulers.
The term bhukti evolved in the Gupta period, meaning an area for the enjoyment of the governor, and used alongside bhoga, which meant enjoyment of territory.
In a Central India inscription (A.D. 508-9), bhoga refers to territory enjoyed by the Gupta feudatory Sarvanātha under nominal imperial authority.
Visayas (districts) in North India and Bengal were likely intended for the enjoyment of district officers.
The phrase anuvahamanake visaye suggests that a district’s contribution to the enjoyment of its governor might include maintaining forces like elephants, cavalry, and infantry.
In the Maurya empire, rājukas (divisional heads) were appointed by the emperor, while kumarāmātyas (Gupta counterparts) were appointed by the uparika.
An inscription from Kumāra Gupta (A.D. 448) hints at a closer relationship between a district head and the Gupta emperor, but the specific roles of kumarāmātya and bhattavaka in Bengal remain unclear.
Bhattavaka seems to imply devotion to the emperor’s feet, reflecting the feudal loyalty in the Gupta system.
The head of the visaya in the heart of the Gupta empire was appointed directly by the Gupta emperor, as seen in the case of Sarvanüga, visayapati of Antarvedi, between the Ganga and Yamunā.
However, the terms of appointment for district officers like the visayapati focused more on the enjoyment of territory rather than administration or welfare of the subjects.
Outside the empire’s heart, district officers were more devoted to their immediate lords than to the Gupta emperor.
Despite the seeming autonomy of these officers, they were not completely independent feudal barons.
Land grants typically involved multiple royal officials, with some cases listing up to nine officers connected to land grants in villages.
In a Gujarat inscription (A.D. 541), a feudatory mahāsāmanta Sangamasimha orders subordinates like rājasthānīyas, uparikas, kumārāmātyas, cātas, and bhatas to carry out the grant.
The uparika was ranked higher than the visayapati and kumārāmātya, suggesting that the ruler (a feudatory) tried to assert authority over visayas, even though the latter were appointed by the uparika.
Over time, the kumārāmātya title became a feudal rank, particularly in the time of Harsa.
Harsacarita mentions amātyas as murdhābhisiktā, indicating a high rank of honour.
Agarwala suggests that the term amātya could mean companion or sakha to the prince, but it’s better understood as a high rank of distinction.
The title kumārāmātya originally referred to a high-ranking officer but evolved into a feudal title, indicating that it was lower in rank than amātya.
Kumārāmātyas in the Gupta period included mantrins, senapatis, and visayapatis, suggesting the title served as a cadre of officers for high functions.
The kumārāmātya was likely a feudal rank of honour, with possible fiscal privileges that are not fully clear.
By the 6th century A.D., kumārāmātyas acted independently; an example is Nandana, who made a land grant without the overlord’s permission.
The increasing hereditary nature of district and divisional officer posts from the Gupta period weakened central authority and contributed to feudalization.
The practice of hereditary offices is evident from Gupta inscriptions, where posts of mantrin, saciva, and amātya were passed down through families.
In Central India, five generations of a family held amātya positions, demonstrating the growing hereditary nature of administrative roles.
The surname dalta of uparikas in charge of Puṇdravardhana’s bhukti suggests a family connection.
The emperor’s power to dismiss officials was theoretical, but in practice, officials and their descendants retained power due to local strength.
The practice of holding multiple offices by a single person increased their influence.
From the 7th century A.D., officials began using pompous feudal titles like mahāsāmanta (example: Bhāskarvarman’s treasurer Divākaraprabha).
The term paücamahasabda was used to describe high-ranking officials and vassals, who had earned this honor through significant services to their overlord.
The Rāstrakūta chief Nannarāja (631-2) claimed the paücamahasabda title, signaling his newfound rulership and personal dignity.
The paücamahasabda title signified the use of five musical instruments, including horn, conch, drum, and bell of victory, which evolved from a paramount power privilege to a vassal privilege.
In the Gupta period, village headmen began acting as semi-feudal officers, concerned with their own gains rather than the state’s interests.
The āyuktaka, a village official, lived off a share of the village’s agricultural produce, likely sending part of it to the king.
Unlike the Maurya period, where forced labor served the state, the āyuktaka could now impose forced labor on peasant women for his personal needs, not for the ruler’s benefit.
During the Gupta period, a new type of village emerged, primarily inhabited by wicked and powerful people, who did not own fields but lived off others’ lands, forming a class of royal favourites.
The process of conquest played a significant role in the growth of feudal relations, where smaller chiefs were reduced to subordination, paying regular tributes and performing homage to the conqueror.
Samudra Gupta’s conquests led to the establishment of these feudal relations on a larger scale, influencing his successors.
By the 6th century A.D., the term sāmanta was used for conquered feudatories and was seen as a title for vassals.
The term sāmanta originally referred to independent neighbours in the Maurya period, but its meaning evolved, especially in post-Maurya law-books.
In the third quarter of the 5th century A.D., the term sāmanta was used in South India to mean vassal, seen in a Pallava inscription of Santivarman (c. A.D. 455-70).
By the last quarter of the 5th century, sāmanta was used in Southern and Western India in the sense of vassal, with mentions in grants and inscriptions.
