1

CENTRE FOR HISTORICAL STUDIES,

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, JNU

Paper - State in Medieval India II (M31407)

Submitting to - Prof. Ranjeeta Dutta

Submitted by - Ravish Raj (MA 1st Year)

Date - 06/09/2019

How far do you think that the establishment of a dynasty represents the foundations of a state?
Do you agree with the view that the rise and fall of political dynasties and certain historical
events determine the 'medieval' in Indian history?

This essay consists of two sections. The first section attempts to explore the relationship between
dynasty and state, and the factors that lead to state formation. The second section analyzes the
theme of periodisation, focusing on the determinants of the chronological label fixed on a
particular period.

Dynasty and State

The word dynasty has been derived from Greek verb 'dynasthai', which translates into 'to have
power'.1 In political theory, the term extends as far back as the Aristotelian concept of dunasteia,
which emphasized its tyrannical character and oligarchic composition. Hereditary succession
was denoted by another word diadochei, which in later usage, particulary in English, seems to
have merged into the notion of dynasty.2 Dynasty generally indicates a chain of rulers sharing a
common, usually patrilineal, descent; however, there might be a number of influential families
ruling with a compromised sovereignty.

State is a dynamic concept which, despite being central to political philosophy since antiquity, to
date eludes consensus among the academic giants. One cannot bind certain terms into rigid casts,
for their substance keeps changing with various external and internal developments. The notion
of state change with the reorganization of power structure. Nevertheless, a few commonly

1
"Dynasty." Merriam-Webster.com. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty#note-1. 2019.
Web. 28 August 2019.
2
Walsh, John. "The concept of dunasteia in Aristotle and the Macedonian monarchy." Acta Classica:
Proceedings of the Classical Association of South Africa. Vol. 57. No. 1. Classical Association of South
Africa (CASA), 2014.
 2

accepted markers include purpose, methods, territory and sovereignty.3 The degree to which
these aspects dominate the functioning of the state determines how state is to be classified.
Furthermore, as polities keep transforming with time and environment, the line between proto-
state systems and state systems become blurry.

Unwavering allegiance and incontrovertible authority formed the essential elements of pre-
modern states. The state was legitimized by theological doctrines like divine right and
predestination. A king's will, hence, was to be the voice of God itself.4 Medieval states consisted
of monarchies with varying degrees of centralization.5 Land occupied a key position in their
socio-politico-economic system and the management of its resources determined the stability of
their structures.

Exploring the relationship between two fluid terms is an arduous task, and one always runs the
risk of attempting such studies with preconceptions. Having said that, these pursuits are
necessary in order to question, critique and revise certain conventional norms. In traditional
South Asian historiography, dynastic framework has been employed to study the political
history, and hence, the question of the role of dynasty in state formation becomes crucial.

Dynasty and state work in close association, the former ensuring the latter's durability by
retaining power within the same family.6 However, to assume that the inception of one leads to
that of the other would be erroneous. Rashidun caliphate flourished under non-dynastic rulers.
This means that the process of state formation preceded dynastic rule, particularly in polities
where the law of succession was not defined. In the subcontinent, where the right of
primogeniture curtailed, to an extent, the potential of the issue of succession to explode into civil
war, establishment of dynasty should have indicated the foundation of a state. However, the state
of Vijaynagar, named after the capital, witnessed four different dynasties occupying the throne
without any radical readjustment in its structure. The Delhi Sultanate too saw a number of
dynasties presiding over, more or less, the same political structure. The successors in the early
Sultanate period were often manumitted slaves of the Sultan. Thus, one can question if the rulers

