INFLUENCE OF SOCIETY ON POLITY :-( or does society influence polity) From the earliest times, the transformation of society over period of time resulted in the development of society. And the developed society brought about a new social order. And the new social order resulted in classes , with conflicting economic interests. In order to control them and to keep them within the bounds of order there should be some ‘power’. And to this power we call a ‘State’. According to Engels, “The State is a product of society, at certain stage of development”.In the words of Saki , “Not merely in terms of erecting a state but in furthering, the split of society into classes (so that ) the state becomes a necessity owing to that split”. Starting with Rig Vedic Society which was tribal in character to the Aryan society, which broke up into classes known as institution of Chaturvarna, in which one of the classes was slaves resulted in the completion of transformation of Aryan society from pastorals to agriculture.The change of social order brought change in the Polity.The upper two classes were called the Higher classes and they became the ruling classes. Since the last class was called the low class, it became serving class. When the upper classes took to agriculture, the slaves were drawn from among the Dasa and shudra .Thus the institution of chaturvarna and thus the class society that it upheld, stood essentially on the labour of the sudras. Thus in Vedic society the polity was based on ‘chaturvarna’, a class society.During Mauryan rule Jainism and the Buddhism were the major religions.Both of them even though contented with Brahmanism on many issues ,did not challenge the ‘Chaturvarna’,the class society. So during the Mauryan rule the Shudra class was considered as slaves and the upper classes were always fighting for primacy.So the upper classes had always influence over polity.After Mauryans the Satavahanas ruled over the Karnataka region.The Satavahanas were non-Aryan and belonged to the South. They followed Buddhism.Some of the Satavahana rulers got converted to Brahmanism.When Satavahanas started ruling over the South ‘Tribal Oligarchy prevailed in the society.The tribal chiefs were powerful. Satavahanas realized the importance of them and their position to that of local Governors in the administration.Thus a new social order was established by them.The local governors served as the feudatories of the Satavahanas.Some of the ruling classes of that timesuch as the Banas,the Sendrakas,the Alupas continued for several centuries as the feudatories of suzerain powers of Karnataka.The cutas who ruled at Banavasi as the feudatoties of Satavahanas and belonging to the same Satakarni family served as a link between the Satavahanas and theKadambas.The Satavahanas made land grants to them.

INFLUENCE OF ECONOMY ON POLITY :-In the early times even in the time of Harappa civilization, the economy was only pastoral and later primitive agriculture .The invention of Iron Plough, a new instrument of production, signaled the end to primitive agriculture. The first reference to the iron plough is mentioned in the Vedic literature..A high production and surplus yielding was possible with a iron plough..The Vedic society was classs based society known as ‘Chaturvarna’ in which the upper classes were high and the last class was low in social status.The division of society during the Vedic times, into classes resulted in a new social order in the vedic socity.The upper classes were the “ruling class” and the lower class were the “ slaves”.when the upper classes engaged in agriculture they employed the Shudras as the agriculture labour. And in the words of Saki “It was on the basis of this new instrument of production that slavery assumed fullest meaning”. The state was created and it gave birth, in its wake, to the rule of kings.the first kingdoms were Khosala and Magadha in North.

Increase in the economic activities creates the necessity for a controlled authority. And the nature of economic activity , the amount of power and control required determines the nature of polity.

POLITY AND ECONOMY IN KARNATAKA BEFORE THE KADAMBAS :-

Before Mauryan rule there were Megalithic settlements in Karnataka. Mauryan rule contributed to but did not immediately cause the transformation of society in Karnataka region.(saki).Further excavations revealed that the plough was still unknown in Karnataka. In Arthashastra, whatever detailed instructions were given regarding the control of economic activities or the policy of bringing virgin soil under the plough may have been limited to the areas near the heart of the empire (R.S.Sharma). Thus Mauryan rule did not do much to alter the mode of economy in karnataka.