In North India, sāmanta appeared in the Bengal inscription and the Barabar Hill Cave Inscription of the Maukhari chief Anantavarmari, dated around A.D. 500, when the Maukhari chiefs were subjugated by the Guptas.
The Mandasor Stone Pillar Inscription (c. A.D. 525-535) mentions the subjugation of sāmantas by Yasodharman, covering most of Northern India.
By the 6th century A.D., rulers of Valabhi held the titles sāmanta-mahārāja and mahāsāmanta.
The term sāmanta gradually expanded from defeated chiefs to include royal officials, particularly after the Kalacuri-Cedi era (A.D. 597), replacing uparikas and kumāramatyas.
Samudra Gupta’s feudatories were not directly called sāmantas, but their obligations included paying tributes, giving daughters in marriage, and performing homage to the emperor.
The Allahabad Inscription outlines that conquered princes were required to pay tributes, carry out royal orders, and render homage to the conqueror.
The Kadambari mentions five ways of saluting the king by the defeated sāmantas, including bowing and placing their heads at the emperor’s feet.
The defeated kings, reduced to sāmantas, had to pay annual tributes and pay homage by performing acts of humiliation, like removing crowns or serving as bearers of fans.
Bāṇa’s Harsacarita describes how defeated vassals served in humiliating positions in the court, including holding chowries, acting as door-keepers, and reciting auspicious words.
Defeated kings also had to present daughters or minor princes to the conqueror, possibly to train them in imperial traditions and ensure loyalty.
In times of peace, samantas were also involved in religious grants, as shown in the Vappaghosavāta grant by Nārāyaņabhadra, a 6th-century sāmanta.
The first half of the 7th century saw sāmanta Indrarāja making grants without reference to his overlord, indicating increasing autonomy.
Social obligations of sāmantas at the court included participating in festivals, playing games, drawing portraits of the king, and solving puzzles.
The wives of sāmantas also attended court on festive occasions, indicating the social connection between vassals and their overlords.
Bāṇa mentions various types of vassals, such as sāmanta, mahasāmanta, āptasāmanta, pradhanasāmanta, śatru-mahāsāmanta, and pratisāmanta.
The mahasāmanta was a higher rank than the sāmanta, and the śatru-mahāsāmanta referred to a conquered enemy chief.
Āptasāmantas likely were those who willingly accepted vassalage, while pradhanasāmantas were the most trusted by the emperor, whose advice was highly regarded.
The term pratisāmanta possibly referred to a vassal opposed to or a hostile vassal.
The usage of the term sāmanta was well-established, with at least six kinds of vassals.
Princes were categorized into three groups: 1) śatru-mahāsāmantas, who served the emperor respectfully; 2) mahipālas, who were forced to submit to the emperor’s prestige; 3) those attracted by the emperor’s affection or anurāga.
Anurakta mahāsāmantas were possibly vassals with a strong emotional attachment to their overlord.
A key duty of the rājās and sāmantas was to provide military aid to the emperor.
Hārṣa’s army, described by Hiuen Tsang, was formed largely by troops supplied by the vassals, showing a reliance on feudal militia.
This army was huge, much larger than that of the Mauryas, highlighting the change in the structure of military forces in the post-Maurya period.
The Aihole Inscription also mentions that Hārṣa relied on troops from his vassals during conflicts.
It is unclear if sāmantas were bound to Hārṣa by revenue grants from villages, as there is no mention of such obligations in the available sources.
Agrahārikas, who owned villages, seemed to have owed no obligation to their overlord but still showed respect, as seen when they welcomed Hārṣa with gifts.
Duties of sāmantas were not clearly defined in law-books but were reflected in contemporary literary works.
The central authority weakened as royal monopoly over the possession of horses and elephants diminished.
In the pre-Maurya period, elephants and horses were primarily owned by the king, and individuals were not allowed to possess these animals.
Megasthenes states that in the Maurya period, these animals were the exclusive property of the king, with royal stables for horses and elephants.
By the Gupta period, private ownership of elephants and horses was common, though superintendents were still mentioned as important officials.
Narada law-book suggested that owners of elephants and horses were exempted from fines for mischief caused by these animals, as they were considered protectors of the king’s subjects.
In the Gupta period, owning elephants and horses was seen as a menace to royal power, especially when high functionaries possessed them.
The Amandaka Nitisara recommends vigilance over the elephants and horses of high officials to prevent them from threatening royal authority.
Gautama law-book imposed fines on the owners of horses if the animals caused damage, but Narada provided exceptions for owners of elephants and horses as they were seen as protectors of the people.
The number of elephants owned by chiefs and princes indicated their relative status, with some kings possessing hundreds of elephants.
According to a Chinese account (A.D. 727), Central Indian kings owned 900 elephants, with other large chiefs owning 200 to 300 elephants.
Feudal practices like commendation were rare in India compared to Europe, though examples exist, such as an inscription from Hazaribagh where villages sought protection from a merchant prince.
In this case, the merchant was installed as the rājā of the villages, indicating a feudal contract similar to European practices.
The term avalagana referred to military service or attendance on a lord, and in this context, it signified a feudal obligation.
