Debate on and Rise indian feudalism easy notes:
Introduction :The ownership of various types of land in ancient India was common. It is difficult to say the exact nature of land ownership. There was no similar type of land system in the Great Land like the Maurya Empire or the Gupta Empire. However, where the king's power was greater, there was more than the king's khas land. Again the king's Khas Taluk was the king's empire. Private ownership levels in the Gupta era increased earlier. There would not have been anything that the landowner should cultivate or not. The secret of the sale of land in Gupta era manuscripts is known. From this it is understood that the arrival of large landowners of this era has emerged. By the time their status became hereditary. And the farmers fell under their control.
Read:- The position of women in the Gupta Empire posthumous Society of ancient India.
Features of indian feudalism :(A) Decentralization of political and administrative power. When there was a brutal attack in Europe, the European kings did not have the power to resist this attack. As a result, the rulers give military and administrative responsibilities to the local Lord or the landlords. Thus, when the kings shared their autocratic power with the Lord, a decentralized government system developed.
(B) Dependence on one another is one of the main features of this system. In this case, the king and the lord were dependent on each other. In fact, the king was the Lord of the Bigger This dependence must be in military, political and administrative fields. The Lord is again dependent on his subordinate Vassals. Vassal is again dependent on Lord. Thus, mutual dependence and cooperation are created through the treaty. The King was at the top of this society, and the underground farmers or the underprivileged farmers were in the bottom. This landlord was directly involved with the landlord or the lord Their relationship was not cooperative, this relationship was not created through the agreement. This relationship was exploitation or oppression. Landlords were oppressed and exploited.
(C) Additional dependency and agricultural central economy on the land were one of the characteristics of this society. The trade was in the bottom of the trade, especially in the outbound market. Even if it was agricultural, it was not possible to increase production. A village centric bound economy is characteristic of this social system.
Read:- Fall of the Maurya Empire.
Rise of Feudalism in India :
Ramsharan Sharma's opinion :Keeping in mind these feudalism principles, some Indian historians have identified 600 to 1200 times as the era of Indian feudalism. During this period, some of the characteristics of the Indian socio-economic system were found to match the odds of European feudalism. The first of Indian feudalism was D.D. Kosambi. Later, Ramesharan Sharma broadly interpreted Indian feudalism. According to him, the rise of Indian feudalism from 300 AD to 600 AD. Then there was a massive development of this system between 600 and 900 AD. Between 900 and 1200 AD, the system was concluded with the final result and erosion. European imitation Sharma tried to find out the many features of Indian feudalism. They are -
(A) Decentralization of political and administrative power like Europe. This special situation was created after the fall of the Gupta Empire. Kings often donate religious festivals, religious people belonging to religion, ( the free land, the religious institution or person who will enjoy the rent of the land). Later, it was seen that a secular person was given a bounty. This resulted in regional trends and a decentralized regime arose.
(B) A new trend is born in the form of donations not only in politics or in administration, but also in economy or social life. Dr. Sharma believes that during the 600th century BC, the economy is largely agricultural centered. The presence of foreign trade does not appear in this period. The absence of the currency and the downfall of the city collapses the figure of trade. There is a direct connection between the city or the city with the development and trade of art. Dr. Sharma based on the description of Hiuen Tsang, came to the conclusion that, The city collapsed in the Gangetic valley. Notable among these cities are- Kausambi, Kapilabastu, Shravasti, Vaishali, etc. Thus, like in Europe, an agglomerated bound economy developed in India, where the landlords became powerful. The condition of the peasants became deplorable and they were gradually getting into the ground. In the Puranas farmers were called 'Asylum seeker', 'Baddhahala', etc. This proves that the farmers were in the land and there was nothing to say about their independence. It is similar to the land tenure system in Europe. Dr. Sharma acknowledged that agricultural expansion took place during this period and production increased.
Read:- The Maurya Empire and Vansh or Dynasty.
Debate on the presence of Feudalism of ancient India :Dr. Bhupendranath Dutta presented the theory about the development of ancient India's Feudalism system.Some historians believe that the question about the ownership of the land system from the Vedic period ends in the Gupta era. According to them, in the Gupta period the land system was completely Feudalism. The poor Gupta kings left their land in the hands of landlords for their revenue and governance. As a result landlords turned into village or region officials. Thus, feudalism in India arises. Some other historians say that in the early part of the Gupta era, they used to earn direct revenue from the state. The employees who received the rent would get cash in advance, and later the state was given a feudalism system to continue to transfer lands instead of their wages.
Read:- Maurya Emperor Bindusara History Fact.
Argue on behalf of Feudalism :The feudalism system was not everywhere in the Gupta Empire. This practice was a little spread in the Gangetic plain of northern India. This system was introduced in modern Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bengal. This practice was not noticed in other regions. Professor Dinesh Chandra Sarkar's opinion is that the land system of ancient India, which is called feudalism. That is actually the traditional zamindari tradition of India. In the third century, the kings of India were subject to them. To the feudalism regime, the responsibility of collecting some land revenue and protection of law and order. As a result, direct relations between the local sub-rulers were established for the farmers. He called this system as a rising feudalism system.
Read:- Fundamental unity between India's diversity.
Opposite logic to feudalism :Dr Dinesh Chandra Sarkar, Ranbir Chakraborty, Brujdulal Chattopadhyay and Champak Lakshmi etc. said that at the time of ancient India, there was no so-called 'pure feudalism' in the form of Western Europe. So it can be said that in the Middle Ages, feudalism was seen in Europe. Such feudalism could not lift heads in ancient India. Ancient India 'Manor system' there was nothing to say. Dr. Byasam is not willing to say anything about the Indian situation of 'semi feudalism'.
Read:- Emperor Ashoka Maurya and Kalinga War.
Conclusion :The final decision about Indian feudalism is very difficult. Dr. Sharma has proved that many interpretations are flawed. Due to the collapse of the European socio-economic framework, it is possible to complicate and create a mistake. However, there was no doubt about the fancy that Sharma had interpreted.
Read:- Mauryan Empire Administration.