Indian Feudalism - Lecture notes 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

The main exponent of the theory of feudalism in ancient India is Prof. R.S.Sharma, who uses the term feudalism to characterise the socio-economicformation in the post-Gupta period. Feudalism appears in a predominantlyagrarian economy, which is characterised by a class of landlords and a class ofserv...

Description

1

MEDIEVAL INDIAN CIVILIZATION (TO 1500)

INDIAN FEUDALISM

The main exponent of the theory of feudalism in ancient India is Prof. R.S.Sharma, who uses the term feudalism to characterise the socio-economicformation in the postGupta period. Feudalism appears in a predominantlyagrarian economy, which is characterised by a class of landlords and a class ofservile peasantry.In this system, the landlords extract surplus through social,religious or political methods, which are called extra-economic. This seems to bemore or less the current Marxist view of feudalism which considers serfdom,'scalar property' and sovereignty as features of the West European version offeudalism. R.S. Sharma says that obviously land was the primary means of production.In the same piece of land, the peasant held inferior rights and the landlord heldsuperior rights. The land grants leave hardly any doubt that the landlordsenjoyed a good measure of general control on the means ofproduction. Hierarchical control over land was created by large-scale infatuation,especially from the eighth century onwards. This gave rise to graded types oflandlords, different from actual tillers of the soil. In a feudal system of production, the landlords shared the agriculturalsurplus, called rent, in labour and cash/kind, and this was coupled with apatron-client system of distribution, primarily between the peasant and thelandlord.But in India, the problem is not directly connected with the rise oflanded magnates or with the "decomposition of the slave mode of production",but with the decreasing control of the peasant over his unit of production,coupled with his restricted access to the communal agrarian resources. It is thought that feudalism was identical with freedom, and there seems tobe an assumption that freedom was the only potent method of exploiting epeasants. It may be very effective, but other of servitude imposed on thepeasantry did prove inoperative and unproductive. But in the Indian case,surplus produce is extracted more through the general control exercised by thelanded intermediaries than by employment as serfs. He suggests that unlike capitalism, feudalism was not universalphenomenon, and in India, where land as very abundant and fertile, there wasno scope for the rise of serfdom or forced labour. No doubt, on account of thepractice of grants, the landed aristocracy did emerge ring the post-Guptaperiod, but along with the anted lands privately owned lands also existed, thestate often bought the private lands from individuals for donating it.Land

2

MEDIEVAL INDIAN CIVILIZATION (TO 1500)

wascommonly assigned by the rulers, rights of varying degrees, to Brahmins and religious institutions, to vassals for military service, to members of the clan orfamily and even to officers. Thus there developed a great variety of interests andrights over land, claimed by the grades of intermediaries. The state was to be the owner of all lands as a general reposition, butindividuals or groups that had lands in their possession were regarded asowners thereof, subject to the ability to pay land tax and the right of the state towith the increasing extent and the changing complexion of the King's right ofownership over land, the issue 'the royal ownership of land became very comicatedin actual practice owing to the increase in claim of the ruling samantahierarchy and the Til landed aristocracy in this respect.Some options (of thepost-Gupta period) reveal that monarchs and overlords gave land grants in 6territories and estates of their samantas. The rights enjoyed over land by theoverlords and the samantas of different grades depended upon their actualpower and prestige.There is also evidence of private individual ownership ofland, in the law books and some inscriptions, by mostly the aristocracy. TheRajatarangini, etc. reveal a state of insecurity and violence which could not buthave affected the land rights of peasants. There was considerable growth ofdependent peasantry and collective rights over pastures. The scholars who support the view of the emergence of the feudal systemduring the post-Gupta period mainly as a result of the increasing land grants,changes in the socioeconomic structure, etc. present a totally different pictureof the whole system, particularly of the land ownership pattern.Consequently,the subject of land ownership pattern in the post-Gupta period is a very vexedquestion. Contemporary sources make this picture more confusing. Forinstance, Medhatithi mentions at one place that the King was the 'Lord' of thesoil, and elsewhere states that the field belonged to him who made it fit forcultivation by clearing it. Prof. Lallanji Gopal, interpreting the views of Medatithiregarding the ownership of land, writes: "When Medatithi speaks of the King asthe master of the soil and of the soil as belonging to the peasant, he does notmean to lay down the legal status of the King as the owner of all cultivable landin the state, but only points out the sovereignty of the King implying a generallordship of the King over all things in his kingdom." Stray references in the literary works of the period also suggest individualownership. Some inscriptions of this period, which record cases of land grantsand land sales by private individuals, corroborate the testimony of the legalworks. In some inscriptions, lands owned by private individuals are mentionedin connection with the demarcation of the boundaries of the donated land.Fieldswhich were owned by cultivators themselves are generally described askautamba- kshctra, owned by certain individuals as sakta and tilled by certain individuals as prakrsta or krsta. But with increasing land grants, the theoreticalownership of land, including the grass and pas-turc-

3

MEDIEVAL INDIAN CIVILIZATION (TO 1500)

land, reservoir of water,groves, dry land, etc. also went to the donees.Such increasing land grants maybe interpreted as a general indication of an increasing claim of the King over theland. Under such conditions, sometimes the actual or existing cultivators of theland were also transferred to the donees. With the growing practice of remunerating the officers of the state throughland grants, the landed aristocracy gained importance in the period. Personsenjoying such land assignments also enjoyed some abiding claims of ownership.The practice of granting the villages to vassals and officials and religious grantsto individuals (Brahmins) and institutions (temples or monasteries) went a longway in creating a new class of landlords.Such rights could be transferred andbought and sold like any other commodity. The growth of the claims of feudalchiefs naturally weakened the claims and rights of the cultivators. A number ofrestrictions were imposed on the claims of the peasant on the land. But the cultivatorswere not tied to the soil like European serfs. If they were oppressed,they had the freedom to migrate to other areas. But in certain inscriptions of northern India of the period, Kings have beenindicated as claiming some sort of ownership over the inhabitants of villages intheir jurisdiction. In the Chandella grants, villages are described as carryingwith them the rights over the artisans, cultivators, and merchants livingtherein. This situation was much similar to that of the manorial system. Butthis was not the uniform picture throughout northern India. The political essence of feudalism lay in the organization of the wholeadministrative structure on the basis of land, its economic essence lay in theinstitution of serfdom in which peasants were attached to the soil held by landintermediaries placed between the king and the actual Tillers, who had to payrent in land and labour to them.The system as R.S.Sharma observes “was basedon a self sufficient economy in which things were mainly produced for the localuse of the peasants and their lords and not for the market”. It is therefore inthe light of certain broad features of feudalism in this sense that the origin andgrowth of feudalism in India haw to be investigated. The central factor ultimately transformed the ancient Indian society into themedieval society was the land grant system. From the post Mourya period andespecially from the Gupta tries the practice of making land grants to theBrahmins, monks and priests. But the practice of land grants came into beingbecause of a serious crisis that affected the ancient social order.The Varnasystem was based on the producing activities of the peasants and labourers.The tax collected by the royal officers from the Vaishyas enable the king to paysalaries to this officials and soldiers. But in the 3rd, 4th centuries, a deep socialcrisis affected the system. The lower orders attempted to arrogate to themselves.The status functions of the higher order. Varna barriers were attached

4

MEDIEVAL INDIAN CIVILIZATION (TO 1500)

becausethe producing masses were oppressed with heavy taxes and impositions andwere claimed protection by the Laings.Several measures were adopted toovercome the crisis but a more important step to meet the situations was togrant land to priests and officials in lieu of salaries and remuneration.Such apractice hard the advantages throwing the burden of collecting taxes andmaintaining law and order in the donated area on the beneficiaries. More overby implanting brahmanas in the conquered tribal areas, the tribal people couldbe taught the brahminical way of life and the need of obeying the king andpaying taxes to him. Previously the grants had been temporary but generally they becamehereditary the earlier grants had only affected the right of land usage, but hadmost related to any rights of peasants. King granted certain privileges, the socalled immunity right and these new owners enjoyed certain administrativeright and functions over the land. They began to carry out legal functions.Theking exempted from the previous obligation to admit royal functionaries to theirlands. The land granted to them could not be entered by royal troops, disturbedby government officers, or interfere with district police. Feudal landownersbecame entitled to administrator justice. They acted as local governors, gaveparts of their land for service rendered without seeking sanctions of rule r. Two significant features of such grants, which became more, frequent fromthe 5th century AD.were the transfer of all sources of revenue and surrender ofPolice and administrative functions. Some of the grants of the 4th and 5thcenturies AD show that the Brahmins were granted right of enjoining thehidden treasurer and deposits of the villages.This meant the transfer of royalownership over a mine which was an important sign of the king’s severity. The donars not only abandoned his revenue but also the right to govern theinhabitants of the villages that were granted.The Gupta period furnishes at leastof a dozen instants of grants of apparently settled villages made to the Brahminsby the big feudatories in central India. In this grants the residents ruled by these respective rulers not only pay the customary tax to the donees but also to obeytheir commands.Two other land grants of post- Gupta period royal commandswere issued to government official employed as sarvaddya and also to regularsoldiers that they should not cause any disturbance to the Brahmins. Thus the wide spread practice of making land grants in Gupta periodpaved the way for the rise of Brahmin feudatories who performed administrativefunctions not under the royal officers but almost independently the grantshelped to create a powerful intermediaries wilding considerable economic andpolitical power.Thus the number of the land owning Brahmans went ofincreasing same of them gradually shed their priestly function and turned theirchief attention to the management of land, in their case secular

5

MEDIEVAL INDIAN CIVILIZATION (TO 1500)

functionsbecame more important than religious functions.As a result of the land grantsmade to the Brahmans, the comprehensive competence based a centralizedcontrol, which was the hall mark of the Maurya state, gave way todecentralization in the postMauryaand Gupta period. During the Gupta period many changes took place in the agrarian structureof the society.The striking development of the Gupta period was the emergenceof priestly landlords at the expense of local peasants. The practice of giving landgrants to priests and officials became common during this period.The land grantsystem was originally started by satavahanas; it became a common activityduring the Gupta period.The Brahmins priests were given tax-free land andgiven the right to collect rent from the peasants.The ownership of such landbecame hereditary.These state beneficiaries were virtual rulers of their grantland and could administrate law and award punishments with out any stateinterference. Many Brahmin became rich landlords who mostly oppressed thepeasants.The local Tribal peasants were reduced to a lower status.In centraland Western India, the peasants were also subjected to forced labour. On theother land a good deal of waste land was brought under cultivation and betterknowledge of agriculture seems to have been introduced by the Brahminbeneficiaries in the Tribal areas of central India.On account of large inequalitiessome scholars opine that Gupta age may be called the Golden age as far asupper class are concerned.According to RomilaThapar, the description ‘Goldenage is true in so far as we speak of the upper classes’.

*****...