The Confusing Indian Feudalism

Why did Maratha rulers never attain the title of India’s emperor when they ruled most of the subcontinent?

What is the difference between a vassal and a tributary state?

Why is Indian feudalism so confusing?

Before we check out the pre-colonial situation in India, let us first clear some confusing jargons. Feudal lord, Feudatory, Vassal, subordinate ruler, puppet ruler, tributary ruler etc. etc. etc. All these terms are usually used interchangeably. But actually, there are two different types of states. Vassal state and Tributary State.

Vassals were the king’s loyalists who were granted lands to govern and collect taxes on his behalf, and in return, they provided military services to the king in times of wars. Each vassal had his own loyal men who worked and provided military services to him in return for lands that he granted to them. Whenever the king or emperor became weak, these vassals declared independence and became kings of their lands. In modern terms, they can be compared with governors.

The Tributary States were basically independent kingdoms that came under the political and military influence of a larger and more powerful state. Rulers of these states had their own monarchs, loyal supporters and independent status based on a dynasty that predated foreign influence. In such cases, the larger state became the Suzerain, and instead of taxes, received a tribute from the tributary states. In modern terms, it can be compared to those independent nations which are protectorates of a larger country. Over the generation, if the suzerain state became more powerful, the tributary state would slowly become its vassal.

THE INDIAN FEUDALISM

Mughal emperors were sovereign of their lands and suzerain of their tributaries like the Rajput kingdoms and others. The Maratha kingdom began as an independent state, but accepted Mughal suzerainty for release of Chhatrapati Shahu’s family members and attained rights to collect taxes in Deccan on behalf of the Mughals in return for military services. Chhatrapati was the emperor who appointed the Prime Minister or Peshwa. In time the Peshwa became the de-facto ruler of the empire while the Chhatrapati’s position became titular. Peshwa appointed Sar-subhedars or Governors to govern the lands captured from the fading Mughal Empire. Therefore, Sar-subhedars were subordinate to Peshwa, who was subordinate to Chhatrapati, who in turn was subordinate to the Mughal Emperor.

But later Mughals were weak and titular. They were depended on these Sar-subhedars for protection and hence became puppets of the Maratha Empire. So, while you see the Maratha Empire ruling most of India, the namesake emperor was still the Mughal monarch, and coins were minted in his name. The actual rule was carried out by the Maratha empire, in the name of Peshwa but fulfilled by Sar-subhedars.

Sar-subhedars collected taxes from Mughal subjects on behalf of the Peshwa, on behalf of the Chhatrapati, on behalf of the Mughal emperor for protecting them as well as the Mughal emperor. So, Sar-subhedars were vassals of the tributaries but yet acted as the suzerain. While, the Mughals were suzerain, but yet lived like a tributary state.

Therefore, none of the Maratha rulers got the title of Emperor of India.

BRITISH RULE IN INDIA

Mughals were de-jure suzerain, but Maratha chiefs were de-facto suzerain. Later, this de-facto suzerainty was lost by the Marathas to the British East India Company, but Mughals remained as the de-jure emperors of India. 

After the revolt of 1857, when the Mughal dynasty was abolished and Queen Victoria became the Empress of India, both de-facto, as well as de-jure suzerainty, went to the British Raj. The subsidiary alliance which the princely states had signed with the East India Company made them protectorates of the British. But during the British Raj, they became more like vassals. Instead of receiving military support, these princely states provided the Raj with military support. Hell, even fought for them in the world wars.

Therefore, changing times changed the status of every kingdom in India, starting from kingdoms, to protectorates to vassals. Eventually, every state lost their official status after their merger with the Republic of India.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1.     Majumdar, R.C., Dighe, V.G. (2001). The History and Culture of the Indian People: Volume 8: The Maratha Supremacy. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay.