COURSE NAME: M21422 Economic History of Early India
M. A. SEMESTER 1
TUTORIAL 1
TUTORIAL TOPIC: Analyse the socio-economic changes in Northern
India in the period of the Buddha.
SUBMITTED BY: Pranav Kushwaha
[DISCLAIMER: The following tutorial is being shared so students of CHS, JNU can get some idea regarding how a tutorial is to be written. This tutorial is by no means of high quality, and you might find some factual, spelling, and grammatical errors. Please refer to the BIBLIOGRAPHY section and the ENDNOTES for verifying the contents of the tutorial and for further study.
In the original file that I submitted, (i) the numbers in the square brackets were used to denote footnotes and were written in superscripts, and (ii) there was no dedicated section titled 'Endnotes', as each page contained footnotes. Endnotes are acceptable, but I'd advise you to use footnotes instead. Better yet, confirm from your professor what is required.]
There is considerable debate regarding the exact years during which the Buddha lived, but broadly speaking, he is supposed to have lived during the sixth-fifth century BCE.* Buddhist Pālī texts are the main textual sources for the study of socio-economic changes occurring during the time of the Buddha. These include the Vinaya Piṭaka; the Dīgha Nikāya, Majjhima Nikāya, Saṁyutta Nikāya and the Aṅguttara Nikāya of the Sutta Piṭaka; and the Sutta Nipāta. Brahmanical and Jain sources as well as a careful study of the Jātakas and the commentaries on the Pāli canon also prove useful.[1] The archaeological sources include potteries belonging to the North Black Polished Ware style. These archaeological artefacts are divided into two chronological categories or phases: (i) belonging to 600-300 BCE, and (ii) 300-100 BCE. Other archaeological artefacts include terracotta artefacts, coins, iron tools, structures made up of burnt bricks, etc. [2] Inscriptions belonging to the period 200 BCE to 200 AD – a period much later than the age of the Buddha – provide some corroboration to the conclusions derived from the Pālī texts.[3]
The age of the Buddha saw a rise in the expansion
of agriculture and economic growth. This can be attributed to the use of iron
technology, which allowed for a more efficient method of clearing the land of
trees. Although fire could have been used for clearing vast swathes of land, one
would still need suitable tools for the removal of burnt stumps.[4] Regardless of the use of fire
for this purpose, iron implements like ploughshares were used for tilling the
soil before seeds could be sown; the use of sickle, hoe, and chopper has also
been linked to agricultural expansion.[5] Although wooden ploughs might
have been used, the hard clayey soil found in the Middle Gangetic Plain would
have limited the use of wooden ploughs to the smaller regions of eastern UP and
Bihar which are characterised by soft and sandy soil.[6] The cultivation of sugarcane
– a common crop of the period as mentioned in the Pālī texts – would have required
the use of iron ploughshares.[7]
Apart from the technological aspect of the
aforementioned agricultural expansion, we must also take into account the
social aspect that facilitated this process. By the time of the Buddha, the
concept of individual landholdings had taken root in society, at least in the monarchical
kingdoms.[8] (On the other hand, in the Gaṇa Saṅghas – for example, the Licchavis, the ruling elite controlled all modes of
agricultural production. As a result, the monarchical kingdoms experienced a
much greater agricultural expansion than the ones experienced by the so-called
republics.) The ownership over a piece of land was determined by the concept of
bhūmi chidra nyāya, i.e., the person who cleared the land of forests and
brought it under cultivation in the first place would claim sole ownership over
it. This method of land ownership is also attested in the Milind Pañha.[9]
A cultivator belonging to the uppermost strata of farmers – known as a gahapatis
(they cultivated vast swathes of land with their family members and used the
labour of dāsas) – could command hundreds of ploughs. One such gahapati, a
Brahmin by the name of Kasībhāradvāja** from the village of Eknālā is said to have used 500 ploughs. Although this
might be an exaggerated figure, what is clear is that large landholdings also
existed during the period of the Buddha.[10]
During the period of the Buddha, Vaiśālī was the
capital of the Vajji confederacy. Hence, it was not only an urban political
centre, but it was also extremely “prosperous” and “abundant with food and
people”. Perhaps the Buddhist Saṅgha was modelled on the Vajjian gaṇa-saṅgha in the first place,
and this was just one of the many reasons behind the growing social importance of
the city. However, because land was held by the ruling elite, and actual
cultivation was carried out by dāsakammakāra (slaves and labourers), we find
only one instance of a gahapati, namely Gahapati Ugga of Hatthigāma. So,
although Vaiśālī was a capital city, had access to arable lands, and was well
connected in terms of trade; it was only a nagara, with a lower level of urbanization.