The inscription involving Udayamāna and the avalagana suggests the practice of subinfeudation, with Udayamāna installing his brother as a sub-rājā.
This case exemplifies the weakening of central authority due to the feudal system and subinfeudation.
Nūrada advises that those who oppose the king and prevent the payment of taxes should be dealt with by similar people, suggesting officials under the direct control of the state were incapable of handling powerful individuals resembling feudal intermediaries.
The economic developments leading to the origin of feudalism are difficult to determine, especially regarding whether lands granted to brāhmaṇas and temples were cultivated or uncultivated.
An inscription from the Sātavāhana period in the Western Deccan (A.D. 130) mentions that if the land granted to Buddhist monks was not cultivated, the village was not to be settled.
The Iksvāku inscriptions (3rd century A.D.) in Andhra Pradesh show that the ruler granted land in hala (a measure of land for plough cultivation), indicating plough cultivation was common.
The term khila and aprahata in Gupta land grants of North and Eastern Bengal typically referred to uncultivated or waste lands, but evidence shows these lands were often cultivated and settled.
The Baigram Copper-plate inscription (A.D. 448) and the Damodarpur Copper-plate inscription (A.D. 543) show that terms like khila-kṣetra and aprahata were used conventionally for lands that were cultivated.
Land grants made in Central India (by feudatories) differed from those in Bengal, as grants in Bengal were for plots of land, while in Central India, villages were granted.
In Central India, grants often included administrative immunities and were made to brāhmaṇas for religious duties, with terms like bhūmicchidranyaya used as legal fictions.
Subinfeudation is evident in the Damodarpur land grants, where grants were passed on to other priests with the sanction of the king.
Kalacuri-Cedi era inscriptions (5th to 7th century A.D.) use terms like bhūmicchidranyaya for settled villages, often with irrigation facilities and exemptions from taxes, suggesting that these lands were cultivated.
The phraseology of the grants often includes the exemption from gifts, forced labor, and taxes, reinforcing that these were settled areas rather than uncultivated lands.
Feudal practices similar to medieval Europe are seen in land grants made to brāhmaṇas and other recipients in Gupta and post-Gupta India, although the recipients were often few and from the priestly order.
In some cases, the order regarding grants was conveyed to brāhmaṇas and other villagers, indicating that brāhmaṇas were not newcomers to these villages but residents with land grants.
The terms khila, aprahata, bhūmicchidranyaya, and avanirandhra used in land grants from the 5th to 7th century A.D. must be interpreted carefully, as these terms were often used in legal fictions rather than describing the true nature of the land.
Grant practices in these periods were not always consistent, as terms may be used for formal purposes rather than reflecting the actual land conditions.
The practice of granting land in Bengal extended the area under cultivation and rural settlement, especially during Gupta and post-Gupta times.
Land grants to brāhmaṇas were significant in northern and eastern Bengal, as well as in other parts like Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Mahārāstra, where settled villages and cultivated land were the focus of the gifts.
Grants to pioneering brāhmaṇas began in the pre-Maurya period, continuing into the Maurya period, where land was often granted as tax-free to certain sections of brāhmaṇas.
The Arthashastra suggests that these grants were meant to extend the area of land under cultivation and found new settlements.
From the Gupta period onwards, deliberate efforts were made to reclaim barren or virgin lands through land grants, especially to priests and temples to make lands arable.
A 6th-century Bengal inscription mentions a land grant that involved pits and beasts, which was considered of no use to the king but could be cultivated for both religious and economic benefits.
The Tippera Copper-plate grant of A.D. 650 indicates a policy of reclaiming forest areas for cultivation in Eastern India, where brāhmaṇas were granted shares of land in forested regions.
The forest area was described as having bushes, creepers, and wild animals; however, the real purpose was to open it up for cultivation and settlement.
Similar processes of colonization through land grants can be seen in Western India, such as in the Kaira plates forged after the 6th century, granting shares of land to brāhmaṇas in villages.
In settled areas, land grants marked an advance in agriculture, with different methods of cultivation, though basic agricultural knowledge was likely shared across regions.
Bana describes cultivation in Srikantha Janapada, mentioning the use of ploughing, mounds of paddy, and irrigation, showcasing the advanced methods of agriculture in these regions.
The use of curd, molasses, and sugar to welcome Harsa indicates more developed agricultural practices than those in primitive forest villages in areas like the Vindhya region.
Harsacarita describes a region with black soil that didn’t use ploughs or oxen, instead relying on primitive agriculture and small plots of land.
The practice of Jhum cultivation, where forests were burned to clear land for crops, was likely prevalent among aboriginal communities in the Vindhya and Tippera regions.
Land grants may have played a role in introducing better agricultural methods in the Vindhya region, superseding the primitive forest-based cultivation.
Agraharas (land grants for religious establishments) in forest areas likely contributed to spreading advanced cultivation techniques, possibly including ploughing and irrigation.
Epigraphic land grants provide insight into fiscal and administrative concessions but do not offer precise data on the land granted to temples and brāhmaṇas.
The extant epigraphic records are likely only a fragment of the original archives due to natural and artificial ravages in Northern India.
We can form a general impression of the land held by religious beneficiaries in the 7th century.
