LESSON 4 POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS (8TH-12TH CENTURIES) Political condition India after the death of Harsha (606-647) saw the rapid disintegration of his empire. The whole empire of Harsha, which covered a large part of northern India, was split up into numerous kingdoms. The common feature of these kingdoms was the rapid growth of a system which has been called by the modern scholars as feudalism. Feudalism originated in the Gupta period. In the subsequent years which followed the eclipse of the Gupta empire the spread of feudalism was quite noticeable and during this period “military governorship was conferred on important chiefs.” We are further told : “In the age of Harsha and of imperial Kanauj, high ranking civil as well military offices came to be bestowed upon persons holding feudal title.” Thus, feudalism, which became a dominant productive system during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, had originated and spread much before the invasions of the Turks. Rise of Feudalism In the period under review feudalism became a universal phenomenon, particularly in Northern India. Recently two outstanding research works, Indian Feudalism by R.S. Sharma, and Society and Culture in the Northern India by Prof. B.N.S Yadav, have thrown ample light on the various aspects of feudalism. B.P. Mazumdar’s The Socio-Economic History of Northern India also provides us valuable information on this problem. B.P. Mazumdar calls this period “as the hey day of feudal anarchy.” The writings of D.N. Jha and K.M. Shrimali also deserve our attention. One of the significant features of the prevailing political system was the complete fragmentation of political power from top to bottom. The basic changes in the economic structure and relationship did have their implications on the political structure. With the shifting of economic power to the vassals the supreme political authority i.e., the king was not in a commanding position to concentrate all political power in his hand. The result was obvious K.M. Shrimali rightly points out : “The growing bardic sycophancy, however, had begun to create an aura around kings, treating them as rulers of rulers and ascribing divinity to them. As a result of this image building the king was increasingly becoming more of a private person than the real head of the state.” The vassal was usually called as samanta, rauta, thakkur, etc. The vassal was granted land by the ruler. In lieu of this land grant he was expected to send military contingent to the ruler. Apart from this obligation the samanta was left free with full powers to administer his territories. If the samanta remained loyal to the fuller and committed to his military obligations there was no interference from the above. However, the division of political power was not restricted to this level alone. Feudal lords had their own sub-vassals. The increase in the number and power of these samantas and sub-samantas weakened the central authority. It resulted in the emergence of a political system which deprived the ruler of administrating his territory directly and effectively. Prof. Mohammad Habib thus remarks : “the strength of Hindustan was divided among a multitude of factious Rais, Sub Rais, local chiefs and village headmen, between whom anything like sensible co-operation was impossible.” Weak Administration With the emergence of a new political order, which saw the sharing and shifting of political authority, the need of making the central administration really imposing was no longer there. The role of centre was 25 rapidly marginalized. As already stated the land was assigned to the samantas, which provided a solid base for their political power; the rulers were reduced to a nominal position and virtually lost the power to intervene effectively in the affairs of the territories that were under the control of the samantas. Whatever structure that existed at the top was retained nominal. Under these prevailing conditions nothing was done to gear up the administrative machinery. The more powerful rulers concentrated their energies on settling scores with their neighbours. Continuous warfare did not give them any opportunity to look seriously into the administrative problems. Left practically free the samantas had framed their own rules and regulations and conducted the affairs of their territories in their own way. The multiplicity of the administration within a state created a complex situation : all this finally led to the weakening of the entire administrative machinery. Out-dated Military System Moreover, the approach of the Indian rulers to the military system was out-dated. While the Turks had raised well-trained standing army consisting mainly of the cavalry the Indian rulers were religiously sticking to the traditional methods of warfare. The army of an Indian ruler consisted largely of the troops supplied by his vassals or the samantas. Obviously such an army supplied from various pockets could not work in cohesion in a battlefield. The idea of raising a standing army remained more or less alien to the Indian rulers. Further, these rulers neglected their cavalry. A fragmented and slow-moving army was hardly an answer to the well-trained horses of the Turks. Social Condition The society was divided into exploiters and exploited. The exploiters constituted the ruling class. They controlled the means of production (land) and lived a prosperous and luxurious life. The exploited were the toiling masses, who worked day and night only to lead a life of semi-starvation or near starvation. Besides this a peculiar feature of Indian society was the caste system. Caste System In the initial state of its development perhaps the caste system was not socially very rigid. But in due course of time the caste system shunned its flexibility and it had become stiff. This is specially true in the case of early medieval India. This change took place perhaps because of the intensification of the contradictions between the upper castes and the lower castes. The former tried to make the caste- system more and more suited to their class interests. But on the other hand the discontent of lower castes resulted in popular movements. The role of Buddhism is quite significant. It showed to the people an alternative path, which was free from caste hierarchy and rituals. Consequently, it had gained widespread popularity. Thus, for decades Buddhism played a useful role against the oppressive mechanism of the caste system. But in the post-Harsha period Brahaminism had once again established its supremacy. This was possible because of certain socio-economic changes. The emerging landed aristocracy (feudal lords) patronized the Brahmins which proved more suitable and convenient to their class interests. The revival of Brahaminism resulted in the rigidity of the caste system. Though the caste system has retained its essential features in the course of Indian history but never it appeared in such an ugly form as we see after the mid-seventh century. Brahmins at the Apex The Brahmins, who theoretically, occupied the highest position in the caste hierarchy, benefitted from the changes that took place in the post-Harsha period. Taking the full advantages of the changing 26 circumstances, which saw the emergence of feudal lords or vassals who extended their patronage to them, the Brahmins tightened their grip on the socio-religious order of the day. Romila Thapar aply remarks: “The brahman really came into his own in the post-Gupta period when Buddhism began to decline and the brahman’s religious authority was backed both by an economic base and by his indispensability for the legitimation of power.” (The Past and Prejudice, p.29). The Brahmins were unscrupulous enough to distort learning and education which were used to bestow numerous privileges on the members belonging to their own-caste. The Brahmins claimed “reverence from all varnas by the mere fact of birth, expounding the duty of all classes, freedom from death sentence, exemption from taxes, precedence on all roads, lesser punishment for certain offences in comparison with the other castes, a shorter period of mourning, etc. Alberuni says that “if a Brahmin killed a man, the former had only to fast, pray and give alms.” Position of the Kshatriyas Next to the Brahmins stood the Kshatriyas in the caste system. They were master of the land, and generally .the rulers belonged to this caste, The system which they inherited narrowed their outlook. Continuous warfare became their main preoccupation. They made war a social virtue. To quote professor Romila Thapar: “war became a grand pageant, and death on the battlefield the highest possible honour. Heroic virtues were instilled into the child from birth and a man who shirked fighting was held /contempt....... women, too, were taught to die, should her husband be killed.” Making war a social virtue the Kshatriyas entered into an era of senseless military confrontation even on a slight pretext. Continuous warfare involving indiscriminate killing certainly weakened the structure over which they were sitting. In their private life the Kshatriyas did not observe simplicity since they owned means of production (land) and wielded political power. Like contemporary ruling classes they led a luxurious life and did not hesitate to spend liberally. Many of them used to indulge in reckless drinking of wine, others led a highly sensual life. B.P. Mazumdar observes : “to a modern man the kings as well as their court-Poets, who composed the laudatory verses for copper-plates and inscriptions, appear to be shameless. They took pride not only in capturing the womenfolk of defeated countries but also in openly proclaiming before the world their dalliance with them.” As far as the economic conditions were cencerned the Kshatriyas generally lived a happy and prosperous life.