HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY: Kalinga,Utkala, Odra, Tosali, Kangoda and Kosala

 HIS

TORICAL GEOGRAPHY: Kalinga, Utkala, Odra, Tosali, Kangoda and Kosala

Introduction :

                       In order to make a scientific study on the history of any land, a broad and thorough knowledge of its geography is essential. It will be certainly not easy on the part of a historian to look into the course of events unless he possesses accurate information about the precise location of various places that figure significantly in the narrative. On the other hand, no historian of a state can overlook the immense influence of its physical features that play a vital role in shaping the character of its people and their socioeconomic and political condition of a state.

Historical geography:

                                       The Geographical importance of places in relation to historical significance brings forward the concept of 'historical geography'. Historical geography essentially aims at the reconstruction of geography of a region of a period which has already passed. By putting together pieces of scattered evidence, all aspects of geography of that period can be reconstructed. In this context, the historical geography of ancient Odisha deserves special attention. The region now known as Odisha, was known in ancient times under various names, the most prominent of which were Kalinga, Utkala, Odra, Tosali , Kangoda and Kosala. To have an idea about the ancient geography of Odisha it is necessary to have an idea about the antiquity and extent of main ancient geographical units. Each of them during its historical existence found mention in different sources which provide interesting accounts about it. The ancient geographical units can be discussed as follows:

Kalinga :

               Among the different political units of this ancient land, Kalinga occupied a prominent place. The fertile coastal plains stretching from the mouth of the river Ganges up to Godavari, with mountains and forests, gave a natural boundary to Kalinga. The name Kalinga occurs in the  Puranas in association with Anga, Vanga, Pundra and Sumha. In the Mahabharata there is an indication about the location and the extent of Kalinga. In the Vana Parva the sage Lomasa pointed out, "This is the country of the Kalingas where flows the river Vaitarani." This evidence clearly indicates that the land now known as Odisha was included in the Kalinga country, but its extent in the Mahabharata age cannot be determined. The epic account also finds substantiation in the works of early Greek writers. In the description of Megasthenes, the river Ganges forms the eastern boundary of Kalinga. Pliny divides Kalinga into three parts Viz- Gangarides Calingae, Maceo Calingae and Calingae. Its southern boundary, as per Pliny's description, is limited on the bank of the river Godavari basing upon the puranas like Matsya, Kurma and Skanda, the western frontier of Kalinga is supposed to have stretched upon the Amrakantaka hills on the river bank of Narmada. Thus, as per the Puranic tradition, Kalinga is said to have extended up to the Gangetic valley in the north, the Godavari in the south, the sea in the east and the Amrakantaka hills in the west.

                                                       In the list of the sixteen Mahajanapadas of the sixth century B. C., described in the Pali literature Kalinga does not appear as one, but this omission does not mean that, Kalinga did not exist as a Mahajanapada or a great state. In the fourth century B. C., Kalinga was under the suzerainty of the Nandas. In the third century B. C. during the period between the Nandas and Mauryas, it slipped away from the fold of Magadhan imperialism. With Ashok's Kalinga war of 261 B. C., it came again under the authority of Magadha. His Special Edicts (also known as Kalinga Edicts) at Dhauli near Bhubaneswar, are addressed to the Mahamatras and the Kumaramatya (prince viceroy) of Toshali, while his same edicts at Jaugada in the Ganjam district are addressed to only the Mahamatras of Samapa. From these two inscriptions of Asoka now to be found in Odisha, it becomes apparent that for the sake of administration he had divided the Kalinga country into two broad divisions, northern and southern. In the northern division the capital Tosali was situated, while Samapa formed the second capital in the southern division. The evidence furnished by Asoka's Inscription thus clearly proves that Kalinga in his time included the entire region now known as Odisha, though its northern and southern boundaries cannot exactly be determined. It seems, however, that its southern boundary extended up to the river Godavari. The northern limits of Kalinga of Asoka's time cannot be determined.

                                                               Duuring the second century B.C. the present state of Odisha was certainly known as Kalinga as is evident by the fact that in the Hatigumpha Inscription at Udayagiri near Bhubaneswar, Kharavela is described as Kalingadhipati. During his reign, Kalinga expanded into an empire, the extent of which is variously determined by scholars. We do not know when his empire became dismembered, but even after the fall of his empire the land of Odisha continued to be called Kalinga. By the fourth century A.D. when Kalidasa wrote his Raghuvamsam, Kalinga seems to have been divided into two regions, of which the northern region was known as Utkala. In the fourth stanza of his work it is stated that the people of Utkala showed Raghu the path to Kalinga. In the Allahabad Inscription of Samudragupta, it is stated that during his southern campaigns Samudragupta conquered Kottura, Pishtapura, Erandapalli and Devarashtra, which have been identified with Kothoor in the Ganjam district, Pithapuram in the Godavari district, Erandapalli and Yellamachilli in the Visakhapatanam district respectively. In one of the earliest copper plate records of Odisha, known as Sumandala Copper Plates of Prithvivigraha, Kalinga as a rashtra (kingdom) has found mention, but in the subsequent medieval epigraphic records the name Kalinga does not appear. This does not, however, mean that Kalinga as a geographical name became extinct. It continued to be applied to the territory between Ganjam and the river Godavari in the subsequent ages down to the Ganga and Suryavamsi periods.

                                                          Dantapura, one of the early capitals of Kalinga, has not been identified. Various suggestions made by scholars about its location and its identity still remains to be confirmed by archaeological evidences. Kalinganagara which was capital of Kharavela, has tentatively been identified with Sisupalagarh near Bhubaneswar. The Early Eastern Gangas established their capital at a place which was also known as Kalinganagara and it has been identified with Mukhalingam in the Srikakulam district by Mr. R. Subbarao, though there are also other suggestions for its identification. Kalinganagara ceased to be the capital of the Gangas when Chodaganga conquered Odisha about A.D. 1110 and he chose Kataka (Cuttack), more centrally situated in his extended kingdom, as his new capital.