This is in contrast to the mahānagaras (metropolises) of the Buddhist period – Campa,
Rājagṛha, Kāśī, Kauśāmbī, Sāketa, and Śrāvastī – that were all located in non-gaṇasaṅgha states.[11]
Buddhist texts provide several instances which show
the growing importance of agriculture. Buddha himself seems to have given more
importance to agriculture over other means of subsistence like pastoralism. Several
rules laid down in the Vinaya Piṭaka are associated with crops. Moreover, in
the Mahāvagga, we find an instance where Buddha ordered his disciples not to travel
during the rainy season in order to protect the crops from being trampled over.
This decision was taken when the people started complaining that their crops
were being damaged due to the traffic caused by the travelling Buddhist monks. Therefore,
the disciples were asked to stay at one place during the rainy season – vassā vāsa
or varśa vāsa or
rain retreat – which led to
the development of the Buddhist monastic order. Paddy is the crop associated
with the farmers in this instance, as the perennial River Ganga made rice cultivation the
most suitable option.[12]
The expansion of agriculture also resulted in the
preservation of cattle. Cattle sacrifices for meat production had been a norm in
both Vedic and non-Vedic contexts. At first, cattle were slaughtered as needed.
However, with the rules laid down in religious texts, cattle sacrifice became a
requirement to conduct several religious ceremonies. This resulted in the destruction
of cattle wealth on a large scale. For example, the aśvamedha yajna required the
sacrifice of “as many as 600 animals of various types” and 21 sterile cows were
killed at the end of the ceremony. Similarly, the cow was also sacrificed in
the “fire laying” ceremony or agnyādheya, a step that was performed at
the beginning of all public rituals. The Atharva Veda and the Kauśika Sūtra
mention several terms which are associated with the sacrifice of cattle.[13]
However, with the rise of agriculture and the use
of ploughshares, the slaughter of cattle declined and the animals were given to
the Brahmins. This was done to provide animals that could be used to operate
the ploughshare to prepare the soil for agricultural purposes. Perhaps, only sterile cows had
been sacrificed in the beginning. Later on, even these animals were no longer
slaughtered, but were instead given to the Brahmins to meet the rising demands
of agricultural expansion.[14]
This change in the importance of cattle and their preservation is also
reflected in the Buddhist texts. The Suttanipāta equates agriculture with
cow-keeping and maintains that a person who sustains himself on cattle rearing
(instead of killing cattle for the production of meat) should be treated as a
cultivator. Even the Buddha used analogies to lay down the responsibilities and
code of conduct for a monk.[15]
The Buddha even went on to assert that animal
sacrifices, like the ones performed during the aśvamedha, puruṣmedha, and vājpeya,
etc., were meritless. The Buddha argued that charity was the greatest yajña,
and essentially favoured a non-violent yajna that did not involve any animal
sacrifices. Thus, not only did the Buddha oppose the Vedic ceremonies that
involved animal sacrifices, but he also argued for the protection of all cattle
in the Brāhmaṇadhammika Sutta of the Sutta Nipāta. This was in line with the Buddhist teaching of non-violence: a virtue that
needed to be instilled in both monks and nuns (bhikkhus and bhikkunis) as well
as in the common people or lay-devotees (upāsaka and upāsikās). This must have
been a revolutionary stance in an age when cattle sacrifice was not only
carried out for the production of meat but was also prescribed by religion.[16]
Since the growth of agriculture meant an
unprecedented level of surplus, a number of socio-economic changes also took
place. These changes occurred as part of what has been termed the second
urbanization.[17] The use of punch-marked
coins was a novel approach – since actual coins before the period of the Buddha
are not found – and it contributed to the flourishing of trade during this
period.[18] Therefore, the barter system
of exchange was replaced by a system of monetary exchange. Moreover, the
