Approaches and often take it to be’.

He further asserts that the ‘adoption of Marx’s thesis does not mean
Themes in Indian
Historiography----1 blind repetition of all his conclusions (and even less, those of the official, party-line Marxists)
at all times’. He, instead, considered Marxism as a method which could be usefully applied
for the study of Indian society and history.
The paucity of relevant data for the early period of Indian history was one factor which
prompted him to analyse the broad social formations rather than small-scale events. He
thought that the use of comparative method would balance out the absence of reliable
historical sources. He, therefore, adopted an inter-disciplinary approach in his studies of
Indian society. This enabled him to view the reality from various angles in order to get a
full picture of it. These ideas are evident in his four major books : An Introduction to the
Study of Indian History (1956), Exasperating Essays : Exercises in the Dialectical
Method (1957), Myth and Reality : Studies in the Formation of Indian Culture
(1962) and The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline (1965).
Kosambi’s non-dogmatic approach to history is clear when he rejected two key Marxist
concepts – the Asiatic Mode of Production and Slavery – as inapplicable to ancient
Indian society. Although he accepted the concept of feudalism in Indian context, he denied
the existence of serfdom. According to him, it would be more rewarding to view the early
Indian society in terms of the transition from tribe to caste. He argues that the ‘pre-class
society was organised … into tribes’. The tribes were small, localised communities and
‘for the tribesman, society as such began and ended with his tribe’. The beginning and
development of plough agriculture brought about a radical change in the system of
production. This destabilised the tribes and the clans and gave rise to castes as new form
of social organisation. This was an extremely crucial development. Kosambi writes :
‘THE ENTIRE COURSE OF INDIAN HISTORY SHOWS TRIBAL
ELEMENTS BEING FUSED INTO A GENERAL SOCIETY. This
phenomenon, which lies at the very foundation of the most striking Indian social
feature, namely caste, is also the great basic fact of ancient history.’
Kosambi tried to relate the intellectual and cultural production with the prevailing social
and economic situation. Thus, according to him, the teachings of Bhagavad Gita can be
understood only with reference to the feudal society in which it originated. It, therefore,
preaches the ideology of the ruling class which emphasised ‘the chain of personal loyalty
which binds retainer to chief, tenant to lord, and baron to king or emperor’. Similarly, he
considers the Bhakti movement as preaching a sense of loyalty to the lord which, in the
earthly sense, translates into loyalty and devotion to the rulers. His detailed study of the
poetry of Bhartrihari, the 7th-century poet, reflects a similar approach. He describes
Bhartrihari as ‘unmistakably the Indian intellectual of his period, limited by caste and
tradition in fields of activity and therefore limited in his real grip on life’. In his study of the
myths, he contended that they reflected the transition of society from matriarchy to
patriarchy.

22.4 THE FEUDALISM DEBATE

As we have seen in the previous section, D.D. Kosambi argued that, contrary to Marx’s
own statements and to those of several Marxists, the Indian society did not witness a
similar progression of various modes of production as happened in Europe. He said that
the slave mode of production was not to be found in India. He also rejected Marx’s own
schema of the Asiatic Mode of Production as inapplicable to India. He, however, thought
that there was the existence of feudalism in India, even though he conceived it differently.
He was aware that the medieval Indian society was quite different from that of Europe.
One of the important characteristics of European feudalism, i.e., manorial system, demesne-
36 farming and serfdom, were not to be found in India. But he explained it as a result of the
non-existence of the slave mode of production in the preceding period. He further Marxist Approach