Before Satavahanas the society in the South was engaged in Pastoralism and Primitive agriculture. Although the first references to the use of plough in India comes from the sixth century BC from the Ganga valley, all the references to the plough from Karnataka comes only from the Satavahana period onwards.With the introduction of the plough, there was high production and surplus yielding.The rural economy began to expand and the plough using villages dominated the economy. After Mauryans the Satavahanas ruled over Karnataka region. The Satavhanas were Non –Aryan and were Deccan Kings unlike the Mauryans. By the time of the Satavahanas, the Chaturvarna system had entered South. In fact the significance of Chaturvarna is underscored by the importance Satavahana kings attached to it.The Satavahana rule carried all those aspects and institutions of class society which the Mauryans had firmly established in the core areas of their rule—the Ganga valley and the Punjab. RS Sharma says that (saki, p 105). “the Satavahanas were one of the earliest Deccan dynasties to be Brahmanised and as the new converts they came forward as the zealous champions of varna system”. When Satavahanas started ruling, they transformed the society and a new social order was introduced by them. By the time the Satavahanas rose to power South was experiencing the last stages of Tribal Oligarchy and the Tribal chieftains were rising to position of power within the State. The Satavahanas realized importance of them, and wanted their support in administration .They made use of them by raising their status to the local Governors. Among the chieftains from Karnataka who were raised to the status of local governors were the Chutas and the Maharathis. This is known from the Amaravathi inscription. The Tribal Oligarchy was elevated to the position of power within the State. According to Saki, “It was on this social base that the state relied upon and on this class that the power of the empire rested”.(p 104)

. During that period the state was the biggest agency of economy.It controlled Surplus producing agricultural lands and had monopoly over Mines. Under Satavahana rule the State held extensive tracts of agricultural land.Even in the South the Plough was introduced as the instrument of production by then and Plough method of agriculture needed more labour. For the agricultural production the state needed dependent labour.The varna system at once provided for the supply of ready made labour force for the expanding the agriculture undertaken by the state.The institution of Chaturvarna and thus the class society that it upheld stood essentially on the

labour of shudras.The state started owning the Shudras and employing them in agriculture.This is the Shudra mode of production. This mode of production in India, The though similar to the slave holding system which was in Rome and Greece during those times, at the same time was different and distinct. The chief distinguishing feature was that in India if that time the State directly owned the main body of Shudras while in Rome and Greece slaves were owned principally by the slave masters. Satavahanas were the first to make land grants in India (saki p;145)..The Satavahana rulers followed Buddhism, the later Satavahana rulers followed Brahamanism. They patronized both the Brahmans and the Buddhist monks. Land grants were made ostensibly made on religious grounds.They started the practice of donating land with fiscal and administrative immunities to Brahmins and the monks., tribal chiefs,which eventually weakened their authority. So Satavahanas were carrying on an administration system which was not based on centralized bureaucracy but on a network of noblemen, ‘great lord of the army’ (Maha Senapati).This was the nature of polity before the Kadamba rule had started.

RISE OF EARLY FEUDALISM :-

Feudalism as explained by Saki is; “It is an independent mode of production which exists chiefly by the appropriation of surplus by a landlord class which is resident in the villages through direct forms of coercion. This makes villages into self sufficient units of production and the surplus that is thus extracted is consumed by the exploitative hierarchy in a manner where in the society may reproduce itself at the existing level of production”.(saki;p 136) “ Feudalism appears in a predominant agrarian economy which is characterized by a class of landlords and a class of servile peasantry. In this system the landlords extract surplus through social, religious or political methods, which are called extra income”—Bloch & E.A Kosminsky.

