Sakdina
Sakdina (Thai: ศักดินา) was a system of social hierarchy in use from the Ayutthaya to early Rattanakosin periods of Thai history. It assigned a numerical rank to each person depending on their status, and served to determine their precedence in society, and especially among the nobility. The numbers represented the number of rai of land a person was entitled to own—sakdina literally translates as "field prestige"—although there is no evidence that it was employed literally.[1] The Three Seals Law, for example, specifies a sakdina of 100,000 for the Maha Uparat, 10,000 for the Chao Phraya Chakri, 600 for learned Buddhist monks, 20 for commoners and 5 for slaves.[2]
The term is also used to refer to the feudal-like social system of the period, where common freemen or phrai (ไพร่) were subject to conscription or corvée labour in service of the kingdom for half of the months of the year, under the control of an overseer or munnai (มูลนาย).[1]
Sakdina, while closely related to the land-based economy, also played a key role in structuring the administrative and military organization of the kingdom. The allocation of land and the assignment of sakdina were not merely economic matters but also intertwined with the political and military power dynamics of the time. Land was often distributed as rewards to military leaders, nobility, or officials in exchange for loyalty and service, which in turn reinforced the hierarchical structure.
Sakdina was especially significant in the realm of military service, as those with higher sakdina ranks had greater obligations and entitlements. Nobles were required to supply soldiers in times of war, and their sakdina rank often determined the size and quality of their military contributions. For example, a noble with a sakdina rank of 10,000 would be expected to provide a larger number of soldiers or more sophisticated military resources than a person with a rank of 100. This system of land distribution ensured that the kingdom’s military needs were met while maintaining the social order.
Additionally, the concept of sakdina allowed for a fine balance between central authority and local control. Local administrators, such as the munnai, often held considerable power over the peasant population, dictating their labor obligations and responsibilities in exchange for access to land and resources. The phrai, often referred to as peasants, were obligated to work on land owned by higher-ranking individuals, which was structured through a complex web of feudal obligations.
Since 1945, the term "sakdina" has been used frequently as a critique of Thai political authority. In the 1950s, Thai intellectuals like Jit Phumisak and Kukrit Pramoj both critiqued the concept in different ways. Jit Phumisak viewed sakdina as a persistent remnant of exploitative class relations in his analysis of what is typically translated as "feudalism."[3] Kukrit Pramoj claimed that sakdina was a fundamentally Thai form of social organization. Kukrit claimed that Thai and European feudalism were fundamentally different in his essay Farang Sakdina.[4]
In contemporary Thailand, the term "sakdina" continues to evoke strong political connotations. Demonstrators in the large-scale protests of 2020-2021 Thai protests used the concept to criticize the ongoing authoritarian structures in Thai governance. The protesters emphasized the persistence of "sakdina" values, accusing the political elite of maintaining a feudal-like control over the country's resources, military, and social power.
Some modern scholars argue that the legacy of sakdina still subtly influences contemporary politics in Thailand, as political power is often closely tied to land ownership, military connections, and long-standing familial wealth. The social stratification seen in sakdina is perceived to persist in the division between Thailand’s political elite and the general population. Critics suggest that this inequality has contributed to political instability, including the 2014 coup and the protests that followed, which were rooted in frustration over social and economic inequality.
The persistence of sakdina-like structures in modern-day Thailand continues to be a subject of intense debate, with some advocating for reform and greater democratization, while others argue that the country’s long-standing hierarchical values are intrinsic to Thai society.
==References==
- ^ a b Baker, Chris; Phongpaichit, Pasuk (2017). A History of Ayutthaya : Siam in the Early Modern World. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781316641132.
- ^ Royal Institute Dictionary. Royal Institute of Thailand.
- ^ Reynolds, Craig J. (1987), Thai Radical Discourse: The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today, Cornell Southeast Asian Program
- ^ Waters, Tony. M. R. Kukrit Pramoj’s theory of good governance and political change: the dialectics of Farang Sakdina. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9, 156 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01158-9
 | This Thailand-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |