There are Several distinctive features in socio-economic, cultural and political

life appear to have taken concrete shape during the period 750-1200 AD. It is
on this ground that many scholars have argued to distinguish it as a distinctive
phase in itself – that of the early medieval. While the nomenclature is neither
standardized nor uniformly accepted, it has gained considerable currency as a
valid chronological segment for historical enquiry.
In the following answer, we will firstly seek to understand the currency of the
term and periodization ‘early medieval’ and then, move to examine the
theories on trade, urbanization and metal currency in the period. This will help
us understand whether the period in consideration was a period of growth and
dynamism or a decline in trade and urbanism.
Problems of Periodization
In a post-modernist world where approaches to historiography are increasingly
questioned, grand and sweeping narratives of empires, monarchs and
universal changes are no longer the norm. It is now that focused and localized
narratives that deconstruct sources are emphasized upon. While historical
phases such as ‘Ancient’, ‘Medieval’ and ‘Modern’ were earlier used as
convenient substitutes for ‘Hindu’, ‘Muslim’ and ‘British’, there is now an
emphasis on understanding stages in history as transitions, processes and
notions.
In the case of early medieval India also, it is not the usage of the term ‘early
medieval’ that is really new. As noted by B.D. Chattopadhay, in his
groundbreaking work, The Making of Early Medieval India, it is the questioning
of the term that is comparatively recent. Chattopadhay goes on to attempt to
understand “the abstraction which the term early medieval may represent,
both as a chronological phase and a signifier of processes of change…”
Furthermore, the problem of periodization also presents to us the problem of
all-encompassing ‘isms’ which tend to universalize the experience of varied
regions and times. In the light of recent works, however, the question is asked
– Do these terms truly have a universal and elemental meaning or are they to
be understood in the historical context in which they occur?
Trade & Urbanism
R.S. Sharma was the first to write of economic crisis in the early medieval
period, started with the decline in trade and urbanization in the Gangetic
plains. He theorized a framework of Indian feudalism, a hierarchical setup
consisting of landed nobility and subject peasantry. He first cited decline in
India’s long-distance trade. Trade with the Roman Empire ended in the 3rd
century A.D. due to its decline; and silk trade with Iran and the Byzantium
stopped in the middle of the 6th century. The coastal areas of India continued
some commerce with China and Southeast Asia, but this had little impact on
the internal economy of the country. Decline in trade is demonstrated by the
paucity of coins from the Gupta period onwards, both in North and South
India. Fa-Xian stated that cowries formed the common medium of exchange.
This factor can also be linked up to the weakening of the power of the centre
(King), which gradually resulted in the method of paying officials by grants of
land. Shortage of coins implies that urban life began to disappear. Many old
commercial towns decayed, and in many urban sites, habitation disappeared
after the 6th century A.D., e.g. Mathura, Vaiśālī, Champa etc. Xuan Tsang
speaks of the decline of Buddhist towns. The urban commercial centers,
nigamas, began to be interpreted as villages in some Post-Gupta texts and
their seals also disappeared. So decommercialization, demonetization, and
deurbanization made land grants a device for payment for services in lieu of
cash salaries.
In a conscious attempt to integrate the spheres of the economy, society and
polity, R.S. Sharma focused much on his theory of Urban Decay. To him, a
model economic feudalism in the early medieval period was characterized by
ruralization. Its main aspects being- the emergence of landed intermediaries;
the presence of a closed, natural economy and the emergence of the village
as a self-sufficient unit of production and distribution; and agrarian expansion
on a substantially large scale. These structural changes in the economy are
again traced to the growth of land grants, which granted extensive privileges
to the donees.
This disturbed and finally transformed the existing agrarian order. They gave
the donee the right to enjoy different types of resources from the land,
including its produce, cash and unpaid labour. The range of resources which
donees received through land grants became wider in later times. Moreover,
as already mentioned, land grants were permanent or at least tended to
become hereditary, reducing the original cultivators to the position of tenants
who could even suffer eviction. They also stipulated non-interference from
state officials, and granted legal and administrative immunities, making the
donees autonomous of the authority of the state.
Ruralization led to rural stratification, i.e., the introduction of different tiers of
rights on land in the countryside. A layer of intermediaries emerged between
the state and the producing classes, and new groups of superior landed
elements were created. Land grants gave them access to the communal rights
on land, converting them into private rights. This undermined the condition of
the peasantry.
