Chapter 1 - Introduction

The present endeavour proposes a detailed empirical study of ‘kingship and polity’ of two broad deltaic alluvial stretch of land on the ‘eastern coast’, namely ‘Mahanadi’ and ‘Kaveri’ delta. These were among the main centres of political and cultural activity since the dawn of the Christian era.

During 10^th to 13^th century A.D. the two deltaic regions saw the emergence of two most powerful imperial dynasties, which enjoyed extensive control over their respective regions. These two powers were the Gangas in the Mahanadi valley, and the Cholas in the Kaveri valley region.

The ‘early-medieval’ period in Indian history roughly stretched between the 6^th-7^th and the 12^th-13^th centuries A.D., show sharp difference in form of social structure of the ‘early’ Indian society. The change envisaged in writings of the post independence era in two prominent constructs, in terms of ‘urban decay and large scale formation of states’^[1] and ‘the pattern of shaping of regional societies’.^[2] It was essentially delineated in terms of a movement (major historical/societal process in regional context) from above (as decentralisation) or within (integration or segmentation) for shaping of the territorial segments with regional identities of the future Indian subcontinent.

The term ‘early medieval’ suggests the evolution from the early historical period to medieval period and brings out the characteristics of continuity and change in the broad historical context. This viewpoint, demolishes the ideas of orientalism which emphasised ‘timelessness’ and ‘changelessness’ of Indian polity, society and economy. It is also a response to stereotype transformation of historiography of pre-modern Indian society, such indicators of periodization as Hindu, Muslim, and British or Ancient, Medieval, and Modern for its long use. Though the perception and nature of social change may differ broadly but the use of late-Hindu or late-Classical is no longer advantageous in understanding change in broad historical phase.

Statement of the Problem

Early medieval period witnessed a transition from early historical polity and society through the gradual shaping of regional structure and identity; saw the emergence of regional polities. In a way, the regional pattern remained rather stable, where one dynasty eclipsed, another surfaced or took over. Sometimes, there could be minor shifts in the relative position of nuclear areas. These regional powers made major contributions in the formation of regional societies in early medieval India.

The “early medieval” in Indian history is characterized by the emergence of a number of regional kingdoms in different parts of the subcontinent. The historical processes and background of these Indian kingdoms were, however, different from those of their counterparts elsewhere in different regions. Thus, the political processes and structures in these kingdoms offer an interesting study in both conformity and contrast within a general sub continental pattern in early medieval India. In this discussion, we shall take up the situation in the Southern regions of peninsular India. It should not be assumed that these regional kingdoms of early medieval period shared a uniform structure; indeed, there were variations despite apparent similarity.

The core purpose of this study is to undertake a comparative study of ‘kingship and polity’ in order to understand changes or development witnessed in the overall socio-economic formation of the two regions, in a historical perspective. In this task the present work seek to make kingship itself as its vantage focal point and propose to study the concept, function, and ideological foundations of kingship in early medieval India.

Objectives of the study:

The study has been designed with the following general objectives.

1. To study through literature review the nature of kingship and polity and its patterns practised in early Indian historical phase.

2. To look into the political activity of the two deltaic regions of Mahanadi and Kaveri valley in three successive sub period from 300 to 1300 AD.

3. To develop an idea by comparing between the two deltaic valleys about the nature of kingship prevailed in early medieval eastern coast and its role in integrative model of the regional state formation.

Period of the study:

The period of study covers the early medieval period of south Indian history. As we mentioned earlier that the “early medieval” in Indian history exemplifies the surfacing of a number of regional kingdoms in different parts of the subcontinent. Simultaneously it typifies a transition from early historical polity and society through the gradual shaping of regional structure and identity. This continuing process of transition started in disparate zones of the Indian subcontinent in pre Gupta and Gupta times. It is our plan to survey the political activity of the two above said deltaic regions in three successive sub periods from 300 to 1300 A.D. Review of Literature:

The rationale of this study is to make introspection on the earlier assumptions applied on kingship and polity of pre-modern India by the different scholars through the ages. Discussing some of the aspects of pre-modern polity of India, there are a large number of works already in the field of ‘evolution of Indian polity’ dealing with various ‘lineages’ or ‘empires’ that successively occupied the stage of Indian polity.

In pre-modern political structure, kingship was undoubtedly the central and most important political institution through the ages. With the changes in sociopolitical patterns it was able to retain its position but the centrality and importance was questioned by the different historiogrphic constructs.

In this broader context of pre-modern Indian polity, the formation of early Indian state or state-society or its evolution and nature has been a subject of greater discussion and debate. Terms associated with it, like, non-statal state, pre-state, proto-state, the varying degree of state-ness are used to understand the stages of a state-like structure in India. Essentially, an empirical work of these genre, has been inevitably influenced by the dominant ideologies of the time and terminal access to newer sources and newer methods of looking at existing evidences. Thus, an interdisciplinary interest or approach opened up the newer dimensions in broader historical perspectives. Not only the discussion of ‘state’ or ‘stateformation’ are being articulated in newer approach but also the question of ‘kingship’, ‘legitimacy’ the question of ‘sovereignty’ become interesting in recent multi disciplinary studies. Various perspectives related to the study of political organisation of the early medieval Indian kingdoms help us in critically analysing the nature of polity of this period.

In regard to polity in pre modern India, two broad but opposite strands of assumptions stand aside. According to some scholars, it was ‘changeless’ (traditional or Oriental Despotism) and according to others it underwent ‘structural changes’. Though the view held by scholars on change or the mechanism of change are not identical or even mutually contradictory. Current perspectives include at least five distinct models of state formation.

These have been sub-divided by Hermann Kulke^[3] as follows:

1. Marx’s notion of Oriental Despotism and the Asiatic Mode of Production.^[4]

2. Indian historiographical model of rather unitary centrally organized and territorially defined kingdom with a strong bureaucracy.

3. Indian feudalism.

4. The model of ‘Segmentary state’.

5. Non-aligned integrative processes and structural developments within a given state system.

In these models, the state and society have been studied from divergent angles or by employing a specific analytical concept to define the degree of central authority or local autonomy, the role of religious institutions (agraharas / temples) as indicators of political fragmentation sometimes segmentation or as instrument of the extension of central political authority.

For example, while Romila Thapar^[5] discussed the ancient state formation as the process of transformation from lineage to state; Ram Saran Sharma^[6] and others have studied the state and society by applying the concept of Feudalism to them.

The much-debated model of “Indian feudalism”, too, has been tried in the context of early medieval South India. M.G.S. Narayanan and Kesavan Veluthat argued that the Bhakti Movement in South India was actually feudal in its content. K. Veluthat has opined further that the entire political structure in early medieval South India had a feudal character about it. The general criticism against Indian feudalism is valid in this case also. Noboru Karashima and his associates have taken up a quantitative analysis of the information contained in the epigraphical material of early medieval South India. The results of such a systematic work replace the speculation of an earlier period, making it possible to test the different thesis with greater confidence.

Defiantly, Harbans Mukhiya^[7] , Dinesh Chandra Sircar^[8] and Asoke Rudra^[9] are opposed to the application of Feudal model in Indian context. Kathleen Gough^[10] applied the concept of ‘Asiatic Mode of Production’ in her study on south Indian history. Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya^[11] examined the early-medieval polity as logical development of state-society at local agrarian levels with gradual but far greater penetration, while Hermann Kulke^[12] shows his interests in an integrative processsural model of state and society in the early medieval phase. Burton Stein^[13] introduced a new theory of ‘Segmentary’ state into the study of south Indian history as well as Noboru Karashima^[14] argued for the change in the state and society between Chola and Vijayanagara periods. R. Champakalakshmi^[15] and others have clarified mainly the urban economy of the state as an important factor in the formation of a regional state.

It maybe contended that the supposition put forward by Stein is perhaps the most stimulating amongst these new interpretations. It certainly opened the way for introducing social-anthropological concepts into the state studies, by taking up the ‘ritual-sovereignty’ or the religious aspects of kingship for analysis. Though the importance of religion in state administration has been well recognized by many scholars in the past, yet the level of sophistication obtained in recent writings is unprecedented.