3
"State." Britannica.com. https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-sovereign-political-entity. 2019. Web. 28
August 2019. A state is a sovereign territorial entity which employs coercive methods for the purpose of
public administration. The sovereignty might be absolute or federated; the territory might be defined but
not fixed, or might expand to turn the polity into a full-fledged empire; coercive methods might or might
not include legislature, constitution, hegemony; the purpose might also vary as we move from core to
periphery.
4
Belov, Gennadiĭ. What is the State?. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986. Pp. 5-42
5
There were other systems as well, however, monarchy was the most prominent of all. The subcontinent
also witnessed the evolution of chiefdoms into small states as the result of Rajputisation and emergence
of little kings. Pre-colonial India offers us a wide range of statehood, starting from kingdoms limited to
exercising ritual sovereignty over smaller polities to intricately woven centralized empires. See Kulke,
Hermann, ed. The state in India, 1000-1700. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995. P. viii, 44
6
B D Chattopadhyaya highlights the importance of proliferation of ruling lineages in context of early
medieval Rajasthan, asserting that these lineages formed a strong base for state formation. See
Chattopadhyaya, Brajadulal. The Making of Early Medieval India. Oxford University Press, 1994. P. 22.
 3

in this phase constituted a dynasty. The Mughals claimed Timurid descent, however, the state
was founded by Babur, who came very late in the Timurid chain of succession. Hence, even
though Mughals belonged to the Timurid dynasty, the Mughal state came into existence much
later. There were also cases of internal divisions within the dynasty, as in case of Pandyas and
Hoysalas, which ended up in the disintegration of state.7

A discussion on medieval south Indian polities would further elaborate the point. Numerous
chiefdoms emerged after the break up of the Chola empire in the thirteenth century. The
chieftains started claiming descent from ancient Pallava and Chola dynasty in order to
consolidate their hegemony. Here we see dynasties resorting to tracing their geneologies from
other powerful dynasties of the past in order to reinforce their authority. Hence, a mere
establishment was not enough for a dynasty even when it exercised control over polities simpler
than a state. There were other important factors to the formation of state than the popping up of
dynasties. Rise of temple towns, spread of irrigation, and innovations in military were important
factors in medieval state formation.8 A contrast between two simultaneous political
developments is evident in the beginning of the second millennium. In the far south we see a
majestic Chola state, and under its patronage the construction of large temples and the
establishment of temple towns. In the north, we witness a number of small states appearing on
the scene, which in spite of their scanty resource base, did not compromise with patronage and
aesthetic standards.9

In the Vijaynagar period, we find epigraphical evidences of multiple sovereignties. Vijaynagar

kings asserted universal sovereignty south of the Krishna river, with twenty dynasties ruling
under their suzerainty. There also were forty autonomous dynasties claiming supremacy over
some regions. Apart from that, within the Vijaynagar political structure, there were four discrete
dynasties with difference of language, origin and religious associations.10

A dynasty also ruled over less complex societies like chiefdoms, which later developed into
states without dynastic changes. In the case of Vijaynagar, latest epigraphical studies have
challenged the traditional historiography by emphasizing the gradual evolution of its statehood.
Bukka went from being a feudatory chief to an independent king, still ruling from the old
Hoysala capital of Hosapattana, to assuming the ostentatious title of Maharajadhiraja
Parameshwara and founding the city of Vijaynagar. The state came into being through a
protracted process, characterized by instrumental steps like celebration of Vijayotsava in 1346
and the foundation of a new capital and the adoption of imperial titles in 1368.11 In the first few

7
Stein, Burton. The new cambridge history of India: Vijayanagara. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press,
1989. P 13-30
8
Ibid.
9
Asher, Catherine B., and Cynthia Talbot. India Before Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
10
Stein, Burton. 1989.
11
Kulke, Hermann. "Maharajas, Mahants and Historians: Reflections on the Historiography of Early
Vijaynagara and Sringeri" idem., Kings and Cults: State Formation and Legitimation in India and
 4

decades, different rulers from the same kinship group ruled over different political units within a
small territory with compromised sovereignty. The dynastic consolidation took place in the
fifteenth century, and under Devaraya I Vijayanagar grew into a powerful state, controlling a
large territory.12 The dynasty had to depend on various external institutions in order to
consolidate its power, as evident from donations given to Sringeri Math, which in return gave
legitimacy to the state.13

A process as complex as the foundation of a state has to be explained through other factors. Post-
independence developments in Indian historiography have led to the construction of multiple
models to analyze the process of state formation, which still remains one of the central themes in
the medieval history of India. Hermann Kulke in his introduction to The State in India: 1000-
1700 elaborates upon those models14.

