Land charters are documents that grant land or record a privilege from a sovereign power to an individual, corporation, city, or other unit of local organization123. They usually describe the boundaries, rights, and obligations of the landholders.

In North India during 730-1200 AD, land charters were issued by various rulers and dynasties such as the Gurjara Pratiharas, the Palas, the Rashtrakutas, and the Rajputs45. These charters were often written on copper plates or stone inscriptions in Sanskrit or regional languages like Prakrit or Apabhramsa4. They recorded grants of land to Brahmans, temples, monasteries, officials, warriors, merchants etc. for religious merit, political loyalty, military service etc.

Some examples of land charters from this period are:

The Mandasor inscription of Vakpati Munja (c. 946 AD), which records a grant of land by the Gurjara Pratihara king to a Brahman named Durgadatta for his services as a poet and minister.

The Nalanda copper plate of Devapala (c. 860 AD), which records a grant of land by the Pala king to a Buddhist monastery at Nalanda for its maintenance and support.

The Kottur grant of Amoghavarsha I (c. 850 AD), which records a grant of land by the Rashtrakuta king to a Jain temple at Kottur for its worship and charity.

The Khajuraho inscription of Dhanga (c. 950 AD), which records a grant of land by the Chandela king to his queen Kirtirani for her pleasure and enjoyment.

- ! Answered elsewhere 

The term ‘Indian Feudalism’ is used to describe the social and economic system that prevailed in India from the early medieval period (c. 600-1200 AD) to the Mughal era (c. 1526-1857 AD). According to this term, the Indian society was characterized by a hierarchy of land grants, where the king granted lands to his nobles, who in turn granted lands to their vassals, and so on, until the lowest level of peasants, who were bound to the land and had to pay tribute and provide labor to their lords123.

However, the applicability of this term to the Indian context has been debated and criticized by many historians, who argue that it is based on a concept of medieval European origin, which does not fit the Indian reality. Some of the criticisms are:

The Indian feudal system was not based on a contract between the king, the nobles and the peasants, but rather on a system of religious and ritual obligations, where the land grants were considered as gifts or donations (dana) and the recipients were expected to perform certain services (seva) to the king or the gods.

The Indian feudal system did not result in the fragmentation of political authority and the emergence of independent feudal lords, but rather in the consolidation of regional kingdoms and the maintenance of a central authority, where the king was still the supreme ruler and the land grant holders were his subordinates and agents.

The Indian feudal system did not lead to the stagnation and decline of the economy and the society, but rather to the growth and diversification of trade, commerce, agriculture, crafts, urbanization and culture, where the land grant holders acted as patrons and promoters of various economic and social activities.

Therefore, some historians suggest that the term ‘Indian Feudalism’ is misleading and inappropriate, and that alternative terms such as ‘segmentary state’, ‘integrative polity’, ‘early medieval Indian economy’ or ‘Indian mode of production’ should be used instead.

The change from a centralised to a decentralised polity, as a result of land grants and regional kingdoms. Some historians, such as R.S. Sharma and Irfan Habib, have seen this as a sign of political decline and fragmentation, while others, such as B.D. Chattopadhyaya and Harbans Mukhia, have seen this as a sign of political diversity and dynamism.

The change from a free to a dependent peasantry, as a result of land grants and agrarian relations. Some historians, such as R.S. Sharma and D.N. Jha, have seen this as a sign of economic exploitation and oppression, while others, such as B.D. Chattopadhyaya and Kumkum Roy, have seen this as a sign of social mobility and integration1 .

The change from a secular to a religious society, as a result of land grants and religious institutions. Some historians, such as R.S. Sharma and Romila Thapar, have seen this as a sign of cultural stagnation and orthodoxy, while others, such as B.D. Chattopadhyaya and Richard Eaton, have seen this as a sign of cultural creativity and syncretism

According to this theory, feudalism in India was a system of land grants given by kings or queens to their nobles, officials, Brahmins or temples in exchange for military service, loyalty or religious merit12 . These land grants involved the transfer of fiscal, administrative and judicial rights from the central authority to the local grantees, who became semi-autonomous rulers or landlords with their own vassals, tenants and peasants. The land grants also led to political decentralization, social stratification and economic stagnation in feudal society.