Utkala

          The territory of Utkala has been narrated in various Puranas. Utkala appears in the Mahabharata in association with the countries of Odras, Mekala, Kalinga,Darsana and Andhras. Tradition associates the origin of Utkala which Vaivasvata Manu who finds mention among the kings of India. It is said that Ila-Sudyumna, of the ten sons of Manu, who became male and female alternatively, gave birth to Utkala, Gaya,Vinitasva and Puru. He distributed the portion of his territory received from Manu among his sons and the land which came under the sway of Utkala was known as Utkala. This geographical name has also found mention in the Ramayana and is considered by some scholars to be older than Kalinga. Utkala has found mention in Kalidasa's Raghuvamsam as a neighbouring kingdom of Kalinga. The earliest epigraphic evidence of the extent of Utkala is gleaned from the Midnapur Plates of Somadatta, a feudatory of Sasanka. The name Utkala is not found thereafter in epigraphic records for a long time. Towards the final quarter of the seventh century A.D., the name Utkala appears in Adhabhara plates of Mahanannararaja of Sasivamsa which includes Utkala in the early Somavamsi Kindgom of Kosala. This geographical name also occurs in the copper plate grants up to the times of the Gangas of Odisha and Palas of Bengal. During the reigns of Ramapala of the Pala dynasty and Chodaganga of the Ganga dynasty the whole territory now known as Odisha appears to have been designated as Utkala. From the records of these kings it appears that Karnadeva, the last Somavamsi king, was driven out from his throne by Jayasimha, a lieutenant of Ramapala, but he was reinstated by Chodaganga. Even now the name Utkala is applied to the whole of Odisha. The earliest capital of Utkala was Viraja as is evidenced by the Soro Copper Plates. This place has been identified with Jajpur where the shrine of Viraja still exists. Viraja has also been mentioned in the Bhauma copper plate grants. Guhadeva Pataka or Gudhesvara Pataka, mentioned as the capital of the Bhaumas, was situated in its immediate neighbourhood.

Odra

        The present name of Odisha has been derived from the name Odra or Udra or Odraka. It appears as Urshin or Ursfin in the accounts of the Muslim geographers of the ninth and tenth century A.D. These geographers, who apparently collected information during the rule of the Bhauma-Karas in Odisha, give the divisions of the Bhauma kingdom as Urshin or Ursfin, Myas, Harkhand and Andras which have been identified with Odisha proper, Mahishya or Midnapore, Jharkhand (the hilly tracts of Odisha) and Andhra. Thus, the name Odisha appears to have existed as early as the tenth century A.D. if not earlier. The Tibetan historian Taranatha refers to Odisha as Odivisa which is apparently a Tibetan corruption of Odisa. In the later Muslim accounts and in the early Oriya literature the name Odisha finds frequent mention. The geographical unit of Odra has found mention in different ancient texts. The Pali texts make repeated mention of Oddaka and the Greek writers refer to Oretes which can be equated with Odra, mentioned in various Sanskrit texts. The Bhagabata Purana mentions Odra, among the six sons of Dirghatamas by queen Sudesna, after whom the land had been named. Pliny placed Oretes near mountain Malus which can be identified with Malayagiri near Pallahara in the pesent Angul district. Odra has also found mention in the Manusamhita where it is associated with the Paundrakas, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Sakas, Paradas, Palavas, Chinas, Kiratas, Daradas and Khasas. The earliest epigraphic records in which this geographical name appears as a Visaya or district, are the Soro Copper Plates of Somadatta from which it becomes apparent that it was a part of Uttara Tosali. Yuan Chwang mentions Odra or Wvcha not as a district, but as a kingdom, 7000 li in circuit. From this description it appears that it was a big kingdom occupying the coastal strip up to the Puri district from which the kingdom of Kongoda began. In his accounts of Odra Yuan Chwang mention two important places, Che-li-ta-lo and Pue-sie-poki-li, of which the later place has been satisfactorily transcribed as Puspagiri. Recently some scholars have identified the ‘Dimond Triangle’ i.e. the Buddhist monasteries at Ratnagiri, Udaygiri and Lalitgiri as the probable site of Puspagiri. However, much research is needed for the exact location of Puspagiri. In the inscriptions of the Somavamsis and other contemporary dynasties Odra as a kingdom has also found frequent reference.

Tosali

          Tosala or Tosali formed an important political unit in ancient Odisha. It has been described frequently in ancient Indian texts. It is mentioned in the 'Parisistha' of Atharva Veda along with Kosala and the Puranas have associated the people of this territory with Kotalas, Nisadas, Traipuras, Tumuras, Valdisas etc. The Jaina text Avasyaka Niryukti mentions about this land as follows: "Lord Mahavira, in the eleventh year of his monkship, came to Tosali where he was taken to be a robber and hit hard. From here, the venerable teacher went to Masoli, where too he was taken to be a robber, was arrested and brought to the king's court, but was released as the king was a friend of Mahavir's father. On his return jurney from Masoli Mahavira again came to Tosali. Here, again, he was caused great troubles and was on the point of being hanged when he was rescued through the timely interference of the Tosali-Kshatriyas.

                                                In Asoka's inscription at Dhauli, Tosali has found mention as a city which has been identified by some scholars with modern Sisupalagarh, but Tosali or Tosala as the name of a territory also occurs in the subsequent literature and epigraphic records. In the Gandavyuha, a part of the Buddhist Avatamsaka, there is the mention of a country named Amita Tosala, the chief city of which was Tosala. Tosali as a territory has found mention in the copper plate records of Sambhuyasa and Lokavigraha and it also occurs in the Bhauma copper plate grants. From these references it appears that Tosali was divided into two parts, northern and southern. With regard to the extent of these divisions. N. K. Sahu observes that “the extent of the territories of both the Tosalis can be tentatively known from the Soro, Patiakela, Midnapore and Kanasa Copper Plates. The modern Midnapore, Mayurbhanj and Balasore districts as well as the northern part of the Kataka (Cuttack) district may be said to have formed the kingdom of Uttara Tosali, while Daksina Tosali comprised roughly the modern Puri district and parts of Cuttack and Ganjam districts upto the river Rishikulya and the river Mahanadi appears to be the dividing line between the two territories.”

