Political Processes and Structure of Polities in Ancient India

Evolution of the state and its nature during the early medieval period

Anukriti Chauhan
Masters in Arts: Delhi University
13 October 2024
 2

Evolution of states from 6th to 12th century

The concept of the Early Medieval (6th to 12th/13th century CE) as a distinct phase of Indian

history was introduced in the sixties of the previous century. At the beginning it was seen as a

period with entirely different characteristics from the preceding Early Historic phase.

Northern India

The political unity of Northern India achieved under Harsha was broken after his death.

Thereafter, a number of lineages vied for control over Kanauj. Taking advantage of this

political confusion, the Rajputs established their kingdoms on the ruins of Harsha’s empire.

The Rajputs kingdoms

The theory of the ‘Agnikula’ origin of Rajputs is given in Prithviraj Raso of Chand Bardai.

The Agnikula Rajputs included the Pratiharas, Chalukyas, Paramaras and Chauhan. They

were also considered as the descendants of the foreign invaders and the Indian Kshatriyas.

The Gurjara Pratiharas were the earliest of the Rajput rulers. The dynasty was founded by a

Brahmana named Harichandra, in the area around Jodhpur in Rajputana. They remained

independent rulers during Harsha’s reign. After the death of Harsha, they captured Kanauj at

the beginning of the 8th century CE. The Rathors or Gahawars ruled over Kanauj for more

than a century (1090 -1194 CE.). The founder of this dynasty was Chandradeva. The

Chauhans ruled over eastern Rajasthan. They started their career as feudatories of the

Pratiharas and assisted them in holding back the Arab advance. Later they declared their

independence. Most of their kings adopted the title of Maharajadhiraja. The Paramaras of

Malwa rose on the ruins of the Pratihara empire of Kanauj. The Paramara or Pawar clan was

supposed to have emerged from the Agnikund of Mount Abu, and had established its
 3

kingdom in Malwa. The early Paramaras were vassals of Rashtrakutas. The Chandella

dynasty of Bundelkhand was one of the 36 Rajput clans. Chandellas were described as the

most significant culturally as well as politically among the former feudatories of the

Pratiharas in central India. The Tomaras of Delhi had proved more than once their right to be

the defenders of the gateway to the Gangetic plains. The Kalachuri dynasty ruled over the

regions south of the Nalanda and north of the Godavari river. This region is known as Chedi

country, also sometimes referred to as Dahala –Mandala. Its capital was Tripuri near

Jabalpur. The Chalukya family had three branches. The oldest branch ruled from

Mattamayura in central India. Its earliest rulers were Simhavarman, Sadhanva and

Avanivarman.

Eastern India

Gopala, Thus founded the famous Pala dynasty under which Bengal was to enjoy a period of

prestige and prosperity undreamt in her early periods. Gopala ruled from 750 – 770 CE and

proved himself worthy of their trust. He consolidated his position in the two Bengals, eastern

and western. Under Pala’s rule Bengal became one of the greatest powers of northern India.

About the Pala dynasty V A Smith says that it deserves remembrance as one of the most

remarkable of Indian dynasties. The Sena dynasty was founded by a chief named

Samantasena. The Senas were Brahmins of the Deccan and were feudatories of the Palas.

They took advantage of the weakness of the later Pala rulers and occupied most of Bengal in

the 11th century CE.

Deccan region

The Chalukyas of Badami are also known as the Early Chalukyas. They ruled over parts of

Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. They were renowned for their military prowess and
 4

successful expansion through conquests. They were strong supporters of Hinduism, and they

fostered Kannada literature. The Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi emerged as a separate branch of

the Chalukya dynasty. They ruled over the eastern coastal region of Andhra Pradesh. They

played a crucial role in the political landscape. They established diplomatic relations with

powerful dynasties like the Pallavas and Rashtrakutas. Rashtrakuta dynasty is renowned for

having produced numerous valiant warriors and skilful administrators who assisted in the

establishment of a sizable kingdom. Dantidurga established the kingdom and established his

capital at Manyakheta or Malkhed. There were several branches of the Rashtrakutas ruling in

different parts of India in the early medieval period. Amoghavarsha I (814-878 CE) like his

father, proved himself as one of the greatest of Rashtrakuta monarchs. He was genuinely

interested in the religious traditions of contemporary India and used to spend his time in the

company of Jaina monks and other forms of spiritual meditation. His inscriptions count him

among the most prominent followers of Jainism. He was not only an author himself but also a

patron of authors. Jinasena, the author of Adipurana, was among the Jaina preceptors of

