How does historiography of ‘Medieval India’ comes to terms with debates of ‘Early Medieval India’?

How far does understanding of present depend on the experiences of its associated past? But is past
stagnant or can it manifest itself in myriad forms? If the very picture of past is colored in different shades
with various interpretations from time to time then what could be its implication on the construction of
image of its successive and preceding periods? How can then contextualization done within such delicate
frames of references be understood?

Indian sub-continent has witnessed a long period of thousands of years associated with emergence and
consolidation of various religions, ethnicities, race, culture and polity so and so forth. However it is worth
to note how British orientalists like James Mill categorized such a socially and politically diverse phase by
reducing it within the confines of three categories: Hindu, Muslim and British. Even if religion was their
bases of division then why was it not Hindu, Muslim and Christian? Their use of ‘British’ probably
highlights towards suggesting a change which marked a break from the past that required new
enlightened governance. 1 What is it indicating of the time just preceding it? This thematic discourse of
periodization was so pervasive that although nationalist historians and scholars after a couple of centuries
in 1900s brought a new framework of analysis that is the Ancient, Medieval and Modern replacing the
earlier divisions their perception about it did not alter. For British as well as for the nationalists the
‘Medieval’ remains a time of darkness, decline, decay and destruction. While British saw it in the light of
Europe’s own bitter experiences of crusades with Muslims (Turks) and juxtaposed it with Indian sub-
continent’s history on the other hand the Indian nationalists termed their ancient as a period of ultimate
glory which received its decline with the onset of Turkish and Muslim conquests on its soil between 12th -
13th century with the establishment of Delhi Sultanate and ending of ‘Great’ Gupta empire.2 But how far
was the subcontinent covered under Turkish rule even by 13th century? (Refer-map) Isn’t such
categorization ignoring vast extent of South Indian peninsula still flourishing with powerful Hindu
3
kingdoms? So, historiography of ‘Medieval’ India ever since colonial era to the present time remains a
subject of intense debate and is coalesced with multiple meanings, contradictory views and varied
perceptions. It would be interesting to pull out different strands coagulated together to be able to weave
out a comprehendible pattern.

‘Medieval’ which was until now defined along communal lines or was seen in the light of dramatic political
decline was to be re-viewed through the path breaking work of Marxist scholars in later half of 20th
century. Writings of D.D. Koshambi and especially R.S. Sharma embarked upon a new journey of
perceiving and analyzing history of the sub-continent. It rejected the communal parameters for
understanding the past. Their ideas not only shifted focus from political and dynastic changes but also
sparked off a new debate by bringing into light the socio-economical changes as one of the most crucial
aspects in analyzing India’s past. In fact, for the first time the missing layers between ‘Ancient’ and
‘Medieval’ were beginning to be ‘discovered’ through the debates. The period Post Gupta and pre-
Sultanate got significant attention for the first time in the discourse and a period between 600-1200/1300
began to be termed as ‘Early Medieval’ by many scholars. The changes in agrarian relations, land revenue
policies, political structure and economical composition of society associated with the decline of Gupta
Empire were seen under the purview of system of royal land grants and this became the basis for the
proposition of theory of feudalism in India. It was accompanied with notions of broken centralized
structure, fragmented state, de-urbanization, demonetized economy, Brahman patronages and fall in
4
trade and exchange. This feudal cycle was supposed to have emerged with the last phase of Guptas,
5
matured in the intermediary phase and declined after the arrival of Sultanate. Hence, in this context

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2221317

beginning of ‘Medieval’ was the emergence of a distinct phase that heralded a new socio-economic order
6
putting an end to the chaotic previous one which had crystallized itself in previous centuries. However, it
cannot be ignored that while pre-sultanate time was scrutinized on the basis of Sanskrit literary sources
the period after Sultanate was studied through Persian ones and it was hard to find scholars experts of
both languages. Therefore, can the stark divide between economy and society of aforesaid periods be a
7
consequence of linguistic limitation? Could immediate changes in polity result in sudden drastic
transformation in socio-economic-cultural paradigms as well?

