Feudalism in Indian Society

EARLY MEDIEVAL INDIAN SOCIETY - A Study in Feudalisation: R. S. Sharma; Orient Longman Ltd., 17, Chitaranjan Avenue, Calcutta- 700072. Rs. 590.

WITHOUT BELITTLING the importance of the awesome range of his other writings, it is perhaps true to say that the author is best known by his studies in Indian feudalism. Having published on the subject in various journals for about seven years, he wrote his monograph, Indian Feudalism (300-1200 AD), in 1965. Between this and his second monograph on the theme, Urban Decay in India, 300- 1000 (1987) and since, there has been a sustained output of his articles on the various facets of the construct. The book under review is the result of a careful selection from these articles, of those which do not repeat or rehash, but defend, supplement and complement the contentions of the two earlier books. With these essays having been retouched, renamed (in few cases), and arranged chapter-wise, and complete with an introduction, a conclusion, two appendices, a bibliography and two indices, the book is no doubt the very welcome third in Sharma's trilogy on early medieval India.

Writing within ``the broad framework of materialist approach to history'' (p.14) the author outlines his general perspective on the early medieval period in the first chapter, ``Transition from ancient to medieval''. Beginning with a brief discussion of how it all got started due to the ``Kali Age crisis'', we are told how the distinguishing features of this period - of its polity, economy, social organisation including caste, spatial units, languages, art, architecture, ideologies such as bhakti and tantrism, as well as its conflicts and contradictions - were all connected parts of a feudalised whole. Of these aspects, eight specific themes are then unrolled in the following eight chapters - from the Kali Age transition through feudal agrarian structure, Paucity of metallic coinage, Royal land charter and property inheritance, Social change, Peasant protest, and Socio-economic basis of tantrism to the feudal mind, with an appendix on material culture. Through all this, he continually underlines his conception of feudalism in the general and Indian contexts, which is discussed in detail in the introduction and the second appendix.

Reading this latest publication of the eminent octogenarian, one cannot but admire him for the many virtues of his scholarship, above all his unflinching application. Like his other works, this one too is a straightforward, source-based narrative, set forth in a deceptively simple style.

The simplicity reminds one of Marc Bloch, whose ``approach to history,'' it has been well said, ``was more revolutionary than his calm and sober presentation suggests''. (There is also a certain parallel between Bloch's fight against fascism and that by the wider group Sharma represents, though of course Bloch remains more of an ideal than a parallel, in history - writing as in politics.)

In the present volume, moreover, one is treated sumptuously to a dimension of Sharma's work of which his earlier two monographs do not give an inkling of, namely his pugnacity. From the very first, his elaboration of the thesis of Indian feudalism has evoked sharp criticisms on conceptual as well as empirical grounds, and he has come to its defence equally heartily on a majority of occasions, sooner or later. Now that his response to the critics is available in a single volume, a very convenient ground has been created for the further progress of the debate, though one does regret the exclusion of his defence in 1974 of ``the nature of Indian feudalism'' against D.C. Sircar. As Sharma takes on Harbans Mukhia, B. D. Chattopadhyaya, John S. Deyell, B. N. Mukherjee, Irfan, Habib and Karl Marx, he is seen at his combative best: never too deferential (to even Marx), rarely dismissive, and only occasionally evasive.

It would be a grave error to see these debates solely in terms of the demolition or the defence of the same static position: the more it changes, the more it advances, however same it may look to the outsiders. With each meaningful intervention in a debate, our knowledge becomes richer, more variegated as well as more precise (the last precisely by the criticism often dismissed as not ``constructive''). For instance, but for Deyell's intervention, Sharma would not perhaps have counted coins the way he has done here, and the end result is not a return to the good old position of the ``absence'' or ``near absence'' of coins, but a profound increase in our knowledge of the monetary situation, greater sensitivity to questions of method, and a heightened awareness of the issues that await further enquiry. Somewhat exceptionally, the essay on ``The feudal mind'' has escaped controversy so far, but it is unlikely to do so for long. In fact I am itching to raise one right here (if only to get book reviews more greater academic attention than they usually receive in Indian historiography). While he argues that unlike their ``pre- feudal'' counterparts, ``the feudal ideologues use languages to promote social distancing'', I would maintain that such a use of language is a ``general'' feature of all class-divided societies though the ``particular'' form may vary.

He writes: ``Vedic or classical Sanskrit shows little difference in terms for addressing various categories of people'' (p.278). I quote from the Shatapatha Brahmana (I.1.4.12): Now there are four different forms of this call, viz. ``come hither (ehi)!'' in the case of Brahmana; ``approach (agahi)!'' and ``hasten hither (adrava)!'' in the case of Vaishya and a member of the military caste (rajanya - bandhu); and ``run hither (adhava)!'' in the case of a Shudra. On this occasion he uses the call that belongs to a Brahmana, because that one is best adapted for a sacrifice, and ``is besides the most gentle...'' (emphasis added).

One may also call attention apart from N. K. Wagle's work on the forms of address in early Buddhist literature, to the Mahabharata passage that Sharma himself has cited on p.53 viz. in the Kali Age ``the Shudras would be greeted respectfully and addressed as Arya while the Brahmanas would be addressed disparagingly as Bho.''

Debates on these and other issues will surely go on. However, as Louis Dumont spoke of Adrian C. Mayer, Prof. Sharma ``cannot be reproached for not having pursued his analysis far enough, for it is open to the reader to do so.'' It is of course up to the reader whether he/she wants to take a leaf out of the author's book or not.

VISHWA MOHAN JHA

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Assessing teacher effectiveness
Next     : Historical novel