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. 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.
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 Mukia,
unlike capitalism, feudalism
is not a
universal phenomenon. Marx
stated that feudalism
assumes different aspects
and runs through
its various phases
in different orders
of succession. But
certain characteristics remain
the same. This is admitted
even by the
critics of Indian
feudalism. 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. 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. 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. According
to Marx, ‘feudal
production is characterized
by division of
soil amongst the greatest possible
number of sub-feudatories’. The
peasantry was divested
more and more
of its homogeneous
and egalitarian character.
Many indications of
unequal distribution of
land in the
village are available.
We hear not
only of brahmanas
but also of
the chief brahmana,
mahattama, uttama, krsivala,
karsaka, ksetrakara, 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. 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.
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. R.
S. Sharma and
B. N. S. Yadava
have established considerable
similarity in the
features of Indian
and European 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.
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. 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.
Harbans
Mukhia claims that
because soil in
India was very
fertile there was
no scope for
the rise of
serfdom or forced
labour. 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 meagre wages. 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…’ 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. 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 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.
Stein
says, ‘merely structural
comparison of Indian
and African forms
gives offence to
many Indians’ 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.
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 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.
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTERNET
ASHISH KUMAR SAHU
[11] Sharma R.
S. Indian Feudalism.
Pp. 50-3, 121-2,
243, 283; Sharma
R. S. Light
on Early Indian
Society and Economy
(Bombay
[12] Mukhia Harbans.
The Feudalism Debate. pp.
253.
[13] Ibid. p.
254.
[14] Mukhia Harbans.
‘Was There Feudalism
in Indian History ?’. The Journal
of Peasant Studies,
volume 8. April
1981. pp. 286,
289, 303, fn.
124.
[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
[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.
