siddique.docx

Feudalism in india; how Harbon Mukhia is condemned in the history
Even though hot dialogues are going on about Indian feudalism, starting from pre –Mauryan period till 1200 A.D, some scholars talk in favour of the existence of Indian model of feudalism while some others question the term used to describe a socio-economic formation existed between 750 A.D-1200 A.D. In western part of European feudalism emerged based on self-sufficient economy. In the period of between 5th century A.D- 15th century A.D and dominant class of landlords who extracted surplus and also used to forced labour. European based feudalism means "a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warriors nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of Lords, Vassals, Fiefs". Marxian concept of Asiatic mode of production based on unchanging world of un stratified community land owing village societies and it was contested by D.D Kosambi in 1950s.
A debate of Indian feudalism begun with protracted Marxist debate on Asiatic mode of production. In 1940s Datta, Dange transported European mode of feudalism on to Indian soil with variant of feudalism. After that a new type of empirical works emerged after 1950s, when feudal polity was to be a stage which represented a structural change in the Indian social and economic order. It was characterised by hierarchy of intermediaries between the state and peasantry. It was specialty of this structural change. D.D Kosambi developed conceptual definition of feudalism in 1956 and he spoke about 'feudalism from above' after 4 A.D. The state was granting land and therefore he used that term. The system of granting land reached its peak point during post Gupta period and emerged a class of landlords and he used the term 'feudalism from below'. A great historian Nirhanjan Roy, in his work 'Banghir Ithihas', enumerated that a new structure developed in the region of Bengal. It was a hierarchical political order like Samanta, Mahasamanta, Laghusamanta.
In India, earlier form of feudalism started from the system of granting land to Buddhist Monks. On the basis of empirical evidence it is traced to 1st century B.C. But the time of pre-Mauryan and Mauryan period the power of military and judicial affairs did not granted to beneficiaries. It was only because of land revenue. And also there was a system prevailing in ancient history is that, granting land to temples and to Buddhist temples. These granting lands to these section of community is recognised and evaluated as a custom sanctified by the injunction laid down in the Dhrmashasthra purana and it clearly enumerated in Anushashana Dharma (Mahabaratha) and also this custom came to know as 'Bhumidhanaprasamsa'. The evidence of earlier Pali texts of pre-Mauryan period and customs of granting whole villages to Brahmans by the rulers of Kusala and Maghada and the system was called in early medieval period as 'Brahmadeyya'. If we look at these all customs, we can understand that the inspiration which they got from old Vedic purana and texts during pre-Mauryan and Mauryan period. And also epigraphic records of Sathavahana inscription shows light to the existence of granting villages as a gift in 1 century B.C and it termed as Aswamedha sacrifice. But one thing is clear that they were not granted some more rights over taxation and judicial affairs over the residents of granted villages. Thus sovereignty of the state was preserved for a long time. In ancient period of India it was believed that the king as the Bhumidah (giver of land) and it helped a lot to expansion of granting land as he wishes. The administrative rights were perhaps given up for the first time in the grants made to Buddhist monks by the Sathavahana rulers (Gauthamiputhra Sathavahani) in second century A.D and also they granted fully protection from intervention of government officials and also from police activities. The granting lands gave beneficiaries rights over judicial matters and fiscal rights over the people of donated village, which causes to enforced labour and eviction, widespread subjection. And this subjection was a characteristic feature of the early medieval Indian society structure. In 5 A.D frequent and developed certain features called political decentralization. It was the result of this system and the system of granting land become similar to merchant also during 6 A.D. gradually these granting system enlarged and which included whole village along with low land, fertile lands, water reservoirs, trees and bushes, pathway and large amount of pastures after 7th century A.D with granting some administrative powers in the hands of landlords. After some more years it was ordered to obey and live as the commands of landlords through charter of states.
The great historian and critic R.S Sharma brought these all developments into a framework and which includes
First phase of development - 350 to 750.
Secondary phase of development - 750 to 1000.
Final phase of development - 1000 to 1200.
The granting land started from pre-Mauryan period without granting rights over judicial and taxation matters later, it expanded during post Gupta period. The period to 600 A.D recognised as initial stage of Indian model early medieval feudalism and the period between 600-1200 has very significant role in the total development of feudalism. In this period a number of social groups originated within community and they were termed as Camakara, Vajaka, Bamboo worker, Basket worker. And we can see that new mode of socio-economic formation not only appeared as a result of political, administrative and judicial measures taken by the state, but such measures largely developed by internal developments and they created a new socio-economic formation. During pre Gupta period king, his priests and warriors lived on the surplus produced by the peasants and supplemented by the artisans. Later this system was upset by the social crisis of the kali age. In this time the ruler became unable to payment to his priests and also for warriors and he started granting lands to them with various rights on it. It is obvious that certain people in the villages enjoyed a greater share in the sources of production and apparently possessed more land than they could manage. The land cultivated by pretty peasants either through lease holding, sharecropping or from system of serfdom. Nobody had come with asking their right to cultivate as they wish but the whole controller of plots goes on the hand of landlords. This raises problem of serfdom. In here Harban Mukhia argued that the serfdom was incidental feature in India. And the peasants were given full right over means of production. R.S Sharma opposing above view says that this is a system in here small satellite farms attached to big farms to assist working on the big ones. Big farms are directly managed by manorial magnates but cultivated by those who possess small plots. Therefor serfdom means giving more surplus labour than surplus produce. But in the Indian context, surplus produce is extracted more through the general control exercised by the landed assignees than by their employment or serfs. A serf occupies some land and provides his family with subsistence. A landlord may collect rent and services from his tenants for the plots of land they hold and cultivate. Or he may get all his plots cultivated directly by the serfs who are given small pieces of land for their subsistence. Both systems are concerned with extracting lord's share; in both the cultivator is dependent peasant under his exploitation of his lord. Free exercise of agrarian rights can make a household unit effective in production, but landlords barred the weak peasants from that one free exercise. And the caste system, untouchability barred it. Hierarchical control over land was created by large scale sub-infuedation in 8 A.D onwards and those are: - king- assignee- occupant- sub occupant- tenant. One of the argument against Indian feudalism was uttered by Mukhia is that there was not any need to forced labour because of the fertility of the northern region. It also opposed through the evidence of using serfdom in middle Ganga basin to paddy cultivations. And they suffered a lot by the power between upper side of hierarchy order and also from below side. Finally the peasants had not any power even on means of production. They compelled to grow as the wish of landlord. It is clear from the events of 10th century A.D onwards, the cultivators compelled to go cash crops and the state and internal development made peasants depended class on beneficiaries.

Finally, feudalism in India characterised by a class of landlords and a class of subject peasantry, the two living in a predominantly agrarian economy marked initially by the decline of trade and urbanism and by a drastic reduction in metal currency. Unlike the European system, most of the power structures within the state did not have to pay taxes. West European feudal lords allotted land to their serfs in order to get their own farmlands cultivated. But Indian kings made land grants to get the taxes (surplus) collected. But later it led to suppress of tenant class and it characterised Indian model of early medieval feudalism.