There has been a substantial amount of criticism against Stein’s theory. Some of the estimations are like, ‘ignoring the clan character of the state’^[16] ;‘negation of king’s exercise of political sovereignty over the kingdom’^[17] ;‘lack of view point of historical change or development of society’^[18] ;and ‘misunderstanding or ignoring certain fundamental facts’^[19] .Other than this, R. Champakalakshmi, Sanjoy Subramanian, James Heitzmann have also been disapproving of Stein’s model.

In the last twenty years, the study of Indian kingship in its facets has become one major focal point amongst historians and anthropologists, paving a two way approach that may be characterized as ‘Historico-Anthropological’ or ‘Ethno-Historical’ studies of Indian kingship.^[20]

The historians who made precious contributions in this intensifying study include Burton Stein, Hermann Kulke and Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya; and the anthropologists–Nicholas Dirks, Gloria Raheja, Declan Quigley and Charles Drekmeier. The interaction, amongst scholars of different disciplines greatly advanced the issue of kingship for better understanding of Indian society as a whole. But, at the same time a number of problems also emerged from these studies urging more detailed and careful investigation in a historical perspective.

The first point of apprehension is related with the well known dissection of the Indian kingship into ‘secular and religious’ or into ‘political and ritual’ aspects of it. These two facets of kingship are: one, the king’s authority which he executed impersonally and secularly as the head of the state, and the other which he exercised personally and ethically as the follower and guardian of a certain creed or ideology generally accepted by the scholars and put much emphasis on one or the other.

Burton Stein’s separation of the ‘ritual-sovereignty’ from the political one and the denial of the king’s exercise of ‘political-sovereignty’ over his kingdom is the main concern for criticism by Brajadulal Chottopadhyaya and others. They specially argued the concept of ‘ritual-sovereignty’ and ‘of defining the state as Ritual-space’, instead of analyzing this transformation into vital components of the political structure. It is worth mentioning that Marxist view of Feudalism considers kingship as ‘Parcellized-sovereignty’ which ignores both the secular or religious aspects of it.

Anthropological studies, which have invited considerable amount of attention of the historians^[21] , shows tendency of giving more significance to the religion and ritual aspects. Kingship has been most convincingly treated by anthropologists as a problem of ritual and symbol, rather than an issue for what became political anthropology. In this approach, the primary concern has been to elucidate the relation between the king and the Brahmanas or the position of the king in the caste hierarchy. The major works in this context are: Louis Dumont’s ‘Pure-Impure’ ideology^[22] , A.M. Hocart’s ‘King at the pinnacle of society in terms of the gift giving-receiving system^[23] ’, R. Inden’s ‘Auspiciousness-Inauspiciousness’ ideology^[24] , spin around Hindu kings. Nicholas Dirk’s significant works have interacted between social and political authority and the ethno-history of the Indian kingdom, as he defined it as the ‘Hollow Crown’^[25] , all engaging much substance on kingship’s ritual or religious aspects.

From this stand point, some scholars like Brajadulal Chottopadhyaya and Herman Kulke urged in favour of the combined exercise of the king’s authority. Noboru Karashima and other Japanese scholars in their most recent monograph wanted to re-evaluate the political aspects of kingship in the perspective of the historical development of the state and society. While discussing the issue of kingship in Indian history, Japanese scholars deeply analyse the overall structure and changes of Indian kingship. They put forward some new approaches and analytical method into the study of Indian kingship. For example, G. Yamazaki^[26] examines the north Indian kingship as depicted in three different kinds of Sanskrit literature and clarified them into major and minor attributes of Indian kingship. Out of these attributes, some are commonly mentioned in all three literatures, which can be classed as secular/political matters of kingship. Others are religious in nature and differ in the matters of divinity purity. This clearly indicates about the religious association/ foundation of kingship behind its political philosophy, as well as its common, secular attributes, like the right to collect tax and protection of his subject. We can also distinguish between Hindu, Buddhist and secular forms of kingship, which he proves after studying four major inscriptions of Asoka, Kharavela, Rudradaman and Samudragupta, how the kingship shifts from heterodoxy to orthodoxy.

In similar attempts, the Tamil kingship and its nature and development emerged as another major issue in kingship study as it revealed from early Tamil classical texts and inscriptions. They examined the assumptions of George Hart and others that the concept of Tamil devotional god was formed on the basis of the concept of ancient Tamil kings. These contributions further reflect into the study of the changing concept of kingship in the Chola period. How the royal temple constructions were related with the Hero-Worship of the Sangam age and could it be the possible reason behind the early Chola temple construction, become another major issue of south Indian kingship.

The apotheosis of even the living king, king as the supreme priest or devotee of the God, the rise of the Saiva Siddhanta sect in the Chola court, all these issues they discussed to understand the change in the conception of the king in two ways, the ‘king-god’ and ‘King-Brahmana’ relation.

The ‘king-god’ or ‘king-Cult’ and ‘king-Brahmana’ relationship thus become a major issue, discussed by B. Stein, H. Kulke, A. Eschmann and others. H. Kulke recounts it with the changing ideology of legitimation and the consolidation of the freshly established kingship within the nuclear areas. Later with huge temple construction and large temple cities the kingship enjoyed greater supremacy over relatively larger areas and disparate human groups.

The symbiosis which developed between royal power and the perception of divinity as well as the nexus involving different social groups which operated around a major cult centre are well illustrated by an empirical work of A. Eschmann^[27] . While B. Stein relates it with the social groups in a locality (segment) and king, who integrated all the locations only ‘ritually’; whereas N. Karashima, after examining the inscriptions thoroughly, asserts that the relation between the king and the local people assumes different forms in accordance with changes of social formation.

Apart from the King-Brahmana relationship, scholars also attempted to throw lights on the relationship between the king and his intermediaries^[28] and the kinglocality relationship^[29] . He tried to address the problem whether it was an interrelated or a disconnected relation only integrated ritually. In his view, N. Karashima opines that the interaction for the purpose of the surplus production which was needed for both the local community and the state. King, in his forethought, was the organizer under the ‘system of entitlements’ which defines the division of labour and distribution of recourses in a locality.

The ‘Ranking system’ adopted by the kingship, could also be an approach to know how the kings maintain political superiority over other class participated in state administration as title-holders^[30] .

The system of punishment (danda-niti) is another important methodology used in kingship studies by Japanese scholar H. Kotani^[31] . He delineates the peculiarity of difference between the punishment exercised impersonally by the state and that exercised for ethical intent by the king. Further he draws attention to the existence of independent officials who performed rituals and purified himself to maintain the social order in the locality. Depending upon these factors, he criticizes the recent studies for not taking the cognizance of the value of the king’s role as the state-head, who imposed punishment impersonally, detached of ideology and also for their arguing for dissemination of kingship into the local community through the performance of rituals. According to his essay, the locality has its own ritualistic-apparatus for maintaining social order as revealed by the existence of Dharmadhikaris.

Herman Kulke specially draws our attention with his studies on legitimation processes prevailed in early-medieval India. In his view, the policies taken by the kingship was manifested in the acknowledgement of the dominant autochthonous deities as tutelary deities………and it was aimed at the consolidation within the nuclear areas. This in his term, the early religious policy mainly strengthens the ‘vertical’ (internal) legitimation of the political hierarchy. Later with huge temple construction congruent with the rise of regional kingdoms, the kingship needed a ‘horizontal’ (external) legitimization against his rivals^[32] . What he suggests, is clearly the religious aspects of Indian kingship, which in his view, later transplanted into the south-east Asian ‘Dev-Raja cult’.

The ancestor legends and family history associated with temples, which are another important issue in this regard, discussed by H. Kulke as a combination of mythical accounts of localized deity and the founder king of ‘Hoary-past’. Kulottunga-Chidambaram or the Gajapati-Kingship and Jagannatha Trinity at Puri, are in his view the centres of regional deity or ‘Ksetra’, which were used by the later successors of that locality through additional patronage and in eulogies, associating themselves with erstwhile imperial predecessors in the temple chronicles.

Some crucial construction emerged from the above historiographical reviews.

1. Studies in kingship have certainly become one of the major issues in the study of Indian state society.

2. Study of kingship, as urged by N. Karashima and others has several aspects, which are open for critical study in the larger historical perspective of social economic developments.

3. In earlier efforts, the study of early-medieval state and society has been discussed from several angles, such as:

• Land-grants and the questions of land-holdings;
• Relation between the land-holders and the king;
• King as ritual ruler;

v Relation between the king and the Cult.

Significance of the study

During early medieval period in India, these deltaic regions saw the emergence of powerful imperial but regional dynasties. It enjoyed extensive control over their respective regions. Detailed empirical study of kingship and polity (king state relation) of these regional powers in a comparative manner, is necessary in order to understand changes or development witnessed in the overall socio economic formation of these geo-poli regions. In a historical perspective and by making kingship itself as the vantage focal point the study endeavours to examine the concept, function and ideological foundation of state and state formation in regional early medieval India.

Hypothesis

State formation is a major field in world history, and cross-cultural comparative studies flourish among historical sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, economists, and historians. Their core query vary from why and how humanity moved away from egalitarian communities towards stratified ones; others, why centralised power has taken the particular forms it has in different parts of the world. Others still, how individual agency or institution and structural constraints/tension interact in the centralisation of power. Every dimension of the human experience is critically examined, from evolutionary theory and economics to cross-cultural encounters and social ideologies to state theories that are explaining the motor of history.

Recent geopolitical trends have gathered scholarly interest in imperialism and state formation. To explore the ways that developments in the comparative social structures across the regions can help us understand state formation, and how state formation can throw new light on some of the debatable questions in contemporary social theory.

The two deltaic regions in early medieval India, witnessed the appearance of powerful imperial rule, which established its firm control over their respective regions. By re-examining the regional sources in a comparative manner, we proposed to understand the changes or development witnessed in the overall socio economic formation of these geo-political regions. By taking the kingship as our vantage focal point, we intended to study the concept, function and ideological foundation of state and state formation in early medieval India as well.

The institution of kingship and king’s individual / personal efforts to exploit every possibility to strengthen his office and expansion of his kingdom never got adequate importance. What measures he took to increase revenue generation, its bilateral strategies and principles behind diplomatic relations with neighbours and in inland matters, what levels of authority it extended to protect and promote the image of kingship, and ultimately, how all these efforts gained its own form as ‘Early-Medieval kingship’ or polity with separable attributes.

In most of the past studies the general trend was to focus on some particular period with a specific analytical concept. However this issue of kingship in the larger historical perspective will contribute interesting explorations. On this basis, a comparative study of kingship and polity of major imperial regional powers, by examining contemporary source materials, could reveal newer empirical observations in the state studies. Because I want to put the emphasis, not upon a conclusion, but upon an enquiry about how such a question may be answered.

Methodology and Sources

The methodology adopted in the present study is partly descriptive and partly analytical and interpretative, a study that is historical in nature, and therefore arranged in chronological order. The study is also supplemented by a great deal of analysis. The analysis brings out the emergence of kingship and state in early medieval India and its comparative analysis of the Cholas and eastern Gangas.

The sources for the present study can be classified into primary and secondary sources. The literature along with epigraphic evidences constitutes the primary sources. The different volumes of South Indian Inscriptions, Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, Inscriptions of Orissa, Annual Report on South Indian Epigraphy, Archaeological Survey Report contain the most valuable information regarding the kingship and state. The study of law books like Dharmasastrs, epics, Puranas and its different regional versions like Madala Panji, Tirukkural, Manimekhalai, Silappatikaram, Muvarula, Kalingattupparani etc. have also come under the purview of this present study. This study intends to critically examine the regional inscriptions of the two aforesaid deltas to understand the genesis and evolution of ruling lineages in the larger sociopolitical and economic context.

Further study of secondary works on these two regional histories are simultaneously attempted to gather the overall socio-economic and political pattern of the early medieval period. In genealogies, prasastis and in court poetry, how the image of the royal figure being constructed will also come under this study. The royal efforts to validate their rule through donations of land to Brahmanas and to the temples in these two regions have come under the consideration of this search.

Plan of the study

The present work comprises altogether six chapters including introduction and conclusion. The introduction part of the study deals with the topic of research, its aims and objectives, the historical methodology adopted in this research work, review of literature, importance of the study and its scope and limitations and sources consulted for studying this topic and plan of research or preview of chapterization.

The second chapter deals with the perspective on state and polity in early and early medieval Indian history. The purpose of this chapter is to review the earlier studies on kingship and polity of pre-modern India by different scholars. Discussing some of the aspects of pre-modern polity of India, there are a large number of works already in the field of ‘evolution of Indian polity’ dealing with various ‘lineages’ or ‘empires’ that successively occupied the stage of Indian polity.

The third chapter examines the political scenario found in Mahanadi delta, particularly in early medieval period, distributed in several loci of geo-political bases. It includes not only the river valleys, but the hilly tracts and coastal plains are also emerging as resourceful centres of power. The changing political configurations of this age with the emergence and proliferation of several kingdoms in all over Orissa is evident by the presence of abundance of land grants. The geographical contours and foci of political bases of ruling lineages were being constantly redefined by the military campaigns and reversals. The process of vertical state formation process is initiated and consolidated in two successive stages of military campaigns. In the first attempt, the Nandas and the Mauryans were responsible for the early historical period. By this time the coastal and central plain ware subjugated. But the Guptas took the route of western hilly tract to invade up to the Deep South, which initiated the process of political activity in the western sub regions of Orissa.

The fourth chapter analyses the political scenario found in Kaveri delta, particularly in early medieval period. From the first well lighted segment of the Tamil history centre around the Kaveri delta region reflected in the earliest literature of Sangam (the first three or four centuries A.D.) to the end of thirteen century A.D. From that point onwards, the political history of pre-modern Deep South reveals certain recurrent patterns, which pervade all throughout the historical era. One such feature is the constant rivalry between the ‘Two Kingdoms” or ‘Three Kingdoms” over the control of the basin basically for the economic desire to control the economically more advanced Kaveri basin.

The fifth chapter deals with mainly the issues related to kingship and polity of the two imperial dynasties of the Cholas and the Eastern Gangas in a comparative manner.

The sixth chapter will be the concluding part of the research work which delineates the summery of the work done. The overall findings of the researcher, suggestions, and further scope of advance research on this topic are examined in this particular part.

At the end a list of select bibliography and some Maps and Genealogical list of the two imperial dynasties will follow.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

R.S. Sharma, Urban Decay in India, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 1987, pp. 177-81. He argues the decline of urban civilisation and the ruralisation of Indian economy, though he did not suggest any direct correlation between the decline of early historical civilization and the ‘rise of new states and kingdoms.’

[2]:

Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, The Making of Early Medieval India, OUP, New Delhi, 2012(1994), Introduction, pp. 34-35

[3]:

Herman Kulke, (ed.), The State in India, OUP, New Delhi, 2003(1995)

[4]:

‘The unfortunate thesis that Marx has once propounded’, Irfan Habib, “Problems of Marxist Historical Analysis”, in Science and Human Progress, Essays in Honour of The Late Professor D.D. Kosambi, Bombay, 1974, p.38

[5]:

Romila Thapar, From Lineage to State: Social Formations in the Mid-First Millenium B.C. in the Ganga Valley, OUP, New Delhi, 1984.

[6]:

Ram Saran Sharma, Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1959.; Indian Feudalism, c.300-1200 A.D. Calcutta, University of Calcutta, 1965

[7]:

Harbans Mukhiya, “Was there Feudalism in Indian History”, IHC, Presidential Address, 40^th Session, 1979.

[8]:

Dinesh Chandra Sircar, “Landlordism Confused with Feudalism”, in ders. (Hrsg.), Land System and Feudalism, Calcutta, 1966.

[9]:

Asoke Rudra, “Against Feudalism”, Economic and Political Weekly, 16, 1981, pp. 2133-46.

[10]:

Kathleen Gough, “Modes of Production in South India”, Economic and Political Weekly, Feb. 1980, pp. 337-64.

[11]:

Brajadulal Chottopadhyaya, “Political Processes and the Structure of Polity in Early Medieval India”, IHC, 44^th Session, 1983

[12]:

Herman Kulke, Kings and Cults: State Formation &Legitimation in India and South-East Asia. Delhi, Monohar, 2001(1993)

[13]:

Burton Stein, “The Segmentary State in South Indian History”, in R.G. Fox; (ed.) Realm and Religion in Traditional India, New Delhi, 1977, pp. 3-51 & Peasant State and Society, in Medieval South India, Delhi, OUP, 1980

[14]:

Noboru Karashima, South Indian History and Society, Studies from Inscriptions AD 850-1800, Delhi, OUP, 1984; Kingship in Indian History, (ed.), Monohar, 1999

[15]:

R. Champakalakshmi, “Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India: A Review Article”, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 18, 1981, pp. 34-105

[16]:

R.S. Sharma, “The Segmentary State and the Indian Experience”, Indian Historical Review, 16, 1993, pp.81-110

[17]:

Brajadulal Chottopadhyaya, “Political Processes and the Structure of Polity in Early Medieval India”, IHC, Burdwan, 1983

[18]:

N. Karashima, South Indian History and Society, Studies from Inscriptions AD 850-1800, Delhi, OUP, 1984

[19]:

Y. Subbarayalu, “The Cola State”, in Studies in History,4, 1982, pp. 269-306; D.N. Jha, (ed.), Feudal Social Formation in Early India, Delhi, 1987

[20]:

N.Karashima, (ed.), The Kingship in Indian History, Monohar, New Delhi, 1999, p.8

[21]:

Specially Burton Stein

[22]:

Several anthropological studies of Indian castes and religions contribute to our subject at this point. For, as L. Dumont remarked, ‘what can India teach us chiefly, if not precisely the meaning of pure and impure?’ in Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications, Chicago University Press, London, 1980 [1966]: xxxix.

[23]:

A.M. Hocart, Kingship, OUP, London, 1927

[24]:

As Ronald Inden notes, in ‘Indic thought’, ‘nothing is inherently auspicious or inauspicious; auspicious and inauspicious signs are contextually variable–what may be considered to be auspicious in one context can be inauspicious in another.’ Kings and Omens, in Purity and Auspiciousness in Indian Society, (ed.) by John Braisted Carman, Frédérique A. Marglin, Leiden, 1985, p.30

[25]:

Nicholas B. Dirks, The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1987

[26]:

Gen’ichi Yamazaki, “Kingship in Ancient India as Described in Literary Sources and Inscriptions”; in N. Karashima (ed.), Kingship in Indian History, Monohar, Delhi, 1999, pp.1-17

[27]:

A. Eschmann, H. Kulke and G.C. Tripathi;(eds.) The Cult of Jagannatha and the Regional Tradition of Orissa, Delhi, Manohar, 1978

[28]:

N. Karasimha, Y. Subbarayalu, J. Heitzmann, B. Stein and others.

[29]:

Akio Tanabe, “Kingship, Community and Commerce in Late Pre-Colonial Khurda”, in N. Karashima, (ed.), Kingship in Indian History, 1999, pp. 195-236

[30]:

Masahiko Mita, “Polity and Kingship in Early Medieval Rajasthan”, in N. Karashima (ed.), Kingship in Indian History, 1999, pp.89-118

[31]:

Hiroyuki Kotani, “Kingship, State and Local Society in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Century Deccan with Special Reference to Ritual Functions”, in N. Karashima, (ed.), Kingship in Indian History, 1999, pp. 237-271

[32]:

H. Kulke, Kings and Cults: State Formation and Legitimation in India, op.cit. p. 93-94