In the early Vedic age, land was not an important resource at all.
Pre-Mauryan Age
The concept of private property had emerged. The land was divided into cultivable plots and allotted to individual families.
There was substantial community dominance in economic matters. Despite private ownership, transfership rights over the land remained with the community. Irrigation projects and field fencing were also done collectively.
The claim of state over the land was strengthening and it was accepted that the state owns all the wasteland. This entitled him to a bhaga (1/6th) of the produce as tax on the land that had been cleared and was under cultivation.
Mauryan Age
Megasthenes tells us that all land was owned by the king but this is clearly incorrect. State had vast tracts of land of its own (and managed by sitadhyaksha and worked upon by PoWs, slaves, hired labor etc.). There was also some land which the state used to lease out to the peasants. Arthashastra tells us that if on such land the oxen, implements etc. were provided by the state then the state could appropriate 2/3rd to 3/4th of the produce for itself. If, on the other hand, the peasant brought his own implements, he could keep half of the output.
If somebody brought a new piece of land under plough then the ownership of that land belonged to him so long as he paid the taxes. Then there was some old land which was owned by the peasants directly.
Post Mauryan Age
Manusmriti tells us that the land belonged to the person who first brings it under cultivation. This also tells us that expansion of agriculture was going on in this age. It also indicates that the ownership of land was private and not state owned.
Gupta Age
The king was considered ‘lord of all land’ but not the owner in legal sense. Private property existed under the vague umbrella of royal control. King’s claims couldn’t preclude the rights of the individuals. The king owned all the mines, treasures etc. The idea that even the agriculture land belonged to the king was strengthening.
Although Manu says that the land belonged to the person who brought it under cultivation, this appears to be the norm when the villages were expanding and mostly new land was brought under plough. By the time of Guptas things had mostly settled and so there was a clear need to have a legal claim on the land. Thus Narad and Brihaspati both tell us that it was necessary to have the legal documents to establish an ownership claim over the land. That the pressure and hence disputes over land were increasing is clearly reflected from Narad and Brihaspati when they say that the boundaries and ownership of the land should be clearly established.
Although the village community didn’t have ownership of land, it had an important say in sale of land, boundary disputes, village commons such as pasture land, water resources etc. and the king was supposed to inform the community when he made a land grant.
Early Medieval South India
There were 4 types of land ownership.
State owned :- This was a large part directly owned by the king. It included the land confiscated for non payment of revenue / revolts. Sometimes the king would purchase land from the private owners. But generally the state used to respect property rights. Even when some one died without leaving any successor, the land was not acquired by the state and instead distributed among his gotra members.
Peasant owned or khud kasht land :- This was the ordinary peasant land and they would pay revenue to the king or their brahman lord if they were granted away.
Land owned for rendering special service to the state :- Land owned by officials and soldiers fell in this category. Land owned by the brahmadeyas and the temples also fell under this category. Land held by an individual brahman was called Ekbhogya and that jointly was called Ganbhogya. Normally they would not cultivate themselves and instead give land on tenancy for which they would get a share in produce as rent. The tenants had no right to mortgage / transfer the land.
Land owned by the community :- This was the village commons. It was managed by the committees of the sabha. The committee could also give it as a grant in special cases. The income from this land was used to pay the temple and community labor, maintain irrigation works etc. It used to be jointly cultivated by the community.
Vijaynagar Empire
Some villages (called Bhandarwad villages) were under the direct administrative control of the kings. The peasants of these villages used to pay LR directly to the king. The king could also make land grants out of such villages.
But most villages (called Amaram villages) came under the Nayankar system where the king would grant his military officials (called nayaks) some land in lieu of their service. Initially these amarams were in return for service to the king but later on they became hereditary. The nayaks also had to pay a certain portion of the LR to the king.
The brahmans, temples and other big land lords who didn’t cultivate the land themselves used to lease it out. The tenant could not be removed unless he failed to pay the LR and had inheritable rights. But he had to cultivate according to the wishes of the landlord. Absentee landlordism, feudalism and exploitation grew in the Vijaynagar kingdom.
State used to respect the personal ownership of land. If it had to make a land grant from a personally owned land then it would buy the land after paying a compensation.
System of Land Grants
Types
Brahmadeyas / Agraharas :- Tax-free land grant given to a brahman or temple or math.
Kara-Shasan :- Revenue bearing land grants.
Kraya-Shasan :- Land grants given for secular purposes. Vassals, military officials etc.
Vedic Age
The later Vedic literature clearly indicates the preference of brahmans for land indicating its growing importance. The books prescribe donation of land for Vedic sacrifices.
Pre-Mauryan Age
The Vedic literature became more vocal in preference of land grant as dakshina.
Pali literature suggests that Bimbisara of Magadha and Prasenjit of Kosala used to gift land to the Brahmans.
Mauryan Age
The system of land grants was used to extend cultivation over fallow land.
The Arthasastra gives the earliest indication that some of the Brahman settlements established by royal decree enjoyed tax exemptions and other privileges.
Post-Mauryan Age
The law books of this era explicitly state that land grants made to Brahmans should be tax free and with other privileges.
The earliest inscriptions recording royal land grants as well as land grants with exemptions and privileges comes from Satvahna era in Naneghat and Nasik.
Gupta Age
By this time, the practice of land grant had become widespread all over the sub-continent and kings throughout were making grants and recording on copper plate inscriptions. Such grants were called agraharas, brahmadeyas, shasanas.
On the whole, the Imperial Guptas were not great donors of land. Only two copper plate inscriptions attributed to SG at Gaya and Nalanda which talk about a land grant to brahmans. They clearly instruct villagers to obey the brahman and to give him all the taxes. It also prohibits other villagers and artisans from entering this village. The Bhitari stone pillar inscription of Skandagupta mentions of a land grant in favor of a Vishnu temple but the terms of the grant are not specified.
The Vakatakas were great donors of land. A wide range of exemptions and privileges associated with land grants are mentioned in their inscriptions.
Land grants were also made by the vassals of Gupta and Vakataka kings.
Post-Gupta Age
Huen-Tsang mentions Harsha’s officials were paid in tax-free land grants as were the religious men.
From about 10th cent, there wad a shift from land grants to brahmans to land grants to temples.
The grant was hereditary but the donees didn’t have the right to alienate the land.
Impact of Land Grants
Political
It led to proliferation of states @ regional level. This led to increased military buildup and warfare.
The feudalism hypothesis states that brahmadeyas led to political fragmentation as it weakened the donor kings. But evidence indicates otherwise. The most numerous and biggest grants were given by the most powerful kings. Why would they voluntarily erode their power? The brahmadeyas signified power and prestige.
Brahmadeyas created independent islands within the state since the state had no authority over them. In Chola empire, important brahmadeyas had the taniyur status which meant complete autonomy.
It led to the emergence of the local assemblies called sabha which further increases the power of donees.
Since the beginning the relationship between the priest and the ruler had been that of dependency and competition. The priest provided legitimacy while he depended on the ruler for dakshina and other resources. The hereditary land grants quickly changed this relationship to the advantage of the priest as he was no longer dependent on the king for economic resources. Thus we see many brahmans appropriating kingship also in a tradition known as brahma kshatra tradition.
Social
It led to increased divisions in the society empowering the brahman donees and impoverishing the masses tied to the brahmadeya. The brahman had judicial, pasture, irrigation, LR rights and hence dominated the masses. This led to their dispossession from land and even more dependency.
It led to integration of tribals into the mainstream caste system either as caste or untouchables or their displacement. Whatever be the case, they were always subordinated and their land taken away.
Thus it created a class of land lord brahmans and landless labor. These brahmans however, were not feudatories of the king since they didn’t have the obligation to provide feudal levies.
It reduced the mobility of the general rural society since peasants and laborers were tied to the brahmadeya.
Led to wide scale brahman mobility in search of better livelihood. Such a migration of brahmans into many areas led to the evolution of sub-castes in brahmans based on the region.
Large number of land grants increased the importance of the class of kayasthas and they got transformed into a caste. Marriages between brahmans and local women must have produced more sub-castes.
Economic
The feudalism hypothesis states that the brahmadeyas significantly reduced the king’s access to revenue. But evidence suggests that they were probably given in the areas where it was not economically feasible for the king to realize revenue in the first place.
It led to extension of agriculture.
It changed the mode of production from self / kin based cultivation to hired labor.
It definitely would have meant more exploitation for the masses.
It gave economic backing to the superior status of brahmans.
Cultural
Faced with the growing popularity of bhakti and change in the popular religious practices, the brahmans used their economic and political clout to change their activities to be temple managers and priests. This furthered the growth and prestige of temples.
Interaction of brahmans with local tribes led to assimilation of tribal deities and practices into the mainstream hindu religion. Example is Jagannath lord of Odisha.
It led to growth in Sanskrit literature. Also brahmans became proficient in supervising agricultural activities and wrote many books on agriculture.
Indian Feudalism
DD Kosambi
He classified feudalism as feudalism from above and feudalism from below. Feudalism from above means a state wherein the king levied tributes on the subordinates who still in their own rights did what they liked within their own territories as long as they paid the paramount ruler. This was the initial stage. Feudalism from below is the next stage where a class of land owners develops, within the village, between the state and peasantry. This class is often subject to military service and collects taxes to pass on to the higher authorities.
Kosambi found some similar characteristics both in European and Indian feudalism like the low level of technology, the act of production is largely individual. The production of immediate need of a household or a village community and not for a wider market. Political decentralization was common to both.
RS Sharma
R.S. Sharma describes the period between 4th to 13th centuries as feudal period. He traces the origin of feudalism in the ancient Indian practice of making land grants to the brahmins. The result of land grants was the emergence of a class of land lords, living on the produce of the peasants.
According to him, the basic characteristics of a feudal system are - (a) There should exist a basic class of landlords who claim and collect rents from the peasants on the ground that they are the owners of the land. This class was created in India as a result of the land charters like the European fiefs. (b) As a corollary there should exist a peasantry who is in actual occupation of the land but are compelled to pay rents in cash, kind or labour to the landlords. (c) It is an agricultural economy in which local needs are satisfied locally. In such a situation, salaries are not paid in cash but in kind or land.
Socially, this development was accompanied by the proliferation of caste arranged in terms of hierarchy and impurity. The feudal formation created a sharp distinction between the landlords and the peasants, and reinforced the privileges of the princes and clergy by giving them considerable control over the factors of production including land.
Sharma, of course, admitted that there were differences between the Indian and European feudalism. India did not have well defined class of feudal barons. In India, small scale peasants plots were not tied to the large scale landlords’ farms; there was no regular supply of labour-service by the peasants. There was no system of serfdom in India. There was no manorial system.
In the land grants (from Gupta period itself), peasants working on the land were granted along with the land. But this was not equivalent to serfdom as the peasant was not necessarily required to cultivate the donee’s land as well apart from his own. His obligation was just to pay the grantee a tax (including vishti) equivalent to what he was paying the state earlier. But naturally the increased exploitation may have changed the ground realities and eventually he may have lost his own land to the donee.