Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

Unit: History of India (c. 750- 1206 CE)

Lesson: Evolution of Political Structures- North India
Lesson Developer: Yogender Dayma
College/Department: Hans Raj College, University of Delhi

0
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

Table of Contents
Chapter: Evolution of Political Structures- North India (Palas,
Pratiharas, Rajputs)

 Introduction
 The Regional Kingdoms
 The Evolution of the North Indian Regional Polities-Issues and
Interpretations
 Change or Continuity?
 Summary
 Glossary
 Exercise/ Practice
 Further Readings

1
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

Introduction

The period from the post-Gupta centuries and the establishment or the early
phase of the Delhi Sultanate is generally called the early medieval period of
Indian history. In the writings of the ‘nationalist historians’ the period was
seen as the one of decline as the country lost its political unity. But, in the
post-independence scholarship on Indian history, the early medieval period
is seen as a period of transition from the early historical period to the
medieval period. In the realm of polity also, the period witnessed significant
developments. One feature of the period is the complex political map of the
country. According to one estimate, approximately fifty states were in
existence in the period under discussion. While some of these like the
Cholas, the Palas, and the Pratiharas controlled significantly large areas and
are called the regional kingdoms, majority of these states controlled smaller
areas and are termed either as the sub-regional polities like the western
Gangas in Karnataka, eastern Gangas and the Gajapatis in Orissa, Eastern
Chaulukyas (of Vengi) in the Eastern Deccan or as the local states like Banas
and the Nolambas in the Deccan, Bhaumakaras in Orissa, several Rajput
lineages in the western India etc. The factors responsible for the emergence
of this complex political map and the characteristic features of the polities of
the period are debated issues. The dominant historiography on the subject
sees these developments as a response to some crisis faced by the
‘centralized states’ of the earlier period and in contradiction to the ones seen
in the early historical period. But in the recent decades, this explanation has
been questioned on the basis of the researches conducted on the different
regions of the country. On the basis of these insights, now more importance
is attached to the ‘horizontal spread of state societies’.

The Regional Kingdoms

An important feature of the early medieval Indian polity is the lack of

political unity. Now there emerged a number of political powers in different
parts of the country. Some of these could establish bigger kingdoms i.e.
regional kingdoms, expanding on significantly large areas and were longer
living when compared to the much more numerous kingdoms with smaller
territories under their control. The regional states include the Pratiharas in
the west, the Palas in the east and the Rashtrakutas and the Cholas in the
South (see map 1 for details). This fragmented political map of the
subcontinent motivated the ‘nationalist historians’ to label this period as the

2
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

(Source: Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, A History of India, Third

edition, London, 1999, page 367)
3
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

period of overall decline which, according to them, provided the Arab and
the Turkish rulers conducive conditions to defeat Indian powers and
establish their political control. But in the recent decades, the research is
more focused on underlining the processes of continuity and change in the
sphere of polity. With this approach, now more importance is attached to
tracing the processes leading to this kaleidoscopic formation of states in the
period under discussion and its contribution in the development of regional
cultures. According to Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, ‘This
absence of political unity contributed in many ways to the development of
regional cultures which were interrelated and clearly demonstrated the great
theme of Indian history: unity in diversity’ (emphasis added; Hermann Kulke
and Dietmar Rothermund, A History of India, Third edition, London, 1999,
pg. 103). As a result of this kaleidoscopic formation of state, for the first
time in Indian history, great empires could emerge in the region beyond
north India i.e. east, west and more particularly in south.

Evolution of the North Indian Regional Polities- Issues and

Interpretations
The causes responsible for the emergence of the regional polities in the early
medieval period did not receive due attention till the mid-twentieth century
as the scholarship on Indian state by then explained the rise and fall of
dynasties and empires as isolated political developments. In these writings,
the rise of regional polities of the period under discussion was an obvious
result of the absence of any big empire after the decline of the
Harshavardhana’s empire in the mid-seventh century CE. These concerns
received due attention, for the first time, in the mid-twentieth century. Now,
inspired by the materialistic interpretation of history which insisted on the
interdependence of the polity, economy, society and culture of any time and
space, scholars like D.D. Kosambi, R.S. Sharma, B.N.S. Yadav etc. called for
tracing the changes in the nature of the polities with the changing material
culture. The issue was discussed at length by Prof. R.S. Sharma in the first
edition of his book The Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient
India, published in the year 1959. In this new approach, the emergence of
the regional states in the period was explained as the result of the
emergence of the feudal social formations. Though the idea was first
propounded by D.D. Kosambi, who argued for the two-staged development
of this new formation- namely, feudalism from the above and feudalism from
the below, its more empirically rooted and polished version was developed
by Prof. R.S. Sharma. He, on the basis of his study of a variety of sources
from different parts of the country, rejected Kosambi’s two-staged theory
4
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

and offered an alternative model which is generally referred to as ‘Indian

Feudalism’ model. This model is supported by scholars like B.N.S. Yadav,
D.N. Jha, R.N. Nandi, among others.