The monastery of Nalanda enjoyed the revenue from 200 villages; Valabhī likely had an equal number attached to its education center.
Harsa’s copper plates grant only two villages, but the Valabhī plates refer to at least 10 villages, and the Tippera Inscription of Lokanātha mentions a forest region supporting over 100 brāhmaṇas.
Bana mentions that Harsa granted 100 villages (about 10,000 acres) to brāhmaṇas in Madhyadeśa.
Kādambarī refers to scribes drafting thousands of fasanas (charters), indicating numerous land grants to brāhmaṇas.
Harsacarita mentions agraharikas, both fake and genuine, but does not specify the number of villages they held.
Despite possible exaggerations, Bana’s writings reflect the state of affairs in the first half of the 7th century, showing a considerable area of land held by brāhmaṇas.
Plots of land granted were often cultivated by temporary peasants, not by the brāhmaṇas themselves.
Fa-hsien notes that only those who tilled the king’s land paid land tax directly to the king; others paid taxes to priests, temples, or monasteries.
Between the 5th and 7th centuries A.D., there was a rise of landowning temples, the prototypes of later mathas.
Grants were made to temples, such as the Pistapuri temple in Central India and the Bhavānī temple in the Gaya District.
In Bengal, during the 5th and 6th centuries, land was granted to temples like Govindasvamin, Svetavarahasvamin, and Kokamukhasvamin.
The Kalacuri-Cedi era records show that most grants were made to brāhmaṇas, with few grants made to Buddhist monasteries and Hindu temples.
Fa-hsien reports that after the Nirvana of the Buddha, kings, elders, and lay Buddhists built monasteries, providing them with houses, gardens, and fields, along with husbandmen and cattle for cultivation.
Fa-hsien also mentions title-deeds inscribed on iron, which is likely an error, as no iron-plates have been recovered, suggesting copper plates instead.
The grant of tierahkāras by kings for religious and educational purposes contributed to the rise of landowning monastic institutions.
Damodara Gupta, a later Gupta king, established 100 agraharas to support religious and educational activities.
Grants of agraharas may have been made by the Imperial Guptas, as seen in inscriptions of Skanda Gupta and Bhitari Pillar.
Forgery of grants became common by the 7th-8th centuries, with brāhmaṇas forging agraharas attributed to Samudra Gupta.
Harsacarita mentions fraudulent agraharikas who had no legal title to their grants.
Hiuan Tsang reports that the Nalanda Vikāra was maintained from the revenues of about 100 villages granted to the institution, with this number rising to 200 during I-tsing’s time.
As a result of land grants, temples and monasteries became semi-independent entities, gradually evolving into medieval mathas with significant wealth, tempting later Turkish invaders.
Fa-hsien and I-tsing indicate that monasteries had their lands cultivated by temporary tenants.
I-tsing describes the tenure system where Sansha provided the bulls and fields, receiving one-sixth of the produce, but it is unclear if the cultivators were also provided with agricultural equipment like ploughs, seeds, or manure.
Cultivators were not hired labourers but semi-serfs or temporary tenants, paying rental to landowners, such as temples or monasteries, with no payment to the state.
Gupta law-books show that similar arrangements existed for secular holdings, with a difference that landowners were required to pay taxes to the state.
Kautilya suggests that the king assigns land for cultivation, while Vājūavalkya says the land should be assigned by the landowner (ksetrasvāmin), not the king.
Mitaksara and Viramitrodaya provide four hierarchical stages: mahtpati (king), ksetrasvamin (landowner), karsaka (cultivator), and sub-tenant or hired labourer.
Brhaspati introduces the term svāmin, an intermediate position between the rājā and the actual tiller of the soil.
Svāmin formed an intermediate stage because of the practice of leasing out land to cultivators, who faced penalties for neglecting cultivation.
Epigraphic evidence from Maharashtra and Gujarat shows that land grants allowed recipients to enjoy, cultivate, or lease land.
Brāhmaṇas may have cultivated land, but many brahmana villages or agraharas became semi-feudal in character as they could not cultivate all the land themselves.
Peasants in donated villages were often subservient to the beneficiaries who had the right to replace old peasants with new ones.
Grants from Central India show that peasants had to render labour service (visti) to their king.
Vakataka and other Central Indian grants made villages granted to religious donees free from forced labour.
Rūstrakūta copper-plate of the 5th century mentions grants of agraharas free from ditya and visti.
Western India grants from the 6th century imply that beneficiaries were exempt from taxes and labour service imposed by the king.
Some grants enjoin inhabitants to obey the commands of the donees, implying that donees could commandeer impressed labour.
Valabhi rulers from the late 6th century granted donees the right to impose forced labour at their discretion.
Siladitya I’s charters (605-610) and other Valabhi grants frequently mention the donee’s right to forced labour.
Forced labour was also imposed on artisans, who were required to work for the king and merchants as part of their service.
A charter granted to merchants in Western India (A.D. 592) required artisans to perform impressed labour for merchants who had royal immunity.
Blacksmiths, carpenters, barbers, and potters were subject to corvée for merchants, while sugar pressers and indigo vat workers were exempt from such labour for the king.
Water-porters and milkmen working for merchants were also exempt from free labour for the king.
