ANALYSIS OF INDIAN SOCIETY 5 of successive economic formations. In this epoch of "Indian feudalism", Habib, however, found it difficult to accept the assertion of the existence of serfdom. From the evidence, Habib argued, it would appear that a variety of forms of subordination existed, and the unifying one was of the "claims of different superiors" on "the peasants at large". The limitations of evidence made it difficult to define the motive force for change in this social formation, although an influx of money and revival of commerce in the mid-12th century had been put forward as an explanation. It would be better, Habib argued, to take note of the fact that this transformation was wrought not by whatever internal factors might have been at work, but by the external factor of conquest. It would not be correct to underestimate the role of external forces in providing the motive force for change. Prof RS Sharma's (Delhi University) paper entitled "How Feudal was Indian Feudalism", was presented in his absence by Dr Suvira Jaiswal (JNU). Taking as his point of departure the non-universality of the phenomenon of feudalism, Sharma, while conceding that there could be no "neat, cut and dried" dentition of feudalism, argued nevertheless that the "universals of feudalism" could well be effectively captured in conceptualising it as a predominantly agrarian economy comprising, in the main, a class of landlords and a class of servile peasantry. The main thrust of his argument appeared to be to posit, on tlie one hand, the lack of "effective" control exercised by the peasantry over the means of production, principally land, and hence the non-free nature of the peasantry at the primary level, reinforced by other forms of servility at the secondary level. On the other hand, he dwelt on the clearly identifiable widespread rights of surplus appropriation enjoyed by a well defined class of politico-religious nobility, which clearly approximated to the feudatory privileges of the European manor. Sharma traced the genesis of Indian feudalism, in the 4th and 5th centuries, to the social crisis which afflicted tlie pre-existing social order. The latter was not a slave society although slaves were used in production, the surplus being directly appropriated by the state, in the form of tax. The crisis of this society, which Sharma saw reflected in the Puranic description of kaliyuga and the rise of the servile classes, was politically resolved, according to him, by "administrative" and "juridical measures": a process of decentralisation occurred whereby a class of landlords was created through the issue of grants and entrusted with the appropriation of surplus from the peasantry, That the base for commodity circulation was narrowed -the decline of trade and urbanism and the scarcity of specie in tlie period upto the 10th century — was taken as further substantiation of the argument. These grants began as the giving of usufructuary rights to the beneficiaries, but soon acquired a comprehensive character. Sharma makes use of tlie occurrence of the adjective serva to the right to collect