The Chola dynasty, which dominated South India between the 9th and 13th centuries

CE, was one of the most prominent early medieval political entities in the region.
Emerging after the decline of the Pallavas, the Cholas established a powerful and
expansive state that controlled much of southern India and parts of Southeast Asia.
Scholars have debated the nature of the Chola state, particularly regarding the
degree of centralization and control exercised by the monarchy. Among the most
significant contributions to this debate is Burton Stein’s segmentary state model,
which provides a framework for understanding the decentralized and complex nature
of the Chola polity.

Burton Stein’s Segmentary State Model

Burton Stein’s segmentary state model, articulated in his 1980 book Peasant State
and Society in Medieval South India, was inspired by anthropologist Aidan
Southall’s study of African tribal polities, particularly the Alur society. Stein
applied this model to explain the structure of the Chola state, arguing that it was
not a centralized, monolithic kingdom but rather a fragmented, segmented polity
where local and regional elites held significant political power. Stein’s key
argument is that the Chola state was characterized by a diffusion of power across
multiple levels rather than a strong central authority.

The segmentary state model emphasizes the following features:

1. Multiple Centers of Power: Stein argued that the Chola state was made
up of numerous local and regional power centers known as nadus. Each nadu was a
quasi-autonomous administrative and political unit with its own rulers and elites
who controlled governance, military affairs, and local administration. These local
rulers were vital to the functioning of the state, as they maintained order and
collected revenue within their territories. Stein’s model thus sees the Chola king
as presiding over a loose network of these local power centers rather than exerting
direct control over all regions.
2. Dual Sovereignty: A critical feature of Stein’s model is the
distinction between political and ritual sovereignty. While local rulers exercised
political control over their respective territories, the Chola king maintained
ritual sovereignty over the entire realm. Ritual sovereignty refers to the king’s
symbolic authority, expressed through temple patronage, religious ceremonies, and
the construction of monumental structures like the Brihadisvara temple under
Rajaraja I. Although the king did not have complete political control over every
part of his empire, his ritual authority helped maintain a sense of unity and
legitimacy across the segmented polity.
3. Pyramidal Structure: Stein described the Chola polity as having a
pyramidal structure, where smaller political units at the local level were
organized into larger, regional segments. At the top of this pyramid stood the
king, who maintained ritual primacy but relied on the cooperation of local rulers
to administer and govern the state. The relationships between these different
segments were often hierarchical but also reciprocal, with local rulers
acknowledging the king’s ritual supremacy while retaining autonomy in their
political affairs.
4. Local Autonomy and Self-Governance: One of the key elements of the
segmentary state model is the emphasis on local autonomy. Stein argued that the
Chola kings allowed regional and local elites to exercise considerable autonomy in
governance. This autonomy was necessary for maintaining stability in a large and
diverse empire where direct central control would have been difficult to impose.
Local rulers had the authority to collect taxes, administer justice, and organize
local military resources, although they were expected to support the king’s larger
campaigns when necessary.
5. Absence of a Standing Army: Stein also contended that the Chola state
did not have a centralized standing army. Instead, military power was
decentralized, with local rulers responsible for organizing military forces within
their territories. This arrangement further supported Stein’s view that the Chola
polity was highly decentralized, with the king relying on local elites to
contribute troops and resources when needed.

Criticisms of the Segmentary State Model

While Stein’s segmentary state model has been influential, it has also faced
significant criticism. Scholars like Hermann Kulke have challenged Stein’s sharp
distinction between ritual sovereignty and political sovereignty. Kulke argued that
in traditional Indian society, particularly in Hindu kingdoms, ritual and political
authority were often intertwined. For example, the construction of temples like the
Rajarajeshvara temple by Rajaraja I was not merely a display of ritual authority
but also a demonstration of the king’s political power and control over resources.
Kulke suggested that the Chola king’s ritual activities were part of a broader
“power policy” that included economic and military strategies, rather than being
separate from political control.

Furthermore, critics argue that Stein underplayed the extent of Chola

Additionally, Stein’s denial of the existence of a Chola standing army has been
questioned. Evidence from inscriptions and military campaigns suggests that the
Cholas did maintain a professional army, although they may have relied on local
militias and forces for specific campaigns.

Conclusion

Burton Stein’s segmentary state model provides an important lens for understanding
the decentralized nature of the Chola polity, particularly the role of local elites
and the division between ritual and political authority. However, the model’s
emphasis on fragmentation and local autonomy has been challenged by scholars who
argue for a more centralized view of Chola governance. While the Chola kings may
have allowed local rulers a degree of autonomy, they also maintained significant
control through a well-organized bureaucracy, military power, and their ability to
integrate ritual and political authority. Thus, while Stein’s model offers valuable
insights, it may not fully capture the complexity of the Chola state.