The ‘Indian Feudalism’ model characterizes the polities of the period under
discussion as feudal polities. In the context of northern India, according to
Sharma, the feudal elements in the early medieval polity included ‘the
increase of religious intermediaries in land, the payment of lesser vassals
and officials by land grants, the feudalization of the titles of kings and
officials, the shifting of capitals, the imposition of clan chiefs on old villages’
(Indian Feudalism, c. AD 300-1200, Third Edition, 2006, pg. 90). Sharma
argues for the existence of these traits in the regional polities of the early
medieval times i.e. the Pala and the Pratihara polities in the north and the
Rashtrakuta polity in the Deccan. The origins of these feudal traits were
traced from circa 300 CE. In simple words, it signified fragmentation of the
state authority due to the emergence of intermediaries between the ruler
and the ruled. This existence of the multiple centers of power was in sharp
contrast to the Mauryan state which was described by Sharma as a ‘highly
centralized’ state. As a result, there was contraction in the area under direct
control of the king in the early medieval period.

Do you know?
The Palas were the most powerful dynasty in the eastern India. The
founder of the dynasty was Gopala, who was not of royal lineage. It is
claimed that he was elected as ruler by the people in order to put an end to
the general chaos (matsyanyaya) that had prevailed in the country. The
boundaries of the Pala state were extended by his successor son
Dharmapala (c. 790-821 CE) and Devapala (821-860 CE). At one point of
time modern Bengal and Bihar were under their direct control, whereas the
rulers of the region upto the Gandhar accepted their suzerainty. They were
engaged in a struggle for control over Kanauj, the other contenders were the
Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas. This struggle is also called the ‘tripartite
struggle’. The dynasty was displaced by the Sena dynasty in the twelfth
century.

Do you know?
The Pratiharas were the powerful dynasty of early medieval period. They
had originated from the tribe named Gurjara. Therefore, they are also called
the Gurjara Pratiharas. The dynasty was founded by Vatsaraja in the eighth
century CE. It controlled large parts of Rajasthan and of northwestern India.
5
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

His son Nagabhatta offered successful resistance to the Arabs. Other

important rulers of the dynasty include Bhoja (836-885 CE) and
Mahendrapala (885-910 CE). Al-Masudi, a traveler from Baghdad who visited
Kanauj in the early tenth century, reported that the Pratiharas maintained
four large armies of about 700,000 to 900,000 men each. But their
engagement in the ‘tripartite struggle’ proved costly to them also. By the
late tenth century, their feudatory chiefs, many of whom were the Rajputs,
started declaring their independence. The most prominent of these were the
Chahamanas (or Chauhans) in the eastern Rajasthan, the Tomaras who
founded Delhi in 736 CE, Chaulukyas or Solankis in Gujarat, Paramaras or
Pawars in Malwa, Chandellas of Bundelkhand.

In this formulation, the widespread practice of land grants is said to be the

determining factor. It is said that this practice was adopted to counter the
crises which had social and economic facets and surfaced from the fourth
century onwards. The following quote well summarizes the interconnection
between the practice of land grants and the crises in the existing socio-
economic formation and its effects on the polity-
The king in ancient India symbolised state authority, and the state was
backed by priests and warriors who lived on the surplus produced by the
peasants and supplemented by the artisans. This socio-economic pattern
was upset by the social crisis of the Kali Age. Although the use of force
and restoration of the varna system were recommended, these measures
alone were not enough to cope with the critical situation. Since it was
difficult to collect taxes, it was not possible to run the state and to pay the
priests, the administrators, the army, and numerous officials. Apparently,
as an alternative, the practice of land grants, which was not unknown in
early times, was widely adopted in a major part of the country,
particularly from the fourth and fifth centuries AD onwards… The fact
cannot be discounted that trade and urbanism suffered a distinct decline,
and the absence of gold coins for three centuries (from the seventh to the
tenth) and paucity of other types of coins are well known… Hence, the
production system as a whole was afflicted with certain maladies, which
compelled the state to convert land/land revenues into a general mode of
payment for religious and administrative services (emphasis added). The
grant system relieved the state of the heavy responsibility of collecting
taxes across the countryside by its agents and then of disbursing them in
cash or in kind. On the other hand, priests, warriors and administrators
were asked to fend for themselves in the villages they were assigned. The
system also relieved the state of the responsibility of maintaining law and
order in the donated villages which now became almost the sole concern
of the beneficiaries.