Kangoda

              Kangoda was another geographical unit of ancient Odisha. It was during the Sailodbhava dynasty, Kongoda came into eminence. Kongoda may be explained as the “Land of Honey” as Kongu in Tamil means honey. This was a Mandala state and flourished in the sixth-seventh century A.D. It continued as parts of Kalinga and Odra. The Sailodbhavas gave this Kongoda Mandala (undivided Ganjam district) its true shape. The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang who visited Kongoda about 638 A. D. states that this country was above 1000 Ii in circuit. The country contained some tens of towns from the slope of the hills to the edge of the sea". Accordingly, it is presumed that it was about 200 miles in circumference and it was a hilly country bordering on the Bay of Bengal. By the time of Hiuen Tsang's visit, Kongoda had emerged as a powerful kingdom under the Sailodbhavas.

                                                 On Hiuen Tsang's observation, T. Watters write that "As the towns are naturally strong, there was a gallant army which kept the neighbouring country in awe, and so there was no enemy." The towns referred to in the Hiuen Tsang's accounts are Gudda, Kondenda, Saumyapura, Matrachandra-pataka, Jaya Kataka, Devagrama, Nivina and Phasika. These towns have not been satisfactorily identified. Vijaya Kongodvasaka appears to be the capital of Kongoda mandala which has been identified with modern Bankada in the light of the antiquities found there on the river bank of Salia. Harsavardhan, after the death of King Sasanka of Gauda subjugated Kongoda. R. S. Tripathi observes that "Harsa made this region a strong military outpost of his far-flung empire, probably with a view to preventing any foreign incursion on the borders, threatened as they were by the eastward advance of Pulakesin II". With the death of Harsa in 647 A.D. Madhavaraja II, the Sailodbhava King of Kongoda maintained his power and ruled for a long time which is revealed by his Cuttack charter. Thus, Kongoda got back her independence shortly after the death of Harsavardhan. With the fall of the Sailodbhavas, in the first half of the eighth century A.D., Kongoda mandala lost its glory. Subsequently, it was reduced to a Visaya (district) of Dakshina Tosali when the BhaumaKaras emerged as a dominant political power and united both the Tosalis i.e. North Tosali and South Tosali.

Kosala

            Kosala as a geographical unit was existed in ancient Odisha. The earliest depiction of Kosala is found in the Parisistha of the Atharvaveda. The Epics and the Puranas also throw light on its ancient history. It was named after- like Kalinga, Utkala and Odra - an ancient people called Kosalas. The kingdom of Kosala was divided into two units- Uttara (north) and Daksina (south) from very early time. The territory of Kosala is attributed to a mythical origin. Rama, the Prince of Kosala, being banished with his brother Laxmana and his wife Sita travelled south from Ayodhya to Prayaga. Travelling south-west up to Narmada valley, he came up to a place identified with modern Chhatisgarh area. He dwelt there for at least a decade. Pargiter opines that his long stay in that region gave rise to the name Dakshina Kosala (South Kosala), after his original homeland Kosala. The Ramayana projects the fact that after Rama, the kingdom of Kosala was divided between his two sons-Lava and Kusa holding sway over North Kosala and South Kosala respectively. Sravasti was the centre of political activities for North Kosala while Kusavati or Kusthalipura, near the Vindhyas, was regarded as the citadel of political power for Southern Kosala.

                                             Kosala also finds mention in the "Vana Parva' of the Mahabharata. Of course, the great epic remains silent about Uttara Kosala (North Kosala) which comprised the Ayodhya region. However, H. C. Raychaudhuri locates Dakshina Kosala in the territory comprising the modern districts of Bilaspur, Raipur and undivided Sambalpur. The Allahabad pillar inscription of Harisena includes Kosala among the territories of Dakshinapatha which were subjugated by Samudragupta. Kosala along with Mekala and Malava formed the empire of the Vakatakas and after their fall, it came under the grip of the Sarbapuriyas. Hiuen Tsang who visited Kosala in 639 A D. described the kingdom as 6000 li in circuit. As per the description, it may be presumed that Kosala comprised the districts of Bilaspur and Raipur in Madhya Pradesh along with the undivided districts of Sundargarh, Sambalpur and Bolangir in Odisha. Kosala remained under the Somavamsis in the eighth-ninth century A.D. At about the middle of the ninth century A.D. when Kalachuris of Dahala became a rival power of the Somavamsis, the latter had to shift the centre of their political activities to Sripura which was captured by the Kalachuris subsequently. Then, the Somavamsis had to shift their head quarters to various places like Murasimakataka, Arama and Vinitapura identified with Murshing, Rampur and Binaka respectively, all in the Bolangir district. With the annexation of Khinjali mandala, Yajatinagara became the capital of Kosala. The formidable Somavamsi king Yajati II brought Kosala and Utkala under one umbrella about the middle of the eleventh century A. D., making Suvarnapura (at the confluence Mahanadi and Tel) the capital of Kosala and Yajatinagar, (Viraja in Jajpur) the capital of Utkala. When the Somavamsi power declined away, the Telugu Chodas occupied Kosala towards the close of the eleventh century A.D. They were subsequently driven away by the Kalachuris who established their sway over the region for a long time till the Gangas established their authority over this region and their rule continued till the middle of fourteenth century A.D. Outsting them from power, the Chauhans rose to political prominence and made Sambalpur the centre of their political ativities. They became the overlord eighteen states (Atharagarha) comprising almost the whole Kosala country described by the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang.

Conclusion

                      Thus, all these geographical units have played their roles in the enrichment of political and cultural history of the Odisha. As we observe that Kalinga, Utkala, Odra, Tosali , Kongoda and Kosala were territories having distinct boundaries of their own and the boundary changed from time to time in ancient and early medieval period. Sometimes, it is noticed that some of these names were used as interchangeable terms, e.g. Odra was known as Tosali during the Bhaumakara At the advent of fifteenth century A.D. poet Sarala Dasa made Udisa or Odisha synonym with Odrarastra which became Odisha rajya during the great Gajapatis. Right from the days of Kapilendradeva (1435-1467 A.D.), this empire land of the Odia speaking people has been known as Odisha.

HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY: Kalinga

HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY: Kalinga

Introduction :

                       In order to make a scientific study on the history of any land, a broad and thorough knowledge of its geography is essential. It will be certainly not easy on the part of a historian to look into the course of events unless he possesses accurate information about the precise location of various places that figure significantly in the narrative. On the other hand, no historian of a state can overlook the immense influence of its physical features that play a vital role in shaping the character of its people and their socioe conomic and political condition of a state.