organization of trade can be traced to this period as well, evident in the use
of terms such as saṅgha, gaṇa, seṇi and pūga. The
development of trade routes – called vaṇippaṭhas – was accompanied by the use
of trade caravans, another novel component of the resurgence of urbanization.[19] Moreover, gāma, nigama, nagara, and mahānagara, i.e., settlements of
all sizes benefitted and experienced considerable growth from the development
of trade.[20]
During this era of the second urbanization,
artisans, and traders known as seṭṭhis formed
the backbone of the newly emerging cities. These were the people who were
primarily engaged in trade and industry. This period also saw the widespread
use of Northern Black Ware Pottery***,
associated with rituals that were performed by people of higher socio-economic
classes. The use of iron tools also contributed to the development of trade as
these tools allowed for improved production capabilities as well as better
transportation of the goods thus produced.[21]
Although trade was flourishing due to the
aforementioned factors, the Brāhmaṇical order was neither in favour of
trade, nor did it support the idea of usury (lending money on interest).
Brahmins were allowed to trade only in a very limited manner, and trade was
associated with the Vaiśyas who occupied the third
place – hence below the Brahmins and the Kṣatriyas – in the Varṇa system.[22]
On the other hand, Buddhism favoured both these practices. In fact, the
first lay disciples that converted to Buddhism were traders (vaṇija), merchants
(seṭṭhis) and gahapatis. They also made huge donations to the Saṅgha. These people must have been
frustrated by the rules and regulations of the Brāhmaṇical order and would have seen Buddhism as a much
better socio-economic alternative. The Buddha barred the entry of a person –
who was in debt – into the Saṅgha. In this way, he encouraged the people to pay
off their debts – which included the amount that came as a result of the interest
that was charged on the loan amount – if they wanted to join the Saṅgha,
thereby promoting the system of money lending and usury. In doing so, the
Buddha opposed another aspect of the Brāhmaṇical order.[23]
In the beginning, women were not allowed to join
the Saṅgha. It was due to the efforts of Ānanda and the compromises made by Mahāpajāpatī
Gotamī that resulted in the admission of women into the Saṅgha in the first
place.[24] This discrimination towards
women continued even when women were inducted into the Saṅgha. However, despite
such conditions, women joined the Saṅgha in large numbers because the Buddhist
Order provided a relatively greater degree of freedom than the existing social
order. The teachings of the Buddha about dukkha and the inevitability of
death brought solace to the women who had to suffer the loss of their family
members. This is depicted in the story of Kisā Gotamī, a woman who came to the
Buddha in the hope that he would revive her son. As the story goes, the Buddha
asked her to collect mustard seeds from a household that had not experienced
the death of its members. Kisā soon realized that such a household doesn’t
exist, accepted the inevitable nature of death, and was accepted into the Saṅgha
by the Buddha.[25]
Once women were allowed to enter the Saṅgha, the
Buddhist Order didn’t differentiate between the social status or position of
the woman. Āmrapālī, also known as Ambapālī, was the royal courtesan (nagarvadhū)
of Vaiśālī, who not only gifted the Ambavana to the Order but also joined the Saṅgha.[26] However, a woman like Visākha
Migāramātā – who acted as the matriarch of her family, raised her children and
grandchildren, and supported the Saṅgha from the outside – was considered to be
of greater importance than Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī – a woman inside the Saṅgha.[27]
The Buddha also laid down the functions of both the
upāsakas and the upāsikās. Both
were supposed to follow the principles of non-violence. He directed the upāsikās to be respectful towards parents and even the Brahmins. He also directed
them to acquire proficiency in weaving and spinning and other crafts. The
reasoning behind this direction was that the Buddha wanted the women to be able