With this understanding of what is feudalism, let us try to know the causes for the rise and the nature of early feudalism. And with that knowledge to analyse whether the kadamba Polity was feudalistic or not. The rise of feudalism in the South, that to in the Deccan region was not sudden. Some features of polity and economy of the Shatavahana rule later paved the way for the Early feudalism. A crisis which had occurred in the mode of production after the Satavahanas made the ruling class to continue with the old forms of exploitation. As a measure of salvage from that crisis ruling classes introduced a series of measures which brought about a sea of change and inaugurated the commencement of a new mode of production-‘The Feudal mode’.What was the crisis then ? The mode of agricultural production under Satavahanas who ruled before the Kadambas was the Shudra mode of production .This mode of production started during the Satavahana rule to maintain the new social order introduced by them. They needed dependent labour to carry on agricultural production in the State held sita lands and in the lands given as grants.The ‘ Chaturvana’ system at once provided them with supply of readymade labour force. Since the agriculture was done using Shudras as slaves it is called Shudra Holding System or Shudra Mode of production. With the end of the Satavahana rule the Shudra holding system also ended. Another mode of production known as the ‘Early Feudalism’ started with the end of the Satavahanas and existed for roughly about eight centuries.So the crisis was end of the Satavahana rule. Radhakrishna Chaudhary says: “The rise of feudalism in South India is traced back to the decline of the Satavahanas”.(saki; p 145). The Satavahanas controlled most of the peninsular India. With their collapse however the empire came to be fragmented, paving way for the rise of several local dynasties. Saki opines that Feudalism commenced with the commencement of the rule of two dynasties, almost parallel in time, in the north and south Karnataka. They were,the Kadamba dynasty which ruled with Banavasi as Capital and the other was the Ganga dynasty which ruled with Kuvalalpura as its Capital. Few more authors like RS Sharma, DN Jha, also held the same view. The immediate factor

which helped in the rise of feudalism is,instability in the north Karnataka region after Satavahanas. To explain why there was instability in the north Karnataka region; after Satavahanas six dynasties ruled over that region.The territories of these six dynasties overlapped resulting in the mutual struggle for suzerainty. And no kingdom could in this period really match the Satavahanas in terms of territory in peninsular India or similarly the Guptas and Mauryas in the North. The feudalism in the north Karnataka region at that time is because of three factors which also can be considered as three characteristic features of ‘Early Feudalsim (1) The absence of an extensive empire (2) The beginning of the process of issuing land grants (3) Rise of a landed intermediary class.

WAS KADAMBA POLITY FEUDALITIC IN NATURE ?

When we have to analyse the Kadamba Polity ; that is to say whether the Kadamba dynasty was feudalistic in nature or not ,we have to examine whether the Kadamba rule had the above feudalistic features or not.Let us analsye them one by one.

(1)THE ABSENCE OF AN EXTENSIVE EMPIRE :- The Satavahanas had ruled over a vast empire, the whole of the Deccan region. After them there was no single dynasty powerful enough to rule over that entire region. Taking this as an advantage all the feudatories of Satavahanas strived to extend their dominion and increase their power. Thus in the absence of an empire, Karnataka got distributed among independent Kingdoms. The Abhiras, the traikutas, the Sakasthanas, the Mokharis, the Punnatas and the Sendrakas were the ruling families which were fighting against each other for suzerainty. This situation continued till the rise of Mayura Varma the founder of Kadamba dynasty. Mayura even though defeated all these ruling families ,to rule over a considerably large area, it was not large and powerful enough to have a centralized authority.The successors of Mayura,eventhough had annexed some new territories to the empire, also had to struggle a lot to keep the empire intact. In twice.the Kadamba family itself there was fissure twice.The first fissure which occurred after Shanthi varma ,resulted in one family ruling in th enoth Karnataka part with Banavasi as Capital and the other family rling in the southern part with Triparvatha as Capital.And after Krishna Varma the Kadamba empire got dismembered into three regions north,south and east.And most of the time the kadambas were engaged in wars with the other contemporary rulers of that time ,the Gangas and the Pallavas sometimes gaining new territories and some times losing part of the empire. Only three rulers, Kakuthsa Varma , Shanthi Varma and Krishna varma I ruled consireably over a large area ,for the inscriptions mention it.But split in the family and rivalry between them was a set back to the vastness of the empire.The split of the empire into three parts made it very weak. They could’t unite even at the times of attacks from the other ruling families. Moreover each family sought the help or sided with the outside rulers to fight against his own family.on top of this the feudatories of the Kadambas were also causing trouble to the empire and were becoming powerful. The there was absence of strong rule and the centralised authority. The kings were more dependent on their feudatories for administration and wars. There was decentralization of

authority. And the empire could best regarded as a loose confederation of numerous centres of power presidedby the emperor. This was the political condition after the Satavahana rule. If we can say that the more important factors from which the state derives its form are the nature of economy ,the composition of the ruling classes in power and the manner in which it organizes its politics, this can be applied to the State after Satavahanas The above said factors helped the beginning of early feudalism from the Kadamba rule. With the absence of central authority the Kadamba economy had to be reorganized and restructured. This restructuring of the state was affected as a result of the effect of the land grants and the interests of the landed intermediary class which now it had to protect and serve.