Historical geography:

The Geographical importance of places in relation to historical significance brings forward the concept of 'historical geography'. Historical geography essentially aims at the reconstruction of geography of a region of a period which has already passed. By putting together pieces of scattered evidence, all aspects of geography of that period can be reconstructed. In this context, the historical geography of ancient Odisha deserves special attention. The region now known as Odisha, was known in ancient times under various names, the most prominent of which were Kalinga, Utkala, Odra, Tosali , Kangoda and Kosala. To have an idea about the ancient geography of Odisha it is necessary to have an idea about the antiquity and extent of main ancient geographical units. Each of them during its historical existence found mention in different sources which provide interesting accounts about it. The ancient geographical units can be discussed as follows:

Kalinga :

               Among the different political units of this ancient land, Kalinga occupied a prominent place. The fertile coastal plains stretching from the mouth of the river Ganges up to Godavari, with mountains and forests, gave a natural boundary to Kalinga. The name Kalinga occurs in the  Puranas in association with Anga, Vanga, Pundra and Sumha. In the Mahabharata there is an indication about the location and the extent of Kalinga. In the Vana Parva the sage Lomasa pointed out, "This is the country of the Kalingas where flows the river Vaitarani." This evidence clearly indicates that the land now known as Odisha was included in the Kalinga country, but its extent in the Mahabharata age cannot be determined. The epic account also finds substantiation in the works of early Greek writers. In the description of Megasthenes, the river Ganges forms the eastern boundary of Kalinga. Pliny divides Kalinga into three parts Viz- Gangarides Calingae, Maceo Calingae and Calingae. Its southern boundary, as per Pliny's description, is limited on the bank of the river Godavari basing upon the puranas like Matsya, Kurma and Skanda, the western frontier of Kalinga is supposed to have stretched upon the Amrakantaka hills on the river bank of Narmada. Thus, as per the Puranic tradition, Kalinga is said to have extended up to the Gangetic valley in the north, the Godavari in the south, the sea in the east and the Amrakantaka hills in the west.

                                                       In the list of the sixteen Mahajanapadas of the sixth century B. C., described in the Pali literature Kalinga does not appear as one, but this omission does not mean that, Kalinga did not exist as a Mahajanapada or a great state. In the fourth century B. C., Kalinga was under the suzerainty of the Nandas. In the third century B. C. during the period between the Nandas and Mauryas, it slipped away from the fold of Magadhan imperialism. With Ashok's Kalinga war of 261 B. C., it came again under the authority of Magadha. His Special Edicts (also known as Kalinga Edicts) at Dhauli near Bhubaneswar, are addressed to the Mahamatras and the Kumaramatya (prince viceroy) of Toshali, while his same edicts at Jaugada in the Ganjam district are addressed to only the Mahamatras of Samapa. From these two inscriptions of Asoka now to be found in Odisha, it becomes apparent that for the sake of administration he had divided the Kalinga country into two broad divisions, northern and southern. In the northern division the capital Tosali was situated, while Samapa formed the second capital in the southern division. The evidence furnished by Asoka's Inscription thus clearly proves that Kalinga in his time included the entire region now known as Odisha, though its northern and southern boundaries cannot exactly be determined. It seems, however, that its southern boundary extended up to the river Godavari. The northern limits of Kalinga of Asoka's time cannot be determined.

                                                               Duuring the second century B.C. the present state of Odisha was certainly known as Kalinga as is evident by the fact that in the Hatigumpha Inscription at Udayagiri near Bhubaneswar, Kharavela is described as Kalingadhipati. During his reign, Kalinga expanded into an empire, the extent of which is variously determined by scholars. We do not know when his empire became dismembered, but even after the fall of his empire the land of Odisha continued to be called Kalinga. By the fourth century A.D. when Kalidasa wrote his Raghuvamsam, Kalinga seems to have been divided into two regions, of which the northern region was known as Utkala. In the fourth stanza of his work it is stated that the people of Utkala showed Raghu the path to Kalinga. In the Allahabad Inscription of Samudragupta, it is stated that during his southern campaigns Samudragupta conquered Kottura, Pishtapura, Erandapalli and Devarashtra, which have been identified with Kothoor in the Ganjam district, Pithapuram in the Godavari district, Erandapalli and Yellamachilli in the Visakhapatanam district respectively. In one of the earliest copper plate records of Odisha, known as Sumandala Copper Plates of Prithvivigraha, Kalinga as a rashtra (kingdom) has found mention, but in the subsequent medieval epigraphic records the name Kalinga does not appear. This does not, however, mean that Kalinga as a geographical name became extinct. It continued to be applied to the territory between Ganjam and the river Godavari in the subsequent ages down to the Ganga and Suryavamsi periods.

                                                          Dantapura, one of the early capitals of Kalinga, has not been identified. Various suggestions made by scholars about its location and its identity still remains to be confirmed by archaeological evidences. Kalinganagara which was capital of Kharavela, has tentatively been identified with Sisupalagarh near Bhubaneswar. The Early Eastern Gangas established their capital at a place which was also known as Kalinganagara and it has been identified with Mukhalingam in the Srikakulam district by Mr. R. Subbarao, though there are also other suggestions for its identification. Kalinganagara ceased to be the capital of the Gangas when Chodaganga conquered Odisha about A.D. 1110 and he chose Kataka (Cuttack), more centrally situated in his extended kingdom, as his new capital.

Prehistoric era (until c. 3300 BCE)

Prehistoric era (until c. 3300 BCE)

Paleolithic
Hominins expansion from Africa is estimated to have reached the Indian subcontinent approximately two million years ago, and possibly as early as 2.2 millions years before the present. This dating is based on the known presence of Homo erectus in Indonesia by 1.8 million years before the present, and in East Asia by 1.36 million years before present, as well as the discovery of stone tools made by proto-humans in the Soan River valley, at Riwat, and in the Pabbi Hills, all in present-day Pakistan. Although some older discoveries have been claimed, the suggested dates, based on the dating of fluvial sediments, has not been independently verified.
The oldest hominini fossil remains in the Indian subcontinent are those of Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis, from the Narmada Valley in central India, and are dated to approximately half a million years ago. Older fossil finds have been claimed, but are considered unreliable. Reviews of archaeological evidence have suggested that occupation of the Indian subcontinent by hominins was sporadic until approximately 700,000 years ago, and was geographically widespread by approximately 250,000 years before the present, from which point onward archaeological evidence of proto-human presence is widely point. Archaeological evidence has been interpreted to suggest the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Indian subcontinent 78,000–74,000 years ago although this interpretation is disputed.

