Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  53

  The Feudal System

  June 4, 1932

  In our last letter we had a glimpse of the beginnings of France and Germany and Russia and England, as we know them today. But do not imagine that people in those days thought of these countries in the same way as we do now. We think of different nations, of Englishmen and Frenchmen and Germans, and each one of these thinks of his country as his motherland or fatherland or patrie. This is the feeling of nationality which is so obvious in the world today. Our struggle for freedom in India is our “national” struggle. But this idea of nationality did not exist in those days. There was some idea of Christendom, of belonging to a group or society of Christians as against the heathen or Muslims. In the same way the Muslims had the idea of belonging to the world of Islam as against all others who were unbelievers.

  But these ideas of Christendom and Islam were vague notions which did not touch the daily life of the people. Only on special occasions were they worked up to fill the people with religious zeal to fight for Christianity or Islam, as the case might be. Instead of nationality there was a peculiar relation between man and man. This was the feudal relation arising out of what is known as the Feudal System. After the downfall of Rome the old order in the West had collapsed. There was disorder and anarchy and violence and force everywhere. The strong seized what they could and held on to it as long as a stronger person did not come to throw them out. Strong castles were built and the lords of these castles went out with raiding-parties and harried the countryside, and sometimes fought others like themselves. The poor peasants and workers on the land of course suffered the most. Out of this disorder grew up the feudal system.

  The peasants were not organized, and could not defend themselves against these robber-barons. There was no central government strong enough to protect them. So they made the best of a bad job and came to terms with the lord of the castle who plundered them. They agreed to give him part of what they produced in their fields and also to serve him in some ways, provided that he would not plunder and harass them and would protect them from others of his kind. The lord of the small castle in the same way came to terms with the lord of the bigger castle. But the little lord could not give the big lord the produce of the field, as he was not a peasant or a producer. So he promised to give him military service—that is, to fight for him whenever need arose. In return the big one was to protect the little one, and the latter was the vassal of the lord. And so, step by step, they went up to yet bigger lords and nobles, till at last they arrived at the king at the top of this feudal structure. But they did not stop even there. To them even heaven had its own bit of the feudal system with its Trinity, presided over by God!

  This was the system that grew up gradually out of the disorder that prevailed in Europe. You must remember that there was practically no central government at the time; there were no policemen or the like. The owner of a piece of land was the governor and lord of it as well as of all the people who lived upon it. He was a kind of little king and was supposed to protect them in return for their service and part of the produce of their fields. He was the liege-lord of these people, who were called villeins or serfs. In theory, he held his land from his superior lord, whose vassal he was and to whom he gave military service.

  Even the officials of the Church were parts of the feudal system. They were both priests and feudal lords. Thus, in Germany nearly half the land and wealth was in the hands of the bishops and abbots. The Pope was himself a feudal lord.

  This whole system, you will notice, was one of gradations and classes. There was no question of equality. At the bottom were the villeins or serfs, and they had to carry the whole weight of the social structure— the little lords and the big lords, and the bigger lords and the king. And the whole cost of the Church—of the bishops and abbots and cardinals and ordinary priests—fell on them also. The lords, little or big, did not do any work which might produce food or any other kind of wealth. This was considered beneath them. Fighting was their chief occupation, and when not engaged in this, they hunted or indulged in mock-fights and tournaments. They were a rough and illiterate lot who did not know many ways of amusing themselves besides fighting and eating and drinking. Thus the whole burden of producing the food and the other necessaries of life fell on the peasants and the artisans. At the top of the whole system was the king, who was supposed to be a kind of vassal of God.

  This was the idea behind this feudal system. In theory the lords were bound to protect their vassals and serfs, but in practice they were a law unto themselves. Their superiors or the king seldom checked them, and the peasantry were too weak to resist their demands. Being far the stronger, they took from their serfs the utmost they could and left them barely enough to carry on a miserable existence. That has been the way of owners of land always and in every country. The ownership of land has given nobility. The robber knight who seized land and built a castle became a noble lord respected by everybody. This ownership has also given power, and the owner has used this power to take away as much from the peasant and the producer or the worker as he could. Even the laws have helped the owners of land, for the laws have been made by them and their friends. And this is the reason why many people think that land should not belong to individuals, but to the community. If it belongs to the State or community, that means that it belongs to all who live there, and no one can then exploit others on it, or get an unfair advantage.

  But these ideas were yet to come. During the time of which we are speaking people did not think along these lines. The masses of the people were miserable, but they saw no way out of their difficulties. They put up with them, therefore, and carried on their life of hopeless labour. The habit of obedience had been dinned into them, and once this is done, people will put up with almost anything. So we find a society growing up consisting of the feudal lords and their retainers on the one side and the very poor on the other. Round the stone castle of the lord would cluster the mud or wooden huts of the serfs. There were two worlds, far removed from each other—the world of the lord, and the world of the serf; and the lord probably considered the serf as only some degrees removed from the cattle he tended.

  Sometimes the smaller priests tried to protect the serfs from their lords. But as a rule the priests and clergy sided with the lords, and as a matter of fact the bishops and abbots were themselves feudal lords.

