A REFLECTION OF THE SOCIAL HIERARCHAL STRUCTURE BASED ON LAND SYSTEM OF EASTERN INDIA FROM circa, 5TH TO 13TH CENTURY CE AS REFLECTED IN THE EPIGRAPHIC RECORDS AND LITERARY SOURCES.

                             Explore Ancient India 

Name of The Authors - Biswarup Chatterjee 

& Satabdi Barman

Abstract

           Feudalism is a term historian first used to describe the political, social, and economic system of the European Middle Ages. That system was the world of lords, vassal knights, and serfs characteristic of Europe from the tenth to thirteenth centuries. In exchange for homage and military service, vassals received land from their lords. These lands became their manors, and serfs worked them. The lords and their vassals constituted a privileged nobility, while the serfs lived in a state of servitude.

          Historians also use feudalism to describe India during the early medieval age. But the usefulness of this term is much debated, because conditions on the ground varied from place to place, not only in Europe but also in India. Therefore, historians now only use the term in a general sense while also describing specific variations. In general, feudalism designates a political and economic scene characterised by fragmented authority, a set of obligations between lords, vassals and the peasants, and grants of land by rulers in exchange for some kind of service.

        Authority on the early medieval Indian subcontinent was indeed fragmented, not only by the many regional kingdoms that existed at any one time but also, more importantly, within kingdoms. Because kingdoms incessantly warred with one another, their boundaries were fluid. Rulers usually closely administered a core area near the capital with a civil administration, while granting feudatories on the periphery. Having defeated the ruling lineage of a powerful neighboring state, such as a king, prince, or chief, victorious kings might allow them to retain noble titles and their lands, on the condition that they demonstrate allegiance to him and even supply tribute and military service. The overlord could then wield the title Great King of Kings,while the lesser rulers bore titles signifying their status as subordinate rulers who do obeisance.

       Additionally, aside from granting these feudatories, medieval rulers also issued land grants to important persons and institutions in their realms, such as Brahmins, high officials, temples, monastery etc. As opposed to receiving a cash salary, these recipients were permitted to retain revenue from villages on this land, as well as to exercise some level of judicial authority. Brahmins and Buddhist monks were so important to kings because they aided him in upholding the kings dharma. The kings duty was to protect the people, uphold the varna in social order, sacrifice to the traditional deities, and show devotion to the God. Brahmins could craft genealogies proving a kings illustrious origins in the heroic lineages of the epic stories of ancient times, perform the sacrifices, and maintain temples. So rulers often generously gifted land to them or to the magnificent temple and monastery complexes rulers built.

         Early India, then, consisted of a multitude of kingdoms, each of which governed a part of their realms through feudal arrangements, by granting feudatories and issuing land grants to nobility or prestigious religious and political leaders, in exchange for allegiance and assisting the ruler in demonstrating his being worthy of his sacred role.

Keywords: Land, Inscriptions, Post Gupta, Copper plate. Hierarchy.

        The social hierarchal structure in eastern India (Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Odisha) in the early mediaeval phase had appears to have hinged upon the agrarian economy that was based upon the prevalent land system of the contemporary period. A study of the land grant charters, which are more abundant in Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Odisha fruitfully, be made to trace the class-stratification, rights and obligation of different classes and interrelation between them.

          The land economy of ancient Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Odisha was characterised by social gradation of different strata belonging to the land-owning classes. While the king was at the top of this hierarchical structure, at the bottom remained the large population of cultivators (karṣakas). Feudal chiefs like Rāja (king), Rājānaka (feudatory chieftain), Mahāsāmanta (feudatory chief), Sāmanta (feudatory), Mahāmaṇḍalika (a feudatory title) and Maṇḍalika (ruler of a territory), Mahābhogika (provincial governor), Bhogika (village headman) stood immediately below the king in the scale of social hierarchy. Due to lack of adequate evidence at our disposal, it is difficult to suggest any ranking among the feudal chiefs on the basis of quantum of landed property under their possession. However, Mahāmahattaras (higher than the mahattaras) or Mahattaras (head man or elders of different villages) who possessed vast tracts of land seem to have been placed next to the feudatory chiefs. Literally,

         Mahattara means elders of a town or village. According to Stein, Mahattara (Rajatarangini, vii, 659) was a chamberlain, a village headman or a head of a family or community and a number of village-council. In the Corpus of Bengal inscriptions, Mahattaras figure both as village- elders as well as prominent persons in towns (viṣayamahattara) "palāśavṛndakātsaviśvāsaṃmahattarāddhayaṣṭa-kulādhikaraṇa…" (Damodarpur Copper Plate inscription of the time of Budha Gupta, 482 AD), "viṣayānaṃ mahattarā vinjāptāḥ…" (Faridpur Copper Plate incription of Dharmaditya, regnal year 3). The appellations, Mahattara and Mahāmahattara, attached with the name village-elders seem to have suggested their economic status based on landed property. Those settled in the towns or cities seem to have taken to trade, industry and banking as their economic pursuits. The Mahattaras in villages realised share of the produce from the cultivators on contract or had their lands cultivated by daily-wage labourers. Just below the Mahattaras were the Kuṭumbins or house holders who were probably owners of smaller plots of land brāhmaṇottarānmahattarādi-kuṭumbinaḥ kuśalamanuv-arṇṇayānu bodhayanti(Paharpur copper plate inscription of the Gupta year 169 [479 A.D.] ). The term Kuṭumbin originally stood for the head of the house- hold (gṛhapati or gṛhin). In the jataka literature, both the terms Gahapati and Kuṭumbika occur to indicate the land owning and mercantile class. So far as the epigraphic records are concerned, the currency of these two terms varied from time to time. In the pre-Gupta inscriptions, the term Gṛahapati was extensively used, while the term Kuṭumbin was rarely used. On the other hand, in the inscriptions, from the Gupta period onwards, the latter gets wide circulation with the disappearance of the former. Kuṭumbin, may, therefore, be used as a substitute of Gṛahapati, that is, head of the family and householder thereby. But Kuṭumbin, occurring in the Bengal epigraphs, seems to have formed among the rural population and represented only the land-owning class and not the mercantile class as it is indicated in the jataka literature. At last, it may be well assumed that with the decline of trade and commerce and growth of agrarian economy, Kuṭumbin belonging to mercantile class gradually shifted their interest from trade and commerce to agriculture. According to a Japanese scholar, Yamazaki Toshio, Kuṭumbin, occurring in the Bengal epigraphs, should be translated as peasants. But, in view of the derivative meaning of the word, Kuṭumbin (head of the family or Kuṭumba), the term should not be translated as peasant. Moreover, in the Pala- Sena land grants, peasantry is specifically represented by the term Karṣaka or kṣetrakara (free peasants or the tillers of the soil) … kṣetrakarāṃśca brāhmaṇa mānanā pūrvvakaṃ…samānjāpayati ca. As Kuṭumbins (house holders) were dependent upon agriculture, they were in close contact with land which they got cultivated either by employing hired labourers or employed themselves in cultivation. In view of their landed property, they may be regarded as peasant- proprietors.

        A section of the landed gentry was represented by the new land-owning class emerging due to liberal donation of land to the Brahmanas or the guardians of the Buddhist monastery or Hindu temple. A number of inscriptions of eastern India reflected the donation of land to the temple and Buddhist Monastery, for example, In Khalimpur Copper Plate inscription of King Dharmapāla (c. late 8th century CE), found from Khalimpur village under Maldah district in West Bengal, four villages (Krauncaśubhra, Maḍhāśalmalī, Pālitaka, Gopippali) including market place and palm groves was gifted to supreme lord Nanna-nārāyana (Viṣnu) along with such attendants as the keeper of the temple, a Brahmin from Gujrat accept it on behalf of the temple, for worship of the deity and maintenance of the temple. 

"Mahāmahattara mahattara dāśagrāmikādi viṣayavyavahāriṇaḥ sakaraṇānprativāsinaḥkṣetrakaraṃścabrāhmaṇamānanāpūrvvakaṃyathārhamānayatibodhayati samāñjāpayati ca│ matamastu

bhavatāṃmahāsāmantādhipati  ŚrῑnārāyanavarmannādūtakayuvarājaŚrī tribhuvanapālamukhena vayameva viñjāpitā yathāasmā-

bhirmātāpitrorātmanaśca purāyābhivṛddhayeśubhasthalyandekulaṃ 

….. pratiṣṭhāpita-bhagavananna-nārāyaṇa - bhaṭṭārakāya tatpra

tipālaka lāṭadvija devārccakādi pādamūla sametāya pūjopasthānādi karmmaṇo caturo grāmān atratya-haṭṭikā- talapāṭaka sametān dadātu deva iti│"

not only the temple sometimes a piece of land or an entire village was donated in favour of Buddhist institution also, such as In Nalanda Copper Plate inscription of King Devapala (undated), found from Nalanda, Bihar, five villages were donated, viz Mandivanāka, Maṇivāṭaka, Naṭikā, Hastigrāma, Pālāmaka to the Buddhist monastery at Nalanda.  

"Mahārādhirājaḥ Śrīmandevapā-

ladevaḥkuśalī│ Śrīnagarabhauktau rāgṛha-viṣayāntaḥpāti-ajapūranaya…..nandivanāka maṇivāṭaka│pilipiṇkā-naya-prativa(ba)ddha-Naṭikā │acala-naya-prativa(ba)dha-ha[sti]grāma

│gaya-viṣayāntaḥpāti….pālāmakagrāmeṣu│samupagatāṃ  sarvvāneva  rāja  rāṇaka

│ rājaputra…..samāñjāpayati viditamastu bhavatāṃyathoparilikhita-svasmva(mba)ddhāvic- chinna-talopeta- nandivanākagrāma │ manivāṭakagrāma │ naṭikā grāma │ hasti grāma│ pālāmakagrāmāḥ svasimā-tṛṇayūti- gocara- paryantāḥsa-talāḥ……śāsanīkṛtya pratipāditaḥ."

In the Bargaon grant of King Ratnapala (c. ist part of 11th century CE), found from Naharabi village of Bargaon mauza in Tezpur subdivision of Darrang district, Assam, a plot of land grabted to a Brāhmiṇ named Viradatta 

"…bῑradattaḥ yaṃ prāpya …. paῆcaviṃśābdarājyake tasmai dattā …."

     Sometimes the grant was made to a number of Brahmanas, such as, in Sumandala plate, found from Sumandala under Ganjam district of Odisha, of the time of Pṛthivivῑgrahabhaṭṭāraka (c.

G.E. 250+320 = 570 AD ) the reigning king was Mahārāja Dharmaraja as well as the donor of the grant also , though he is ruling under a overlord that is "Śrῑ Pṛthivivῑgrahabhaṭṭāraka Śrῑpṛthivῑvidrahabhaṭṭārake tatpādānudhyātaḥ…mahārājadha-rmarājaḥ kuśalῑ parakkhal- amārgga viṣaye varttamāna bhaviṣyatsām…yathāsmābhiḥmāghakṛṣṇasyaikādaśyāmuttar- āyane(ṇe)etadviṣayasaṃddivyadardhākamaṇḍukagrāmaścandanavāṭakasahitagrohārokṛtya homvakāgrahārῑyabrāhmaṇopādhyāyamadusvāmipramukhā-nāṃ…pratipāditaḥ. "

He was the ruler of Kaliṅga rāsṭra in the time of the said donation …kaliṅgarāṣṭramanuśāsati…. Dharmaraja was probably the ruler of a certain area under the jurisdiction of Śrῑ Pṛthivivῑgrahabhaṭṭāraka. Here a village Ardhākamaṇḍuka was granted along with another locality Candana-vāṭaka together with uddeśa (space above the ground) and uparika (rent to be realised from temporary tenants) ardhākamaṇḍukagrā-maścandanavāṭaka…sodeśah saparikara, this type of attachment with the grant is quite interesting. The grant was made in favour of a number of brahmanas "…homvakāgrahārῑ-yabrāhmaṇopādhyāyamadusvāmipr- amukhānāṃ…as agrahāra ..sahitograhārokṛtya..."

        The royal officials who accepted secular assignments also emerged as an intermediary class. As already pointed out, the lowest stratum in the land-based hierarchy was formed by the Karṣakas or Kṣetrakaras that is free peasants, share-croppers and hired labourers. The big land owners presumably had their lands cultivated by the share-croppers or hired labourers. The lowest stratum accommodated the largest population. Smaller in numbers were the people belonging to the land-owning class. Smallest in number were the feudal lords directly serving under the king who was at the apex of a pyramidal social structure.

         In the time of Gupta age the state machinery was in the practice of making land grants to officers due to their administrative and military services, though there is no direct epigraphic evidence of it. The head of fiscal and the administrative units were paid by land grants. According to kautilyas Arthasastra the officers namely daśagrāmῑ (head of the ten villages), gopa, sthānika (the head of the settlement and town) and samāhartā (the head of the tax collectors) "daśagrāmῑsaṃgrahena saṃgrahaṇaṃ sthāpayet |….Gopasthānikānikastha….vikrayādhā-navarjanam|…samāhartṛ…pradeṣṭṛnāya…" The samāhartā is to be paid in cash although the gopa and sthānika were granted land in the new settlements which they cannot sale or dispose of it in any other way …vikrayādhānavarjanam…. Seemingly this is the addition to their regular remuneration in cash, so it seems that in system of kautilya this feudal custom is very faint.

         The mode of payment which was modified by Manu in his law book indicates that the officers in charge of administrative units which was specified by Manu in his law book, should be paid by grants of land. The officials who were placed in charge of one or more than one village to collect royal dues and maintain law and order were remunerated by the land grant to them which was recommended by the Manusmṛti

"grāmasyādhipatiṃ kuryāddśagrāmapatiṃ tathā |biṃśatiṣaṃ ṣteṣañca sahasrapatimevaca ||10dasi kulanta vhunjita vimsi panca kulani ca |

gramam gramastadhyksh sahasradhipatih puram ||11"

        During the post Gupta period it seems that a remarkable change has taken in the way of payment to the officers, employed by the state. Such a grant is made by the king when pleased with the service, velour etc of a person, for example, the king of Nanda dynasty Devananda III (899 AD) granted a village in the Cuttack District to Yaśodatta, his Kayastha minister of piece and war. The Somavaṃśῑ ruler Mahābhavagupta 1(935-70 AD) granted villages in the Kosala by three land charters to his brāhmṇa chief minister Sādhāraṇa, etc. We have no specific idea about the mode of payment to the officers during Gupta realm.

             In the time of Harsavardhana, officers were not paid in cash in lieu of their service to the state, one fourth of the royal revenues were reserved for the endowment of great public servants, such as pramatara (-), uparika (an officer of the revenue department, in charge of collection of incidental extra taxes), Viṣayapati (head of the district) etc. these are the high officers in the reign of Harsavardhana. The governors, ministers, magistrates and officials had a portion of land individually which was assigned to them for their personal support. Therefore, in the time of Harsavardhana the revenues were granted not only to the priest or scholars but also to the officers of the state. It may be assured that this policy of granting secular assignment was prevalent in Bengal, Orissa and Assam also. The landed hierarchy is also noticed in the land grant charter of Odisha with references to a number of land-owning classes and officials like sāmanta, mahāsāmanta, mahāmahattara, aṃsabhogika (seems to be same as the head of a number of villages who enjoyed the status of a partner or joint head of a group of villages), bhūpāla (tribal chief), who look after the territorial unit, bhogi (head of the administrative unit bhoga, which literarily means a subdivision of a district or one or more villages constituting a bhoga), mahābhogi (officials enjoying higher status than bhogi) etc "…mahārājonavarmmā bhiliṅgāb-hoga-viṣaye hemaṇḍakagrāme sarvvas-amavetānkuṭumbinssmānjāpa-yatyastyeṣ- a…-brahmaṇaviṣṇuśarmmaṇa (ṇe) pradattaḥ[||" *](Baranga grant of Umāvarman, regnal year 6) …jirodaṃ[sa]vṛ(bṛ)hadbhogika suḍumāka|(Kanas plate of Lokavigraha, year 280). In case of Assam also the epigraphic record referred to the land-owning classes like mahāsāmanta, sāmanta, and royal officials like viṣayapati (head of the district) and manḍaleśvara (a regent who administering a division) who were in charge of the district by dint of their post they might be the owners of land which they received as fief as the part of remuneration from the king "…mahāsāmantadivākaraprabha……. Svabhujabalatulitasakalasāmantacakra- vikrama…

…. chandrapuriviṣaye vartamānabhāvinoviṣayapatῑnadhikaraṇānica samāῆjāpayati…… śrῑprāgjyotiṣabhauktau|kāmarūpamaṇḍale| vāḍāviṣaye…"

Though there is not specific reference to cultivators, it may be reasonably conjectured the existence of peasant class in the agro based social structure of ancient and medieval India.

Reference

Boruah, Nirode. Early Assam. Guwahati: Spectrum Publication, 2007.

Mukherjee, Ramaranjan and Sachindra Kumar Maity (eds.). Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions Bearing on History and Civilization of Bengal (CBI). Calcutta (now Kolkata): Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1967.

Morrison, Barrie M. Political Centre and Cultural Regions in Early Bengal (PCCREB). Arizona: The University of Arizona Press, 1970.

Sarma, Dimbeswar (ed.). Kāmarūpaśāsanāvalῑ. (Eng. trans.) Premadhar Chowdhury, Rajani Kanta Deva Sarma and Dimbeswar Sarma. Gauhati: Publication Board Assam, 2003 (2nd edn.). (1st edn. 1981).

Sircar, Dinesh Chandra. Indian Epigraphy. Delhi (now New Delhi): MLBD, 1996 (Rpt.). (1st edn. 1956).

(ed.). Epigraphic Discoveries In East Pakistan (EDEP). (Sanskrit College Series, 70). Calcutta (now Kolkata): Sanskrit College, 1973.                          

(ed.). Select Inscriptions Bearing the Indian History and Civilization: From the Sixth Century BC. to the Sixth Century A.D. (Vol. 1) (Sel. Ins). Calcutta (now Kolkata): University of Calcutta, 1942.

Tripathi, Snigdha. Inscription of Orissa: Inscriptions of The Bhauma-Karas. (Vol. 2). Delhi (now New Delhi): Indian Council of Historical Research &Pratibha Prakashan, 2000.

Basak, Radhagovinda. Tipperah Copper Plate Grant of Lokanatha: The 44th Year. No. 19. In : Epigraphia Indica (EI). (Vol. 15). Ed. F. W. Thomas. Delhi (now New Delhi) : The Director General Archaeological Survay of India, 1982. (Rpt.) ; (1st ed. 1925). 301-315.

Bhattasali, Nalinikanta. The Ghugrahati Copper Plate inscription of Samachara-DevaNo. 11. In: Epigraphia Indica (EI). (Vol. 18). Ed. H. Krishna Sastri and Hirananda Sastri. New Delhi: The Director General archaeological survey of India, 1983 (Rpt.). 74-87.

 The Kotalipada Copperplate Inscription of the Time of DvādaŚāditya, Year 14. In: Pratna Samiksha (PS). (Vol. 4). Ed. Sharmi Chakraborty. Kolkata: Centre For Archaeological Studies &Training, 2013. (New Series). 89-99.

Islam, Shariful. Uḍiśvara Copper Plate of Śrῑdhāraṇarāta.. In: Journal of The Asiatic Siciety of Bangladesh (Humanities) (JASBH). (Vol. 57). No. 1. Ed. Harun-Or- Rashid and Sabbir Ahmed. Dhaka: The Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, 2012. 61-72.

Pal, Sayantani. Religious Petronage in the Land Grant Charters of Early Bengal (Fifth- Thirteenth Century). In: Indian Historical Review (IHR). (Vol. 41). Issue. 2. Ed. Dilip K Chakrabarti. New Delhi: ICHR, 2014. 185- 205.