 Neolithic
More extensive settlement of the Indian subcontinent occurred during the Neolithicperiod after the end of the last Ice Ageapproximately 12,000 years ago. The first confirmed semi-permanent[clarification needed]settlements appeared 9,000 years ago in the Bhimbetka rock shelters in modern Madhya Pradesh, India. The Edakkal Caves are pictorial writings believed to date to at least 6,000 BCE, from the Neolithic man, indicating the presence of a prehistoric civilisation or settlement in Kerala

 Neolithic agricultural cultures sprang up in the Indus Valley region around 5000 BCE, in the lower Gangetic valley around 3000 BCE, represented by the Bhirrana findings (7570–6200 BCE) in Haryana, India, Lahuradewafindings (7000 BCE) in Uttar Pradesh, India,[41]and Mehrgarh findings (7000–5000 BCE) in Balochistan, Pakistan; and later in Southern India, spreading southwards and also northwards into Malwa around 1800 BCE. The first urban civilisation of the region began with the Indus Valley Civilisation

INDIAN CIVILIZATION FORM 3RD MILLENNIUM BCE TO 1526 AD

Indian civilization form 3rd millennium BCE to 1526 Ad

According to consensus in modern genetics, anatomically modern humans first arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa between 73,000 and 55,000 years ago. However, the earliest known human remains in South Asia date to 30,000 years ago. Contemporaneous human rock art sites have been found in many parts of the Indian subcontinent, including at the Bhimbetka rock shelters in Madhya Pradesh. Settled life, which involves the transition from foraging to farming and pastoralism, began in South Asia around 7,000 BCE. At the site of Mehrgarh, Baluchistan, Pakistan, presence can be documented of the domestication of wheat and barley, rapidly followed by that of goats, sheep, and cattle.[3] By 4,500 BCE, settled life had spread more widely,[3] and began to gradually evolve into the Indus Valley Civilization, an early civilization of the Old world, which was contemporaneous with Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. This civilisation flourished between 2,500 BCE and 1900 BCE in what today is Pakistan and north-western India, and was noted for its urban planning, baked brick houses, elaborate drainage, and water supply.

In early second millennium BCE persistent drought caused the population of the Indus Valley to scatter from large urban centres to villages. Around the same time, Indo-Aryan tribes moved into the Punjab from regions further northwest in several waves of migration. The resulting Vedic period was marked by the composition of the Vedas, large collections of hymns of these tribes whose postulated religious culture, through synthesis with the pre-existing religious cultures of the subcontinent, gave rise to Hinduism. The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure, arose later during this period. Towards the end of the period, around 600 BCE, after the pastoral and nomadic Indo-Aryans spread from the Punjab into the Gangetic plain, large swaths of which they deforested to pave way for agriculture, a second urbanisation took place. The small Indo-Aryan chieftaincies, or janapadas, were consolidated into larger states, or mahajanapadas. This urbanisation was accompanied by the rise of new ascetic movements, including Jainism and Buddhism, which challenged the primacy of rituals, presided by Brahmin priests, that had come to be associated with Vedic religion, and gave rise to new religious concepts.

Most of the Indian subcontinent was conquered by the Maurya Empire during the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. From the 3rd century BCE onwards Prakrit and Paliliterature in the north and the Tamil Sangam literature in southern India started to flourish. Wootz steel originated in south India in the 3rd century BCE and was exported to foreign countries. During the Classical period, various parts of India were ruled by numerous dynasties for the next 1,500 years, among which the Gupta Empirestands out. This period, witnessing a Hindureligious and intellectual resurgence, is known as the classical or "Golden Age of India". During this period, aspects of Indian civilisation, administration, culture, and religion (Hinduism and Buddhism) spread to much of Asia, while kingdoms in southern India had maritime business links with the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Indian cultural influence spread over many parts of Southeast Asia, which led to the establishment of Indianised kingdoms in Southeast Asia (Greater India).

The most significant event between the 7th and 11th century was the Tripartite strugglecentred on Kannauj that lasted for more than two centuries between the Pala Empire, Rashtrakuta Empire, and Gurjara-Pratihara Empire. Southern India saw the rise of multiple imperial powers from the middle of the fifth century, most notably the Chalukya, Chola, Pallava, Chera, Pandyan, and Western Chalukya Empires. The Chola dynastyconquered southern India and successfully invaded parts of Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Bengal[14] in the 11th century. In the early medieval period Indian mathematics, including Hindu numerals, influenced the development of mathematics and astronomy in the Arab world.

Islamic conquests made limited inroads into modern Afghanistan and Sindh as early as the 8th century, and the Delhi Sultanate was founded in 1206 CE by Central Asian Turkswho ruled a major part of the northern Indian subcontinent in the early 14th century, but declined in the late 14th century. This period also saw the emergence of several powerful Hindu states, notably Vijayanagara, Gajapati, and Ahom, as well as Rajput states, such as Mewar. The 15th century saw the advent of Sikhism. The early modern period began in the 16th century, when the Mughal Empire conquered most of the Indian subcontinent,[20] becoming the biggest global economy and manufacturing power with a nominal GDP that valued a quarter of world GDP, superior than the combination of Europe's GDP. The Mughals suffered a gradual decline in the early 18th century, which provided opportunities for the Marathas, Sikhs, Mysoreans and Nawabs of Bengal to exercise control over large regions of the Indian subcontinent.

From the mid-18th century to the mid-19th century, large regions of India were gradually annexed by the East India Company, a chartered company acting as a sovereign power on behalf of the British government. Dissatisfaction with Company rule in India led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, which rocked parts of north and central India, and let to the dissolution of the Company. India was afterwards ruled directly by the British Crown, in the British Raj. After World War I, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress, led by Mahatma Gandhi, and noted for nonviolence. Later, the All-India Muslim League would advocate for a separate Muslim-majority nation state. The British Indian Empire was partitioned in August 1947 into the Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan, each gaining its independence.

