1

INTRODUCTION

The notion of feudalism has European origins . Indeed, in European too its history is rather
recent , going back at the most to the seventh century, long after the phenomenon
characterised as feudalism had been dead and gone . From here it , along with many other
concepts , spread out to the rest of the world in wake of European expansion .
Understanding then , as the concept enhanced and changed in European historiography, its
shape in the world's other origins too changes accordingly.
Initially, European feudalism was perceived entirely in the confined law binding the lord and
the vassals. It was also seen as backward, rigid, and slow somewhat expanded to equate
feudalism with a system of government where power was highly decentralised, resting in the
hands of feudal lords even as nominal rulers were Publicly acknowledged as a sovereign.

It was not for too long that the concept of feudalism remained confined to the lords- vassals
relationship. Gradually, other aspects of study began to be involved. Marxism in the
particulars brought to attention the question of production i.e.the relationship between land
and labour. From the lord- vassals relationship, the perspective shifted to the lord - vassals
relationship. Economy also brought into focus questions of technology, trade, money etc

Initially, European feudalism was entirely perceived on the basis of relation between the
lord and the vassal. The system was seen as backward, rigid, and slow moving .It was seen
as a system of government where power was highly decentralised, resting in the hands of
feudal lords .Marxism brought to attention the question of production i.e.the relationship
between land and labour. Technology, trade, money and other economic aspects were
also studied . Annales school further talked about gender relations, ideas, and cultural
aspects .
 2

Feudalisation process in India

By the later phase of Gupta period, India started witnessing decline in foreign trade and a
phase of de-urbanization .During this period, the land grants replaced the money grants
which were given to the Brahmans or the religious institutions .During Gupta period, Officers
were occasionally granted land in place of cash salaries but it became frequent in later
periods. Some Judicial and administrative powers were also transferred along with the
revenue right. Various types of land grants included grants to officials in lieu of
salary,Brahmadeya, Agrahara and Devadiya Brahmadeya grant was given to a Brahman or
a group of Brahmans in which grant could be a whole village or some lands of the village.
Agrahara grant was given to a collectivity of Brahmans in which Brahman were provided a
new settlement with rent-free.land . Devadana/Devadeya/ Devagrahara were the land grants
given to religious institutions. Here, the cultivators were tenants of the religious institution.
Brahmans performed their function of legitimising rule, propagating Vedic religion as well as
performed the role of settlers and colonists. They provided an administrative substructure in
organising and expanding the land under cultivationBrahmadeya grant was given to a
Brahman or a group of Brahmans in which grant could be a whole village or some lands of
the village. Agrahara grant was given to a collective of Brahmans in which Brahman were
provided a new settlement with rent-free land . Devadana/Devadeya/ Devagrahara were the
land grants given to religious institutions. Here, the cultivators were tenants of the religious
institution. Brahmans performed their function of legitimising rule, propagating Vedic religion
as well as performed the role of settlers and colonists.

INDIAN FEUDALISM-AN INSIGHTS

They provided an administrative substructure in organising and expanding the land under
cultivationJames Tod in “Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan” in early 19th century described
about lord-vassal relation in Rajasthan . The term feudalism acquired an economic meaning
with the growing influence of Marxism on Indian history writing.

Karl Marx had put pre-colonial Indian history in the category of the Asiatic Mode of
production which meant that there was no class struggle and no change over time.
Indian Marxist historians of the 1950s-60s rejected the notion of the Asiatic Mode of
Production.

In “An Introduction to the Study of Indian History” in 1956, D. D Kosambi conceptualised the
growth of Indian feudalism as a two-way process: from above and from below.
 3

From above the feudal structure was created by the state where a powerful king ruling over
lesser kings and chiefs, received taxes from the latter who, even if politically subordinate,
continued to control their territories.
From below, many individuals and small groups rose from the village levels of power to
become landlords and vassals of the kings. This was enhanced through a system of grants
of land by the king largely to Brahmins and religious institutions, and to some extent, the
upper bureaucracy . The revenue of the land was used as income for the grantee . Indian
feudalism was different from European as serfdom and manorial system was absent in India.

