DOES MEDIEVAL POLITICAL SYSTEM OF TULUNADU REPRESENTS LOWER FEUDALISM…? Dr. SURESH RAI K. Associate Professor of History Historically, Tulunadu, is the undivided district of Dakshina Kannada in Karnataka and Kasaragod district in Kerala State. The nomenclature ‘Dakshina Kannada’ is used here to refer to the present Dakshina Kannada district together with Udupi district separated in 1998, which were jointly referred to as ‘South Canara’ earlier. ‘South Canara’ was an extensively used term during colonial time, and it has been retained in special circumstances and while mentioning colonial records. The name ‘Kanara’, which was formerly spelt as ‘Canara’ is derived from Kannada, the name of the regional language of the State. It appears that the Portuguese, who, on arrival in this part of India, found the common linguistic medium of the people to be Kannada, and accordingly called the area ‘Canara’; ‘d’ being not much in use in Portuguese. This name applied to the whole coastal belt of Karnataka and was continued to be used as such by the British. It is therefore necessary to deploy Tulunadu to refer to the ‘cultural zone’ that included Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, and Kasaragod districts. The present districts of Karnataka like North Canara, South Canara, Udupi and Kasaragod of Kerala were known as the Canara and Soonda Province, which was under the Madras Presidency. In 1799 AD, after the fall of Tippu Sultan, Tulunadu was brought under the new Canara province. The northern region of Canara province was called North Canara. The same names continued as North and South Kanara after the unification of Karnataka State. When we talk about the State System of pre-Colonial India, it is crucial to understand the frames of Indian State System. We should notice that the connotation of the ‘State’ is different in the 1 European and the Indian scenario. If we apply the meaning of the ‘State’ as ‘rajya’ or ‘State’ or authority in Indian languages, we might conclude that the European ‘State’ also existed in India. When we assume Indian terms and institutions as equivalent to the ‘State,’ all the debate around it gets channelized by the conceptions of the ‘State’ itself. Although a lot of details are available about the Indian ‘State’ system, it is difficult to identify, if we try to locate features on the models of the European system. Although the word ‘State’ was prevalent in Europe since ancient times, its present day connotations are a development only after the 17th century. It is the very system of the ‘State’ that led European thinkers to conclude that the European civilization represents the pinnacle stage in human history. Thinkers of Enlightenment age, Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and so on identified the State as a unique system of governance of human society that is grounded on the foundations of a universally applicable law. The legal authority here is universal, and the sovereign power based on this universal principle directs the human life within a particular territory. Rulers abide by the motive to execute its purposes. Therefore, ‘government’ implies implementing the State’s objectives following its organization. It has been opined that it is a social contract. During the colonial period, Europeans attempted to understand the governing structure of other cultures guided by their very ideas of the State. It created complications in India as well. Indian state arrangement was an intriguing and interesting area for the historians of colonial times. As establishing their statehood was the primary concern of colonial masters, they tried to adapt Indian State system into European State principles. While the pre-colonial governance was viewed from the European model and perspective, it appeared as unorganized and inferior to many Utilitarians. Romanticists perceived it as a mere example of ancient 2 practices. Good or bad, it was the colonial issue of the state and not the problem of Indian reality. Further, nationalist historians like K P Jayaswal, Beni Prasad, A.S. Altekar, and others also did not make any efforts to alter the colonial perceptions of pre-colonial administrative arrangement here. They were only engaged in arguing how the State principle and its execution is insufficiently carried out in Indian States. They struggled to propose how such principles of the State were already a part of the knowledge system since ancient period. In an endeavour to prove how Indians are not inferior to Europeans, they lost its uniqueness and thus concretized the State conceptions of Europe. After the conclusion of colonial rule in the mid twentieth century, the conceptions of the State prevalent until then were brought under scrutiny. The Leftist writers first initiated an ideological discussion on the ancient Indian State conceptions. Based on the Marxian thought available then, D D Kosambi (1956), R S Sharma (1965), and others described the State formation and structure as existed in the