The article basically discussing the applicability of the term "feudalism" to early medieval India and

presents a perspective that emphasizes the universality of certain societal phenomena like tribalism
and the diversity of tribal societies

harbansh mukhia argues that feudalism was not a universal phenomenon like capitalism

tribalism universal rs sharma variations in tribalism

feudalism not universal but a widespread phenomenon.

Tribalism, peasant society, or the slave system could originate due to internal or external factors or a
combination of both.

just as there are

aspects and evolves through various phases in different orders of succession. significant
variations in tribal societies, there are also variations in the nature of feudal societies.

Marx's states that feudalism takes on different

there can be significant variations in the degree of servility among peasants, the composition
of the cultivating class, and the impact of factors like the development of agriculture,
handicrafts, commodity production, trade, and urbanization.

feudalism can take different forms in different regions, but certain universal aspects, like the
role of land and the relationship between landlords and peasants, remain consistent across
these variations.

Accn to kimonsky feudalism typically appears in predominantly agrarian economies with a

class of landlords and a servile peasantry. The exploitation of the estate by the landowner is
a fundamental aspect of feudalism. The lord-peasant relationship is considered the core of
the feudal system

the emergence of a feudal system of production in early medieval India. In this system, the
lord, often a landed beneficiary or landlord, collected surplus from peasants who worked the
land. This surplus was usually in the form of rent, paid in labor, cash, or kind.

The pattern of production was closely tied to the system of surplus collection and
distribution

In pre-Gupta times, surplus was primarily collected by state agents in the form of taxes and
by priests in the form of gifts for religious services. Large landowners existed but had
relatively smaller roles in production. Market economy existed but was not as strong as to
lead to capitalist ventures.

The early peasant units of production were more autonomous and effective, especially in the
age of the Buddha. Slavery existed but was not dominant in the agricultural production of
this period.

The rise of landed magnates and beneficiaries in early medieval India is attributed to the
erosion of peasant control over their units of production. This was due to the appearance of
landed beneficiaries and a decline in trade and urban centers.
Landed beneficiaries demanded a share of the agricultural produce because they claimed
superior rights in the land. They were entitled to certain crops produced by the peasants, and
these obligations were often tied to the purpose of the land grant, whether for worship or
domestic use.

Quick and efficient surplus collection was seen as an effective way to manage a large
population. It is suggested that the administration and collection of surplus on the spot were
important aspects of the feudal system in early medieval India.

the distribution of land in early medieval India was not a simple matter of exclusive control
by one party or another. Medieval jurists recognized the multiplicity of rights in the same
piece of land. Peasants held inferior rights, while landlords, often granted land by royal
charters, held superior rights

This hierarchical structure of control made it difficult to determine who had effective control
over the means of production. The hierarchical control over land was attributed to large-
scale subinfeudation, which divided the land among many subfeudatories. This division
contributed to the unequal distribution of land.

Landlords claimed various types of rents and taxes from the peasants based on the authority
delegated to them by royal charters. The king claimed taxes initially on the grounds of
providing protection and later on the basis of land ownership. The term bhu pati is used
which litrally translates to owner of the land .

the terminology used to describe peasants evolved over time, reflecting changes in their
status and relationship to the land. The transition from "gahapati" to "ksetrika," "ksetrakara,"
"karsaka," and other terms reflected the changing nature of their roles and rights.

The practice of granting villages with all associated taxes and impositions resulted in a form
of feudal property that contrasted with peasant property and communal rights.

Land grants often involved granting significant plots of land to beneficiaries, such as
Brahmanas and gods. These were often extensive tracts that couldn't be cultivated by the
beneficiaries themselves. Instead, it introduced direct control over the means of production.

Grant charters included philosophical teachings emphasizing life's instability and the
fickleness of fortune, suggesting that the control of production resources frequently shifted
hands..

the impact and extent of the peasant population in land grant areas versus non-land grant
areas in medieval times, emphasizing the contrast in control and autonomy over the means
of production.
Serfdom is defined as the compulsive attachment of peasants to the land, where peasants
are tied to their specific plots of land and automatically transferred when the land changes
ownership.

Rs sharma argues that serfdom was not an incidental feature in early medieval India but
prevailed in many regions. Some land charters explicitly transferred peasants, artisans, and
even traders to the beneficiaries.

Forced labor, referred to as "hari and begari," was practiced in various parts of India.
Peasants, especially those belonging to lower castes, were forced to work in the fields of
landlords, performing tasks like plowing and other odd jobs.

the need for forced labor was influenced by factors such as crop types and labor
requirements. Paddy cultivation, which demands more labor, often led to labor shortages
and the use of forced labor, particularly during peak seasons.

The practice of forced labor, sharecropping, or leasing of land was influenced by the socio-
economic formation of the time. Lack of labor, combined with ample land, created
conditions for the introduction of forced labor, sharecropping, or other forms of labor
mobilization.

Social norms and prohibitions, such as upper-caste individuals not engaging in plowing, may
have contributed to the need for labor outside the family unit, either through forced labor or
sharecropping.

