ASIATIC MODE OF PRODUCTION 33 A D to the Sultanate as one of feudalism.29 Generally, in the pre-Gupta period, as outlined in the Arthasastrcly the rulers collected taxes and the priests gifts. The picture resembled that of AMP. The king maintained the administrators and warriors apart from personal retinue with the help of taxes and income from state property. Land donated to the Brahmins and Buddhist monasteries was not large. But, land grants assumed larger proportions since the 4th and 5th centuries. Donated villages virtually became private estates. Apart from usufruct rights, the donees could collect all kinds of taxes, income, etc, though they were never specified. The landlords enjoyed power of eviction or to force persons to work. Seigniorial rigats to punish people guilty of 10 offences were also conferred on them. With all these powers, the landlord was in a position to interfere with the process of production as well as the personal freedom of the peasants, The Brahmin used untouchables, slaves as well as hired labour to cultivate donated land. The monasteries used share-cropping and tenancy. Feudalism was more rampant in rice-producing areas of eastern, central and southern India. Grants were also of different sizes. Multiple hierarchical rights were also evident in places. With the establishment of the Sultanate, the pattern of property ownership began to change. Apart from Islamic ideas which regarded the ruler as the lord of the land, the initial tendency of Muslim rulers was to centralise the control over land and its revenue. Some of the local rulers and chieftains were eliminated while some others were converted into Zamindars. Many monasteries were ruined and lost their property. But, in course of time, especially under the later Mughals, hereditary Zamindars emerged, some of them with proprietory rights to sell land, evict peasants and force them to work. According to Irfan Habib, during the Mughal period, as the fountain head of all authority, the king enjoyed the right to revenue. Often he created transferable fiefs orjagirdars through tax assignments. But when the empire collapsed, Zamindars (tax collectors) and Jagirdars enlarged their authority over the peasants and became hereditary feudal owners. The caste factor also accounted for the differentiation among the peasantry. There was class contradiction between the peasantry and the intermediary classes on the one hand, and the rent-receiving ruling class, on the other. There were many agrarian revolts which led to the breakdown of the Mughal Empire during the 17th century.30 Thus feudalism seems to have pervaded the major part of pre-colonial Indian history. A reasonable hypothesis may be that the Mauryan period carries features of AMP. But over the rest of Indian history, barring a few exceptions, feudalism may be regarded as the dominant mode of production amongst the many which have existed side by side. D D Kosambi has distinguished between "feudalism from above" and "feudalism from below".31 R S Sharma has confirmed the prevalence of feudalism since the Gupta period upto the Sultanate period. Irfan