(R.S. Sharma, Indian Feudalism, Third edition, 2006, Pg. 297-298)

6
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

In other words, the practice of land grants with the transfer of

administrative, fiscal and judicial rights in favor of the donee, according to
the Indian Feudalism formulation, was a remedial step to counter the crisis
in the existing surplus extraction mechanism. As a result there emerged a
number of subordinate autonomous rulers, called samantas. The emergence
of multiple centers of power led to the decentralization which further caused
parcellization of sovereignty of the state. Such a scenario is said to be in
direct contrast to the one of the Mauryan and the post-Mauryan period when
there existed centralized political powers.

But this formulation has serious limitations. For example, it does not see the
emergence of states as the result of the complex interplay of social,
economic and political processes but as the one of the transfer of resources
from the center in the form of land grants. In addition to that, the
‘centralized’ and ‘uniform’ nature of the administrative apparatuses of the
early Indian states, which has been used as reference to show the
‘parcellization’ of state authority in the early medieval polities, has been
successfully problematized by the scholars like Romila Thapar, B.D.
Chattopadhyaya etc. Thus the point of reference for the supporters of the
‘feudal polity’ formulation has been shaken.

An alternative explanation of the political processes of the early medieval

period has been offered the ‘integrative’ model. The model was propounded
by B.D. Chattopadhyaya and Hermann Kulke in the 1970s. This formulation
does not question the ‘differential distribution of power represented by the
samanta-feudatory structure’ but called for the revision of the way its
emergence has been explained. For this purpose, it calls for tracing the
processes of the emergence of state in the respective regions by looking at
the locally available evidences and their interpretation independently and not
through the lens of the north India-centric understanding. In this exercise,
due attention should be paid to the processes at play in the sub-regions and
the localities existing in the region. This model calls for seeing the political
processes, which resulted in the emergence of the feudatories, in terms of
parallels with contemporary economic, social and religious processes. In the
words of Chattopadhyaya:
The essence of the economic process lay in the horizontal spread of
rural agrarian settlements, and this remains true even for the early
historical period despite the accent on urban economy or money
economy of the period. The process of caste formation…remained the
essence of the social process which drew widely dispersed and
originally outlying groups into a structure which allowed them in a
large measure to retain their original character except that this
character was now defined with reference to the structure. In the
7
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

related religious process too the major trend was the integration of
local cults, rituals and sacred centres into a pantheistic supra-local
structure; the mechanism of integration was by seeking affiliation with
a deity or a sacred centre which had come to acquire supra-local
significance. Applied to the study of the political process, these
parallels would suggest consideration at three levels: the presence of
established norms and nuclei of state society, the horizontal spread of
state society implying the transformation of pre-state polities into
state polities, and the integration of local polities into structures that
transcended the bounds of local polities. (Emphasis added)

(Source: Chattopadhyaya, B.D., The Making of early Medieval India,

Second Edition, 2012, pp. 211-212)

Thus the ‘integrative model’, which is also called the ‘processural model’,
emphasizes on taking a long-term and holistic view to explain the
emergence and evolution of the early medieval polities. It is argued that the
emergence of the overlord or feudatory had its basis mostly in the lineage
power of the local ruling elites. The transformation of the lineage into a
regional power was a long drawn process in which the support of other
lineages played an important role. This support was won over through the
redistribution of resources as well as through the mechanism of
administrative ranking by assigning them feudal ranks. With this approach
Hermann Kulke identifies three stages in the emergence of regional states:
‘initially a tribal chieftain would turn into a local Hindu princeling, then this
prince would become a king surrounded by samantas and thus establish an
‘early kingdom’, and, in the third stage, great rulers of ‘imperial kingdoms’
would emerge who controlled large realms and integrated the samantas into
the internal structure of their realm’ (Hermann Kulke and Dietmar
Rothermund,A History of India, third edition, London, 1999, pg.123) . These
three stages are respectively named as local, sub-regional and
regional/supra-regional polities by B.D. Chattopadhyaya. These stages, it is
argued, converged with significant developments in the social, economic and
cultural domains. The practice of land grants in this context served multiple
purposes. These included expansion of the resource basis of the state by
agrarian expansion as well as seeking endorsement of state authority by
winning over the brahamanas and the religious establishments who were the
major recipients of these grants. Our attention is also drawn to the fact that
in many instances, the donated lands were located in the unclaimed
territories. Thus rather than causing a dent in the state authority, this model
explains the recipients of grants as agents facilitating expansion of the state
authority in the hitherto unclaimed areas and widening of the resource bases
of the state.

