Early Medieval India, 750-1200: Major Political Developments | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

Historians have the challenge of dividing history into periods like ancient, medieval, and modern. These periods were once linked to Hindu, Muslim, and British times. N.R. Ray emphasized connecting timelines with specific historical changes.

To understand how Indian history is divided into ancient, medieval, and modern, we need to look at the way historians have written about it.

Traditionally, the ancient period was thought to start with the Aryan invasion, and the medieval period with the Muslim invasion.

Nowadays, historians prefer the term 'early historical' instead of ancient for the time beginning in the middle of the first millennium B.C. Historians like R.S. Sharma have outlined certain features to define this 'early historical' phase.

• During this time, territorial states led by Rajanyas or Kshatriyas evolved into a highly centralized government where officials were paid in cash, not based on land ownership.
• The economy saw the rise of cash transactions, urbanization, overseas trade, and urban crafts. Village communities managed communal landholdings, which were central to social and economic life.
• The Varna system became more defined, with Kshatriyas and Brahmanas controlling production, Vaishyas paying taxes, and Shudras providing labor. While slavery existed, it was different from serfdom, and there was not yet a variety of castes. These features were most prominent in the 3rd to 4th centuries A.D.

The term 'early medieval' signifies the transition from the early historical period to the medieval period, highlighting both continuity and change in the broader historical context.

This perspective challenges the ideas of Orientalism, which portrayed Indian polity, society, and economy as unchanging and timeless.

The shift from 'early historical' to medieval is explained through the lens of Indian feudalism by prominent ancient Indian historians like D.D. Kosambi, R.S. Sharma, and B.N.S. Yadava.

The core idea of feudal polity is:

• The breakdown of the Mauryan state's centralized administration, which relied on a cash economy, led to the emergence of various centers of authority.
• Land grants, both religious and secular, during this period included administrative rights, contributing to the fragmentation of authority and sovereignty.
• Many conventional accounts of the early medieval political system depict states as monarchies where kings held power through officials. However, feudal characteristics resulted in the decentralization and fragmentation of authority, weakening central control within the Hindu political framework.

A. S. Altekar's views reflect the common understanding of early medieval India among historians.

N. R. Ray divides the medieval period into three phases:

• 7th century to 12th century A.D.
• 12th century to 16th century A.D.
• 16th century to 18th century A.D.

He outlines the following characteristics of medievalism:

• Kingdoms became regional and resembled European nation-states.
• The economy shifted from monetary transactions to being primarily agrarian.
• Regional features became more pronounced in language, literature, and script development.
• Religion saw a surge in the number of sects and sub-sects.
• Art was categorized into specific regional schools, such as Eastern, Orissan, Central Indian, West Indian, and Central Deccanese.

Early Medieval Period Polity:

• Characterized by a strong feudal structure with the period marked by feudal consolidation.
• Overlord-subordinate relationships were crucial, with personal allegiance chains binding retainers to chiefs, tenants to lords, and barons to kings.
• Hierarchical political structures with various ranks and fiefs or estates being central to the polity.

Land Distribution and Political Status:

• Special patterns of land distribution with landholding as a status symbol.
• Political status consolidated through landholding, with fiefs and estates emerging as local control centers and power foci.

Greater Autonomy and Local Politics:

• Various degrees of autonomy at lower levels in administration, fiscal systems, and justice, leading to local politics integrated into larger state politics.
• Rajput political systems exemplified this autonomy.

Feudal Obligations and Centralization:

• Feudal lords fulfilled military and fiscal obligations, with feudal authority resting on these responsibilities.
• Centralization was weak, with the overlord-subordinate relationship being the political core and the relative strength of feudatories affecting system stability.

Kingship and Bureaucracy:

• The kingship concept vested various authorities in the king, though this did not imply centralized control.
• Bureaucracy was well-organized and elaborate, but its significance was minimal due to the feudal nature of the polity.

Revenue System:

• The revenue system was predominantly based on land tax, with some levies on trade and commerce.
• The centralized revenue system was under pressure due to the feudal economy, relying on feudal tribute.

Major political developments in Northern India and the Peninsula 

Rise of Regional Kingdoms in Northern India (800-1200 A.D.)

• After the disappearance of centralized polities in northern India, the period between 800 to 1200 A.D. witnessed the emergence of regional kingdoms.
• Decentralized Political Systems: Centralized states gave way to decentralized political systems based on local interests, marking a shift towards feudalism.
• Since the Gupta period, the political structure in northern India had been increasingly feudal, with relationships resembling that of vassals and lords.
• Feudatories were granted land along with certain rights, and over time, they gained the right to sub-infeudation, creating a hierarchy of officials.
• Feudatories had military obligations to the king, providing armed men when needed. Although theoretically claimants of land revenue, they often held land in perpetuity, and this land tended to become hereditary.
• Over time, feudatories assumed criminal and judicial functions, administering territories with minimal allegiance to central authority. They also adopted high-sounding titles like Mahasamanta and Mahamandaleshwara.
• The growth of feudalism led to the creation of independent principalities by various vassals across the country. This period saw the flourishing of decentralized regional power in northern India.

The Tripartite Struggle 

During this time, there was a fierce struggle for power among three dynasties: the Rashtrakutas, the Palas, and the Pratiharas, who established themselves in different regions of India.

Kanauj, once the capital of Harshavardhana's empire, became the central hub for North Indian politics for centuries, despite frequent changes in its political fortunes. This marked a shift in power from east to west, with Kanauj replacing Pataliputra as the dominant political center in North India.

• Between 750 and 1000 AD, large states emerged in North India and the Deccan, including the Pala Empire in eastern India, the Pratihara Empire in western India and the upper Gangetic valley, and the Rashtrakuta Empire in the Deccan and various territories in North and South India.
• Despite their conflicts, these empires provided stability, promoted agriculture, constructed ponds and canals, and supported the arts, letters, and temples.
• The Rashtrakuta Empire, the longest-lasting and most powerful of the three, served as a cultural and economic bridge between North and South India.

The Palas (Bengal area):

• Sasanka, the first significant ruler of Bengal (c. 606-637 A.D.), is considered the first historically known ruler of Bengal.
• Following Sasanka's death, Bengal faced political decline, suffering attacks from Yasovarman of Kanauj, Laitaditya of Kashmir, and possibly the king of Kamrupa, leading to weakened central authority and the rise of independent chiefs.
• Amid the ensuing anarchy, the chiefs elected Gopala as the ruler of Bengal.
• Gopala founded the Pala dynasty in A.D. 750, bringing stability and prosperity to Bengal after a period of anarchy. He ruled until about 780 A.D. and was succeeded by his son, Dharmapala.
• Dharmapala is regarded as one of Bengal's greatest kings, elevating the kingdom's glory and playing a crucial role in the tripartite struggle among the Palas, Pratiharas, and Rashtrakutas for control over Northern India.
• Devapala, Dharmapala's successor, ruled for about 40 years and was a powerful king, marking the end of the line of strong Pala kings.
• Both Dharmapala and Devapala gained fame through their victories in the tripartite struggle for control over Kanauj and Northern India.

The Pratihara:

• The Pratihara dynasty ruled a large kingdom in northern India from the 6th to the 11th centuries.
• Nagabhatta I, ascending the throne in the mid-8th century, expanded Pratihara control in eastern and southern directions, establishing his capital at Ujjaini in Malwa. He achieved a significant victory against the Arabs, preventing their advance into India.
• Nagabhatta united various Gurjara principalities, laying the foundation for a strong Pratihara kingdom covering Malwa, Gujarat, and parts of Rajputana.
• He was succeeded by Vatsaraja, under whom the tripartite struggle for Kannauj began.

The Rashtrakuta:

• While the Palas and Pratiharas ruled over northern India, the Rashtrakutas governed the Deccan region.
• Dantidurga founded the Rashtrakuta kingdom, establishing his capital at Manyakhet (Malkhed) near modern Sholapur and expanding their influence in northern Maharashtra.
• Under Govinda III and Amoghavarsha, the Rashtrakutas expanded their territory and engaged in numerous military campaigns.
• Govinda III led successful expeditions against various south Indian kings, while Amoghavarsha was known for his focus on literature and religion, as well as his construction projects.
• After a period of decline, the Rashtrakuta Empire was re-established by Indra III, who became a powerful ruler in his time.

Causes of the Tripartite Struggle:

• Kannauj, once the capital of the Harshavardhana Empire in North India, became a symbol of prestige and power during the early medieval period.
• Control over Kannauj meant control of the resource-rich Central Gangetic valley, making it strategically and commercially important.
• Kannauj was also a key center for trade and commerce, connected to the silk route.
• Additionally, there was a desire for looting through war.

How the Tripartite Struggle Began

• The conflict began between Vatsaraja, the Pratihara ruler, and Dharmapala, the Pala ruler, both vying for control over Kannauj.
• Vatsaraja defeated Dharmapala in a battle at the Gangetic Doab.
• However, Vatsaraja was also defeated by Dhruva, the Rashtrakuta king, who defeated both Dharmapala and Vatsaraja.
• This cycle of defeats and victories led to the Tripartite Struggle among the Palas, Rashtrakutas, and Pratiharas.

Consequences of the Tripartite Struggle:

• After the attack by Dhruva, Dharmapala managed to regain control over his territory and placed Chakrayudha on the throne of Kannauj.
• However,Nagabhata II, the successor of Vatsaraja, eventually conquered Kannauj, driving away Chakrayudha and defeating Dharmapala.
• The struggle for Kannauj intensified under Nagabhata II, who exercised control over it.
• During the rule of Rashtrakuta ruler Krishna III, there were successful campaigns against the Cholas, and the Rashtrakutas formed matrimonial alliances with other feudal kings.
• By the end of the 9th century, the powers of the Rashtrakutas and Palas began to decline.
• Ultimately, the Pratiharas emerged victorious from the Tripartite Struggle, establishing themselves as the rulers of central India.
• The struggle lasted for two centuries, weakening all three dynasties in the long run and leading to the political disintegration of the region, benefiting Islamic invaders from the Middle East.