Amoghavarsha I. He not only promoted Jainism but also the Brahmanical religion and also

performed several rituals for the welfare of his subjects. The Chalukyas of Lata was a

powerful dynasty. They ruled over Gujarat and parts of Maharashtra during the early

medieval period. They are known for their military strength and patronage of art and

architecture.

Southern India

The Pallava Dynasty succeeded the Ikshvakus. They arose on the ruins of Satavahanas in the

Eastern Peninsula. The Pallava dynasty was established in Tondaimandalam. The capital was

Kanchipuram. An ancient Tamil dynasty in South India was the Pandya Kingdom. In what is
 5

now South India, it was a prehistoric Tamil nation. During the fourth century BCE, three

ancient Tamil dynasties occasionally ruled southern India. One of them was the Pandyas. One

of the three ancient Tamil kingdoms that ruled over the Tamil people from the beginning of

time till the end of the 15th century was the Pandyas. It is also referred to as the Madurai

Pandyas. Cholas defeated the Pallavas to take control in the ninth century. Up to the 13th

century, this rule lasted more than five centuries. However, the state of Andhra did have a

Chola kingdom that flourished worldwide in about the second century. Chera Dynasty was

one of the middle age Dravidian empires that ruled over the modern states of Kerala and a

portion of Tamil Nadu. In India's past, Cheras were also referred to as Keraputras.

The history of the Indian subcontinent between the "ancient period" and the "modern period"

is known as the "medieval period" in India. The early Medieval Period in India has

significant importance because of several dynasties and important rulers who ruled the era

from 600 - 1300 CE. The post-medieval era, which represented the passage from the Middle

Ages to modernity and included the Renaissance period, followed the early medieval period

in India.

Nature of state in Early Medieval India

In the theory of Indian Feudalism propounded by D.D. Kosambi, R.S. Sharma and others it

was held that the Early Medieval polity is characterized by political fragmentation as opposed

to the centralized empires of the preceding Early Historic period. The new perspective added

to the ongoing discussions over the characteristics of Indian polity by how changes in polity

affected the economy and society. Feudal polity was regarded as a stage that represented a

structural change in the Indian social and economic order. It resulted in the emergence of a

hierarchical structure of society in place of the binarily opposed entities of the state and the
 6

peasantry. 1This hierarchical structure with its different tiers of intermediaries is the

mechanism of exploitation and coercion of the early Medieval state. In this way the

Feudalism theory attempted to bridge the gap between the polity and society for the first time.

The emergence of feudal polity was located in the gradual breakdown of a centralized

bureaucratic system. Diverse centres of power came up and replaced the bureaucratic units.

Feudal polity, however, crystallized 8 centuries later than the centralized Mauryan state.

Elements of feudal polity was traced in the two-tier or three-tier administrative structures of

the Kushana polity of North India and the Satavahana polity of the Deccan. The system of

assignment by land instead of cash became widespread and intermixed with the transfer of

administrative and judicial rights corroded the authority of the state and led to the

‘percellization’ of its sovereignty. B.D. Chattopadhyaya, however, points out that it is the

Mauryan state in the concentration area of the earlier mahajanapadas of the Upper and

Middle Ganga basin that actually represents a relationship between the nucleus which is the

metropolitan state and a range of differentiated polities. The decline of this state did not

create any political or economic crisis either in areas where state polity was in existence or in

areas of pre-state polity incorporated within the Mauryan empire. Rather territorial expansion

in any age created fresh spurt in the emergence of local states in pre-state areas. This

phenomenon, in the words of Chattopadhyaya, should not be confused with the process of

decentralization of a centralized state.