These provisions show a feature of the closed economy of medieval times, where artisans and unskilled workers were reserved for the merchants.
Forced labour underwent significant changes during the Gupta period.
In the Maurya period, forced labour included dasas and karmakaras, along with workers like cleaners, measurers, guards, and supervisors, all working in the storehouse.
Forced labour was recruited by a supervisor (vistibandhaka) and was paid.
While visti was a source of income for the state, it is uncertain whether it was imposed on the independent peasantry in villages.
Rudradāman’s subjects in Western India (2nd century A.D.) were subject to forced labour.
Significant changes occurred in the 4th-7th centuries with forced labour spreading to Central India, Mahārāstra, and parts of Karnataka.
The term sarva-visti appeared, indicating forced labour of all varieties.
Forced labour, initially confined to the king, was extended to religious donees and their descendants in villages granted to them.
The scope of forced labour was widened to include tasks such as weighing, measuring, and supervision of grinding but excluded agriculture.
Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana mentions the use of forced labour for the village headman rather than the king, particularly for tasks like filling granaries, cleaning or decorating residences, working in fields, and spinning yarn for clothes.
The services listed in the Kāmasūtra were likely exacted by village heads in Central and Western India, who represented royal power.
The inclusion of working in the headman’s fields marks the beginning of an important feudal practice in villages granted to donees, with peasants being used to bring barren land under cultivation.
Peasants under donees and ksetrasvāmins were reduced to a servile position, and free peasants lost status due to the imposition of new taxes.
Villages had to provide forced contributions like money, supplies, and cattle for royal troops and officials, similar to the senabhakta tax in Kautilya’s Arthasastra.
Peasants were also required to supply flowers and milk for royal officers on tour.
The practice of local contributions created a class of intermediaries, further lowering the status of the free peasantry.
The incidence of forced labour and contributions was less oppressive under royal representatives, who were mobile, but became burdensome under hereditary donees.
The forced labour system is compared to the European feudal practice, where tenants had to pay rents and provide labour services for the master’s fields.
In Gupta and post-Gupta times, forced labour was performed for donees in Central and Western India, similar to European feudalism.
Judicial and administrative authority granted to donees increased their economic power over villagers, making them similar to feudal lords.
However, the donees’ position differed from that of feudal lords, as they did not have extensive land holdings.
The peasants’ servitude was mainly due to their transfer to the beneficiaries.
Fa-hsien mentions that monasteries were furnished with houses, gardens, and fields, and had husbandmen and cattle to cultivate the land.
The earliest epigraphic references to the transfer of peasants to monasteries date from the 7th century.
The Ashrafpur grants from East Bengal mention cultivators working on land transferred to a Buddhist monastery led by the preceptor Samghamitra.
These grants show that cultivators were left undisturbed, as the monastery needed peasants to cultivate its land.
Transfer of peasants began in South India, as recorded in epigraphs.
A Pallava land grant of the 3rd century A.D. indicates that sharecroppers remained attached to the land given to brahmanas, meaning original cultivators were required to work on the land even after it was transferred.
A Prākṛt grant from Salankayana Vijayadevavarman in Ellore, Godavari District, records an endowment to a brahmana with land and house-sites for sharecroppers and a doorkeeper, suggesting that peasants and laborers had to remain on the land.
Karnataka saw the gradual spread of the practice, as indicated by a 6th-century grant from the Bijapur District.
The grant donated twenty-five nivartanas of land along with its produce, gardens, water, and houses for peasants, where nivefa referred to cottages where peasants lived.
A Gaūga grant from the Gaujam District also mentions cottages along with land being granted in perpetuity to god Nārāyaṇa, implying the peasants were transferred along with the land.
The practice spread from South India to Central India, with a Vākātaka grant in the 5th century mentioning houses for cultivators being given to a beneficiary, suggesting the transfer of cultivators.
By the 6th century A.D., Orissa and Central India recorded transfers of villages along with their inhabitants to brahmanas.
Koraput District inscription of the 6th century advises cultivators to remain in the village after its donation to the brahmanas, indicating forced adherence to the land.
Eastern Central India grants also instructed cultivators to pay taxes to beneficiaries, obey orders, and live in happiness, though the happiness seemed incongruent with the imposition of fiscal and administrative powers.
The Maitrakas and Cālukyas of Gujarat charter records show peasants being transferred along with the soil.
Valabhi ruler Dharasena II (second half of the 6th century) records gifts of plots held by cultivators (kutumbins), with the implication that peasants and their plots were transferred.
A charter of Dharasena III (A.D. 623-4) grants four plots of land held by cultivators named in the grant, signifying the transfer of peasants.
The Navsari plates of Jayabhata III (A.D. 706) grant land and houses to a brahmana, indicating that households attached to the land were transferred with it.
The earliest unequivocal transfer of villagers to a grantee is recorded in a 7th-century grant of maharaja Samudrasena, making over a village in Kangra along with its inhabitants.
In Kangra and Gujarat, serfdom was introduced in the 6th and 7th centuries, especially in areas where peasants lived on plots not part of organized villages but isolated houses.
Serfdom was linked to land held by peasant families in isolated houses, and when the land was donated, the peasants had to stay on the land to avoid hardship for the beneficiary.