In ancient India, the king represented state authority, supported by priests and warriors who
derived their livelihood from the surplus produced by peasants and artisans. This state and
societal structure existed during the time of the Buddha and continued to function relatively
smoothly until the 3rd century A.D.

There are references in epics and Puranas to a social crisis symbolized by the Kali Age,
starting in the 3rd century A.D. In this period, rural people were burdened with heavy taxes
and forced labor, which was seen as an essential component of military power. These
oppressive measures, combined with natural calamities, led to a state of chaos. The Vaisyas
and Sudras, who belonged to the lower social orders, refused to perform their traditional
functions, and peasants also refused to pay taxes.

Texts like Manu Smrti and Santi Parva suggested two measures to address the social crisis.
The first was the use of force (danda), which was advocated in these texts. The second
measure was the restoration of varna-srama-dharma, the class-based and state-based
societal structure.

Due to the difficulties in tax collection and the economic crisis, a significant shift occurred
from the 4th-5th century A.D., marked by the widespread use of land grants. This practice,
which involved donating land to religious and administrative personnel, relieved the state of
the burden of collecting taxes and disbursing them. Instead, priests, warriors, and
administrators were required to support themselves in the villages assigned to them.

The crisis in production relations is believed to be linked to these developments. Indications

of this crisis include the decline in trade and urbanism and a scarcity of coins. The absence of
widespread use of slaves in production also signaled changes in the methods and relations
of production.

Land grants became a mode of payment for religious and administrative services, as well as a
means for the state to manage its financial obligations. The system shifted responsibility for
maintaining law and order in the donated villages to the beneficiaries.

The social crisis led to the withdrawal of slaves from production, the provision of land to
them as tenants and sharecroppers, and the elevation of Sudras to peasantry. Landowners
converted Sudra laborers into peasants and themselves became landlords, who lived on rent.
This transformation may have also involved village headmen becoming landlords.

Early medieval India witnessed an era of larger agricultural yields and significant agrarian
expansion. This period saw the emergence of numerous states, particularly in regions where
fully developed states had not previously existed

technological innovations contributed to the rural expansion.

the importance of agriculture is emphasized by the composition of texts dedicated to

agricultural knowledge. These texts provided information on topics like irrigation methods,
the use of the "Persian" water-wheel, the treatment of plant diseases, and animal husbandry.
Meteorological knowledge based on observations was also advanced during this time.

Agricultural knowledge during this period involved the use of fertilizers and compost. The
construction and maintenance of tanks, wells, ponds, and embankments were critical, with
legal codes imposing severe punishments for those who damaged these essential irrigation
facilities. Step wells or vapis were widely used in regions like Rajasthan and Gujarat for
irrigation, contributing to increased agricultural productivity.

the use of iron implements reached a new peak during this period. Iron tools and
implements were commonly used in agriculture, and iron also began to be employed for
non-utilitarian purposes

There was a noticeable increase in the variety of cereals, including rice, wheat, and lentils, as
well as fruits, vegetables, legumes, and other food products. This agricultural diversification is
evident from ancient texts and lexicons, such as the Amarakosa and the Paryayamuktavali,
which mention numerous crops and food items.

While there were no single, revolutionary technological breakthroughs, the cumulative effect
of various agricultural advancements and practices contributed to substantial agricultural
production growth. However, mere increases in production may not necessarily lead to
stability or structural changes in society.
Characteristics of Indian feudalism-

Feudalism in India is described as being characterized by two main classes: landlords and
subject peasantry. The economy is predominantly agrarian, marked by a decline in trade and
urbanism, as well as a reduction in the use of metal currency. The superior state collected
taxes and asserted authority by creating a system of inferior power structures, including
landed priests, monastic institutions (mathas, viharas), religious establishments (temples,
basadis), and special settlements (agraharas and brahmadevas). These power structures
helped generate the necessary social and ideological climate to maintain the feudal system.

Comparision with European feudalism

Unlike the European feudal system, where lords granted land to serfs to ensure the
cultivation of their own land, Indian kings made land grants primarily to collect taxes
(surplus). Grantees of land in India collected rents from their tenant-peasants, who could be
evicted and subjected to forced labor. This contrast highlights different dynamics in the
feudal systems of India and Europe.

In a full-fledged capitalist system, a class would typically consist of those who either
exclusively control the means of production or those who are completely deprived of such
control. Pre-capitalist societies, including the feudal society in Western Europe, presented a
more complex picture, with, for example, serfs having some degree of day-to-day control
over their means of production. Therefore, the concept of class in these contexts is better
understood in terms of the unequal distribution of surplus and the means of production,
reinforced by ideological and juridical factors.

ecological factors alone cannot explain structural phenomena in societies. While ecological
factors influence the development of material culture, similar climatic conditions in various
regions do not necessarily lead to identical social structures. Thus, attributing structural
phenomena like the absence of serfdom or the longevity of peasant autonomy solely to the
carrying capacity of the soil is considered an oversimplification.

nuanced perspective on feudalism in India, emphasizing its unique features, the challenges in
applying class concepts, and the multifaceted factors that shape social structures. It
underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of historical and socio-economic
contexts in the analysis of feudal systems.