1. Marx's theory of Asiatic mode of production branded India as a changeless, classless state
under an oriental despot, who penetrated the interiors through the networks of irrigation
projects in order to appropriate more revenue.
2. The Indian historiographical model portrayed the Indian state as a centralized polity with
a systematized and effective bureaucracy, ruling over a defined territory, its legitimacy
derived from powerful religious institutions. The rise and fall of states were not treated as
structural problems.
3. Marx's AMP model drew an intense reaction from Indian Marxist historians. D D
Koshambi conceived the idea of feudalism in Indian context, with two seperate chapters
discussing feudalism from above and below, which was further refined and crystallized
by R S Sharma in his masterpiece Indian Feudalism, which initiated an everlasting
academic debate. Sharma stressed on the continuous increase in land grants, immunities,
and prerogatives to Brahmanas and temples, which were later extended to government
officials. Villagers were converted into serfs as these landed magnates infiltrated rural
territories. The pressure on rural economy increased as a result of urban decay and the
decline in trade, resulting in a paucity of coins further shrinking the monetary economy.
The state was parceled out through land grants, leading to decentralization of power and
fragmentation of territory. This theory was further polished by B N S Yadava, who

Southeast Asia. New Delhi: Manohar, 1993. Kulke summarizes various developments in the
historiography of the Vijaynagar empire. Saletore attributes the foundation of the Vijaynagar empire to
Bukka I. Filliozat highlights that Harihara kept the title of Mahamandaleshwara while Bukka marked a
departure by assuming grand monarchical titles.
12
Asher, Catherine B., and Cynthia Talbot. 2006. P. 54
13
Kulke, Hermann. 1993. Kulke points to a symbiotic relationship between the rulers and the priests,
where the dynasty empowered Sringeri for political ends.
14
Due the restriction of word limit, it would be impossible to accommodate the entire debate without
digressing from the topic. Hence, a simple summary is being provided to show how state formation has
been studied through time and multiple approaches, by shifting the focus away from dynastic transitions.
For a detailed discussion see Kulke, Hermann. Introduction. The state in India, 1000-1700. edited by
Hermann Kulke. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995.
 5

emphasized the rise of Samanatas as central to the transformation of the state structure.
Feudalism model portrayed the devolution of state as a degenerative process, where small
states came into existence at the cost of larger polities.

4. Burton Stein employed Southall's segmentary state model on south Indian polities to
analyze the process of state formation. According to him, the Brahmadeyas and the
Periyanadus, owing to their location in the productive nuclear zones, consisted of
immensely autonomous organisations connected to other similar bodies in other such
zones. These regions paid tribute to the superior Chola state and accompanied the latter in
raids. The Chola state itself could be categorized into three distinct zones. The
uncompromised autonomy of the Cholas existed only in the core, and began to wane
away as one moved further to intermediate zone, and was reduced to ritual sovereignty as
one reached the periphery. The ritual sovereignty was founded upon the extensive Shaiva
cult which acted as an adhesive. Other uniting factors have been explained as
complementary contradictory components like division within castes and between castes
and tribes.

5. B D Chattopadhyaya and Hermann Kulke criticized the devolutionary model and

introduced an important alternative perspective by analyzing the processes from below.15
They saw the early medieval as a period characterized by integration. This was evident in
the peripheries of the earlier empires, which witnessed rapid state formation. Numerous
simultaneous processes - the emergence of local states, peasantization of tribes,
proliferation of castes, and inclusion of various cults - further intensified the expansion of
state society.16 The political system made use of Brahminical institutions and Bhakti
ideology to bring new groups and territories under its control. Kulke talked about
multiple levels of integration in three geo-political zones, resulting in transition from
chiefdoms to empires.17

These models have widened our knowledge of how states were founded in the early medieval
India.

Medieval and its determinants

15
Ali, Daud. "The idea of the medieval in the writing of South Asian history: contexts, methods and
politics." Social History 39.3 (2014): 382-407.
16
Singh, Upinder. Introduction. Rethinking early medieval India: a reader. edited by Upinder Singh. OUP
India, 2012.
17
Kulke, Hermann. "The early and the imperial kingdom: a processural model of integrative state
formation in early medieval India." The State in India (1995): 1000-1700. The geopolitical zones were :
the nuclear zone of the chiefdom, peripheral zone, and the nuclear zones of independent samantas. The
chieftain expanded his power from the nuclear area, appropriated the peripheral zone to become a king,
and then as the kingdom became the new core, the polity evolved into an empire by further expanding its
frontier to swallow more independent regions.
 6

Since historical processes are not conducted in a laboratory, compartmentalization of any kind is
a problematic task. While periodisation does help in designing university syllabi, it draws
unnecessary boundaries by including breaks at points which also indicate remarkable continuity.