Thus we can conclude that the absence of vast empire with centralized authority led to rise of early feudalism during kadamba rule and the Kadamba polity was feudalistic in nature.

.

(2) ISSUING OF LAND GRANTS :-

RS.Sharma says ,..the land grants were made by royal authority to individuals, mostly Brahmans,as a token of their service and as a new method for legitimizing the rule of state along its frontiers. (saki;p 144)

The issuing of land grants started with the Satavahanas and was continued by the dynasties which ruled after them. The kadamba rulers also continued this practice of donating lands, starting from the founder of the dynasty Mayura Varma to the rest of the rulers.

Land grants were ostentatiously made on religious grounds.While Brahmadeya grants were, grants issued to individual Brahmans, Agrahara, Matha and Ghatika grants were made to the institutions. The Kadalur, Sirsi, Nilambur, and Sangli records are grants made to scholarly Brahmins. Kadambas But the idea of donating land was to extend the area of cultivation through private effort.

We come to know about the land grants made by the rulers from many inscriptions and charters of this period.Among them the Halmidi and the Talagunda are very important.Kadamba kings patronized Buddhism and Jainism also.They made land grants to monks and basadis. Both the Buddhist Prakrit inscriptions and the Sanskrit inscriptions conform to the fact that Kadamba rulers made land grants . In the Talagunda inscription it is inscribed in the verses 14-21, of the development of Feudalism from above in tribal areas. The Halmidi inscription of 450 A.D of Kakuthsa Varma , which is famous in the history of Karnataka as the earliest record of written Kannada ; the inscription apart from its significance to lingual history , marks the journey of society towards feudalism-saki.

. BR Gopal’s Corpus of Kadamba Inscriptions ,Volume I presents to us a total of 51 Kadamba inscriptions.Almost all of these inscriptions starting from the Malavalli inscription of Shikaripura taluk in Shimoga District ,made during the rule of Shivaskanda Varma in which 13 villages are gifted to the Brahmana,record the granting of lands if not entire village to the Brahmanas in the main ,while a few are made to military chiefs.

To mention about the land grants made by the first ruler Mayura, in the Talagunda inscription it is described in verse 14-21 of the development of feudalism from an account of issue of land grant made by Mayura .

. Mayura Varma after becoming king , as a part of his campaign to rejuvenate his ancient faith, imported into his new found kingdom a number of Vaidika Brahmana families from North (more precisely from Ahicchatra ).And he donated a forest land to them for settlement and livelihood. As mentioned in the inscription, Mayura Varma had gifted a dense forest land to these Brahmin settlers, which no Brahmin settler could possibly have cleared it without the labour supply. The problem was solved in remarkable fashion, by sharing profit between the Brahmins to whom the land was given and the actual workers of the land recruited from aboriginal Gavadas. In the Halmidi inscription Kakuthsa varma where he is eulogized for making gifts, there is mention of grant of villages of Palmidi and Mulavalli, made to the Batari family. In that it is written that ‘in the yield of this wet land one-tenth of the portion was granted to the Brahmanas free of taxes”.

This inscription is very important with respect to feudalism during that period because, it points to several aspects of feudalization. It makes the grant of land as the most prized manner of payment, substituting there by payment in cash; it brings the role of military chieftains as landed intermediaries in addition to the Brahmans ; it eulogizes the king’s gift-making role and most important, grants 1/10th of produce of the wet lands of these villages—perhaps paddy—as a tax to be paid to Brahmanas ;thereby creating a hierarchy of feudal interests, sharing the surplus of the toil of the peasantry of these villages.

By the time of Halmidi grant there evolved an established pattern of writing out these inscriptions, which only speaks of the extent to which land grants were already being made by the Kadambas. Towards the end of the Halmidi epigraph are, lines which warn anybody against infringing on this grant ,condemning them as “sinners” and of “committing a great sin”.