  In India we have not had this kind of feudal system, but we have had something similar to it. Indeed, our Indian States, with their rulers and nobles and lordlings, still preserve many feudal customs. The Indian caste system, though wholly different from the feudal system, yet divided society into classes. In China, as I think I have told you, there has never been any autocracy or privileged class of this kind. By their ancient system of examinations they opened the gate to the highest office to each individual. But of course in practice there may have been many restrictions.

  In the feudal system there was thus no idea of equality or of freedom. There was an idea of rights and obligations—that is, a feudal lord received as his right service and part of the produce of the land; and considered it as his obligation to give protection. But rights are always remembered and obligations are often ignored. We have even now great landowners in some European countries and in India who take enormous sums as rent from their tenants, without doing a scrap of work, but all idea of any obligation has long been forgotten.

  It is strange to notice how the old barbarian tribes of Europe who were so fond of their freedom gradually resigned themselves to this feudal system which denied it completely. These tribes used to elect their chiefs and to hold them in check. Now we find despotism and autocracy everywhere and no question of election. I cannot say why this change occurred. It may be that the doctrines spread by the Church helped the spread of undemocratic ideas. The king became the shadow of God on earth, and how can you disobey or argue with even the shadow of the Almighty? The feudal system seemed to include heaven and earth in its fold.

>   In India also we find the old Aryan ideas of freedom gradually changing. They become weaker and weaker till they are almost forgotten. But in the early Middle Ages, as I showed you, they were still remembered to some extent, as the Nitisara of Shukracharya and the South Indian inscriptions tell us.

  Some freedom slowly came to Europe again through the new forms that were rising up. Besides the owners of land and those who worked on it, the lords and their serfs, there were other classes of people— artisans and traders. These people, as such, were not part of the feudal system. In the period of disorder there was little enough trade, and handicrafts did not flourish. But gradually trade increased and the importance of mastercraftsmen and merchants grew. They became wealthy, and the lords and barons went to them to borrow money. They lent the money, but they insisted on the lords allowing them certain privileges. These privileges added to their strength. So we find now, instead of the serfs’ huts clustering round the lord’s castle, little towns growing up with houses all round a cathedral or church or guild-hall. The merchants and artisans formed guilds or associations, and the headquarters of these associations became the guild-halls which later became the town-halls.

  These cities that were growing up—Cologne and Frankfurt and Hamburg and many others—became rivals of the power of the feudal lords. A new class was growing up in them, the merchant and trading class, which was wealthy enough to defy even the nobles. It was a long struggle, and often the king, afraid of the power of his own nobles and barons, sided with the cities. But I am going too far ahead.

  I began this letter by telling you that there was no feeling of nationality in those days. People thought of their duty and allegiance to their superior lord. They had taken the oath to serve him, not the country. Even the king was a vague person, too far away. If the lord rebelled against the king, that was his look-out. His vassals had to follow him. This was very different from the idea of nationality which was to come much later.

  54

  China Pushes the Nomads to the West

  June 5, 1932

  I have not written to you about China and the Far Eastern countries for a long time—nearly a month, I think. We have discussed many changes in. Europe and India and western Asia, we have watched the Arabs spread out and conquer many lands, and Europe fall back into darkness and struggle to come out of it. All this time China was, of course, carrying on and, as a rule, carrying on rather well. In the seventh and eighth centuries, China under the Tang emperors was probably the most civilized and prosperous and the best governed country in the world. Europe, of course, could not be compared with it, as it was very backward after the collapse of Rome. North India was at a low ebb for most of the time. She had her bright periods, as when Harsha ruled, but on the whole she was going downhill. South India was certainly more vigorous than the north; and across the seas her colonies, Angkor and Sri Vijaya, were on the eve of a great period. The only States that could rival China during this period in some respects were the two Arab States of Baghdad and Spain. But even these were at the height of their glory for a comparatively short period. It is interesting to note, however, that a Tang Emperor, who had been driven away from his throne, appealed to the Arabs for help, and it is was through their help that he regained power.

  So China was well in the van of civilization in those days, and could with some justification regard the Europeans of the time as a set of semi-barbarians. In the known world she was supreme. I say the known world because I do not know what was happening then in America. This we know, that both in Mexico and in Peru and the neighbouring countries civilizations had been existing for several hundred years. In some respects they were remarkably advanced; in other respects they appear to have been just as remarkably backward. But I know so little about them that I dare not say much. I should like you, however, to keep them in mind—the Maya civilization of Mexico and Central America, and the Peruvian State of the Incas. Others, wiser than I am, may tell you something worthwhile about them. I must confess that they fascinate me, but my fascination is only equalled by my ignorance of them.