Critique of Caste System

Introducation

                      The idea of founding of a socially and politically equal and just India would never be complete without B. R. Ambedkar, one of the most illustrious social and political thinkers, a leader and activist, and the Constitution-Maker of modern India. It is said that the roots of Ambedkar’s philosophy were not in politics but in religion, particularly the Hindu religion which laid the foundation of caste system. His socio-political thought began with his criticism of Hindu religion because of its evil practices of caste system and seeking (or presenting) solutions for untouchables to free from this evil practice. Ambedkar himself was an untouchable and faced many humiliations as one. As such, the liberation of ‘depressed classes’, the awakening and organisation of untouchables, and safeguarding their rights and interests centred to his political and social ideas. The political and social thoughts of Ambedkar therefore are found in his fight to uplift the untouchables, the ‘depressed classes’. It is aptly described that the political philosophy of B. R. Ambedkar was often shaped by the politics of social reform and by India’s special brand of minority politics^.

Critique of Caste System

Caste not merely a division of labour but a division of labourers: 

                                                                                                              The most evil practice in Hindu religion is the practice of casteism and the categorisation of certain sections of people as Untouchables. Ambedkar proved this. Many Hindus including Gandhi defended caste system on many grounds, the first being the division of labour as necessary for a civilized society. However, Ambedkar said that caste system as such is not merely division of labour, but it is also a division of labourers. Moreover, it is a hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other.

Caste system is unnatural: 

                                                   In such a system, the division of labour is not spontaneous; such a system is not based on individual choice. Individual sentiments and individual preferences have no place in it. It is based on the dogma of predestination. And, therefore, social mobility of occupation is prevented thereby making it impossible for a Hindu to gain his or her livelihood in changing circumstances. The system does not permit the readjustment of occupations among caste and this makes caste a direct cause of much of unemployment in the country.As an economic organisation, Caste, contrasting the views of its Hindu defenders, is a harmful institution in as much as it involves the subordination of man’s natural powers and inclinations to the exigencies of social rules.

Caste cannot preserve a non-existent ‘racial purity’: 

                                                                                                   Some Hindus opine that the object of Caste was to preserve purity of blood. However, Ambedkar argues that such a ‘racial purity’ among Hindus is non-existent. Caste system came into being long after the different races of India had commingled in blood and culture. Caste system does not demarcate racial division. In contrast, Caste ‘is a social system which embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in fashion and who had authority to force it on their inferiors.

Hindu society is merely a collection of castes: 

                                                                                       Ambedkar says that the Hindu society as such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes. In every Hindu, the only consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. Each caste is conscious of its existence, each living for itself and for its selfish ideal. Caste is the real explanation as to why the Hindu has let the savage remain a savage in the midst of his civilization. Caste deprives Hindus of fellow-feeling.

Caste destroys public spirit, public opinion and public charity: 

                                                                                                                        The caste system prevents common activity and by preventing common activity it has prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with unified life and a consciousness of its own being.  It encourages hatred of one caste by another. As such, caste destroys public spirit, public opinion and public charity. A Hindu’s public charity, his responsibility and his loyalty are restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become caste-bound. A Hindu will follow a leader if he is a man of his caste. The capacity to appreciate merits in a man apart from his caste does not exist in a Hindu.

Caste prevents Hinduism from being a missionary religion: 

                                                                                                                  Caste has prevented the Hindus from expanding and from absorbing other religious communities. Caste again makes unity impossible among Hindus. One Hindu cannot regard another Hindu as his ‘Bhai’. So long as caste remains, there will be no unity and so long as there is no unity, the Hindu will remain meek and weak. According to Ambedkar,

Human Rights Under Hindu Social Order

                                                                                The Hindu social order, particularly its main pillars: the caste system and untouchability, presents a unique case. As a system of social, economic and religious governance it is founded not on the principle of liberty (or freedom), equality and fraternity - the values which formed the basis of universal human rights - but on the principle of inequality in every sphere of life. In Ambedkar's view, the doctrine of inequality is the core and heart of the Hindu social order. It leaves no difference between legal philosophy (and law) and moral philosophy (morality). (Ambedkar 1987 first published, Deepak Lal, 1988). The three unique features of the caste system need to be understood.

                                                                             In the social sphere the caste system involves (a) division of people in social groups (castes). The social, religious, cultural and economic rights of members of the castes are predetermined in advance by birth into that caste and are hereditary (b) an unequal distribution of these rights across caste groups (c) provision of a mechanism of social and economic ostracism calculated to ensure rigid adherence to the system and justification of the social system by the philosophy of Hinduism. In the sphere of economic rights, the Hindu social order also lays down a scheme of distribution, namely (a) it fixes the occupations for each caste by birth and its hereditary continuation; (b) unequal distribution of these economic rights related to property, trade, employment, wages, education etc., among the caste groups; and (c) hierarchy of occupation based on social stigma.

                                                                              These features imply that the Hindu social order is based on three interrelated elements, namely predetermination of social, religious and economic rights of each caste based on birth; the unequal and hierarchical (graded) division of these rights among the castes; and provision of strong social, religious and economic ostracism supported by social and religious ideology to maintain the Hindu social order.

                                                                             In this framework the concept of "human rights" under the Hindu social system takes on a specific meaning. Unlike other human societies, the Hindu social order in its classical form does not recognize the individual and his distinctiveness as the center of the social purpose. The unit of the Hindu society is not the individual. Even the family is not regarded as a unit of society except for the purposes of marriages and inheritance (Ambedkar 1987, first published). The primary unit of society is caste. There is no room for individual merit and the consideration of individual justice. Rights that an individual has are not due to him personally; it is due to him because he belongs to a particular caste. Similarly, if an individual suffers from a lack of rights, it is not because he deserves it by his conduct. The disability is imposed upon the caste and as a member of the caste that is his lot.

                                                                           The other implication is that, the caste system also involves the principle of rank and gradation, in so far as the rights increase in ascending order from untouchable to Brahmin. It is a hierarchically interlinked system. In this framework castes are artfully interlinked with each other in a manner such that the right and privileges of higher castes become the disabilities of the lower castes, particularly the untouchables. In this sense, in Ambedakar's view the caste in a single number cannot exist. Caste can exist only in plural number. There cannot be such a thing as caste as a singular phenomenon. So one has to look at the castes as a system, where each is interlinked with other in unequal measures of social, religious, economic relations and rights.