Not only the successor of the king and the people in power are asked to observe the terms of grants but also all those who would upset the grant are threatened with the use of force.The Hiresakuna plate granting a village and some lands to a Brahmana by Mrugesha Varma even warns soldiers against “entering these lands”. In some warnings, corporal punishment is clearly mentioned. The threat to the use of

force is found mostly in the grants of Karnataka. In addition the enemies of the land were invested with all kinds of curses and most heinous sins. From BR Gopal’s list of epigraphs we also observe that any infringement of the grants made to Brahmanas would have led such tresspassers to be “cooked in hell for 60,000 years”, be “born as a worm in ordure of 60,000 years’, become “ guilty of five great sins” and be considered equivalent to “killing 1000 Brahmanas of Ayodhya”. All these were not mere curses inscribed by the Kadamba rulers, but outright warning that any attempt by disobedient villagers or recalcitrant vassals terminating these grants would be dealt with by nothing shirt of death. Thus it was through the conviction of the arms that large landed feudal property came to be established. That these inscriptions were made on copper or stone only speak of the, desire by the kings to create a perpetual class of landed intermediaries.

Nature of land grants

The grants helped to create powerful intermediaries wielding considerable economic and political power. The functions of the collection of taxes, levy of forced labour, regulation of mines, agriculture, etc together with those of the maintenance of law and order, and defense while hither to performed by the state officials ,were now step by step abandoned, first to the priestly class, and later to the warrior class”.

As the number of land owning Brahmans went on increasing, some of them gradually spread their priestly functions and turned their chief attention to the management of land .in their case secular functions became more important than the religious functions. But above all as a result of land grants made to the Brahmanas, the ‘comprehensive competence based on centralized control’, which was the hallmark of Maurya state, gave way to decentralization in this period.

The landlords claimed various types of rents from the peasants. And they did so on the strength of the royal charters which conferred on them either the villages or pieces of land or various type of taxes.The king claimed taxes on ground that he was the owner of the land. Numerous epithets indicate that the king was the owner of the land. (agni ; p38) now by the charter he delegated this royal authority to the beneficiary, and on this strength the beneficiary claimed the taxes. The king was called ‘Bhumidah’ giver of land. It was repeatedly said that the merit of giving land accrues to him who possess it. It is not clear how the peasants were provided with the agricultural implements. The charters authorize the beneficiaries to enjoy all that is hidden under earth. This amounted to giving the mining rights to the beneficiaries. It is well known that the mining rights belonged exclusively to the king. The king may have acquired this monopoly at the initial stages as the as the head of the tribe or community. Once this exclusive control over iron and other types of mines passed into the hands of

beneficiaries, they could also control the supply of agricultural implements to the peasants.

Most charters ask the peasants to carry out orders of the beneficiaries. These orders may relate not only to the payment of taxes which will be concerned with the fruits of production. But they may also relate to the means of process of production. In away the blanket authority to extract obedience placed the peasant at the beck and call of the beneficiary. It implied general control over the labour power of the peasants and peasants and undoubtedly labour was an essential ingredient of the means of production.The labour was used either in the fields cultivated by the peasants or in those directly managed by the beneficiary. The beneficiaries insisted on having certain type of produce for their ostentious and unproductive consumption, and with all the seigniorial rights that they possesed they could compel compel the peasants to do s or produce only cash crops which they needed.

B.Sheik Ali says ‘from this it is obvious that the grant of village entitled the donee to enjoy the benefit that was formerly accruing to the state… Thus he was confirming that the structure of the state and economy was being feudalized without necessarily using the term as such.

