History Optional (Early Medieval Period) by Shivlal Gupta

Model Answer

Question #1. “Early medieval India has been described largely as a dark phase of Indian history”. Critically examine. 10 marks (150 words)

Hints:

Early medieval India has been described by historians, largely as a dark phase of Indian history characterised only by political fragmentation and cultural decline. Such a characterisation being assigned to it, this period remained by and large a neglected one in terms of historical research. We owe it completely to new researches in the recent decades to have brought to light the many important and interesting aspects of this period.

Fresh studies have contributed to the removal of the notion of ‘dark age’ attached to this period by offering fresh perspectives. Indeed the very absence of political unity that was considered a negative attribute by earlier scholars is now seen as the factor that had made possible the emergence of rich regional cultures of the medieval period. The existing historiography on the early medieval period has been classified into hypotheses based on broadly two sets of propositions. One of these assumptions is that traditional polity is essentially changeless. Historians relying on this hypothesis have described polity in early medieval India as “traditional” or “Oriental despotic” (originally derived from Marx) Hermann Kulke points out that Marx’s model of oriental despotism was an “outcome of occidental prejudice against an alleged oriental despotism”.

The other assumption underlying most of the recent works on this period is one that envisages possibilities of change as opposed to the previous approach of changelessness of Indian polity. The first kind of model with the assumption of change is perhaps the “imperial model” or centralised state model. Change according to the historians subscribing to the imperial model, was thus conceived in terms of dynastic change as well as change in size of territory of the empire. It was  seen  as deviation from the norm set by “imperial rulers down to the time of Harsha who endeavoured to stem the tide of disintegration and fragmentation” (B.D. Chattopadhyaya, The Making of  Early Medieval India). The early medieval period was therefore understood, within this model as a negative change from the ideal imperial system. In other words, change is seen here as a negative change towards a state of instability as opposed to the norm of a centralised unitary state. This approach is also, therefore not very helpful in gaining insights into the processes involved in state formation during the period under study. This is because, it does not go much beyond a description of military conquests and dynastic history into more crucial structural issues. This approach, which was mainly adopted by nationalist Indian historians is also fraught with dangers of communal interpretations of Indian history since it assumes as its ideal or normative, the “Hindu political order”.

Yet another model which is based upon the assumption of dynamism or change is the “Indian Feudalism” model. This model needs to be understood seriously as it represents a turning point in the historiography of the period. This is because change during the early medieval period was explained in this model as representing a transformation of the socio-economic system and the interrelatedness between social and political formation. The emergence of a hierarchical structure during this period, as exemplified in the Samanta system, is used by historians following the feudalism approach to explain the hegemony and dominance of the early medieval state through suppression and exploitation.

D.D. Kosambi was the first to provide a conceptual definition of Indian feudalism. In subsequent years the most important contribution towards the understanding of this period through the feudalism approach was in the writings of R. S. Sharma. the basis of Sharma’s arguments was evidence that revealed an ever-increasing number of land grants made to Brahmins and religious institutions since the early centuries of Christian era and also to government officials later on. Sharma pointed to the fact that grantees were being endowed with more and more immunities and they increasingly encroached on communal village land which led to the exploitation of the peasantry.

This situation according to him was further aggravated by the decline of urbanism and trade, particularly foreign trade. Another factor was the paucity of coins. Thus economically, this period was characterised by him as one of decay and decline. He described the period, in political terms, as one which saw a continuous process of fragmentation and decentralisation, caused by the widespread practice of granting big and small territories to feudatories and officials who established their control over territories and emerged as independent potentates. The crux of this argument, therefore is that feudal polity emerged from the gradual breakdown of a centralised bureaucratic state system, represented by the Mauryan state. The system of assignment of land, gradually became widespread in the early medieval period and was tied up with the transfer of the rights of administration of the centralized state as well as its rights over sources of revenue. This process gradually led to the corroding of the authority of the state and resulted in the erosion of sovereignty.

This construct drew criticism from scholars like D. C. Sircar who pointed to the scarce amount of evidence for land grants of a secular type with service tenures, as compared to the evidence of a large number of grants made to Brahmins and religious institutions. Another proponent of the ‘feudal polity’ model, B. N. S. Yadavaendeavoured to provide new evidence of an increasing practice of land grants to military officers, during the post-Gupta period and for restrictions on the mobility of peasants. Yadava, influenced by the writings of Marc Bloch and Max Weber, shifted emphasis towards the political aspects of feudalism. For him the most important feature of Indian feudalism was the ‘Samanta’ or the independent neighboring chief, who rose to prominence since 600 A.D., at the royal courts from a vanquished status to a position of reinstalled feudatories and court dignitaries. In the new conception of empire, the territorial aspect or control was no longer important. In its place, the extension of the tributary system became important. According to Yadava, such empires were at best tributary superstructures and therefore lacked solidarity, stability and political unity.