Two kinds of serfs are identified: those who served as ploughmen (full-fledged serfs) and those who were tenants in villages (semi-serfs).
Ploughmen are considered full-fledged serfs, while tenants transferred along with the village were semi-serfs, as they didn’t work on the beneficiary’s private farms but couldn’t leave the village either.
Serfdom originated in peripheral areas and gradually spread to the heart of Northern India, starting with sharecroppers and then encompassing all peasants.
By the middle of the 8th century, serfdom became widespread across India, as seen in a Chinese account of A.D. 732.
The account from Five Indies describes how when a monastery was built, the village and its folk were donated to support the Three Precious Ones, implying the transfer of villages and peasants.
In the Five Indies, the king, queens, and chiefs had their own villages and folk to donate, and while no human being was sold, villages and their inhabitants could be donated if needed.
The practice of donating villages along with their inhabitants to monasteries by kings, queens, princes, and chiefs was as common as building them by these dignitaries.
There was no shortage of donations because princes and lesser chiefs also had their own villages and village folk whom they could donate freely.
Princes and lesser chiefs likely received grants for maintenance from their superior lords but were free to make religious donations of land and the men working on it.
Inhabitants were bound to serve the donors as long as they lived under them and were required to serve the beneficiaries when transferred.
This Chinese account establishes a link between the breakdown of slavery and the emergence of serfdom.
The account indicates that human beings are not sold in the Five Indies and adds there are no female slaves, implying the existence of male slaves in the 7th century.
The absence of slavery did not cause a labor shortage because villages and their inhabitants could be donated to support the monasteries.
The Gupta period saw a decline in the number of slaves involved in production, with the śūdras becoming increasingly free from slavery.
Kautilya’s provisions for manumission of slaves apply to those born of Aryan parents or Aryans themselves.
Yājñavalkya introduced the principle that nobody can be reduced to slavery without their consent, reversing Manu’s precept which allowed forcible enslavement of śūdras.
Narada and Bṛhaspati condemned the practice of enslaving an independent person, and Narada provided detailed ceremonies for the emancipation of slaves.
A passage from Kātyāyana implies that slaves had some form of organization, with leaders known as vargins.
The fragmentation of land through processes of partition and gifting contributed to the decline of slavery.
Manu’s and Yājñavalkya’s law books did not mention the partition of land, which is first mentioned in the codes of Nārada and Bṛhaspati.
The recognition of land partition began during the Gupta period, as large joint families began breaking into smaller units.
The increasing population density in the fertile river valleys of Northern India contributed to the fragmentation of arable land.
An epigraphic record from the 5th century A.D. in Northern Bengal shows that kulyavāpā (a land measure) had to be purchased in smaller plots, further encouraging land fragmentation.
Restrictions on gifting land existed; both Bengal and Mahārāṣṭra inscriptions show that gifts could not be made without the consent of local representatives of the king or the district council.
Land grants were made not only by kings and their feudatories but also by private individuals.
The large plots of land (e.g., 500 karīsas) from the Maurya period were no longer common by the Gupta period. Most land grants were smaller, ranging from 1 kulyavāpa to 2-3 acres.
Smaller land holdings made it uneconomical to employ large numbers of slaves and laborers.
Vaisyas were traditionally viewed as peasants, as reflected in post-Maurya and Gupta literature.
The Amarakośa lists cultivators in the vaiśya-varga section, reinforcing the idea of vaisyas as peasants.
The growing practice of granting land to śūdra sharecroppers in the Gupta period is supported by law books which show land being rented out to śūdras for half the crop.
A Pallava land grant (A.D. 250-350) mentions sharecroppers attached to land even when it was donated to brāhmaṇas, possibly indicating that the śūdras were involved in sharecropping.
Narada includes the term kīnāśa (peasant) among those unfit to be examined as witnesses, and a 7th-century commentator explains this term as a śūdra, suggesting peasants were considered śūdras.
Bṛhaspati imposes severe corporal punishment on a śūdra acting as a leader in boundary disputes over fields, indicating that some śūdras owned land.
Hiuen Tsang (Hsüan Tsang) describes śūdras as a class of agriculturists, a view confirmed by the Narasimha Purāṇa.
The transformation of śūdras from slaves and hired laborers to agriculturists began in the Gupta period and continued into the 7th century A.D..
The view that the peasant population was largely composed of śūdras is most applicable to the Gupta and post-Gupta periods, not earlier times.
The transformation of śūdras into agriculturists is a significant factor in the rise of feudalism in India.
A grant from the 6th century A.D. in Gaya indicates the need to protect the grant from śūdras, showing resistance from peasants to religious grants.
Initially, there was danger to the grant from both the elite (superiors) and peasants, but over time, the idea of spiritual merit from religious donations reconciled peasants to the system.
Feudal developments in medieval Europe and India were characterized by the rise of independent, self-sufficient economic units, resulting from land grants and certain other factors.
The beneficiaries of land grants enjoyed several economic rights, which cut ties between the central authority and the donated areas.
To ensure economic continuity, beneficiaries depended more on local artisans and cultivators than on officials of the central government.
Beneficiaries were entitled to local dues, a portion of which was likely invested in local undertakings.
The main idea behind tying peasants to the fields was to preserve the self-sufficient village economy.
In South Bihar, the self-sufficient village economy was maintained in other ways, such as the copper-plates of Samudragupta.
The spurious copper plates from the 7th/8th century required the donee (agraharika) not to introduce any tax-paying peasants or artisans from other villages into the gift villages.
These villages were exempt from various royal taxes, and villagers from surrounding areas were tempted to migrate, but restrictions maintained the economy of the gift village.
The conditions in villages under the charge of the village headman were not dissimilar.
The headman could compel peasant women to work in his fields and spin yarn to provide clothes locally.
Some commodities produced in the village were put on sale to meet local needs, replacing earlier central regulations on trade and industries.
The Mauryan state’s regulation of trade was giving way to the management of local economic units by chiefs independent of central control.
The decline of coins from the Gupta period onwards suggests that internal trade was weakening and there was a need to produce local commodities to meet local needs.
The power of the central authority weakened, and officials were increasingly paid through grants of revenue or in kind, instead of in money.
The Gupta emperors issued fewer copper coins, and cowries became the common medium of exchange, as indicated by Fa-hsien.
Post-Gupta times saw a significant decline in coin use, as religious endowments shifted from cash to land grants.
In earlier periods, Satavahana rulers made land grants, while Kusānas used cash grants for guilds of artisans and merchants.
After the Harsavardhana period, coins were rare, and Maitrakas of Valabhi issued only a few coins, which were considered similar to Gupta coins.
Legal texts mention the use of coins and taxes levied in shiranya (a form of tax), but actual finds from this period are rare.
Trade suffered a decline, and urban life began to disappear, similar to trends observed in Iran.
The decline of Roman trade and Persian rivalry reduced the volume of Indian trade, particularly by the Gupta period.
Two key articles in Indian trade were silk and spices, which were exported to the Byzantine empire through Persian merchants.
Silk trade was so significant that Justinian (527-565) imposed price controls on it in the Byzantine empire.
Justinian proposed to the Ethiopians to buy silk from India and sell it to the Romans, avoiding the high prices set by Persian merchants.
However, Persian merchants in eastern harbors bought up the entire supply of silk, making it impossible for the Ethiopians to secure it from India.
In the first half of the 6th century, silk was a major source of bullion for India, just as spices had been in the 1st century.
The drainage of gold from the Roman empire was stopped by legislation, but it continued in the Byzantine empire until the introduction of silk-worms from China in 551 A.D.
By the end of the 6th century, the Byzantine empire had solved the problem of obtaining silk from the East, reducing demand for Indian silk.
This decline in silk export significantly affected India’s foreign trade, especially in North India, where trade had been primarily limited to silk.
The cessation of silk exports to the Byzantine empire contributed to a drastic reduction in foreign commerce in North-Western India during the Gupta period.
As long as no new export commodities replaced silk, a retrogession in foreign trade became inevitable.
The decline of foreign trade may have been caused by the expansion of the Arabs under the banner of Islam.
The agitated state of Western Asia, Egypt, and Eastern Europe during the initial stages of Arab conquests adversely affected India’s foreign trade with the countries to the west.
Trade revived only after the Arabs had settled as rulers in Sind and other areas, starting from the third century of the Hijri era.
From the end of the Gupta period, especially the 7th century A.D., there were clear indications of the decline of foreign commerce in North-Western India.
It is difficult to determine to what extent the loss of trade with the Byzantine empire was compensated by increased trade with China following the fall of the Gupta empire.
A Chinese account from the 9th-10th centuries mentions Indian merchants in China and Chinese merchants in India during the 7th century A.D., but trade seemed to be confined to luxury articles and internal transactions using cowries, which did not significantly contribute to foreign trade.
Internal trade and commerce had to be adjusted within the emerging feudal structure.
The laws of the guilds regulated the functioning of artisan and trader corporate bodies, highlighting the declining central authority.
Brhaspati enjoined kings to approve of whatever the guild heads did, whether harsh or kind, in dealings with others.
Three important charters from the late 6th century A.D. to the early 8th century A.D. provide insights into the nature of commodities handled by merchants in Western India.
The first charter, translated by D.C. Sircar and D.D. Kosambi, sheds light on the commodities such as wine, sugar, indigo, ginger, oil, textiles, and goods in wood, iron, and leather.
The state regulated prices and checked weights and measures, but merchants had considerable autonomy, unlike in the Kautilya period.
Guilds were exempt from dues and allowed to deal with labourers and herdsmen. They could also extract forced labour from artisans such as blacksmiths, weavers, and potters.
Merchants could not compete with each other or congregate in the same market.
Some artisans-turned-merchants were required to supply goods to the state at half the regular price, and others rendered corvée in lieu of taxes.
Traders were required to pay various frontier taxes, customs, and sales taxes but were exempt from royal officials’ entry and dues for supporting them.
The state relinquished its right to escheat the property of merchants who died sonless, a right given by Brhaspati and practiced in Sakuntalam.
The privileges granted to merchants were reminiscent of the autonomous rights granted to temples and Brahmanas in earlier centuries.
