ROMILA THAPAR 1.
Feudal tendencies, not fully developed feudalismThapar argues that early
medieval India (c. 600–1200) shows feudal elements, but not a full European-style feudal [Link]
uses the phrase “feudal-like features” rather than feudal mode of [Link] rejects the idea of a
single, monolithic “Indian feudalism.”2. Land grants = key instrument of political changeAgrees with
R. S. Sharma that land grants are [Link] says land grants were as much political and ideological
tools as economic:→ used to sanskritise frontier areas,→ integrate tribal chiefs,→ extend Brahmanical
culture.3. Emphasis on “state formation” and “political articulation”Thapar links land grants with the
process of regional state [Link] of seeing land grants only as feudal fragmentation, she sees
them as tools of central authority creating new local elites.4. Samanta system = political hierarchy, not
feudal hierarchyShe argues the samanta was first a defeated enemy turned subordinate [Link]
obligation was political-military, not based on land-for-service like European [Link]
“feudalism” must be used carefully, not [Link] evidence for serfdom- Thapar disagrees with
Sharma’s view of serf-like [Link] argues peasants retained mobility, and agrarian relations were
diverse across [Link] term feudal peasantry is inappropriate for India.6. Importance of integrative
ideologies-Uses the concept of “ideological integration” through Puranic tradition, temples,
[Link]-like relationships cannot be understood only economically; they are embedded in caste,
ritual status, and kinship.7. Urban decline debate — nuanced [Link] acknowledges a decline in
certain cities,but emphasises new urban forms: temple towns, pilgrimage centres, market towns. Thus,
not a total collapse of commerce, unlike the radical rupture Sharma imagines.1.R. S. Sharma –
Classical Indian Feudalism (Marxist)Argument: India witnessed a full-fledged feudal mode of
[Link] Grants → FeudalisationFrom Gupta period onwards (4th c.), land grants to
Brahmanas & officials [Link] grants transferred fiscal rights, revenue collection, and
administrative [Link] created intermediate lords similar to feudal [Link]
Subordination / Semi-SerfdomPeasants forced to stay on land due to:restricted mobility,excessive
dues,forced labour (vishti).Sharma sees this as Indian version of [Link] of Urban Centres &
TradeDecline of long-distance trade → monetised economy [Link] of self-sufficient
[Link] [Link] became hereditary lords, often rebelling."Feudal polity"
replaced integrative [Link] his thesis is important:Because all later historians respond to Sharma
— either agreeing, modifying, or rejecting him.2. D. D. Kosambi – Tribal → Feudal
TransitionArgument: Feudalism emerges from the interaction of caste society with tribal [Link]
Grants Acted as a Civilising ToolCaste society used land grants to Brahmins to integrate [Link]
formed the precondition for feudal [Link] ExpansionGrants encouraged clearing of forests,
expanding [Link] & Caste as Feudal ToolsBrahmanical religion supported hierarchy —
crucial in feudalisation.3. B. D. Chattopadhyaya – Locality, Region & PowerArgument: Feudalisation
= Regionalisation of [Link] Local Political Units (Janapadas, mandalas) [Link] as a
Nodal Institution for redistribution and [Link] of Intermediary Authorities between king &
[Link] Stein – NO Feudalism in South India (Segmentary State)Argument: South Indian
polities (especially Cholas) were segmentary, NOT [Link] weak, peripheries strong (ritual
sovereignty at centre, actual control at local level).Peasants had high autonomy — no
[Link] settlements (agraharas) → cultural, not feudal, [Link] Kulke –
Integrative PolityArgument: Land grants were used to integrate diverse social [Link] authority
expanded through patronage, temple [Link] integration, not fragmentation.
6. Kesavan Veluthat – South India Not FeudalArgument: South India had “coercive agrarian
hierarchy,” but NOT European [Link] land-for-service [Link] knightly [Link] not
tied to the soil.7. Champakalakshmi – Urban TransformationArgument: The economy changed but
did not [Link] towns created new religio-commercial [Link] guilds (Ayyavole,
Manigramam) remained active.8. André Wink – India’s Transition Was Not FeudalArgument: India's
social formation was closer to “military fiscalism” than [Link] kingship depended on
revenue → not feudal [Link]-horse trade, coastal commerce continued.