The feudalism model outlined above has met with a lot of criticism over the years. B. D. Chattopadhyay has questioned the theory of urban decay and decline of trade in the post-Gupta period, a  very essential premise of the feudalism argument. The sharpest criticism has come from HarbansMukhia who questioned the very existence of Indian feudalism. He pointed out that in the European context, feudalism emerged due to changes in the society, whereas in India, the establishment of feudalism has been attributed to state actions especially land grants. He raised doubts whether such complex socio-political structures as feudalism can be established through administrative and legal procedures. Mukhia also raised questions about several other essentials in the concept of Indian feudalism, such as serfdom. He argued that Indian peasantry has been characterised predominantly as free. Like Mukhia, B. D. Chattopadhyay also raises doubts whether administrative measures can bring in changes in socio-political formations. He says that if land assignments made by the state weaken the power of the state (because the state surrenders its administrative and revenue rights), then it means that feudal polity emerged because “pre-feudal polity decides to preside over the liquidation of its own power” (B.D. Chattopadhyay The Making of Early Medieval India). In  this  sense  the  situations  in early medieval times could be explained as a form of crisis in the pre-feudal system. This leads to the question i.e., was the pre-feudal polity absolutely centralised?

While critiquing the model of feudal polity Chattopadhyay agrees that the existence of landgrants cannot be denied, nor can the presence of the contractual element in these landgrants be negated completely. He also accepts that the system of assignments, wherever it existed, did bring in important changes in agrarian relations. However, he points out that all this does not help to explain the origin of feudal polity. Instead, he considers land grants (secular) as one and not the sole criteria for understanding the structure of polity. While questioning the single line argument for the formation of polity, based on the evidence of landgrants, Chattopadhyay also says that no system can be totally centralised, indicating thereby that the problem should be addressed from another stand point. This leads us to studies, which have analysed the complex interrelationship between socio-economic and political aspects that have shaped the formation of the early medieval polities.

In recent years, new historical works on the formation of polity in early medieval India have taken our understanding of the problem from a macro to a micro-level. The common issue in most of these studies is a focus on structural developments and changes within a micro-level state system. These studies constitute a departure from the existing historiography because unlike the nationalist historians’ model and the feudalism model, which have viewed political change largely in terms of fragmentation or the breakdown of political authority, the new group of historians have perceived political changes through integration and interrelationship between socio-economic and political processes.

The process of change, according to these historians, has been a result of the emergence and gradual development of “state society” (formation of ruling lineages). This involved a metamorphosis of ‘pre- state polities’ into state polities and thus the assimilation of local polities into larger state structures.

B.D. Chattopadhyay explains that the process of establishment of large polities took place in the nuclear areas. These nuclear regions served as a strong resource generation pocket for the state structure. He further points out that large polities emerged in other areas as well as a result of military expansion. In this context he gives the example of the expansion  of  the  Pala  power  which  from South East Bengal penetrated into the middle and lower Ganges basin.

According to Hermann Kulke this process of the expansion of state society, through the transformation of pre-state polities into state polities, was based on and progressed along with certain other crucial phenomena. One of these was the emergence and spatial expansion of ruling lineages. This process was achieved through Kshatriyaisation or Rajputisation. Within the framework of post – Gupta polity state society which was a manifestation of formation of ruling lineages had first penetrated into nuclear regions and expanded into peripheral areas by the end of the Gupta period.

B.D. Chattopadhyay also examines the formation of ruling lineages from the perspective of the process of social mobility in early medieval India. He explains that through Kshatriyaisation, any lineage or segment of a large ethnic group could make an attempt to assume political power and establish a large state structure by an effective mobilisation of force. Ruling lineages owed their origin to the expansion of agricultural settlements (this development was accentuated by the improvementof agricultural techniques, etc.) and conversion of tribal groups into peasants, which helped in the colonisation of new areas and the emergence of a state structure. Although this period was marked by the emergence of many ruling lineages but they did not become permanently established in a geographical region for long and got eclipsed in course of time. Several other lineages emerged (as offshoots of the same clan) as the political power in another region through expansion into other areas. Sometimes the lineage in a geographical location was replaced by another lineage with the passage of time and established a different type of political formation.