Neither chronology nor dynastic history are new phenomena. Since the beginning of Arab
historiography, dynastic framework has been employed to categorize the past into several
segments. As Persian tradition developed and reached India, we find dynasties split into reigns,
reigns divided into yearly accounts, and those accounts composed of disconnected events. There
was a rigid chronological scaffolding on which events were nailed. However, historical
periodisation was still limited to segregating universal time with the advent of Islam as the
boundary. Jahiliya - depicted as a dark age - was the period before the rise of Islam. Historians,
except Abul Fazl, used hijri calendars to knit together the beginning of historical thought and
Islam. It was Badayuni's Muntakhab-ut-Tawarkih that portrayed Mahmud's invasion as the
marker of a new period, which found resonance in other works. The first clear evidence of the
tripartite division of historical time - the most prominent form of periodisation - comes from
seventeenth century Europe. It was introduced into India through James Mill's The History of
British India, which used religion as the periodising factor, giving impetus to the growing
communal consciouness.18

It was in the twentieth century that the Hindu-Muslim-British periodisation came to be replaced
by Ancient-Medieval-Modern model, which was nothing more than mere rechristening. The
features that determined the proceeding labels still remained and the past was still studied in
terms of dynastic changes, these transitions defining golden ages punctuated by dark periods.
Marxist historiography in the 1950s and 60s replaced religion with class as the basis of analysis.
As the tensions in the class structure and the resultant socio-economic changes did not conform
to the old scheme of periodisation, there was a need to redifine historical temporal units. The
concept of early medieval was introduced to explain a transitional phase marked by the
development of feudalism.19 Medieval was characterised, not by the establishment of a particular
dynasty, but the economic, social and technological developments that marked a departure from
previous structures.

Recent shifts to socio-cultural history, domesticity and ecology have again questioned the
conventional norms, even critiquing the importance accorded to land grants. For the regions
located outside the pale of Sultanate historiography, medieval is generally preferred to early
medieval. Categories have become more fluid and new labels are being introduced. There are
also considerations regarding using labels that exhibit the defining feature of a period, or shifting
to plain markers of time, or even using issue-based and region-based schemes.20

18
Mukhia, Harbans. "'Medieval India': An Alien Conceptual Hegemony?." The Medieval History Journal
1.1 (1998): 91-105.
19
Ibid.
20
Singh, Upinder. 2012.
 7

These historiographical changes indicate that one needs to shifts one's gaze from dynastic
changes to various processes in the social, cultural, economic, technological and political spheres
in order to attempt a categorization of historical periods. Events are specific to a certain region at
a particular point of time, and hence, it is an unsound practice to characterize a particular period
on the basis of such events. If the establishment of Turks at the throne of Delhi is identified as
the starting point of medieval, one would ask why a hypothetical historian in Orissa in 1206
would agree to that.

Historians like B D Chattopadhyaya, Francesca Orsini and Samira Sheikh draw our attention to
these processes. Chattopadhyaya21 talks about the contrasts drawn between the early medieval
and early historical by comparing the major attributes that defined these two temporal patches.
The commonly accepted markers of early medieval are (i) decentralized polity with numerous
semi-autonomous samantas (ii) rise of landed magnates as active agents of political change (iii)
urban decay and the consequent ruralization of economy (iv) conversion of peasants into subjects
(v) expansion of caste and sub-caste groups (vi) reflection of feudal characters in courtly culture,
rituals and ideology. Orsini and Sheikh22 explore the hitherto obscure fifteenth century and shift
our focus to the developments in language and literature, regional polities, and religious public
sphere. In a linguistic region marked by diglossia, seepage of Sanskrit into local domains led to
chieftains and local elites using literary instruments to legitimize and exalt their position. The
interaction of high languages with regions of vernacular led to two simultaneous processes: (i)
provincialization of Sanskrit and Persian, and (ii) vernacularization of literature. Regional
polities saw the inclusion of groups which were snubbed until then. Women secured agency,
which was rare in large empires, and were active donors to religious institutions. The centers of
power found new geographical domains, and merchants and artisans flocked to these areas,
giving rise to new cosmopolises. Sufis too moved out to establish new centers of religious
exchange, often along trade routes. The rise of new non-muslim religious sects caused another
ripple in the socio-political realm. There was a novel devotional vocabulary that facilitated
multiple expressions, be it a Rajput's glorious geneology or Meera's celebrated rebellion.