B.D. Chattopadhyaya refers to the need for the constant validation of power by the State. This

is known as the ‘legitimation process’.2 It is the relationship of interdependence between the

temporal power represented by the king and the spiritual or sacred authority represented by

the priestly class. This was true for any period of Indian history, not particularly for the early

medieval. Temporal power was required to ensure protection not only of the subjects but the

1
Herman Kulkle, The State in India, 1000-1700, (Oxford University Press, 1995)244.
2
B. D . Chattopadhyaya. The Making of Early Medieval India,( Oxford University Press1994)188.
 7

whole social order as defined by the guardians of the sacred domain. Danda or force was the

chief instrument for this. The king was asked to allow the disparate dharma of regions, guilds

and associations of social groups to continue. This was because the territorial spread of the

state society required cutting through the tangle of disparate dharmas through the territorial

spread of the Brahmanas and of institutions representing a uniform norm. What they did is to

provide a central focus to the disparate norms by their physical presence and controlAnother

dimension of this central focus was the ideology of bhakti that could be a far more effective

instrument of integration than the Dharmasastra-oriented norms. It could bring together the

local cults within the expansive Puranic fold. The temple became the major institutional locus

of bhakti in the early medieval period. The king could identify himself with the divinity

enshrined in the temple. The Pallavas and the Cholas were an example of this process.

Another way was to surrender temporal power to the divinity and to act as the agent of this

central cult. The cult of Jagannatha in Odisha emerged as central in this way and king

Anangabhima ritually surrendered the temporal power to him. Considered from this

viewpoint it would be easily understood that the assignments of agraharas or devadanas were

not an administrative but a socio-religious necessity for the king. The territorial limits of the

temporal domain is also to be considered. The janapada or Rashtra, one of the Prakriti or

constituent elements among the 7 elements of the State (sap tanga) was not a closed unit. The

State was thus not a static unit, but it was naturally dynamic. One striking feature of the early

medieval polity, as underlined by B.D. Chattopadhyaya was that state society, represented by

the emerging ruling lineages had covered all nuclear regions and had also penetrated

peripheral areas. From the 7th century inscriptions from different regions began to contain

elaborate genealogies. They often refer to the local roots of ruling lineages with a mythical

tradition. Such an attempt may be traced in the case of the Bhaumanaraka dynasty of the

Brahmaputra valley in the 7th century. Sometimes the descent of the ruling lineage is traced
 8

from a mythical heroic lineage like the Suryavamsa or the Chandravamsa. What

Chattopadhaya wants to point out is that there is not always a necessary correspondence

between a lineage and a static territorial limit. As for example we have the Kadambas of

Vanavasi, Hangal and Goa; the Kalachuris of Tripuri, Ratanpur and Sarayupara (U.P). Two

of the Karnata families had moved to north Bihar and West Bengal where they consolidated

their power. Thus lineages did not correspond to static territorial limits. Thus the study of

polity should start with an analysis of the formation of lineages and the pattern of their

network. Evidence from Rajasthan suggests that the distribution of political authority could

be organised by a network of lineages within the frame of monarchical polity. The

mobilization of lineage power could involve the colonization of areas of pre-state polity and

could introduce changes in its economic structure. Another important point is that the state-

society did not have a stable locus and the proliferation of ruling lineages defined the domain

of political power. As for instance the shift from the Badami Chalukyas to the Rashtrakutas

and then again to the Kalyana Chalukyas, or from the Pallavas and Pandyas to the Cholas was

not simply a change from one to another lineage. 3Each change redefined the locus of the

state in a geographical context that had nevertheless experienced a long and uninterrupted

history of the state society. In such cases, the term ‘state formation’ is thus inappropriate

which is true in the cases of pre-state areas. B.D. Chattopadhyaya has suggested the use of

the term ‘lineage domain’ (lineage in the sense of kula, vamsa, anvaya) and state society in

the early medieval context. Again in the political atmosphere of the period any segment of a

larger ethnic group with substantial power could successfully strive for political ascendancy.