pre-colonial times. Post 1980’s the debates, discussions, assumptions, postulations, etc., around the concept of State increased. As post-colonial and post European modernity influences were present in such propositions, they lent an alternative to the conceptualizations of colonial period. In this background, Herman Kulke has identified the different kinds of the State mentioned in the Indian context1. The first is ‘Oriental Despotism,’ and Marx’s concept of ‘Asiatic Mode of Production’2 based on the Oriental Despotism. The second is, the States centred on the king’s sovereignty as proposed by the Indian nationalist historians. The king is an enlightened despot here and it is argued that ancient monarchy was not despotic in nature. The third, is the Leftist model of feudal State system. It is modelled on the feudal system prevalent in medieval Europe, and altered to incorporate Indian features.3 The fourth is the Segmentary State model 3 proposed by Burton Stein in the 1980’s in South Indian context. Stein argued that the State system did not evolve as a coherent shape in South India. He elaborated that there was a simultaneous existence of royal sovereignty like the Pallavas and the Cholas with that of local chieftains, who retained their power, continuing in the earlier forms of Statehood. He thus argued that such States should be called Segmentary and not unified states.4 The fifth, is modelled on the patrimonial system. Stephen Blake has proposed this model during the Mughal empire. In Herman Kulke’s State in India Stephen Blake’s ‘patrimonial bureaucratic empire of the Mughals’ is mentioned. Blake proposes these ideas based on Max Webber’s definitions of Moghal governance and Indian Sultanate. The sixth is Herman Kulke’s own model. He has researched on how the State evolved in different stages and what shapes it took in those stages. He called it an Integrative State Formation. According to him we should understand the nature of a state based on the ruling class’s experiment and social, cultural development, and not as a singular, passive, universal frame.5 The seventh, is the Historical Agency States. Post-colonial scholars argue that the Indian States were social agents like the European states.6 To sum up, colonial historians have perceived the Indian states as weak, un-evolving and sickening model. This argument has been accepted to this date. It is their contention that Indian statehood has fulfilled its functions as a State in a different mode than the European State. Most of the studies on different dynasties that ruled Karnataka region adopt the ideological framework of the nationalist history itself. Because, they are either a part of the research on national history, or merely its Karnataka edition. There is hardly any scope to discuss what kind of State these regions were. They are also projected as centralized systems here. For example, while describing the administration of a State, such researchers continue to define central rule, provincial rule, officials, ministers, army, tax 4 department, etc. The administrative units functioning independently within the state like nadu, mahanadu, agrahara, uru, and so on are also identified. This method of locating any units of pre-colonial State within the above frame is a very prevalent and popular mode. However, two works, Dinakara Desai’s Mahamandaleswaras under the Chalukyas of Kalyani and G S Deekshit’s Local Self-Government in Medieval Karnataka do not glorify the royal dynasties, but concentrate on their administration. According to Dinakara Desai during the Chalukya period, Mahamandaleswaras ruled as feudal chiefs. Despite conforming to the supremacy of emperors, they functioned as independent rulers. Their histories are also on similar lines as those of royal families. They wage battles, expand boundaries and extend shelter to people. When compared on these lines, there is hardly any difference between the achievements of kings and those of such chieftains.7 During the Chalukya period, the King was a sovereign in principle and not in practice. His power was also bound by checks and balances.8 G.S Deekshit also discusses the authority of local units like mahanadu, nadu, agrahara, uru, nagara, etc. Issues like chiefs of such units, their appointment, administrative management, assemblies, discussion etc did not receive any attention by either kings or their officials.9 According to Deekshit, the feud of ancient Indian royal families’ over successors, rebellions, ups and downs of the empire and so on did not exert any impact on the interior village communities. Even if there was a change in the central administration, local units continued to function with their own rules and regulations.10 Although initially Romila Thapar wrote that the Mauryan empire had a centralized power, eventually in the book Mauryas Revisited11 published in 2000, she re-examined the above claim. In the earlier work From Lineage to Stage12she had portrayed the 5 stages of the State formation in India.