Final answer:
The state was based on tribes and clans and lacked bureaucracy due to the influence of local aristocratic clans, tribal kinship structures, and cultural priorities focused on lineage and traditional practices. The decentralized nature of governance and the importance of clan affiliation over a centralized legal system contributed to the maintenance of stateless societies, despite population growth and the emergence of more centralized authorities elsewhere.
Step-by-step explanation:
The state remained based on tribes and clans and lacked bureaucracy for several reasons related to social structure, political organization, and cultural priorities. In the eighth to tenth centuries, the Indian subcontinent, unlike neighboring states such as China, was largely segmented and decentralized due to the persistent power and influence of local aristocratic clans and their competition in the cultural realm rather than military conquest. These chiefdoms maintained traditional clan structures, each ruling their own territories with their own deities and rituals, perpetuating a form of governance that was intimately tied to lineage and kinship rather than centralized bureaucracies. Moreover, societal norms, such as those found in the original Germanic system that emphasized honor and reciprocity, often precluded the formation of a unified legal system that could serve as the foundation for a bureaucratic state. As population grew, the nature of government began to change, transitioning from localized decision-making to the rise of officials who could command obedience. Notably, the great clans of Tang China, though they served as bureaucrats, did not own the land in the north and paid taxes to the central state, their positions ultimately subject to the Tang Code. This is opposed to the tribal and clan-based systems where rule was tied closely to the clan membership and power was distributed amongst clan leaders, which could explain why strong centralized bureaucracy did not emerge in certain regions. The larger societal structures, based on kinship and tribal affiliation, were suited to smaller communities where order could be maintained within the family or local group, and where rulership was inherently connected to clan and kin rather than a more impersonal state structure.