Modified__doc__of_early__medieval__indian__feudalism__by__tuliip__biswas.doc

BISWAS 01

NAME: TULIIP BISWAS CLASS: B.A., UG1 DEPARTMENT: HISTORY HONOURS SUBJECT: HISTORY SEMESTER: SECOND COURSE INSTRUCTOR: DR. DEEPA KHAKHA ROLL NO.: HIST15 REGISTRATION NO.: 16110622015 BATCH: 2016-19 DATE: 27. 2. 2017

BISWAS 02

DEBATE

ON

EARLY MEDIEVAL INDIAN FEUDALISM

BISWAS 03

INTRODUCTION “Feudalism Made Land The Measure And The Master Of All Things” _Lord Acton.

Oxford Dictionary defines Feudalism as, ‘The social system in medieval Europe in which people worked and fought for a lord in return for a land. Many institutions that developed in Early Medieval India kept the peasants under control. As a mode of production, feudalism has a dominant class of landlords who are not directly engaged in production. Production is carried on by peasants who occupy land and work on it. But the landed interest extracts surplus product and labour from them by legal, military, ideological and other extra-economic means. R. S. Sharma dates the Early Medieval Indian period from 300 CE -1200 CE.1 In this assignment I will try to point out some of the important debates on Early Medieval Indian Feudalism by historians like R. S. Sharma, Harbans Mukhia and many others famous historians.

BISWAS 04

THE DEBATE Several scholars have questioned the use of the term ‘feudalism’ to characterize the early medieval socio-economic formation in India. According to Harbans 1

Sharma R. S. Indian Feudalism (c. AD 300- 1200) Macmillan Publishers India, 2013

Mukia, unlike capitalism, feudalism is not a universal phenomenon.2 Marx stated that feudalism assumes different aspects and runs through its various phases in different orders of succession.3 But certain characteristics remain the same. This is admitted even by the critics of Indian feudalism.4 Feudalism has to be seen as a mechanism for the distribution of the means of production and for appropriation of surplus. Harbans Mukhia argues that the peasant in medieval India enjoyed autonomy of production because he had ‘complete control’ over the means of production.5 R. S. Sharma talks against this argument by explaining the problem of the distribution of the resources of production in early medieval India. Land was the primary means of production. It should be made clear that in early medieval times, in the same piece of land, the peasants held inferior rights and the landlords held superior rights. Peasants may have possessed land, labour, oxen, and other animals and agricultural implements. But the peasants were not given effective control over the means of production. The beneficiary was entitled to collect taxes, all kinds of income, all kinds of occasional taxes, and this all (sarva) was never specified. Since the peasant did not have free access to various agrarian resources his autonomy in production was substantially crippled. Plough agriculture depended entirely on the use of cattle. What a peasant possessed was not sufficient to feed the cattle. Hierarchical control over land was created by large-scale subinfeudation, especially from the eighth century onwards.6 It consisted of the king on top followed by the assignee and the occupant who leased land to the sub-occupant who finally got it tilled by the cultivating tenant.7 According to Marx, ‘feudal production is characterized by division of soil amongst the greatest BISWAS 05 possible number of sub-feudatories’.8 The peasantry of its homogeneous and egalitarian character. Many distribution of land in the village are available. We but also of the chief brahmana, mahattama, uttama,

was divested more and more indications of unequal hear not only of brahmanas krsivala, karsaka, ksetrakara,

2

Mukhia Harbans. ‘Was There Feudalism in Indian History ?’. The Journal of Peasant Studies, volume 8. April 1981. pp. 273-310. 3

Marx Karl and Engels Friedrich, Pre-Capitalist Socio-Economic Formations, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979, p. 23. 4

Mukhia Harbans. ‘Was There Feudalism in Indian History ?’. The Journal of Peasant Studies, volume 8. April 1981. p. 310, fn 225. In the discussion of variants, Indian feudalism is seen as a distinct possibility. 5

Ibid.

6

Sharma R. S. Indian Feudalism, 2nd edn. pp. 73-5, 185-7.

7

Tirumalai R. Land Grants and Agrarian Reactions in Cola and Pandya Times (University of Madras, 1987). p. 60. 8

Marx-Engels, Pre-Capitalist Socio-Economic Formations, p. 22.