Subjection of the peasantry is reflected in the superior rights given to the
grantees, making the cultivators subject to their will and placing restrictions on
their movements, as in many cases cultivators were transferred along with the
land. These donated villages were called dhana-jana-sahita (together with
resources and inhabitants), and sa-prativāsi-sameta (together with settled
people). The emergence of forced labour (visti) was an important institutional
development and this right was given to the donees. Subjection also
increased due to the wide range of taxes or levies which the peasants had to
pay. The right to subinfeudation also worsened the condition of the peasants
as it authorized the donees to enjoy the land, to get it enjoyed, to cultivate it
and get it cultivated. This also implied the right to eject. So it tended to reduce
the permanent tenants to the position of tenants-at-will.
Gradually subjection of all producing classes took place, marked by
degradation in their economic and social status. There is decline in the ritual
status of many artisanal groups, possibly deriving from the fact that due to
decline of trade and development of a closed economy, they were now rurally
localized and made subservient to landholding classes. The lowering of the
status of artisanal groups is also seen in the intensification of untouchability.
According to Sharma, in 600-1200 A.D., a process of ‘acculturation’ began. A
number of social groups such as carmakara (leather worker), rajaka
(washer-man), bamboo-worker and basket-marker came to be regarded as
untouchables. They were called asat (impure), adharmasamkara (created by
unholy mixture) and antyaja (the last).
One of the eminent critics of Sharma was D.C. Sircar, who argues against the
paucity of metallic coinage in early medieval times. In his views fresh coins
were not required by the traders owing to the plenty of older issue of coins and
cowrie shells in the market. Whereas agrarian expansion and multiplication of
states in both newly and old areas indicated a tremendous increase of
population and available collections indicate a substantial shrinkage in the
number of coins. Internally the role of cowries was insignificant.
Furthermore, Sircar does not refute that large number of land grants were
made during the period to Brahmans and other religious institutions but there
was scant evidence of existence of land grants of a secular nature. He
questions the interpretation made by Sharma of certain terms used in the
inscriptions. He says the key terms were misunderstood by Sharma, e.g. there
is no transfer of ownership rights of the land but only the transfer of revenue.
He also questions the assumption of transfer of artisans and peasants with the
land from the inscriptions. Sircar also raises a very important point – the
overwhelming majority of the land grants are made to the temples and
Brahmanas. Service grants begin to be made only towards 1000-1200 CE
onwards. Building upon this very argument by Sircar, Herman Kulke suggests
that the purpose of the land grants was ritual legitimization, and not reflecting
a crisis.
Harbans Mukhia, another critic of Sharma’s, also say the early medieval in a
different light. Rather than a period of decline in trade, urbanism and metal
currency, of the opinion that the early medieval Indian economy was marked
by a ‘free peasant economy’. He suggests that the problems created by the
Marxist understanding of feudalism can be resolved if we take an alternative
perspective. He also says that while there is evidence of exploitation, the
degree of the subjection of the peasantry was not so substantial in the early
medieval period, as there would then have been no scope for intensification of
exploitation later, as happened in the Sultanate period.
Among those that argued against the theory of Urban Decay, B.D
Chattopadhyaya argues that urbanism in many places actually coincides or
even precedes the period where land grants become popular. Therefore it is
unlikely that the land grant economy might actually serve a cause for the
disruption of urban centers. Records from Hsuan Tsang’s work have stated
that the maximum decayed urban centers were around the Ganga valley. But
he also stated about decay of ‘peopled villages’. In other words, it was not
exclusively that the urban centers were decaying, it was a general
phenomenon incorporating even the rural areas. Moreover, in his work we find
him conspicuously defining a ‘village’ and a ‘town’.
Furthermore, Chattopadhyaya argues, the only two valid sources that actually
help us analyze the urban centers are literary and archaeological. Citing G.R
Kuppuswami’s writings on Karnataka, he argues that it is very hard to
differentiate between, or for that matter arrive at definitions of the ‘rural’ and
the ‘urban’. If we base our assumptions only on the elements present at each
level, then it comes to a question of degree, and not of kind.
He states, the existence of fully developed urban centers in certain parts can
be fully traced back to 9th century. He believes the early medieval phase did
not experience any decay like the early historical phase and moved into the
medieval phase in Indian history. He has substantiated his theory with
examples from Andhra, Chola, Kalachuris and others he goes on to establish
the relation between the rural and the urban, and the fact that activities
continued in the urban centers without any marked disruption. There was
imposition of levies as a source of urban income indicating the nature of the
activities taking place, there was a marked nucleus in urban centers where
business activities took place, that there was links with the outside towns and
settlements and an existent urban hierarchy operated in the center. These
were based on two inscriptions dated around tenth century belonging to two
urban centers firstly to the region of Kalachuris around the Jabalpur area of
Madhya Pradesh, and the second from Bilhari during the period of Yuvaraja II.