  Another matter I should like you to remember. We have seen in the course of our letters that many nomadic tribes have appeared in Central Asia and gone west to Europe or descended on India. The Huns, the Scythians, the Turks, and many others have gone, one after another, in wave after wave. You will remember the White Huns who came to India and Attila’s Huns in Europe. The Seljuq Turks who took possession of the Baghdad Empire also came from Central Asia. Later another branch of the Turks—the Ottoman Turks—were to come and finally conquer Constantinople and go right up to the walls of Vienna. Out of Central Asia or Mongolia also were to come the terrible Mongols who conquered right up to the heart of Europe, and even brought China under their rule; and one of whose descendants was to found a dynasty and an empire in India which was to produce some famous rulers.

  With these nomadic tribes of Central Asia and Mongolia, China waged ceaseless war. Or perhaps it would be more correct to say that these nomads were almost always giving trouble to China, and China was obliged to defend itself. It was to protect itself against these that the Great Wall was built. It did some good, no doubt, but it was poor enough protection against raids. Emperor after emperor had to drive back the nomads, and it was in this process of driving back that the Empire of China spread far into the west, right up to the Caspian Sea, as I have told you. The Chinese people were not given over-much to imperialism. Some of their emperors were certainly imperialists and ambitious of conquest. But compared to many other peoples, they were peace-loving and not fond of war and conquest. The learned man in China has always had more honour and glory than the warrior. If in spite of this the Chinese Empire became very extensive at times, it was largely due to irritation against the continuous pin-pricks and raids of the nomads to the north and west. The strong emperors drove them far to the west to get rid of them once for all. They did not solve the question for ever, but they got some relief at least.

  But the relief the people of China got was at the expense of other peoples and countries. For the nomads who were driven out by the Chinese went and attacked other countries. They came to India. They went to Europe again and again. The drives of the Han Emperors of China gave other countries the Huns and the Tartars and other nomads; the Tangs presented the Turks to Europe. So far the Chinese had succeeded to a large extent in defending themselves from these nomadic tribes. We shall now come to a period when they were not so successful.

  The Tang dynasty, as always happens with these dynasties everywhere, gradually tapered off into a number of incompetent rulers, who had none of the strong points of their predecessors, but only their love of luxury. Corruption spread in the State, and this was accompanied by heavy taxation, which of course fell mostly on the poorer classes. Discontent increased, and at the beginning of the tenth century, in 907 AC, the dynasty fell.

  For half a century there was a succession of petty and unimportant rulers. In 960 AC, however, another of China’s big dynasties begins. This was the Sung dynasty, founded by Kao-Tsu. But trouble, both at the frontiers and in the interior of China, continued. The heavy land taxes were a great burden on the peasantry and were much resented. As in India, the whole land system was too much of a burden for the people, and there could be no peace or progress till this was completely changed. But it is always difficult to make these root-and-branch changes. The people at the top profit by the existing system and shout a lot when change is proposed. But if the change is not made in time, it has a habit of coming without invitation and of upsetting the whole apple-cart!

  The Tang dynasty fell because it did not make the necessary changes. The Sungs had continuous troubles also because of this. One man arose who might have succeeded. He was Wang An-Shih, a prime minister of the Sungs in the eleventh century. China was, as I have told you, a land governed by the ideas of Confucius. All officials had to pass examinations in the Confucian classics, and nobody dared to go against anything that Confucius had said
. Wang An-Shih did not go against them, but he interpreted them in a remarkable way. That is a way clever people have of getting round a difficulty. Some of Wang’s ideas were remarkably modern. His whole object was to lessen the burden of taxation on the poor and increase it on the rich who could afford to pay. He lowered the land taxes and permitted the peasants to pay them in kind—that is, in grain or other produce—if they found payment in money difficult. On the rich he levied an income-tax. This is supposed to be quite a modern tax, and yet we find it proposed in China 900 years ago. To help the farmers, Wang proposed that the government should lend them money which could be repaid at harvest time. Another difficulty which had to be got over was the rise and fall of the price of grain. When the market price falls, the poor peasants can get very little for the produce of their fields. They cannot sell it, and thus have no money with which to pay taxes or to buy anything. Wang An-Shih tried to face this problem and suggested that the government should buy and sell grain to keep the price from rising and falling.

  Wang also proposed that there should be no forced labour for public works, and that every man who worked must be paid his full wage. He also instituted a local militia called the Pao Chia. But Wang was unfortunately too far ahead of his times, and after a while his reforms lapsed. Only the militia continued for more than 800 years.

  Not being bold enough to solve the problems that faced them, the Sungs gradually succumbed to them. The northern barbarians, the Khitans, were too much for them. Unable to drive them back, they asked another tribe from the north-west—the Kins or the Golden Tartars—to come to their help. The Kins came and drove out the Khitans, but they stayed themselves and refused to budge! That is often the fate of a weak person or country seeking aid from a strong one. The Kins made themselves masters of northern China and made Peking their capital. The Sungs retired to the south and went on shrinking before the advancing Kins. Thus there was a Kin Empire in northern China and a Sung Empire in. southern China. These Sungs were called the Southern Sungs. The Sung Dynasty in the north lasted from 960 to 1127 AC The Southern Sungs ruled in southern China for 150 years, till the Mongols came and put an end to them in 1260 AC. But China, as India of old, retaliated by absorbing and assimilating even the Mongols and making them almost typical Chinamen.