In his “Indian Feudalism” in 1965, RS Sharma saw the rise of feudalism in India due to state
action. He argued that long distance trade of India started declining by the end of Gupta
period. He also gave archaeological data to show de-urbanization in India.
As coins were not available, the state started granting land to its officials and Brahmins in
lieu of cash. The rise of the class of intermediaries through the state action of giving grants
to them is the crucial element in R S Sharma‘s construction of Indian feudalism.
Along with land, the state also gave away judicial and police power to new class of
intermediaries over the cultivating peasants. The control of intermediaries over the peasants
reduced later to the level of serfdom, their counterparts in mediaeval Europe.The theory of
Indian feudalism by RS Sharma was supported by historians such as BNS Yadava and DN
Jha, but DN Jha criticised the theory to be relying too heavily on the absence of long
distance external trade.
DC Sircar opposed the theory of feudalism in India. The relation between trade and
feudalism was also questioned by European history which resulted in opening up debate on
other factors for feudalism.
In the 40th Session of Indian History Congress (IHC) in 1979, Title “Was there feudalism in
India” was discussed. Harbans Mukhia, a Marxist historian, questioned the theory of Indian
feudalism. The universal nature of feudalism was questioned and wherever it
existed, its variations were also pointed out .To compare the histories of medieval Western
Europe and medieval India; the ecological conditions, technology available and the social
organisation of agricultural labour of the two regions were discussed.
As the sunshine in a year was just about four months in Western Europe and technology
used was highly labour intensive resulting in low yield of crops. The demand for labour
during the four months was intense. The solution was found in serfdom. The lords sought to
control the serfs more intensely, whereas serfs had to work on their land too. The struggle
between serfs and lords led to improvement in technology and productivity. Further, rapid
increase in population countered the scarcity of labour in the 12th century. The process was
upset by the Black Death in the mid-14th century. As the lords sought to revive the old
system, Europe witnessed several rebellions. The environmental conditions, productivity of
land and two crops a year provided better conditions for agriculture in India. Medieval India
had a free peasant economy. Begar was mostly associated with non-agricultural works.
 4

* RS Sharma in a paper, 'How Feudal was Indian feudalism?; he modified his earlier thesis
and expanded its scope to look at feudalism as an economic formation evolved out of
economic and social crises in society, signifying in the minds of the people the beginning of
the Kaliyuga, apart from state action.
* BNS Yadava also did a detailed study of the notion of Kaliyuga in early medieval Indian
literature and found characteristics of a crisis.
*RS Sharma, in his collection of essays, published under the title “Early Medieval Indian
Society: A Study in Feudalisation” in 2001, he explored ideological and cultural aspects of
the feudal society reflected in art and architecture, the ideas of gratitude and loyalty and
other cultural aspects DN Jha, in his collections of essays in “The Feudal Order: State,
Society and Ideology in Early Medieval India”, 1987 and 2000, explored cultural and
ideological dimensions of feudal order.

*DN Jha and some other proponents of feudalism theory have called Bhakti movement as
another form of Brahmanical domination by the idea of total surrender, subjection and loyalty
to a deity. This surrender and loyalty could easily be transferred on to the feudal lord.
The chief feature of Indian feudalism - declining trade and urbanisation is seriously
questioned by B.D. Chattopadhyaya, Ranabir Chakravarti and John S. Deyell.
If the period of feudalism is accepted from 300-1100 AD as proposed by RS Sharma, how
the period from 1100 to start of the colonial period be characterized.
*D D Kosambi had extended feudalism to the 17th century, treating the entire stretch of
nearly 1400 years as the same, which is highly improbable.
 5

CONCLUSION

The feudalism debate in Indian history remains unresolved. Historians continue to argue the
degree to which medieval India exhibited feudal characteristics. Understanding this debate
provides valuable insights into India's complex past.

Implications and Relevance

The feudalism debate has significant implications for contemporary society. It informs
discussions on:

- Land reforms
- Social inequality
- Economic development
- Regional identity

References

- Kosambi, D.D. "An Introduction to the Study of Indian History" (1956)

- Sharma, R.S. "Indian Feudalism" (1965)
- Stein, Burton. "Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India" (1980)
- Habib, Irfan. "The Agrarian System of Mughal India" (1963)
- Journal articles from "Indian Economic and Social History Review" and "Journal of Asian
Studies”
6
7