Chattopadhyaya argues that the disappearance of a centralized state did not
create a social or economic crisis but these developments led to a fresh spurt
of local states in areas of pre-state polity. Moreover, he points out that the
hypothesis suffers from internal inconsistencies and there is no corroborative
evidence for a social crisis in the Gupta period. Also there has been in the
past few years some realization of the theoretical weakness of the explanation
of the feudal developments only in terms of foreign trade.
Chattopadhyaya suggests an alternative way of looking at the developments
in this period, not by empirical validity but by seeing which developments can
be considered more significant seen from the perspective of the long term
processes in Indian history. The model developed by Chattopadhyaya is
called the ‘Integrative Polity’ and it seeks to link the formation of polities with
economic and social processes. Another major contributor to the development
of the said model was Herman Kulke.
The integrative model of state formation in early medieval India is an integral
part of the processual approach. Unlike the feudal model it locates the political
processes at play in the regions, mostly outside the Ganga valley, and then
moves on to work out the emerging structure of polity and society. Within the
regions the sub-regions and localities receive the necessary attention. This
follows from the recognition of the fact that regions are not given but
historically constituted entities. In other words instead of simply asserting a
paradigm from the top the framework takes cognizance of the developments
from below. Integration operated not only at the territorial and political levels,
but also in the economic, social and cultural spheres. State formation involves
the emergence of state polities in pre-state territories and their structural
evolution in the larger context of simultaneous socio-economic and cultural
transformations.
In understanding the Integrative model, Chattopadhaya identifies 3 major
inter-related historical processes that help us understand the intense process
of state formation; and examines their crystallization in their specific temporal
and spatial contexts. The first is economic, i.e., agricultural expansion that
intensified and widened its geographical horizons in this period. The social
process was a consequence of the economic, as due to the spread of
agriculture, the pre-existing indigenous tribes got incorporated into the caste
system at lower levels, leading to a spurt in untouchability. This has been
described as movement “from tribe to caste” (Kosambi), “acculturation”
(Sharma), Peasantization of tribes and “Sanskritization” (Srinivas). The
essence of the religious process was cult appropriation and integration of local
cults to supra-local cult-heads. Tribal and lower order gods were absorbed into
3 principal cults of Viśnu, Śiva and Śakti. E.g. Balarāma, associated with the
plough and the Nāga cult, was assimilated with Krsna, who was further
incorporated into the Vaiśnava cult.
Chattopadhyaya also says that the political process drew on these three
processes. Agrarian expansion into newer areas led to a surplus, which was a
pre-requisite for the formation of state society. Tribes getting assimilated into
the varna structure led to social stratification, another pre-condition for state
formation. Also, these tribes also had their own chiefs and leaders. They
entered the structure at a higher level, i.e., as ksatriyas, through various
means that sanctified tribal non-Sanskritic leaders and validated them. The
term samskāravarjitah (deprived of rituals) applied to these second-class
ksatriyas (vrātya) was a euphemism for this admission into the brāhmanical
social order through inferior rites. They became new contenders for power,
leading to the emergence of new ruling lineages. These ruling lineages
required ideological legitimization, before they could make a bid for power,
which they got in three ways.
Ranabir Chakravarti agrees that there was an unprecedented agrarian
expansion in India in the Early Medieval period. This resulted in an agrarian
surplus, a major prerequisite for city formation in early India. This expansion
led to greater concentration of population in some villages, which
consequently underwent changes leading to emergence of smaller towns.
Thus revisionists feel that the old towns did show signs decline but many new
urban centres came up instead.
Besides this, certain other outlines being put forward to explain the state
structure in early medieval times. One such is the “Segmentary State”
concept, put forward by Burton Stein, which speaks of dual sovereignty mainly
in the context of South India. There he argued that the Chola State was
characterized by numerous autonomous units (nadus) and that rulers had only
ritual sovereignty over their State. Though largely criticized and dismissed,
especially in the context of the Chola empire, the Segmentary State model is
important to note as an alternative perspective on the early medieval period.
Concluding comments – was it a period of growth and dynamism?
The debate surrounding the characterizing of early medieval India over the
last thirty years has enriched our understanding of the times. Whether it was a
period of growth and dynamism cannot be directly or universally answered in
a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. The entire debate on decline of trade, urbanism and
monetization is indeed a very complicated and much discussed matter. What
is clear to us in discussing the perspectives on the processes of change in this
period is that while there was a definite slump in one or more features
mentioned, the changes were never universal. Therefore, to say it was a
period of decay and decline is untrue. However, to say that it was assuredly a
period of growth and dynamism is also tricky. Thus, is abundantly clear to us
that it was a formative period in the making of regional societies. On
assessing the facts and going by the evidence, we see that differing
conclusions are yeilded at different regions.