Two charters issued by Bhogasakti, the Calukya king of Konkay area in the 8th century A.D., show that merchant guilds had gained importance.
In one case, eight villages and money granted to a temple were to be managed by local merchants who were exempted from tolls and rations for royal officers.
In another case, a deserted town and its villages were granted to two merchants who were given a kind of municipal charter, exempting them from tolls and royal officials’ oversight.
Merchants were fined for sexual and physical offences, with decisions made by senior men of the town.
Three important points about these charters:
- Grants were made to merchants rather than artisans, with some elevated to the position of managers of towns or temples.
- Merchants were tied to the management of villages and had immunities and privileges similar to those of priests or feudal barons, making them landed intermediaries.
- Guild activities were restricted to their locality, preventing competition, which was characteristic of the closed economy of the Middle Ages.
A fourth charter, issued around 725 A.D. by Vikramaditya, the Calukya ruler of Badami in Mysore, indicates the growing powers of guilds in urban areas.
Guilds of Mahajanas (merchants) in Porigere (Lakshmeshwar) were authorized to levy taxes on households, collect fines, and escheat the property of childless persons.
The guilds of artisans, though numerous in pre-Gupta times in Western India, were not granted such charters; only merchants were granted them.
The charters show the abnegation of royal power in both rural and urban areas, as merchants and priests gained authority over peasants and artisans, respectively.
In the Gupta period, royal income from tolls and customs was not converted into benefices granted to temples. Kings and chiefs deposited funds for religious purposes but did not involve guilds.
Guilds’ increasing autonomy from royal control, as shown in the charters, points to the growing self-sufficiency and independence of merchant and artisan guilds, mirroring the feudal charters of Medieval Europe.
The practice of issuing coins by the nigamas during the post-Maurya and Gupta periods indicates the rise of self-sufficient economic units and contributed to the process of political disintegration.
Issuing coins was an important function of sovereign power; therefore, its practice by local units accelerated decentralization.
Seals issued by Nalanda villages in the Gupta period highlight the emergence of these villages as politically independent and economically self-sufficient units.
During the earlier period, coins and seals were issued by the nigamas (merchant guilds), but not by rural units, which became common in the post-Gupta period.
In the Gupta period, irrigation began to become a local responsibility, with the state having initially provided irrigation infrastructure.
The Arthashastra of Kautilya laid out specific rates to be paid by peasants for irrigation, indicating the state’s role in providing these services.
Megasthenes mentions that the state maintained irrigation inspectors, and Rudradaman, the Saka ruler, claimed to have reconstructed the Sudarshana lake in Saurashtra without levying forced labour.
From the beginning of the Christian era, the local population began to take the initiative in irrigation matters.
Dion Chrysostom reports that local inhabitants in India constructed channels to convey water from large and small rivers.
Brhaspati’s law-book mentions that guilds were responsible for maintaining irrigation dams, showing the growing local control over irrigation.
This shift to local control over irrigation undermined the influence of the central power and contributed to the rise of independent economic units.
The decentralization of political power in India was primarily due to the practice of land grants made to priests and temples, rather than the granting of lands to comrades-in-arms, as seen in Europe.
Foreign invasions did not significantly contribute to the process of feudalization in India, unlike in Europe.
The agraharas (land grants to Brahmanas) bear some resemblance to manors in Europe, as the beneficiaries could levy forced labour from their tenants.
The scope of forced labour was wide, and village headmen who compelled peasant women to work in fields were developing into manorial lords.
However, unlike European peasants, Indian peasants spent most of their time working on their own fields, with a considerable share going to holders of grants or other intermediaries.
Free peasantry in India seems to have been larger than in Europe, and the process of subinfeudation was not as widespread in India.
Hereditary intermediaries, such as samantas, uparikas, bhogikas, pratihara, dandanayaka, etc., became common by the end of the Gupta period (c. A.D. 500), reducing many free peasants to a semi-servile status.
However, the feudal hierarchy in India was less complex and less extensive than in medieval Europe, and sāmantas served as feudal vassals but their rights and obligations are unclear, other than the obligation to provide soldiers.
In medieval Europe, land grants were made to feudal barons for services rendered to the state, but in India, this practice was limited.
According to Manu, officials in charge of ten villages were given land equivalent to that tilled by twelve oxen, about 100 acres.
From Gupta times, it was increasingly believed that territorial units were meant for the enjoyment of local governors and officers, although central control was still effective.
Fa-hsien and Hiuen Tsang report that one-fourth of the total revenues went to the state, while the remaining three-fourths were reserved for priests, scholars, and government officials.
This suggests that in India, officials who managed the administration received only one-fourth of the revenue, unlike in medieval Europe, where feudal barons received revenues from the land under their charge.
Broad features of feudalism began to appear from the Gupta period, especially in the post-Gupta period:
- Granting of both virgin and cultivated land.
- The transfer of peasants and extension of forced labour.
- Restriction on movements of peasants, artisans, and merchants.
- The paucity of coins and retrogression of trade.
- Abandonment of fiscal and criminal administration to religious beneficiaries.
- The beginning of remuneration in revenues to officials.
- The growth of obligations of the sāmantas.
The continuation or modification of these features in subsequent periods will be explored in later chapters.