The evidences of land ownership that support this theory are mainly inscriptions that record various types and terms of land grants issued by different dynasties or rulers from the Gupta period onwards. These inscriptions provide information on:

The names and titles of grantors and grantees
The extent and location of granted lands
The rights and obligations of grantors and grantees
The conditions and restrictions on land transfers
The witnesses and beneficiaries of land grants
The religious or secular motives behind land grants
Some examples of such inscriptions are:

The Banskhera copper plate inscription of Kumaragupta I, which records his grant of a village to a Brahmin for performing rituals for his welfare.
The Mandasor stone inscription of Naravarman, which records his grant of a village to a temple for securing divine favour for his victory over his enemies.
The Bagumra copper plate inscription of Prithivisena II, which records his grant of a village to an official for his loyal service as a governor.

-   The Kanyakubja copper plate inscription of Harshavardhana, which records his grant of a village to a Buddhist monastery for propagating his faith.
-   The Nandavara copper plate inscription of Dantidurga, which records his grant of a village to a Brahmin for securing the support of his clan.
-   The Tanjore copper plate inscription of Rajaraja I, which records his grant of a village to a temple for commemorating his conquests and achievements.

These inscriptions show that land grants were a common and widespread practice in early medieval India, and that they created a hierarchical and complex system of land ownership and power relations among different classes and groups in feudal society. They also show that land grants were influenced by various political, religious, social and economic factors and motives.

The socio-economic conditions from the Gupta period to 1200 C.E. as gleaned from the various types of grants or dana shasana can be summarized as follows:

The Gupta period is considered as a golden age of Indian history, marked by political stability, cultural achievements, economic prosperity and religious tolerance.

The main source of wealth and revenue for the Gupta empire was agriculture, which was supported by irrigation systems, improved seeds, ploughs and fertilizers. The land grants or dana shasana were issued by the Gupta kings and their successors to Brahmins, temples, officials, nobles and others for various purposes, such as religious merit, loyalty, service, patronage or charity.

The land grants involved the transfer of fiscal, administrative and judicial rights over the granted lands to the grantees , who became semi-independent landlords or rulers with their own vassals , tenants and peasants . The land grants also created a hierarchical and complex system of land ownership and power relations among different classes and groups in feudal society.

The land grants had both positive and negative impacts on the socio-economic conditions of early medieval India. On one hand , they encouraged agricultural production , cultural development , religious diversity and regional autonomy . On the other hand , they led to political fragmentation , social stratification , economic stagnation and military weakness .

The types of land grants or dana shasana varied according to their terms , conditions , beneficiaries and motives . Some of the common types were :

Brahmadeya : Land grants given to Brahmins for performing rituals or teaching scriptures2 .
Devadana : Land grants given to temples for worshiping gods or goddesses.
Agrahara : Land grants given to villages for supporting local communities or institutions.
Vishaya : Land grants given to districts for administering local affairs or collecting taxes.
Samanta : Land grants given to nobles or officials for providing military service or loyalty.
These types of land grants are recorded in various inscriptions that provide valuable information on the socio-economic conditions of early medieval India. Some examples are:

The Bhitari pillar inscription of Skandagupta, which records his grant of a village to a Brahmin for performing rituals for his welfare .
The Mandasor stone inscription of Naravarman, which records his grant of a village to a temple for securing divine favour for his victory over his enemies .
The Bagumra copper plate inscription of Prithivisena II, which records his grant of a village to an official for his loyal service as a governor .
The Kanyakubja copper plate inscription of Harshavardhana , which records his grant of a village to a Buddhist monastery for propagating his faith .
The Nandavara copper plate inscription of Dantidurga , which records his grant of a village to a Brahmin for securing the support of his clan.