to support themselves and their children in case the male head of the family
(or the husband) dies. Although the expectations from monks were different from
the lay followers, the Buddha tried to restore some degree of social order in
the face of the changes taking place during his time, changes that he himself
had initiated due to his revolutionary teachings.[28]
Thus, the period of the Buddha was characterised by several significant socio-economic changes. The use of iron technology led to the expansion of agriculture, which in turn led to an expansion in trade. As a result of agricultural expansion, the importance of cattle increased, and their slaughter was discouraged, especially by the Buddha and his lessons of non-violence. The expansion of agriculture and trade also facilitated the growth of two social classes – the gahapatis and the seṭṭhis. Both these classes came under the fold of Buddhism, since they found Buddhism to be far more liberal and appreciative of their profession as compared to the traditional Varṇa system. The donations made by these classes helped in the preservation of the Buddhist faith. The Buddha eventually agreed to the inclusion of women from all walks of life into the Saṅgha, thereby offering them access to a different social order. Thus, the Buddha was not only born into a world that was already changing, but he also brought about several social changes of his own. Moreover, the Buddha supported the changes that had already been occurring around him. In doing so, he found followers from all across the socio-economic order, and revolutionized the world he lived in.
* 563 BCE – 483 BCE is often cited as the years during which the Buddha lived.
[1] Uma Chakravarti, The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1996, pp. 4-5.
[2] R. S. Sharma, Material Culture and Social Formations in Ancient India, New Delhi: Macmillan India Limited, 1983, p. 91.
[3] Chakravarti, The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, p. 5.
[4] Sharma, Material Culture and Social Formations, p. 92.
[5] Chakravarti, The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, pp. 16-18.
[6] Sharma, Material Culture and Social Formations, p. 92.
[7] Ibid., p. 93.
[8] Chakravarti, The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, p. 23.
[9] Ibid., pp. 23-24.
** Or Kāsīputta Bhāradwāja. See, B. N. Prasad, ‘Urbanization at Early Historic Vaiśālī, c. 600 BCE - 400 CE’, D. N. Jha (ed.), The Complex Heritage of Early India: Essays in Memory of R. S. Sharma, New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2014, pp. 221.
[10] Chakravarti, The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, p. 26.
[11] B. N. Prasad, ‘Urbanization at Early Historic Vaiśālī, c. 600 BCE - 400 CE’, D. N. Jha (ed.), The Complex Heritage of Early India: Essays in Memory of R. S. Sharma, New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2014, pp. 219-222.
[12] Ibid., pp. 18-19.
[13] Sharma, Material Culture and Social Formations, pp. 118-119.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., p. 120.
[16] Ibid., pp. 121-122.
[17] Chakravarti, The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, p. 20.
[18] Sharma, Material Culture and Social Formations, pp. 123.
[19] Chakravarti, The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, p. 20-21.
[20] Ibid., p. 23.
*** The NBWP is dateable between 500 BCE – 300 BCE. See, Chakravarti, The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, p. 17.
[21] Sharma, Material Culture and Social Formations, p. 123.
[22] Ibid., pp. 123-124.
[23] Ibid., pp. 124-125.
[24] Chakravarti, The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, pp. 31-32.
[25] Ibid., p. 34.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Sharma, Material Culture and Social Formations, pp. 130-131.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chakravarti, U. The Social
Dimensions of Early Buddhism. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers
Pvt. Ltd., 1996.
Sharma, R. S. Material Culture and Social Formations in Ancient India. New Delhi: Macmillan India Limited, 1983.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for reading today's entry. Feel free to leave a comment. I'd love to read your feedback!