features of Indian feudalism during the early mediaeval period
Answers
Answer:
Indian feudalism refers to the feudal society that made up India's social structure until The Mughal Dynasty in the 1500s. The Guptas and the Kushans played a major role in the introduction and practice of feudalism in India, and are examples of the decline of an empire caused by feudalism.

Mehtab Chand (1820-79), the zamindar of the Burdwan feudal estate in Bengal
Contents
TerminologyEdit
Use of the term feudalism to describe India applies a concept of medieval European origin, according to which the landed nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection. Feudalism is most likely introduced to India when the Kushan Dynasty from Central Asia invaded India and introduced new policies of their own. The term Indian feudalism is used to describe taluqdar, zamindar, jagirdar, ghatwals, mulraiyats, sardar, mankari, deshmukh, chaudhary and samanta. Most of these systems were abolished after the independence of India and the rest of the subcontinent. D. D. Kosambi and R. S. Sharma, together with Daniel Thorner, brought peasants into the study of Indian history for the first time.[1]
StructureEdit
Starting from the Gupta period the term samanta (neighbour) came to be applied to those granted land or to subjugated feudatory rulers. Weak enforcement of power over the conquered regions led to the resumption of independence and some high administrative positions became hereditary.[2] There is debate among historians whether the feudatory system in India qualifies as true feudalism, as apparently there was a lack of an economic contract between king, vassal and serf. Other historians however argue that the similarities are significant enough to describe it as feudalism. The essential characteristic was the decentralization of power. Samantas were officials granted lands instead of a salary and proceeded to seize ownership of the area while continuing to refer to themselves as vassals of their ruler. They were required to pay a small fraction of revenue and provide troops for the overlord. These lords often aped their royal suzerains, for instance, by constructing miniature royal palaces.[3] This encouraged the fragmentation of authority and growing parochialism which has been suggested as a cause for the weak resistance against Muslim conquest.[4]