Although over a long course of time many characteristic features have tried to define nature of ‘Medieval’
India but it was twentieth century where an upsurge of diverse approaches which enriched and revitalized
debates on the old subject. Apart from Marxist Historians who gave a new direction to the interpretation
of ‘Medieval’ India by bringing element of economic history in the picture, there were other scholars like
B.D. Chattopaddhay and Herman Kulke who put forth their ‘processural’ or ‘integrative’ model
emphasizing on the interlinking and interrelationship of various periods; critiqued the notion of decay in
early medieval India and emphasized on ‘transition’, ‘transformation’ and ‘development’ of new social
8
phenomena. By claiming that dissolution of one established state was accompanied with rise of multiple
power centers; decline of long distance trade was tandem with the emergence of new regionally oriented
economy, decaying of ancient urban cities was simultaneous with the rise of new denser ones and
debasement of coins as a possible result of difference between high rate of exchange and proportionately
low availability of metal sowed the seeds of visualizing a ‘dark’ phase in new light and emphasizing on the
9
continuity of the processes involved. Moreover, the model could be further justified by emphasizing on
the Indo-Islamic composite culture developed during the so called ‘Medieval’ period following it. Whether
it is formation of Urdu language which was the fusion of foreign and indigenious languages, proliferated
use of lintel and beam which is prominent of temple design accompanied with the use of Central Asian
arches in the architecture or emerging music genre like qawalli are some of many ways to explain the
intricate intermixing of central Asian nomadic life with the indigenous settled one that extends its
influence even in contemporary times. Moreover, can we ignore the presence of Indian natives as
important administrators in courts of Sultans and Mughals, Mughal-Rajput alliance so on and so forth? So,
would it be wrong to call features of ‘Medieval’ a continuous process rather being disjoint from previous
centuries?

How far have century long examination-re examination, formulation-reformulations, interpretations-

reinterpretations, assertions and propositions about ‘Medieval’ been able to present its holistic
description? Although a lot has been spoken about state structures of ‘Medieval’ or ‘Early Medieval India’
but has even that been inclusive? Could use of only Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Dynasty which primarily
remained centered to North be enough to describe the processes of entire subcontinent? Both Marxist
Historians who presented a blotted picture of ‘Early Medieval’ and Chattopadhyay and Kulke who
presented their ‘procedural’ model to explain transition to ‘Early Medieval’ seem to miss the sight of
South India where a different story was unfolding. During this phase unlike North, Southern India
witnessed pinnacle of power in the form of Chola kingdoms. Not only urban center but huge fortified
temple towns were emerging. City of Tanjur around Brihadeshwara temple could be a case in point. As a
contrast to North, long trade links as far as South East Asia were getting strengthened and flourished.
Unlike Northern subcontinent entrapped with the debates of centralized and fragmentary nature of state,
scholars like Burtenstein applied concept of ‘segmentary state’ to explain the inverse power relation of
10
state between center and periphery. What could have been the changes in perception and
historiography of ‘Medieval’ if ‘Early Medieval’ would not have been north centric? Further, has even a

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2221317

popular discourse on states of north been able to be free of biases? Sind province had begun to be ruled
under Muslim Arabs like Mohammad-ibn-Qasim from 712 A.D. but why was it not seen as the arrival of
11
‘Muslims’ or ‘Medieval’? On the other hand, Kashmir, the northern most part of Indian subcontinent
has rarely received attention of historians. Its great number of women rulers, politicians and staunch
diplomats although sufficiently mentioned in textual sources like Rajatarigni and Nilamatapurana remain
12
a sidelined subject when debates on ‘Early Medieval’ or ‘Medieval’ are discussed. In fact, Kashmir was
not the exception to have women rulers but dominating queens and women rulers were spread in various
13
parts of sub-continent like Orissa, Eastern Chalukyas, so on and so forth. So, has gender in political and
administrative spheres ever found wide place in the discussion of ‘Medieval’ historiography or has it been
presumed to have been always a reserved male domain? Moreover, undoubtedly the interrelation of
state, urban and rural life have remained a matter of interest for scholars but what about data on
aboriginals inhabiting dense forests and still away from the wave of acculturation? Recalling the fact that
large tracts of land were still under thick forest cover we can probably guess the amount of ‘hidden’,
14
ignored’ , ‘forgotten’ or ‘lost’ history.

Despite of numerous debates and discussions the very use and interpretations of the category of
‘Medieval’ still remains questionable and contentious and in near time we can expect to witness more
diverse revolutionary versions about the ‘Medieval’ past of our Indian-subcontinent. But how would new
discussion be different from the available one? Which direction would it be leading our perception to?
What would then be a new wave of counter arguments? Would this process of challenging ‘Medieval’ as a
category be ever at rest?

REFERENCE:

1. Upinder Singh.2011.Rethinking Early Medieval India: A reader, New Delhi: O.U.P, p.2
2. Daud Ali.2012. ’Historiography of Early Medieval India’, JRAS, Series 3,22, p. 7
3. ibid.,pg.8
4. ibid.
5. Upinder Singh. 2011. P.3
7.ibid, p.10
8. Daud Ali. P.10
9. ibid.,pp.9-10
10. Upinder Singh. 2011. pp.11-13
11. Tanvir Anjum.2007.’Emergence of Muslim Rule in India’, JSTOR, Vol.46(2),p.217
12. Upinder Singh. 2011. p.19
13. ibid.
14. ibid.,p.13

Niti Deoliya
History Honors,
Ambedkar University, Delhi