                                                                          This hierarchically interlinked character of the caste system implies a concept of "human rights" and "humanhood" which is different and unique. In this particular order of hierarchy the Brahmins are not only placed at the top but are considered to be "superior social beings" worthy of special rights and privileges. At the bottom, the untouchables are treated as "sub-human beings or lesser human beings" considered unworthy of many rights. Untouchables are considered as inferior social beings and therefore not entitled to any individual rights i.e., civic, religious, political and economic. In fact, the disabilities are so severe that they are physically and socially isolated and excluded from the rest of the Hindu society. Isolation and exclusion of untouchables is a unique feature of the Hindu social order. Classes or social groups are common to all societies, but as long as the classes or social groups do not practice isolation and exclusiveness they are only non-social in their relations towards one another. "Isolation and exclusiveness" makes them anti-social and inimical to one another. (Ambedkar, first published 1987).

The Evidence

                            The annual reports of the Commission for Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe provide the data on the registered cases of untouchability and atrocities against the Scheduled Castes. Table 1 revealed that average number of cases registered under Anti Untouchability Act (or Human Right Act) were 480 during the 1950s, 1903 during the1960s, 3240 during the1970s, 3875 during the1980s and 1672 during the first half of the 1990s. Table 2 shows that during the nine year period between 1981-86 and 1995 -97 a total of two lakhs cases of atrocities on the SC were registered, which means on an average three thousand cases of atrocities were committed on them annually.

                                 The break-up of the atrocities for the year 1997 shows 504 cases of murder, 3452 of grievous hurt, 384 of arson, 1002 of rape and 12149 cases of other offences. The data for the period between 1981 and 1997 showed that on an average annually about 508 SC persons were murdered, about 2343 hurt, 847 subjected to arson, 754 became victims of physical violence and about 12,000 were subjected to other offences.

Four Regional Cases

                                         Generally, cases which are registered with the police are of a severe nature and attract public attention. A large number of cases however remain unreported. The studies based on village surveys bring out the actual magnitude of the practice of untouchability and atrocities. From the massive literature on the practice of untouchability and atrocities, four regional studies are presented here; from Karnataka (1973-74 and 1991) and Andhra Pradesh (1977) in the south, Orissa (1987-88) in the east and Gujarat (1971 and 1996) in the west.

Father of the Indian Constitution

                                                              Despite Ambedkar’s defeat in the elections of 1946, the Congress party, which wanted to present itself as the nation’s unifier, turned to him, and Nehru, following Gandhi’s request, named him Minister of Justice. Even more importantly, Ambedkar returned to the Constituent Assembly and, having impressed many of the Congress party by his mastery of the law and by the compromise solutions that he proposed, was named head of the committee responsible for drafting the Constitution. Thus Ambedkar could defend in the Constituent Assembly the political principles that he had absorbed during his studies in the United States and England. In particular he proposed putting into place a British-style judicial system, thus opposing a centralizing dynamic to the option supported by Gandhi, who was in favour of a decentralization of power down to the village level. He had great influence throughout the drafting of the text, and with a considerable amount of diplomacy and political skill he managed to marginalize the influence of Gandhi’s positions. As a result, the Constitution, promulgated on January 26th, 1950, carries a strong imprint of Ambedkar, who ensured the codification of fundamental rights and the guarantee of state involvement in social reform: untouchability was abolished, and every form of discrimination prohibited.

Bibliography

Dasarathi Bhunia - Understanding Ambedkar

                                                 internet sources of information

Transition from feudalism to capitalism

Intorducation

                             Feudalism existed in Europe from about 300 to 1400 AD, as the concept of capitalism started to take shape. It's generally believed that feudalism ended with the renaissance in Europe, a time in which there was a great revival of art, science, literature and human freedom. Although the renaissance played a key role in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, several other factors also contributed to the transition. These factors include flaws within the feudal system as well as external forces that created a long-lasting impact on the medieval societies.

                                                                                Some of the internal factors that led to the collapse of feudalism include internal wars, rebellions by the common folk and inefficiency of the system as a whole. The feudal system placed heads of groups between the monarch and the inhabitants, thereby increasing tension between the common folk and the monarch. A Peasant Revolt ensued all over Europe in the 14th century, which resulted into the old system being broken up and the beginning of the modern social economy. The Revolt led to the division of national wealth among small landed entrepreneurs.

                                                                                 The Crusades and travel during the middle ages opened new trade options for England. More trade saw the growth of more towns and thus more merchants. Another disruptive force was the increase of communication, which broke down the isolated homesteads, assisted the rise of towns, and facilitated the emergence of the middle-class. This process was greatly accelerated in the 14th century and did much to destroy the feudal classifications of society. Towns and cities in turn provided alternative employment opportunities, improving the livelihoods of the peasants and in the process encouraging rural to urban migration. Fiefs left their lords for towns and cities, leaving landlords labor less hence contributing to the demise of feudalism.

                                                                              Lords were to ensure that their fiefs had access to the church. They were also not permitted to force the fiefs to work on Sundays. In essence, the feudal arrangement was a subsistence system that focused on two elements, survival and salvation (Hamilton 2007). As Europe became safer, merchants invaded the rural society giving way to wealthy towns and cities. Vassals and fiefs were replaced by private armies and commoners, as merchants became the new source of power for the kings.

                                                                             Karl Marx points out the fall of feudalism should be mainly attributed to internal factors. As demand for commodities grew as a result of new markets and increase in trade, the inefficiency of the rigid feudal structure of production failed to meet new demand. New methods of production arose, thereby increasing division of labor which enhanced productivity. As capitalist modes of production improved, landlords began to perceive themselves as businessmen, thus striving for higher economic returns. As technology improved, new modes of production were only probable if farming was on larger fields. Fiefs were kicked off the land, those who left moved on to join towns and cities while the rest remained to become paid laborers.

                                                                              One of the major external factors that led to the transition form feudalism to capitalism was the expansion of trade. Merchants begun to prosper as Europe became more stable. They were a unique class of individuals in that they were not bound by obligations, thereby conducting trade in their own interest, or else everything would come to a standstill. Merchants started to transform society, from subsistence to an economic one, thereby revitalizing the notion of capital gain. The new merchant class also provided important money for kings, who stood much to gain by encouraging their trade.