differentiated between two types of feudalism in India – ‘feudalism from above’ and
‘feudalism from below’ :
‘Feudalism from above means a state wherein an emperor or powerful king
levied tribute from subordinates who still ruled in their own right and did what
they liked within their own territories – as long as they paid the paramount
ruler…. By feudalism from below is meant the next stage where a class of
land-owners developed within the village, between the state and the peasantry,
gradually to wield armed power over the local population. This class was
subject to service, hence claimed a direct relationship with the state power,
without the intervention of any other stratum.’
Kosambi’s lead on this issue was followed by R.S. Sharma who made a comprehensive
study of feudalism in India in his book entitled Indian Feudalism (1965) and in various
articles. According to him, there were a decline in trade and increasing numbers of land
grants to the state officials in lieu of salary and to the Brahmans as charity or ritual
offering in the post-Gupta period. This process led to the subjection of peasantry and
made them dependent on the landlords. Almost all features of west European feudalism,
such as serfdom, manor, self-sufficient economic units, feudalisation of crafts and
commerce, decline of long-distance trade and decline of towns, were said to be found
in India. According to R.S Sharma, the most crucial aspects of Indian feudalism was
the increasing dependence of the peasantry on the intermediaries who received grants
of land from the state and enjoyed juridical rights over them. This development restricted
the peasants’ mobility and made them subject to increasingly intensive forced labour.
The decline of feudalism also took the same course as in west Europe. Revival of long-
distance trade, rise of towns, flight of peasants and development of monetary economy
were considered to be the main processes responsible for the decline of feudalism in
India. In this schema, the process of feudalisation started sometimes in the 4th century
and declined in the 12th century.
This view of the medieval Indian society and economy has been questioned by several
historians who argue that the development of the Indian society did not follow the
western model. They further argue that such a model of development cannot be universally
applied to all societies. Harbans Mukhia, in a thought-provoking article ‘Was There
Feudalism in Indian History?’ (1981), questions these arguments at several levels. He
begins by arguing that there is no single, universally accepted definition of feudalism. It
is because feudalism was not a world-system. In fact, capitalism was the first world-
system and, therefore, all societies before that had their own peculiarities and profound
differences from each other. Thus feudalism ‘was, throughout its history, a non-universal
specific form of socio-economic organization – specific to time and region, where specific
methods and organization of production obtained’. Mukhia defines feudalism as ‘the
structured dependence of the entire peasantry on the lords’. Such a system was specific
‘to Western Europe between the fifth or the sixth century and the fifteenth. Feudalism
also developed in its classic form in eastern Europe between the sixteenth and the
eighteenth century and possibly in Japan during the Togukawa regime in particular’. He
considers feudalism as a ‘transitional system’ which :
‘stood mid-way in the transition of the West European economy from a
primarily slave-based system of agricultural production to one dominated by
the complementary classes of the capitalist farmers and the landless agricultural
wage-earner, but in which the free peasantry also formed a significant element.’
On the basis of this definition of feudalism, Mukhia now argues against the concept of
feudalism in India. He says that even in Europe the relationship between long-distance 37
Approaches and trade and the growth or decline of feudalism is not clear. In fact, the trade had differential
Themes in Indian
Historiography----1 impact on various European societies. While at some places, as in west Europe, it led to
the dissolution of feudal bonds, in east Europe it provided the lords with the power to
reinforce and revitalise the feudal ties. In any case, Mukhia argues, it is not sure that there
was a very significant decline of trade and towns in early medieval India. Secondly, while
in Europe feudalism developed and declined due to changes at the base of society, in
Indian case the reason for the emergence of feudalism is seen as the land grants from
above. According to Mukhia, it is difficult to accept that ‘such complex social structures
can be established through administrative and legal procedures’. About the most crucial
aspect of feudalism – the dependence of peasantry on the landlords – Mukhia thinks that
there is no evidence to prove it in Indian case. He argues that even though the exploitation
of the peasantry might have increased, there is no evidence to prove that there was any
‘extraneous control over the peasant’s process of production’. He thinks that ‘forced
labour in India remained, by and large, an incidental manifestation of the ruling class’
political and administrative power rather than a part of the process of production’. He
concludes that the ‘primarily free peasant form of agricultural production gradually evolving
from post-Maurya times, thus characterized the agrarian economy of ancient and medieval
India’. In such a scenario there was no possibility of a feudal system of production in
India.
Several of Mukhia’s arguments were criticised by Marxist and non-Marxist scholars in
this field. Although there was an acknowledgement of the significance of the questions he
raised, criticism related to his concept of feudalism, his understanding of the west European
experience, his interpretation of Indian history and, particularly, his notion of a free peasant
production in India.
R.S. Sharma, in his response, wrote an essay entitled ‘How Feudal Was Indian Feudalism?’
(1985). While accepting the fact that feudalism was not a universal phenomenon, he argues
that this was not true of all the pre-capitalist formations. Thus ‘tribalism, the stone age, the
metal age, and the advent of a food-producing economy are universal phenomena. They
do indicate some laws conditioning the process and pattern of change’. He, therefore,
thinks that there was feudalism in India, even though its nature was significantly different.
According to him, ‘Just as there could be enormous variations in tribal society so also
there could be enormous variations in the nature of feudal societies’. He questions the
very notion of peasant’s control over means of production, particularly land. He maintains
that there were multiple and hierarchical rights in the land with the peasant almost always
possessing the inferior right. In the areas where land grants were given the grantees enjoyed
much superior rights :
‘On the basis of the land charters we can say that in the donated areas the
landed beneficiaries enjoyed general control over production resources. Of
course they did not enjoy specific control over every plot of land that the peasant
cultivated. But there is nothing to question their control over the plots of lands
that were directly donated to them by the king, sometimes along with the
sharecroppers and weavers and sometimes along with the cultivators.’
He further argues that, contrary to Mukhia’s arguments, forced labour was also prevalent
in many parts of the country. On the basis of various evidences, he asserts that there was
feudalism during the early medieval period in India which ‘was characterized by a class of
landlords and by a class of subject peasantry, the two living in a predominantly agrarian
economy marked by decline of trade and urbanism and by drastic reduction in metal
currency’.
Irfan Habib introduces another significant element for identifying the predominant mode of
production in any social formation. He argues that although the social form of labour
38 defines a particular mode of production, it cannot be considered as the sole determinant.
Thus although ‘Wage-labour remains the basic form of labour in socialism, but this Marxist Approach