kutumbin and karuka, land endowed brahmanas and agraharas. Some provisions clearly created the superior rights of the beneficiary in the land. The Gupta and post-Gupta charters of Madhya Pradesh, Northern Maharashtra, Konkan and Gujarat empower the beneficiary to evict old peasants and introduce new ones; he could also assign lands to others. A similar provision occurs in later Cola charters.9 In any case, all such privileges create for the beneficiary superior rights in the land. So R. S. Sharma says that we have no means of establishing that most of the peasants living in villages were in ‘complete control’ of the means of production.10 R.S. Sharma speaks of the absence of extraneous control over the peasants’ process of production at all levels of stratified rural society (with all the qualifications that have been suggested) led them to participate in the ‘great agrarian expansion’. However, starting with unequal resources, Harbans Mukhia states that different strata of agriculturalists would benefit differently from this expansion, so that the very process of agricultural progress would further promote stratification and generate new forms of rural tension. In a regional study, though of a much later period, the whole spectrum of such tensions has been brought alive and it has been shown that disputes were not only economic in nature (Bajekal, 1980); quite possibly the nature of tensions would vary over time and space but, equally possibly, with growing stratification and widespread agricultural progress, tensions would arise at a number of joints in that society. The most crucial element of the Indian feudalism, in Professor Sharma’s and Professor Yadava’s view, consisted in the growing dependence of the peasantry on the landed intermediaries following the grant of more and more rights to them by the state. The dependence was manifested in terms of increasing restrictions on the peasant’s mobility and his subjection to forced labour, which in turn was becoming increasingly intensive. 11 R. S. Sharma and B. N. S. Yadava have established considerable similarity in the features of Indian and European BISWAS 06 feudalism, the one basic difference was overlooked by them. European feudalism developed essentially as changes at the base of society took place; in India, on the other hand, the establishment of feudalism is attributed by its protagonists primarily to state action in granting land in lieu of salary or in charity and the action of the grantees in subjecting the peasantry by means of legal rights assigned to them by the state. It is a moot point whether such complex social structures can be established through administrative and legal procedures. 9

Tirumalai R. Land Grants and Agrarian Reactions in Cola and Pandya Times (University of Madras, 1987). p. 31. 10

11

Sharma R. S. ‘How Feudal was Indian Feudalism?’.

Sharma R. S. Indian Feudalism. Pp. 50-3, 121-2, 243, 283; Sharma R. S. Light on Early Indian Society and Economy (Bombay 1966). p. 73; Yadava B. N. S. Society and culture. pp. 16373; Yadava ‘Immobility and Subjection’. pp. 21-3

Above all, however, it is the concept of the peasantry’s ‘dependence’ that appears to be of uncertain value in the context in which it has been used. The evidence marshaled by Sharma and Yadava at best establishes the increasing exploitation of the peasantry; dependence, on the other hand, should consist of an extraneous over the peasant’s process of production, and this has yet to be proved in Indian context. The nature of Forced Labour in India _ of which there is considerable evidence throughout her history_ is its very essence different from that of Europe, for in India it is very rarely used for purposes of production. There is an objective reason for the absence of serfdom in Indian history, for conditions of production in India did not require serf-labour. Thus forced labour in India remained, by and large, an incidental manifestation of the political and administrative power of the ruling class rather than a part of the process of production. Hrabans Mukhia states that the utilization of the labour of menial castes in it fields by the entire community of cultivators irrespective of its own stratification.12 Their labour was made available by denying them access to land, even in the context of land abundance, through the working of the caste system (Habib, 1963: 121-2; 1982: 14, 18). It is tempting to attribute the growth of this class of ‘an ostracized rural proletariat’ as Irfan Habib calls it, to the proliferation of untouchable castes in ancient and early medieval India. It is curious however that growth in the number of untouchable castes in ancient and early medieval India notwithstanding_ a theme on which Vivekanand Jha has done such impressive research (1975: 14-31)_ no contemporary evidence has yet been cited to the effect that the caste system (or the state) denied them the right to hold land. The history of this, one of the most significant developments in India’s past, which is also a feature specific to Indian society, is therefore far from clear even in outline.13

BISWAS 07 Harbans Mukhia claims that because soil in India was very fertile there was no scope for the rise of serfdom or forced labour.14 Against this, R. S. Sharma argues that we have indications of forced labour in the middle Gangetic basin where the soil is most fertile. Till recent times poor tenants, belonging to the lower castes, were forced by the upper class landlords to work in the fields at 12

13

14

Mukhia Harbans. The Feudalism Debate. pp. 253. Ibid. p. 254.

Mukhia Harbans. ‘Was There Feudalism in Indian History ?’. The Journal of Peasant Studies, volume 8. April 1981. pp. 286, 289, 303, fn. 124.