8
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

In the context of early medieval north India, the model has been used to
explain the origin of the Rajputs and the nature of polity under them. As we
know, in the early medieval period, a number of Rajput clans emerged as
independent dynasties in different parts of the northern India, particularly in
the western and the north-western part. The Pratiharas, who are credited
with establishing a regional kingdom in the early medieval period, also
claimed to be of Rajput clan. The available records attest to the existence of
a number of subordinate rulers under the Pratiharas. It is interesting to note
that many of these subordinate rulers also claimed a Rajput origin. A ‘view
from the above’ will give an impression that the area under the direct control
of the Pratihara rulers was very limited and thus they had ‘parcellized
sovereignty’. One may also feel tempted to the ‘clan-monarchy’ label, used
by Baden-Powell, to characterize the polity under them. But such
characterizations do not pay attention to the processes of the emergence of
these local rulers.

Do you know?
Clan-monarchy is the form of political organization in which the central or
at any rate the best part of the kingdom was appropriated by the king, while
the outlying and inferior portions were assigned to the lesser chiefs of the
clan. (Source: Majumdar, R.C. (ed.) A Comprehensive History of India, Vol.
III Part 1, New Delhi, 1981, p. 796).

In his article entitled ‘Origin of the Rajputs: The Political, Economic and
Social Processes in Early Medieval Rajasthan’ (in The Making of early
Medieval India, Delhi, 1994), B.D. Chattopadhyaya has underlined the
complex processes involved in the emergence of Rajputs. His study shows
that the emergence of a number of Rajput clans in the period under
discussion was not merely a political development i.e. the result of surrender
of authority by any centralized state but was a result of the complex
interplay of political, economic and social processes. Thus, these were not
created by the superordinate Pratihara dynasty but emerged as a result of
the process of state formation at the local and the sub-regional levels like
the Medas. The use of the term Gurjara-Pratihara in some of the Pratihara
inscriptions suggests that even they had originated from the Gurjara tribe,
which, according to some scholars, was of foreign origin. In addition to that
some of the groups claiming Rajput origin had come from central Asia in the
wake of the invasions of the Huns and became part of local tribes, for
example Huns. When the Pratiharas tried to expand the area under their
influence, they incorporated these local rulers in their polities through the
mechanism of administrative ranking. This way, the existence of these local

9
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

rulers in the administration of the Pratihara state did not cause any dent in
their authority. Rather it provided strength to it.

Do you know?
The Agnikula myth: According to the one telling of the agnikula myth, the
sages performing yajnas at mount Abu were disturbed by the demons. In
order to protect them, the great sage Vashishthha performed a yajna. From
the fire of this yajna emerged three warriors- Pratihara, Chaulukya and
Paramara. But they failed to kill these demons. It is said that sage
Vashishthha performed a yajna again and this time there emerged another
warrior with four hands and thus was called ‘Chahuvan’. This warrior with
the help of a goddess called Asapuri pushed those demons to the patala (the
mythical world under the earth). But the story is obviously aimed at
concealing the true roots of these dynasties as well as presenting the
Chahamana clan as the most competent one.

The ‘integrative model’ seems to offer a better conceptualization of the early

medieval polities as it offers a poly-causal explanation of the developments
and also gives due importance to the region specific developments. It is also
in line with the recent researches on the nature of Mauryan State which
questions the understanding of an evenly spread Mauryan empire with
centralized bureaucratic control across the subcontinent. But in the context
of early medieval north India, its applicability has been verified only in the
case of the Rajput dynasties. Its applicability in the case of another
important regional power of our concern the Palas is still awaited.

Continuity or change?
A question often encountered by the students of history is whether a
particular phase in history was marked by complete departure from the
preceding phase or was it merely in continuity of the same. In addition to
that the causes leading to such changes are also looked into. Such questions
are answered by the historians on the basis of their understanding of the
traits of different phases. In the historiography on the period under
discussion also, the same approach can be noticed. The nationalist historians
did not pay much attention to such concerns. But the followers of the ‘Indian
Feudalism’ model did pay attention to this comparative approach to the past
and investigate the factors leading to the changes. In this model, the
characteristic features of early medieval Indian polity are said to be on
opposition to the ones of the ancient/early historical polities. As has been

10
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

stated above also, in the formulation of ‘Indian Feudalism’, the ancient

Indian polities were highly bureaucratic, centralized ones in which ‘the
hierarchy of power based on landholding was absent; its wide range of
officials were all paid in cash’. On the other hand, the structure of the early
medieval polities was characterized by decentralization and hierarchy, as
suggested by ‘the presence of semi-autonomous rulers, samantas,
mahasamantas and similar categories, and the hierarchized positioning of
numerous rajapurushas employed by royal courts’ and the emergence of
landed intermediaries. These features are said to have emerged as a result
of the collapse of the earlier political order because of the internal crisis i.e.
kali age crisis and the decline of the ‘highly monetized economy,
characterized by flourishing long distance trade, urbanization and urban
crafts production’.