does entitle us to identify the capitalist and socialist modes’. Similarly, petty peasant
production may be found in several social formations. Therefore, another crucial element
should be taken into account and that is ‘the form in which the surplus extracted from
the producer is distributed’. Although Habib is doubtful about the existence of feudalism
in pre-colonial India, he considers Mukhia’s arguments a little far-fetched. He thinks
that Mukhia’s points about the existence of a ‘free peasantry’ and ‘relative stability in
India’s social and economic history’ are untenable. Such conclusions, according to
him, ‘presume a rather idyllic picture of pre-colonial India … for which there is little
justification’. In his opinion, ‘there were just as intense contradictions here as anywhere
else; but that these were different in nature and consequence from the contradictions
leading to capitalism in Europe’. Moreover, he rejects the idea of ‘exceptionalism’ in
Indian context. It was also a society with deep internal contradictions, a stratified
peasantry and class exploitation.
Burton Stein praises Mukhia for raising an important question, but he points out several
inadequacies in Mukhia’s arguments. According to him, only the absence of serfdom
may not determine the absence of feudalism in India because several other characteristics
existed. With focus on south India, he argues that these characteristics were local control
and private legal jurisdiction of various powerful men, the existence of independent
warrior groups which claimed tributes and weak state forms. Secondly, he also questions
Mukhia’s proposition about the ‘relative stability’ of pre-colonial Indian society and
economy. Such a notion about stability assumes that for two thousand years there was
no change in the means and relations of production. This worries Stein : ‘This is indeed
stability, not “relative”, but quite absolute, a position which ought to trouble him as an
historian; it troubles me!’ On the role of the state, he rejects the notion of a centralised
and bureaucratic state. Instead, he forwards the concept of ‘segmentary state’, a state
whose power was limited. So far as the ‘free peasantry’ is concerned, he puts more
emphasis on peasant collectivities having a mastery over productive forces. He questions
the notion of free ‘individual peasants as productive agents’. In this sense of collective
peasant production and the segmentary, Stein thinks that the period from the 10th to the
17th centuries may be said to be a single social formation in south India.
In his response to these criticisms, Mukhia sticks to his point that capitalism was the
first world-system and all the earlier systems were specific to regions and ‘did not
possess the internal dynamism that would give them the hegemony’ over the world.
Only most general features such as agrarian economy and surplus appropriation through
non-economic coercion could be common about various pre-industrial societies. But it
does not take the specificities, such as production process and social organisation of
labour, into account. He reemphasises his concept of a ‘free peasantry’ in pre-colonial
India ‘whose process of production was free of extraneous control’.
We, therefore, encounter a wide variety of interpretations of the medieval Indian society
by the Marxist historians who differ quite significantly from each other. In the course of
this debate we also come across the rich variety of Marxist interpretations relating to
medieval Indian history.

22.5 INDIAN NATIONALISM

In the earlier section (22.2) we discussed the views of R.P. Dutt and A.R. Desai on
Indian nationalism. They analysed it as a movement which was mostly dominated by
the bourgeoisie. Although various classes, including the peasantry and the working
classes, participated in it, its basic character remained bourgeois. This view of national
movement remained quite common among the Marxist historians for quite some time.
However, over the years, several Marxist historians began to disagree with this paradigm 39