                                                                              Monarchs could now raise money through merchants and build armies that were only loyal to the king, instead of relying on the commoners for military force. Mercenaries had few loyalties, except to money, and were feared all through Europe. The threat of mercenaries led to the employment of professionally trained private soldiers; the Standing Armies, and ultimately the end of Feudalism in Europe. The system of raising armies for wars ultimately led to the substitution of money for land. The old system of feudal levy, which formed the basis for feudalism, became obsolete as money became the symbol of power. Land ceased to be as valuable as it once was in the eyes of the monarch. In this sense, Europe started transforming from a land based economy to a money based economy. Land was later-on rented in exchange for money and the rights of lords over labor decreased.

Another external factor that weakened feudalism was the demographic crisis in the 14th century. The Great Famine (1315-1317) led to a decline in agricultural production, meaning the lords had to come up with new strategies to obtain sustainability. The Black Death (1348-1350) severely decreased Europe's population, thereby making labor a valuable commodity. The lords tracked their tenants as capital pleaded for labor. All provisions to control labor proved futile, as poor men entered into service of their own lords as hired laborers.

                                                                               In conclusion, the platform that held feudalism in place failed to pass the test of time. The mechanisms put in place weren't stable enough to fend off the concept of capitalism, what came to be termed as economic freedom. The renaissance in Europe also took its toll on feudalism, as the people embraced art, technologies and change, which marked an end of the medieval times and transition into the modern world.

Decline of the manorial system 

                                                              Increased agricultural production initially encouraged the growth of trade and commerce. Later it led to the decline of the manorial system. The feudal lords started depending more on cities for their demand of luxury items. They needed money for the purpose. To meet their need for money they started renting their land to peasants in exchange for money rent. In this process they simply became the landlords and in most of the cases absentee landlords.Peasants, on the other hand, found it profitable to sell their grain in the market for money and use this money to commute their labour services. This way they were free from all ties to the manor.They were free to sell their surplus in the market and pay the rent to the feudal lord. All these changes led to weakening of feudalties                                         ..
                                                                                 The dissolution of manorial system was further aggravated by disasters of the fourteen and the fifteen centuries. The hundred-year war between France and England (1337-1453) caused unrest in these two countries. Next, the bubonic plague of the 1350s reduced the English population by half. As we know, any disaster affects the poor more. The nobility tried to overcome labour scarcity by revoking the commutation of labour services. But all their attempts to revive the feudal ties were in vain. In some cases, peasants even resorted to violent revolts.

Creation of the Working Class

                                                             The dissolution of the manorial system and changes in the economy in the sixteenth century created a class which owned no means of production and were forced to sell their labour power to the owners of the means of production for wages. Only with these wages could they buy necessities.                                                 .             
                                                                               The peasants used to collect food, fuel and fodder from the village common land. By the thirteenth century the feudal lord started enclosing this land to meet the increased need for money. They used this land for grazing sheep. As a result the village people were denied access to this land. They moved to cities  in search of jobs. Cities became a haven for these rootless people. Guilds in cities have started concentrating on the material well-being of their members. The unemployed started concentrating in the urban centres. There was strict punishment against unlawful farming and begging. These inimical situations created a working class.

Other forces in the transition to Capitalism

                                                                         The discovery of some navigation devices (compass and telescope) helped in the transport of heavy precious metals and later in colonization. In the medieval times (1300-1500) money mainly consisted of gold and silver coins but the production of precious metals stagnated in Europe, causing a problem in transactions. The shortage eased when gold from the Americas travelled to Europe in the sixteenth century. Europe experienced very high inflation during sixteenth century to the tune of 150-300%, depending on the region. The price rise was more for the manufacturing sector than for agriculture and wages. As a result farmers and wage earners suffered more capitalists. With higher profit, the capital stock of the merchants  rose which, in due course, was reinvested and led to more capital. This way the process of capital accumulation progressed. The capitalist class earns profit from its capital stock and more capital means higher profit in the future. This period is also marked by the appearance of nation states. The monarchs needed support from the emerging capitalist class to fight the war with the feudal lords. Capitalists provided resources to monarch to fight wars and in return the monarch promised them military support and freedom from various rules and regulations of the manorial control. In addition a system of uniform weights and measures was introduced.

The initial phase of capitalism is known as mercantilism. Mercantilism originated simultaneously with scarcity of gold and silver in Europe. Mercantilist policies attempted to keep the gold and silver within the country and discouraged its outflow. Spain which experienced maximum gold and silver flow from Americas imposed various restrictions on its outflow. It even announced death penalty for illegal exporters. But, to meet the requirement of trade, the merchant class managed to smuggle it out by bribing the government officials.

                                                                 The government adopted various other measures to encourage the inflow of gold and silver. First, the domestic shipping and insurance agencies were promoted both for exports and imports over the foreign counterparts. Second, the government encouraged domestic monopoly because a single seller could have more control over price in the international market than if there were more than one domestic seller. In order to control foreign competition it even went ahead with the colonization of economic important regions. The export of raw material was also prohibited.

                                                                 Imports to the European countries, especially England, were restricted. If an industry was unable to withstand the foreign competition then the government provided various types of support and subsidies to overcome the setback. In the opinion of Hunt the resources necessary for capitalism could have been generated from trade and commerce, the putting-out system and the enclosure movement.

                                                                  During the transition period, the rent earning landlord class was still the dominant class. A small sector of commodity production also existed in this period. Dobb and other economists have called this as “petty mode of production period”. In this mode of production with artisans and peasants, who had turned into small capitalists, even with hired labour could not have changed this mode of production to capitalism. Prof. Habib suggests that the petty mode of production could have intensified landlord coercion and extension of merchant capital at the cost of small producer’s capital. This would only have delayed the onset of capitalism.

                                                                 Capitalism requires labourers who could be hired and fired by the employers, and factories using machines. Machine-based division of labour is different from that in the previous modes of production. Factories dependent on machines became a dominant form of production in England by the early eighteenth century. As Prof. Habib argues, even technological development could not have generated enough resources for the capitalist system. He suggests that the resources required for the growth of the capitalist system could only be made available from the primitive accumulation involving internal exploitation or control over other economies, for example, colonization.