Conclusion

A state is much more than the royal household. It is a space where various material and abstract
elements continuously interact with each other and create ripples that have far-reaching impact.
As state is composed of numerous non-dynastic elements, a dynasty's establishment or
disestablishment will not have a monopoly over the rise or fall of a state. It is the interplay
between all elements that decide the course of the political developments.

21
Chattopadhyaya, Brajdulal. 1994. Pp. 1-37. Chattopadhyaya's markers of state formation have already
been discussed in page 5 of this essay.
22
Orsini, Francesca, and Samira Sheikh. Introduction. After Timur Left: Culture and Circulation in
Fifteenth-Century North India. edited by Francesca Orsini and Samira Sheikh. Oxford University Press,
2014.
 8

Periodisation has no intrinsic historical merit. It only aids in the study of history by dividing time
into units. Since, each historian is viewing the past from his own lens, factors of categorization
are bound to differ. With the development in historiography, there has been a departure from
dynastic framework and event-based periodisation. Processes are analyzed and contrasted with
the preceding and succeeding periods. One strives to search for the soul of that chronological
label.

However, medieval in context of the Indian subcontinent, is and should be determined by

convention, as finding a common trend for an area as large as the subcontinent pushes a historian
towards overemphasizing as well as overlooking certain important trends. Timothy Reuter23
concludes in his article Medieval: another tyrannous construct? that while 'medieval' may help
in comparative studies by cataloguing systems, trends and developments, it lacks conceptual
guidelines that would facilitate such studies. It is convention, that's a uniting factor among
medievalists in different parts of the world.

Bibliography

● Ali, Daud. "The idea of the medieval in the writing of South Asian history: contexts,
methods and politics." Social History 39.3. (2014)
● Asher, Catherine B., and Cynthia Talbot. India Before Europe. Cambridge University
Press, 2006.
● Belov, Gennadiĭ. What is the State?. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986.
● Britannica.com.
● Chattopadhyaya, Brajadulal. The Making of Early Medieval India. Oxford University
Press, 1994.
● Kulke, Hermann. "Maharajas, Mahants and Historians: Reflections on the Historiography
of Early Vijaynagara and Sringeri" idem., Kings and Cults: State Formation and
Legitimation in India and Southeast Asia. 1993.
● Kulke, Hermann. The State in India (1000-1700). Delhi: Oxford University Press. 1995.
● Mukhia, Harbans. "'Medieval India': An Alien Conceptual Hegemony?." The Medieval
History Journal 1.1 (1998)
● Merriam-Webster.com
● Orsini, Francesca, and Samira Sheikh. Introduction. After Timur Left: Culture and
Circulation in Fifteenth-Century North India. edited by Francesca Orsini and Samira
Sheikh. Oxford University Press, 2014.
● Reuter, Timothy. "Medieval: another tyrannous construct?." The Medieval History
Journal 1.1 (1998)
● Singh, Upinder, ed. Rethinking early medieval India: a reader. OUP India, 2012.
● Stein, Burton. The new cambridge history of India: Vijayanagara. Vol. 2. Cambridge
University Press, 1989.

23
Reuter, Timothy. "Medieval: another tyrannous construct?." The Medieval History Journal 1.1 (1998):
25-45.
 9

● Walsh, John. "The concept of dunasteia in Aristotle and the Macedonian monarchy." Acta
Classica: Proceedings of the Classical Association of South Africa. Vol. 57. No. 1.
Classical Association of South Africa (CASA), 2014.