The Gurjara Pratiharas had separated themselves from the common stock of the Gurjaras. The

base of one Gurjara lineage in the Jodhpur area could have been achieved by displacing the

pre-existing groups. In the Alwar area of eastern Rajastha there was a clear distinction

between the Gurjara cultivators and the Gurjara Pratihara ruling lineage. Similar processes of
3
B. D . Chattopadhyaya. The Making of Early Medieval India,( Oxford University Press1994)213.
 9

the emergence of potentially dominant elements from within local agrarian bases can be

noticed in Kashmir and other regions. It is usually held that the large polities tended to

emerge in nuclear regions which could provide them a stable resource base. The Ganga basin,

Kaveri basin, Krishna-Godavari Doab and Raichur Doab are cited as examples of nuclear

regions. But one should remember that the development of a certain region into a nuclear

region is a historical process. Warangal, situated away from the nuclear Krishna-Godavari

Doab remained a large structure of the Kakatiya state. Thus larger polities did not necessarily

emerge in nuclear areas. The Pratiharas moved from Rajasthan to Kanauj in the Ganga-

Jamuna Doab, the symbol of royal power in early medieval north India. In the Feudal Polity

model, this tendency towards the formation of dispersed foci of political power was regarded

as ‘feudal tendencies’.

Opposition to the feudal model is expressed in the model of ‘segmentary state’. As has been

already pointed out that the model was borrowed from the analyses of pre-state polity in East

Africa. In the Indian context its characteristics are the following: i) limited territorial

sovereignty which further weakens as one moves from the core to the periphery and often

turns into ritual hegemony; ii) existence of a centralized core with quasi-autonomous foci of

administration; iii) the pyramidal repetition of the administrative structure and functions in

the peripheral foci; iv) the absence of absolute monopoly of legitimate force at the center; and

v) shifting allegiances of the periphery of the system. In this model, the major integrative

factor was ritual sovereignty and not political sovereignty. This model has been criticised as

the study of state sans politics. As B.D. Chattopadhyaya points out it does not take into

account the political and economic dimensions of state structure. A state requires i) stability

in its power structure and ii) resource mobilization. The core area does not remain

permanently limited to the lineage area in case of the supra-local polities. That is why the

Cholas are seen to include the peripheral areas like Ganga vadi and Nolamba vadi during the
 10

territorial reorganization of their empire and to eliminate or convert existing powerholders in

strategic areas. A vast agrarian surplus in the Chola state sustained the integrative elements in

the society while the state further expanded its resource base by participating in the growing

networks of trade and exchange. The segmentary state model does not take into account the

different foci of power as components of state structure. This diffused foci of quasi-

autonomous power are represented by the Samanta system. By the 12th/13th centuries terms

like Samanta, mahasamanta, mandalesvara, mahamandalesvara, ranaka, rauta, Thakkar etc.

came to indicate a political order that was non-bureaucratic. Thus in it the rajapurusas (the

bureaucracy) had a limited part to play. It is interesting to note that the early medieval text

Aparajitaprichchha attempts to schematize the order.

Conclusion

The structure of early medieval polity was a logical development from the territorially limited

state society of the early historic period to the far greater state society spread in local,

agrarian and peripheral levels. The early medieval polity may be seen as an intermediate

phase, a prelude to the exercise of greater control by the medieval state through its nobility

and its regulated system of service assignments, not present in the early medieval polity. In

this way the structure of early medieval polity has initiated the participation of several

historians with their views. Opinions have varied from viewing it as decentralized or

integrative. It is, however, the integrative aspect that brings out the relationship between the

political domain with the socio-cultural sphere most successfully.

Bibliography
B. D . Chattopadhyaya. The Making of Early Medieval India, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi,1994.
Herman Kulkle, ‘The Early and Imperial Kingdom: A Processual Model of Integrative State
Formation in Early Medieval India’, The State in India, 1000-1700, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi,1995.
N.Karashima, Kingship in Indian History, Delhi, Manohar, 1999.
Veluthat Kesavan, Political Structure of Early Medieval South India, Orient Blackswan, New
Delhi.2012.