But the identification of the above traits is actually based on an epicentric

view of India’s ancient past as there was no uniform unfolding of historical
processes in different regions of the subcontinent. In the ‘integrative’
approach to the Indian history, ‘the expansion of state society through the
process of local state formation’ is identified as the political process in
operation through all the phases of Indian history. Seen from this
perspective, the changes noticed in the early medieval Indian polities were
actually the result of the acceleration of the process due to certain
fundamental movements within the regional and local levels. Thus the
formulation argues that the changes noticed in the early medieval polities
can best be described as changes within continuity.

Summary
 In early medieval period, there was no single political power
controlling the area comparable to the kingdom of Ashoka and the
Gupta rulers.
 In northern India, the political scene was dominated by three
important regional powers- the Palas in the east and the Pratiharas in
the west.
 An important feature of the early medieval polities was the existence
of subordinate rulers called samantas.
 These samantas were local rulers who were integrated in the larger
polities through the mechanism of administrative ranking.
 The characteristic features of the early medieval polities were not in
sharp opposition to ones of the ancient/early historical polities.

11
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

Glossary
Matsyanyaya- The law of the fishes which states the larger fish in a pond
devours the smaller ones. The term is used in the ancient Indian texts to
mark the state of anarchy (a-rajaka i.e. kingless period) where the strong
were oppressing the weak at their will.

Samanta- It is a Sanskrit term, which is widely used in the early medieval

records to denote the subordinate rulers or feudatories. But in the preceding
times, it meant a neighboring chief or a ruler who exercised control over or
near the frontiers of the realm.

Exercise
Essay Question

1. Discuss the characterization of the early medieval polities offered by

the ‘Indian Feudalism’ model.
2. What is the ‘Integrative Polity’ model on the early medieval Indian
polity? How is it different from the ‘Indian Feudalism’ model?

Short Question

1. Discuss the elements of change and continuity in the early medieval

polities of north India.

Question Number Type of question

1 True or False

Question

Following are the supporters of the ‘Indian Feudalism’ hypothesis-

(a). B.D. Chattopadhyaya

(b). R.S. Sharma
(c). R.N. Nandi
(d). Hermann Kulke
(e). B.N.S. Yadav

Answer (a). False,

12
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

(b). True,
(c). True,
(d). False,
(e). True.

Question Number Type of question

2 True or False

Question

Which of the following statements is/are true-

1. The agnikula myth belongs to the origin of Rajputs.

2. The differential reach of state in the different areas of its control was
the unprecedented feature of the early medieval polities.
3. The Pratihara kingdom was spread in the eastern India.
4. The Huns were indigenous tribal people who claimed Rajput origin and
an agnikula origin.
5. The Medas were the foreigners who staked claim for Rajput origin.
6. The term clan-monarchy best characterizes the Pratihara polity.

Correct 1. True.
Answer / 2. False.
Option(s) 3. False.
4. False.
5. False.
6. False.

Justification/ Feedback for the correct answer

1. The agnikula myth is linked with the origin of the following four
Rajput clans- Pratihara, Chaulukya, Paramara and Chauhana.
2. Researches in the last few decades show that the differential
reach of state in the different areas of its control was a feature of
the pre-early medieval Indian polities also.
3. Pratihara kingdom was spread in the western India.

13
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi
 Evolution of the Political Structures- North India

4. Huns were a foreign tribe and they do not figure in the agnikula
myth.
5. The Medas were the indigenous tribal people who staked claim for
the Rajput origin.
6. The term clan-monarchy does not explain the complex
relationship between the sovereign and the subordinate ruler
satisfactorily.

Further readings-
Chattopadhyaya, B.D. - The Making of early Medieval India, second
edition, 2012, Chs. 1, 3 & 8.

Kulke, Hermann - ‘The Early and the Imperial Kingdom: A

Processural Model of Integrative State Formation in Early Medieval India’ in
idem. (ed.), The State in India: 1000-1700, Delhi, 1995.

Sharma, R.S. - ‘Feudal Polity in Three Kingdoms’, in idem.,

Indian Feudalism, c. AD 300-1200, third edition, Delhi, 2006.

14
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi