History Final Draft

A MARXIST HISTORY OF THE

KADAMBAS

HISTORY I

I YEAR

III TRIMESTER

2014

Harshitha Dammu[2056]

Date of Submission: April 15, 2014

National Law School of India University, Bengaluru

A MARXIST HISTORY OF THE KADAMBAS 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................5

CHAPTER I: PRE-FEUDAL KARNATAKA AND THE SATAVAHANAS......................................7

CHAPTER II: EARLY KADAMBAS AND THE AGE OF FEUDALISM..........................................9

CHAPTER III: THE KADAMBA POLITICAL STRUCTURE AND ITS DETERMINANTS..........14

CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................16

BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................................18

NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY


INTRODUCTION

Much of written history has been the history of rulers. For centuries historians considered

only that and not everyday life of the people as worth recording. For many, it was the rulers

and their politics that made history. After the Second World War a new school of historical

thought – Marxist historiography or historical materialism as is commonly known gained

prominence in mainstream history. In an unprecedented approach, Marxist historiography

centred its study on that of the working class and their social and economic constraints.

Marxian historians firmly believe that it is the people through the course of their struggle that

make historical events and eventually history.

It is with the same view and purpose that the researcher has studied the history of the

Kadamba State.

The Kadambas were an influential ruling dynasty in Southern India during what many

historians term as the early-medieval Indian historic period. The contribution of the

Kadambas to the history of Karnataka is significant. It was only during their rule that

Karnataka emerged as a strong, independent and unified cultural and political entity. In spite

of this, for a very long time the Kadambas received very little to no reference in the general

history of India. Their history had been sadly reduced to that of questionable origin myths

and dry, factual accounts of rulers and their reign. This could have been for two reasons, one

that the sphere of Indian historical writing had always been dominated by nationalist

historians who used a completely different approach in their study of the past and two, that

most of these historians were from the northern part of the nation. Hence it is not surprising

that they were not very well acquainted with their history.

It was only in the late twentieth Century that some eminent authors like R.S Sharma, D.D

Kosambi and Irfan Habib applied the Marxist methodology to their study of India’s past and

made pioneering and refreshing contributions to the interpretation of the same. The History of

Karnataka in particular received attention after Saketh Rajan, a revolutionary obsessed with

the liberation of people in India penned two brilliant volumes from a historical materialist

standpoint. The works of these scholars and academicians have initiated a process of reviving

the highly subjugated Marxist historiography and in a small way, the lost true history of the

Kadambas.



This research paper is a highly selective and condensed compilation of the major works of

such Marxist historians in India.

In analysing the nature of the Kadamba State they have converged their views to come to the

conclusion that it was feudalistic in nature. But it is not that feudalism erupted out of nowhere

during the Kadamba age. The seeds for its growth must have been sown before at an earlier

time and this is the purpose for which the Satavahana State is also briefly analysed. Some of

the institutions that developed during their rule must have definitely continued well into the

Kadamba rule and influenced the nature of its polity. This paper is thus an attempt to

effectively understand the Kadamba State in its entirety by drawing a link between its social

and economic structures and finally its political structure. For having used the Historical

Materialism approach most social, economic and political developments mentioned have

been explained as antagonisms in an existing society and the resulting transitions into new

modes of production.



RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Hypothesis: The Kadamba State was feudalistic in nature as a result of its socio-economic

structure.

Aims: To analyse the political structure of the Kadamba State by way of studying the society

and economy during its rule and its predecessor’s rule.

To understand what determines the larger political superstructure of a State.

Objectives:

To elaborate on the hypothesis statement and come to a conclusion about its validity.

To establish that the Marxist approach to understanding history is the best way to obtain

meaningful and accurate history.

Research questions:

1. What was the nature of the economy and society of Karnataka before the Kadambas?

Did it contribute in anyway whatsoever to the rise of feudalism later in the Kadamba

age?

2. Was the introduction of the feudal system purely a politico-legal decision by the

rulers or was it influenced by the existing socio-economic structure of the Kadamba

people at the time?

3. Considering that the socio-economic structure of a State almost always affect its

polity, how did Kadamba polity change with certain dynamic developments in its

economy and society?

Scope: The scope of the research paper has been expanded to include the Satavahana State as

it is believed by the researcher that it helps in having a better understanding of the Kadamba

State that emerged after it.

Limitations: There were many rulers with the dynastic name ‘Kadambas’ but this study is

limited to the Kadambas of Banavasi otherwise known as the Early Kadambas.

Almost everything that is known about the Kadambas of Banavasi is sourced from

inscriptions made during their rule. There is absolutely no literary evidence dating back to

their time that refers to them.



The portion on the features of the Kadamba State mentions only a select few that have

determined the feudalistic polity of the State.

Sources: The research has been sourced entirely from secondary sources i.e. Books and

Articles.

Mode of Citation: A Uniform mode of citation has been followed throughout the paper.

The citation for Books is as follows:-

E.g.: Author, Title of the Book, Sub-Title (if any), Volume Number (if any), Page Number

(Editor’s name ed(s) (if any), Edition Number (if any), Place of Publishing: Publisher, Year

of Publication).

The citation for Articles is as follows:-

E.g.: Author, “Title of the Article”, Volume Number(Issue Number) Name of Journal, Page

Number (Month of Publication, Year of Publication).

Chapterisation:

1. A Pre Feudal History of Karnataka – Keeping in mind the Marxist view that changes

in society are a result of internal conflicts over production relations, Karnataka under

the Satavahanas and the changes their rule brought to its people and their productive

relations has been briefly discussed. It is basically an attempt to trace out the

beginnings of feudalism.

2. Kadamba Kingdom during the Age of Feudalism – A study of the main features of the

feudalistic Kadamba society and economy.

3. Understanding Kadamba State by its society and economy – In furtherance of the

main objective of proving that the socio-economic structure determines a state, in this

case a feudal State and not the other way round as is believed by most historians.



CHAPTER I: PRE-FEUDAL KARNATAKA AND THE SATAVAHANAS

The transformation and development of society is a steady and often imperceptible process

stretching over long periods of time. Almost always, the structure of an existing State has

been determined by its preceding State.1 A better understanding of the Kadamba State, thus

can only be achieved by briefly studying the Satavahana State and the institutions that it

helped create before it.

The Satavahanas ruled parts of Northern Karnataka after the fall of the great Mauryan

Empire.2 The earliest references to the use of an iron plough for agriculture in the Southern

part of the Indian subcontinent comes from this age around 240 BC.3 The new instrument of

production signalled the end to primitive agriculture of tribal societies and an era of highly

productive and surplus yielding agriculture began.4 This economic development brought in

several changes, the most important being the creation of a class society consisting of the

exploiting landed intermediary class and the exploited labour class.5 This was the time when

slavery assumed its fullest meaning.6 With the advent of class society emerged the State and

the Shudra holding mode of production, a system in which the State owned the Shudra

labour.7

The Satavahanas were one of the earliest rulers to make land grants. This can be seen as an

attempt by the State to exploit an agricultural base in an expanding rural economy and to

monitor any new developments that may threaten the existence and primacy of its ruling

class.8 It was this process of issuing land grants to a favoured few that created a distinct

landed intermediary class. The new class divided social order stood on the institution of

1 Saketh Rajan, Making History: Karnataka’s People and their Past, 98 (Bangalore: Vimukthi Prakashana, 1998).2 R.S Sharma, Sudras in Ancient India, 160 (2 edn., New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2002).3 D.D Kosambi, An Introduction to the study of Indian History, 240 (2 edn., Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 2008).4 R.S Sharma, Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India, 201 (4 edn., New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991).5 Id. 6 Supra note 1. 7 Frederick Engels, The Origin of The Family, Private Property and The State, 166 (1 edn., London: Penguin Group, 2010).8 Himanshu Prabha Ray, Monastery and Guild, 101 (1 edn., London: Oxford University Press, 1986).



Caste, another major development during the Satavahana rule that further divided the people

and legitimised religion.9

Thus the Satavahana State aided and supervised the exploitative relations of production in the

plough agriculture phase and sowed the seeds of early feudalism, an institution that fully

gained prominence in the Kadamba age. It must be however noted that this transformation

was brought upon only to the extent required. A majority of the villages continued under the

former primitive agricultural production. For this reason, the Satavahana age is not

considered to be a part of early feudalism.

It is at this juncture that we come to discuss about the transformation of the Shudra mode of

production into the feudal mode of production. Although several factors forced the

restructuring of the State, the main and the most relevant to the purpose of this paper is the

rebellion of the labour class roughly corresponding to the third century AD. They either

refused to stick to the producing functions assigned to them or declined to pay taxes. 10 Either

way, in order to maintain the stability of the existing social structure of class division, the

State had to be restructured11, and this itself was based on the emergence of a new class that

was provided land grants by the king but now in a more widespread manner.12

9 Supra note 2, at 106.10 Supra note 2, at 234.11 Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring, Dialectics of Nature, 189 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987).12 Id.



CHAPTER II: EARLY KADAMBAS AND THE AGE OF FEUDALISM

The Kadamba State came into existence sometime around the fourth century AD. The

erstwhile Satavahana Empire was now fragmented into smaller kingdoms with the Kadamba

kingdom being the largest and strongest of these.13

By now, in response to the socio-economic developments the State had been restructured to

once again suit the interests of the ruling classes as mentioned in the previous chapter. One of

the chief measures undertaken by the Kadamba State to mitigate the labour rebellion crisis

and to firmly establish its existence was to feudalise its political structure.14 This was the only

way by which State rule could have been perpetuated.

Now defining feudalism is not an easy task as there are as many definitions of it as there are

of socialism.15 Some scholars even question the use of the term to characterise early medieval

Indian polity. These scholars are mostly experts on medieval European Feudalism with little

realization that feudal formation was a fairly widespread phenomenon with its variants in

different countries.16

There are however certain essential elements of a feudalistic structure and this provides the

basic idea of the feudalistic Kadamba society and economy. A study of the other features of

feudalism peculiar to India such as religious hierarchy and Caste system would give an all-

encompassing picture of the same. The following are some main socio-economic features of

the Kadamba State:-

13 G.M Moraes, The Kadamba Kula, 2 (1 edn., New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1931).14 B. Sheikh Ali, The Hoysala Dynasty, 258 (1 edn., Mysore: Prasaranga, 1972).15 R.S Sharma, Indian Feudalism, Introduction, 2 (3 edn., New Delhi: Macmillan India, 2006).16 Id.



A. Existence of a landed intermediary class and a servile labour class17

Feudalism appears in a predominantly agrarian economy which is characterised by a class of

landlords and a class of servile peasantry. In this system the landlords extract agricultural

surplus through various social, religious and political methods. This landlord-labour

exploitative relation of production is a common thread in all feudalistic societies.18

A mention was made about land grants being issued to a certain section of the people, for

various political reasons by the State paving way to the emergence of a new class. In the

Kadamba State this process of issuing of land grants gained full prominence. In the later

Kadamba period, as a consequence of the land grants, many functions hitherto performed by

the State like revenue collection, levy of forced labour, regulation of mines and agriculture,

maintenance of law and order and defence were handed over to the landed class thereby

decentralising State power and feudalizing the economy.19

The intermediate class who neither worked on the land nor were the rulers, as a result came to

wield considerable economic and political power over the otherwise hapless labour class.20

The State now depended upon this class of landlords for taxes in kind and for military service

thereby creating a hierarchy of feudal interests over the lands.21

B. Emergence of Religion and Caste as full-fledged Institutions

The landed intermediary class in the Kadamba State comprised of Brahmins, Buddhists,

Jainas, administrators, rich merchants and military chiefs.22 For the Kadambas, it may have

been the only way of legitimising and perpetuating State rule. A question of why these and

not others were the State’s chosen groups to be landed beneficiaries leads one back to the

time of the Satavahana State. Early feudalism was a period when caste as an institution

17 Halil Berktay, New Approaches to State and Peasant in Ottoman History, 63 (London: Frank Cass and Company, 1992).18 Marc Bloch, Feudal Society: Social Classes and Political Organisation, 187 (3 edn., London: Routledge, 2002).19 Supra note 3, at 366.20 Supra note 15, at 4.21 V.K Thakur, Urbanisation in Ancient India, 314 (New Delhi: Abhinan Publications, 1981).22 B.R Gopal, Corpus of Kadamba Inscriptions, 1, 24 (Sirsi: Kadamba Institute of Cultural Studies, 1985).



gained immense economic relevance. Caste is an integral part of the production relations as it

fixes one’s relation to property and these relations cannot be altered.23

Caste as a social institution must have originated from the period of the breakdown of a

classless society belonging to primitive communism to its transition to the Shudra holding

mode of production.24 This is almost simultaneous with the development of a class society in

India. The long process over which tribes merged in with a generalised society must have

been the beginnings of caste. This transition was largely the result of the introduction of

plough agriculture in various regions which changed the system of production, broke the

structure of tribes and clans and made caste the alternative form of social organisation.25

The inference that can be drawn from this is that the spread of caste is related to the spread of

plough based agriculture. So, if plough agriculture was the chief instrument of production

that broke up the pre-class, pre-caste tribal social order and if plough agriculture spread to

certain regions during the Shudra mode of production under the Mauryans and Satavahanas

resulting in the rise of caste in these regions, then the multiplication and consolidation of the

caste system can be dated to the early feudal period of the Kadambas in the south.26

Under feudalism the feudal class derived its position from the land grants made to it by the

king. Land was the principal realm of production at the time and all other activities generally

corresponded to it. In the Kadamba State Brahmanism, Buddhism and Jainism were

patronised religions. Large pieces of land were given to these clergymen on a completely rent

free basis.27 Sometimes the sustenance of these grants required entire villages of labour. The

labour class was thus made servile to this new religio-political superstructure.

Throughout the feudal Kadamba period, the Brahmin Priests concerned themselves with less

and less religious and more secular and stately functions and subsequently went on to become

a part of the political structure as well. Hence, of all types of feudalism, it was Brahmin

feudalism that dominated all. Thus the religious and non-religious ideas and policies that

were generated during the Kadamba period not only served but flowed from a landed feudal

23 Supra note 1, at 206.24 Irfan Habib, Essays in Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perception, Caste in Indian History, 164 (London: Wimbledon Publishing Company, 2002).25 Romila Thapar, Interpreting Early India, 97 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993).26 Supra note 1, at 183.27 B. Sheikh Ali, Comprehensive History of Karnataka, History of the Western Gangas, 181 (Mysore: University of Mysore, 1972).



class.28 This class and caste hierarchy was reflective of the religious superstructure.29 The

development of religion as a major institution and with it Caste stratified the society of the

time into a religious hierarchy. This was the social and religious base that the Kadamba State

relied upon for its existence. It is now that the religious and political spheres became

increasingly interconnected.30

C. Rise of Self-Sufficient Rural Economies

One major impact of land grants was the creation of villages as the new centres of power and

as self-sufficient units of the economy affecting the existence of towns and cities and thereby

causing their decline. The urban economy that flourished under the Satavahana State enabled

the ruling class to extract surplus from the rural areas using the strong State machinery from

the cities themselves. Now, quite on the reverse, the new decentralised Kadamba State

dispersed State machinery and apparatus to rural areas in order to have better control of the

now feudal lands. Hence there was a change of locale of ruling class to villages with them

migrating from towns to villages.31 Even the army sometimes was portioned off to the

country as peasants. This entire process of urban collapse is again seen by Marxist historians

as a universal characteristic of feudalism.32

The depopulation of urban centres only meant the populating of villages. This should not be

seen as a retreat but as an advancement in the mode of production to feudalism as the

political class however continued to reside in the political capitals of their respective

kingdoms in this case, the city of Banavasi.33 This only speaks of the Kadamba State’s

continuity with that of the Shudra holding system.

D. Decline in Trade and Commercial Activity

28 Supra note 1, at 172.29 E.A Ross, “Class and Caste: Segregation and Subordination”, 22(6) American Journal of Sociology, 749 (May, 1917).30 V.L Singh, “Origin and Growth of Feudalism in Early India”, 34(1) Indian Historical Review, 287 (January, 2007).31 Supra note 8. 32 Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 162 (Abercrombie: Resistance Books, 2004).33 Supra note 1, at 154.



Following the urban collapse was the shrinkage of trade and commerce. The merchant class

that predominantly dwelled in towns and cities suffered a setback as a result. Commerce

suffered inevitably. Another reason for this decline could have been the influence of the

rising social values iterated by the Brahmin class that might have tried to curb the growing

status of the wealthy merchant class in relation to their own. Sea-faring throughout the period

of early feudalism was seen by Brahmins as unholy.34 Another indicator of poor trade was the

paucity of coins for at least eight centuries since the inception of feudalism.35 This again

could have been as a result of the self-sufficiency of rural economic units and their practice of

local production and local consumption that had little or no use for coined money.36

The last indicator of poor trade is the decline of Buddhism in this era. As seen before in the

first chapter, Buddhist clergymen were the beneficiaries of land grants from the Satavahana

rulers. This was because Buddhism was seen as the most developed of religious institutions

that could channelize communication between the State and the labour class.37 The religion

was tied to mercantile activity as they received generous donations from merchants and

traders. So logically a fall in trade placed Buddhism in the backburner.

It would however be fallacious to assume that trade had no place in the age of feudalism.

Trade and commercial activity did take place but it was always low-key and did not

contradict the existing feudal order. Trade in the feudal era came to be feudalised.38

With this the discussion on some of the relevant socio-economic features of the Kadamba

State has come to an end. The task that now remains to be done is to draw a link between

these features and the larger political and administrative structure of the Kadamba State.

34 O.P Prasad, Decay and Revival of Urban Centres in Medieval South India, 46 (New Delhi: Commonwealth Publishers, 1989).35 Supra note 18, at 54.36 Supra note 16, at 178.37 Supra note 5, at 101. 38 Supra note 1, at 156.



CHAPTER III: THE KADAMBA POLITICAL STRUCTURE AND ITS

DETERMINANTS

The most important determinants of the structure of a state are the nature of its economy, the

composition of the classes in power and the manner in which it organises its politics.39

The State of the Shudra holding system was centralised, its armed forces were based in major

towns and cities if they were not deployed for suppression or war. The feudal state on the

other hand, was decentralised and it was structured on the basis of the natural economy that

prevailed with its main body existing in the country.40 The 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 it now had to protect and serve.41

In the Kadamba State, the king was at the apex with his consisting of princes and the circle of

ministers around him. Below this, the territory of the kingdom was divided into provinces

portioned off to either the princes or kinsmen who came to possess them on a hereditary basis

with the passage of time. Each province was then sub-divided into districts headed by sub-

feudatories who formed the third tier of administration. Each district had control over at least

a dozen villages under it. Finally each village was governed by a village assembly of elders.

Each strata of the administration possessed its own body of men who were answerable to

those above it. Thus the Political hierarchy of the Kadamba State was 5 layered.42

Each of these officials starting from the court downwards, and at times even including the

king, were paid by the ownership of villages and land. Thus the main task that they concerned

themselves with was the collection of revenue from these lands and not as one would assume

with administration or war.43

The Kadamba State has been described to be tributary from the tribute that the feudal lords

pay, segmentary from the numerous independent individual segments that make up the State,

39 Supra note 1, at 164. 40 B.P Sahu, “Recent Perspectives of the State and Debates in Early Indian History”, 39(2) Indian Historical Review, 145 (December 2012).41 Supra note 15, at 1. 42 Supra note 1, at 165.43 Supra note 19, at 118.



decentralised from the devolving of powers of management and administration to the feudal

class and finally a peasant state as it is a characteristic of early peasant societies.

All these attempts at characterising the Kadamba State are only partially correct. They do not

characterise the State in its entirety but merely look at one material aspect of it. This is where

the Marxist theory of State comes in handy.

The Marxist theory of the State perceives the State as an instrument or agency of class rule. It

is the instrument of suppression of one class over the other and comes into existence along

with its special apparatus in order to facilitate this.44 Using this, if the Kadamba State were to

be characterised, it would be by the class that it serves, the feudal class. This feudal class was

directly related to the mode of production – the feudal mode and the specific society and

economy that this class had created in its own exclusive interest. All the features of the

Kadamba State mentioned above provide a force to this argument. Hence, the Kadamba State

is a feudal State and that has been determined by its feudal economy, it’s landed intermediary

class and decentralised administration.45

44 VIadimir Lenin, The State, 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977).45 Supra note 1, at 169.



CONCLUSION

A careful study of the Satavahana State has been proved to be fruitful for the purpose of

having a better understanding of the Kadamba State. From Chapter one, it is now known that

the Satavahana period saw the end of primitive communism in Karnataka and a transition into

the Shudra holding mode of production. This was the period when institutions such as caste

and class came to be firmly established among the people and when productive relations

became exploitative. It is this exploitation by the Satavahana State that prompted the Shudra

people to revolt and thus forced the State to restructure itself. This is the link between the

Satavahana State and the Kadamba State. As the historian Vico might have analysed, if these

instances hadn’t occurred, then probably a Kadamba State might have never emerged.

It did, however and modified its political structure in such a way that it would continue to

hold the class system in place since it was integral to its existence. As an answer to the

second research question, the collective self-consciousness of the highly exploited

Satavahana people forced the State to feudalise itself. Hence, feudalism although a politico-

legal decision, was highly influenced by the socio-economic conditions of the people of that

time. The Kadamba State decentralised its bureaucracy that resulted in a highly stratified

polity. Religion and its institutions such as caste were used tactically to maintain a certain

social and economic order46 as studied in chapter two. These actions was undertaken by the

State in order to gain legitimacy for it rule and subsequent political stability. This is the

researchers answer to the third research question. The hypothesis statement thus stands

correct.

The only thing that now remains to be done is to establish that Marxist historiography is the

best methodology that can be employed in the study of the past. As mentioned in the

introduction to this paper, the history of the Kadambas had been much neglected and

incorrectly represented by mainstream historians until a few Marxist historians reinterpreted

their history using the historical materialism approach. Nationalist historians emphasise on

the rulers and their actions when on the contrary throughout the course of this paper it has

been shown that it is the people that make history. Nationalist historians’ factual history

merely provides one with awareness of the past not understanding of it as it doesn’t analyse

causes behind historical events.

46 R.N Nandi, Social Roots of Religion in Ancient India, 234 (1 edn., Calcutta: KP Bagchi, 1986).



From primitive communism to the Shudra holding mode of production during the

Satavahanas to feudalism under the Kadambas, every event has been determined by the

people alone, people who desperately struggled to break away from the clutches of the

establishment and to free themselves from the exploitative relations of production. The rulers

never made history, but only saw it being made by the people. Marxist historians have this

incredible insight and their work always reflects this. Nationalist historians on the other hand

would have led one to the conclusion that it is the rulers who determine the nature of their

society and economy, when it is so blatantly incorrect. This is why Marxist historiography

stands correct. Inferring from all this, Marxist approach to understanding history is the right

approach to understanding the past.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books1) B. Sheikh Ali, Comprehensive History of Karnataka, History of the Western Gangas

(1 edn., Mysore: Prasaranga, University of Mysore, 1976).

1) B.R Gopal, Corpus of Kadamba Inscriptions (Sirsi: Kadamba Institute of Cultural

Studies, 1985).

2) D.D Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History (2 edn, Mumbai:

Popular Prakashan, 2008).

3) Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring, Dialectics of Nature (Moscow: Progress Publishers,

1987).

4) Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

(Abercrombie: Resistance Books, 2004).

5) G.M Moraes, The Kadamba Kula (1 edn., New Delhi: Asian Educational Services,

1931).

6) Halil Berktay, New Approaches to State and Peasant in Ottoman History (London:

Frank Cass and Company, 1992).

7) Himanshu Prabha Ray, Monastery and Guild (1 edn., London: Oxford University

Press, 1986).

8) Irfan Habib, Essays in Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perception, Caste in Indian

History (London: Wimbledon Publishing Company, 2002).

9) K.V Ramesh, Chalukyas of Vatapi (New Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1984).

10) Marc Bloch, Feudal Society: Social Classes and Political Organisation (3 edn.,

London: Routledge, 2002).

11) O.P Prasad, Decay and Revival of Urban Centres in Medieval South India (New

Delhi: Commonwealth Publishers, 1989).

12) R.N Nandi, Social Roots of Religion in Ancient India (1 edn., Calcutta: KP Bagchi,

1986).

13) Romila Thapar, Interpreting Early India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993).

14) R.S Sharma, Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India (4 edn., New

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991).



15) R.S Sharma, Indian Feudalism (cAD 300-1200) (New Delhi: The Macmillan

Company of India, 1980).

16) R.S Sharma, Sudras in Ancient India (2 edn., New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2002).

17) Saketh Rajan, Making History: Karnataka’s People and their Past (Bangalore:

Vimukthi Prakashana, 1998).

18) Vladimir Lenin, The State (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977).

19) V.K Thakur, Urbanisation in Ancient India (New Delhi: Abhinan Publications, 1981).

Articles1) B.P Sahu, “Recent Perspectives of the State and Debates in Early Indian History”,

39(2) Indian Historical Review (December 2012).

2) E.A Ross, “Class and Caste: Segregation and Subordination”, 22(6) American

Journal of Sociology (May, 1917).

3) V.L Singh, “Origin and Growth of Feudalism in Early India”, 34(1) Indian Historical

Review (January, 2007).


Date post:	21-May-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hdammu
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

History Final Draft

Documents