meagre wages.15 Peasants were compelled to plough the land of the landlords and do various kinds of odd jobs for them in other fertile areas. This is known as hari and begari in the whole of the Gangetic basin area. This means that the peasants were subjected to forced labour and oppression. Harbans Mukhia goes against R. S. Sharma’s explanation and says that the relatively small size of holdings in India had the principal effect of averting wastage of labour in the process of production, consequently far lass labour was required for the agricultural operations here. Moreover, these operations could be spread over a much longer period in the course of the year than in Western Europe. Thus there does not appear to have been a highly concentrated demand for large amounts of labour during short periods. It is thus that the absence of serfdom in Indian history, except for some marginal incidence, becomes intelligible. R. S. Sharma criticizes Burton Stein who considered reputed historians like Devangana Desai, Lallanji Gopal, N. Karashima, T. V. Mahalingam, Dasharatha Sharma, Niharranjan Ray and B. N. S. Yadava as leftists. These so called ‘leftists’ (which Sharma disagrees) have applied feudal analogy fully or partly to the Indian state and society of different regions and periods. Niharranjan Ray states: ‘From the time of the Guptas to the end of the ancient period (12th century) the political and social structures of Bengal and for that matter all of India, was essentially feudal…’16 However, the declamation of the feudal concept in the Indian context has become an obsession with some western historians. Some historians of the West and Indologists underline the role of decentralization in early Indian history and assert that the Indian rulers were merely masters of roads, towns and capitals and not of hinterland. Stein imagines that Indian feudalism is seen by its exponents only in the context of feudatories found everywhere in pre-modern India.17 Against this, Sharma says that the payment of tribute by the feudatories depends on its strength, which consequently determines the extent of local exploitation of the peasants. If the tribute is regular the peasant would be taxed more; if it is occasional he would BISWAS 08 be taxed less. But the landlords, superimposed upon the peasants, became regular exploiters whose presence is indispensable to the control of the land and of the peasants who cultivate it. The feudal infrastructure explains the nature of the state and all other superstructural elements such as art, religion and culture. Feudatories play but a supplementary role in the whole system.

15

This was the case in north Bihar until the abolition of the Permanent Settlement.

16

Ray Niharranjan, History of the Bengali People, p. 288

17

Stein Burton, ‘The Segmentary State’

Stein says, ‘merely structural comparison of Indian and African forms gives offence to many Indians’ 18 Against him, R. S. Sharma says that Stein ignores the importance of the comparative method in historical studies but also the fact that European history was has been taught in India for nearly two hundred years; the colonial masters never introduced any African history except that of Ancient Egypt or Africa’s partition in the 1880s. Indian historians have been influenced by the western writings on European history but they have not been attracted by such constructs as the one on the segmentary state. R. S. Sharma also further says that the supporters of the ‘segmentary’ state appear comfortable in a world of make-believe. To prove a theory or to refute it depends on the nature of the supporting evidence. The attempt to project the ‘segmentary’ state as a model for the early Indian state and society has proved to be abortive. Almost every segment of the segmentary concept has been dissected and dismissed. In the process, the study of Indian feudalism has been enriched both empirically and conceptually. Chattopadhaya has criticized R. S. Sharma for considering the land grants to be the cause of political fragmentation and the rise of states. 19 But Sharma discounted this possibility in peripheral states as early as 1960. He stated that in Orissa the transition to organized state/class society took place in the post-Gupta period and that the possibility of political fragmentation ‘from above’ did not exist. 20 R. S. Sharma criticizes against the Segmentary model by saying that Fragmentation or Segmentation should not be regarded as a lasting feature of Indian feudalism. According to Marc Bloch, parcellisation of sovereignty is a trait of feudalism in the first or classical phase. In the second phase or in the phase of dissolution, it shows centralization and royal absolutism. He observes this in the context of western Europe, but it may also apply to India. Even under the absolute rule of the Mughals the feudal mode of production persisted in large measure. It seems that the fragmentation of political authority at the local level was a divide and BISWAS 10 rule device to maintain the overall authority of the state over its landed beneficiaries and also the mass of the peasantry in a tenuous manner. Therefore, segmentation should not be considered to be a permanently disintegrating feature.

18

Ibid.

19

Chattopadhyaya B. D. The Making of Early Medieval India, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1994. 20

Sharma R. S. ‘Land System in Medieval Orissa (c. 750-1200)’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, (PIHC), Aligarh Session, 1960, pp. 89-96.

BISWAS 11

CONCLUSION After going through some of the debates, I can conclude that the Early Medieval Indian Feudalism was characterized by a class of landlords and by a class of subject peasantry, both living in a predominantly agrarian economy marked by a

decline in trade and urbanism and by a drastic reduction in metal currency. Most of the power structures within the state did not have to pay taxes. Indian kings made land grants to get taxes (surplus) collected. In their turn the grantees collected rents from their tenant peasants who could be evicted and even subjected to forced labour. In this context, the concept of class may be reconsidered. The position may be located in the overall system of production. Class is best seen in the context of the unequal distribution of the surplus, which was eventually given a lasting basis by the unequal distribution of the means of production and strengthened by ideological, ritualistic and judicial factors. The social structure is identified by the nature of the class which dominates it. Ecological factors influence the development of material culture but do not determine the form and nature of the social structure.

BISWAS 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY Kulke Hermann (ed.), State In India, 1000-1700, Oxford University Press (New Delhi, 1997).

Mukhia Harbans (ed.), The Feudalism Debate, Manohar Publications . (New Delhi, 1999). Sharma R. S., Early Medieval Indian Society: A Study In Feudalisation, Orient Longman Ltd (Hyderabad, 2001). --- Indian Feudalism, Macmillan Publishers India Ltd. (Calcutta, 1956). Chattopadhaya B. D. (ed.), The Making of Early Medieval India, Oxford University Press (New Delhi, 2012 ). Stein Burton, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press (Delhi, 1980). Singh Upinder (ed.), Rethinking Early Medieval India: A Reader, Oxford University Press (New Delhi, 2012).