Thus the beginning of the process of issuing land by making grants to, the near completion of it marks the period of early feudalism .That means issue of lands as grants by the state was the feature of feudalism

(3) RISE OF LANDED INTERMEDIARY CLASS :- The effect of issuing the land grants to the Brhmans and the officials resulted in the rise of an intermediary class ,mediating between the royal authority and the peasantry with its quarters firmly rooted in the villages.Due to this process the state forfeited ownership of land,in particular Sita lands,and rendered all cultivated lands in the kingdom,the property of a class of powerful intermediaries.(saki 145)

The powerful intermediaries were the landlords. The landlord class derived its position from the land grants made to it by the king and the feudatories. The grants gave the intermediaries considerable political and economic powers.Generally the early charters gave the beneficiary usufructuary rights. But the later charters grant such concessions as, render the beneficiary ‘the de facto ruler of the village land’.The donated village constituted his estate. For example the beneficiary is entitled to collect taxes,all kinds of income,all kinds of occasional taxes.Similarly he is entitled to collect proper and improper taxes,fixed and not fixed taxes and at the end of the list of taxes et cetera (adi, adikam) is used.All this added enormously to the power of beneficiary.These extraordinary provisions could serve as a seed regulating mechanism as and when production increased,but they could also

interfere with the expansion of production.Some provisions clearly created the superior rights of the beneficiary .

On the basis of land charters we come to know, in the donated areas the landed beneficiaries enjoyed general control over the production . An important factor which gave the beneficierirs general control over the means of production was the conferment of the seigniorial rights on them.The charters authorized the seigniorial rights on them.They authorized the beneficiaries to punish people guilty of ten offences including those against family, property, person etc and to try civil cases. Further royal officials were not allowed to enter their functioning. All these are good as manorial rights, and enabled the beneficiary to force the peasant to work in his field. It offered the right to try cases on the spot, involving the imposition of fines, could seriously interfere with the process of production. It is therefore obvious that the political and judicial rights, which were non economic rights, helped the beneficiaries to carry out the economic exploitation of the peasants in an effective manner living in his estate.These non-economic rights served to enforce the general economic authority of the beneficiaries over both the means and the process of production. And again from the same Charters we come to know, in the donated areas the landed beneficiaries enjoyed general control over the production resources. The beneficiaries acquired an effective hand in the mode of production because of their general, superior control over land ,which was the chief means of production. The beneficiary started with the state sanctioned title to various types of dues delivered by the peasants to the state, but in course of time his claims were made comprehensive that because of his local presence and delegated administrative powers he could convert his title into possession and could treat the donated village as his estate. It is clear that the peasants had to reckon with the control of the donee over village resource.

D D.Kosami says that Feudalism is of two types :(1)Feudalism from above (2)Feudalism from below.

Now let us analyse whether the kadamba rule had the features of only one the these two or had features of the both. Feudalism from above means a state where is an emperor or powerful king levied tribute from subordinates who still ruled in their own right and did what they liked within their territories-as long as they paid the paramount power. The subordinate rulers might even be tribal chiefs, and seem in general to have ruled the land by direct administration. Without the intermediary of a class which was in effect a land owning stratum. By feudalism from below is meant the next stage where, a class of land ownersdeveloped within the village, between the state and the peasantry, gradually to wield armed power over the local population. This class was subject to military service hence claimed a direct relationship with the state power, without the interference of any other stratum. Taxes were collected by small intermediaries who passed on a fraction to the feudal hierarchy in contrast to direct collection by royal officials from above.

The Kadamba Polity was very much decentralized as there was no powerful central authority.The Kingdom was divided into Mandalas or provinces which were further divided into Vishayas. The vishayas were further subdivided into smaller units called mahagramas,Dashagramas,.A dashagrama unit consisted of ten such villages ,each village or grama forming the last layer of hierarchy. Since Kadamba economy was based on agriculture,villages became the centres of economy.The grant of village lands as grants and also as a a mode of payment made the villages the centres of all the economic activities. The mandalas were either portioned off to princes of the royal house or to kinsmen, who with the passage of time, turned out to possess the mandala on a hereditary basis.They became the feudatories to the king and looked after the administration of feudal area.

Each of the strata of hierarchy possessed its own body of troops and was answerable to the order above it.The main task of the hierarchy was to collect revenue from the villages and move it upwards in kind, with each layer taking its percentage of the surplus till it accumulated at the top by fixed subtractions. Each of those officials starting from the court downwards, and at times even including the King were paid by the ownership of villages and land ,in short by the grant of lands held on independent tenure.This was the structure and functioning of the political set up.