The new group of scholars, working within the framework of “integrative polities”, also linked the process of formation of state polities with economic and social processes like the extension of agrarian society through the peasantization of tribal groups. A very important constituent of this complex and multi-dimenstional process of state formation studied by this group of scholars is the religious aspect

i.e. the role played by religious institutions in the process of state formation. Whereas within the framework of the “feudalism” and “segmentary state” models, land grants to Brahmins and temples are attributed a “divisive” and hence negative role leading to the process of fragmentation of political authority and strengthening of the segmentary structure of state, the new approaches view this as an aspect of integration.

According to B.D. Chattopadhyaya, such assignments as Brahmadeyas and Devadanas as administrative measures helped in providing legitimacy to the temporal power in the areas occupied by them. In this respect the temporal and sacred arena were mutually interlinked. Temporal power depended upon the sanction from ‘spiritual authority’ and the latter needed the support from the temporal power for its sustenance.

During the process of spread of lineage society the several cults and practices of the lineage groups were brought into a uniform framework and the precepts of Bhakti provided the basis for this integration. The temple served as the focal point of Bhakti ideology. The religious cults and traditions which were institutionalised and integrated through the temple and the principles of Bhakti were an instrument for legitimising state power.

Samantas have been regarded as feudatories who brought about the decentralization of polity which came to be dominated by suzerain – subordinate relationship. However scholars like B. D. Chattopadhyay counter the decentralised polity perspective and while conceding the hierarchical (overlord/subordinate) element intrinsic to “Samanta”, they feel that it did not lead to centrifugal tendencies but was an instrument of integration. The expansion of ruling lineages horizontally was brought about due to many factors (expansion of agricultural settlements, transformation of tribes into peasants, etc.). This type of polity could sustain itself only through the hierarchical feudatory (Samanta) system in which administrative powers and resources had to be parceled out. A local and regional ruling lineage could get transformed into a supralocal power only with the aid (military etc.) of other ruling lineages and this necessitated a hierarchical system based on gradation. Thus the feudatory system was integrative in character.

Question #2. The early medieval period was one of urban change, but not of urban decay. Do you agree? 15 marks (250 words)

Hints

Urbanisation in the early medieval India has been a matter of debate among many historians, since R.S. Sharma's theory of a two-stage urban decay—the first starting in the second half  of the 3rd century or 4th century CE, and the second after 6th century CE. Sharma argued that the phenomenon of urban decay should be viewed as an integral part of a new of agrarian production and surplus-appropriation, wherein state officials and revenue collectors gave way to landed chiefs, vassals, brahmanas, temples, and monasterie’ who directly extracted surplus, services, and goods from the peasants and artisans.

The process was caused by a combination of interconnected and concurrent processes: issue of a large number of land grants to religious and secular (for services) officials, paucity of metallic currency as a medium exchange, ruralisation of economy leading to the rise of villages as self-sufficient economic units where production was carried out for local consumption, and decline of inter-regional and foreign trade.

Adopting a stand contrary to Sharma's, B. D. Chattopadhyaya, in his The Making of Early Medieval India, argues that though the early medieval period saw the decline of some urban centres, some others simultaneously continued to flourish and some new ones also emerged. In early medieval North India, especially the Indo-Gangetic divide, the upper Ganga basin and the Malwa plateau, some urban centres, such as Prithudaka (modern Pehoa in Karnal district of Haryana), Tattanandapura (Ahar near Bulandshahr and situated on the west bank of Ganga), Siyodina (near Lalitpur in Jhansi district), and Gopagiri (Gwalior), witnessed a continuity of inland trade and elements of urbanisation associated with it.

Chattopadhyaya points to the epigraphic evidence for the rise of various market places in the early medieval period. Two terms, hatta (market) and mandapika (centreiete commercial cess was imposed and collected), are used in the inscriptions from Najasthan dated to the second half of the 9ch century CE to denote centres of exchange.

In a similar way, Ranabir Chakravarti, in his Trade and Traders in Early Indian Society, also strongly argues against the perception of declining trade in India during 600 1000 CE and demonstrates the linkages of trade at the locality level during this period.

He shows that some mandapikas appear to have been situated at major urban centres like Siyadoni, Balhari and Anhilwada where they were described as pattanamandapikas. At other sites, besides these three, the mandapikas served as local-level exchange centres, closely associated with their adjacent rural hinterland.

According to him, in the commercial structure and hierarchy of exchange centres, the mandapikas might have been assigned a position intermediate between small, rural periodic markets (hatta), and developed urban centres involved in inter- and intraregional trade.

Chattopadhayaya further criticises Sharma’s thesis on the decline of foreign trade leading to an urban decline. According to him, decline in foreign trade may not necessarily imply a decline in internal trade or petty commodity production, and the same applies to the urban centres.