A Study in the Economic Condition of Ancient India c8: Chapter V. Population of the Country
A Study in the Economic Condition of Ancient India c8
- Language
- English
Chapter V. Population of the Country
c8.2
NO definite figure can be suggested for the population of ancient India. Perhaps because the people in those days did not attach much importance to this question, the Samskṛta and Pāli literatures give us no information on the point.
c8.3
For the purpose of revenue collection, however, lists of estates were kept in the record department. It appears that the size of an estate (*grāma*) was governed by the possession of a *kula* (the family of a *sāmanta*). Hypothetically each *sāmanta-kula* was considered to be the owner of an estate (*grāma*) which contained pasture, fallow and cropped land. It is rather interesting that the same word *kula* was used to denote an area of land which could be ploughed by two yokes of oxen; the seed sufficient for sowing this area was called *kulya*; and a person belonging to a *sāmanta-kula* was expressed by the word *kulīna*, meaning "nobleman", and a lady by the word *kula-duhitṛ*, etc.
c8.4
After taking all these facts into consideration, we can read the numbers of estates (*grāmas*) as the numbers of *sāmanta-kulas* (families) and *vice versa*. It has already been calculated roughly that ancient India consisted of 7,000,000 *grāmas* (estates), and that each *grāma* represented from fifteen to twenty persons. Multiplying 7,000,000 by fifteen and twenty we would arrive at a total population for ancient India of between 105,000,000 and 140,000,000.
c8.5
According to the Buddhist books, Vaiśālī contained 7,707 *rājans* (estate-owners).¹ If we may presume that by Vaiśālī the *janapada* of Vaiśālī is meant, and calculating at the rate of ten *janapadas* to a *deśa* (country), this would mean that there were about 77,070 rājans or sāmantas (estate-owners) in the deśa in which Vaiśālī was included. If that deśa again can be regarded as an average-sized country, this would mean that the whole of ancient India (with its eighty-four deśas) contained about 6,473,880 rājans or sāmantas. Taking from fifteen to twenty persons for each estate, the population of the whole of India would come to between 100 and 130 millions. The total population of Vaiśālī janapada is given in Buddhist books as 168,000.¹ Multiplying this by 840, we get the population of India as 141,120,000, or in round numbers 140 millions. We should note here that the janapada of Vaiśālī, owing to its fertility, was probably more thickly populated than many other janapadas.
c8.6
¹ Chapter VI, Note 8.
c8.7
¹ Hindu Polity, by K. P. Jayaswal, p. 51, n. 5.
c8.8
It has already been suggested that each estate contained on a rough average 80 acres of land, of which 15 to 20 acres may perhaps be taken as being under cultivation. According to Mr. Moreland “ at the beginning of the present century there were from 100 to 120 persons to each 100 acres of ‘normal cultivation’ in some of the western districts of the United Provinces, while there were from 60 to 70 persons to 100 acres in other districts lying further south; the difference between these figures is adequately explained by permanent features of environment, and the conclusion is that it has probably persisted with relatively little change, and that the western districts required somewhere about 100 to 120 persons, and the southern somewhere about 60 to 70 persons to cultivate 100 acres in the time of Akbar and throughout the intervening period.”² According to the Dāna-mayūkha also the go-carma, equivalent to about two-thirds of an acre, was sufficient to provide one person with food.³ It will not be unreasonable, therefore, if we make an estimate of the population on the basis of one person to each cultivated acre. Multiplying 7,000,000 grāmas by fifteen and twenty, we get 105,000,000 and 140,000,000 acres of land under cultivation, or say the same numbers of people living in India.
c8.9
² W. H. Moreland’s India at the Death of Akbar (1920 ed.), pp. 110-11.
c8.10
³ Chapter III, p. 83, Note 1.
c8.11
In estimating the population of a country from its maximum war strength we must keep this fact before our sight, that two out of the four classes of the people provided no fighting men in those days. There is no doubt that the śūdras and kṣatriyas formed a large proportion of the population; the former included all the industrial, agricultural and labouring classes, and the latter only landowners, officials and soldiers. After careful study of the economic condition of ancient India, I come to the conclusion that perhaps each rājan or sāmanta-kula was required to provide one soldier in time of war, when demanded by the king. According to the Mahābhārata the whole of India took part in the great war. We may perhaps assume that to bring the grand total of forces engaged on that occasion up to eighteen akṣauhiṇīs, each country was represented by its full fighting strength. Eleven akṣauhiṇīs were on the side of the Kauravas and seven on the side of the Pāṇḍavas.¹ Whoever wrote about this war, there is no doubt that he knew the conditions of the country accurately. His figures for the rival armies will be found upon investigation to correspond in a significant measure with the number of estates (grāmas) given above. One akṣauhiṇī of the army is defined in Saṃskṛta dictionaries as containing 21,870 elephants, 21,870 chariots, 65,610 horses, and 109,350 foot.² Taking five persons to each elephant and chariot, the total strength of each akṣauhiṇī comes approximately to 400,000. If we multiply this by eighteen, we get the total war strength of India at that time as 7,200,000 men. It has already been calculated that the number of grāmas (estates) in ancient India was approximately 7,000,000. The correspondence between two figures conveys the impression that ancient India had reached a stage of civilization in some respects very similar to the feudal system of Europe. Each *rāja-kula* or *sāmanta-kula* was obliged to be represented in the time of war. Possibly the distribution of land was based on this principle. If we may assume that on the average each *grāma* (estate), or each fifteen to twenty persons of the population, furnished one fighting man, we should arrive at a total population, as calculated from the war strength of the country, of between 108,000,000 and 144,000,000.
c8.12
¹ Ekādaśaitāḥ śri-juṣṭā vāhinyas tava pārthiva. 25. Pāṇḍavānāṃ tathā sapta mahāpuruṣa-pālitāḥ. 26. (Mahābhārata, Bhīṣma-parvan, Adhyāya 16, p. 25.)
c8.13
² See Akṣauhiṇī in Monier Williams's Sanskrit-English Dictionary.
c8.14
The authenticity of the figures in the *Mahābhārata* relating to the forces engaged in the great war may be tested by the facts given by Greek historians. It has been explained that ancient India was divided into eighty-four countries (*deśas*). Dividing eighty-four by eighteen, we get one *akṣauhiṇī* for every four and two-thirds countries or in round numbers every five countries. According to the Greek historians the armies of the eight countries which gave battle to Alexander the Great were as below:—
c8.15
TABLE NO. XX
c8.16
THE WAR STRENGTH OF THE EIGHT ANCIENT INDIAN COUNTRIES ACCORDING TO THE GREEK HISTORIANS
c8.17
| Countries. | Foot-soldiers. | Cavalry. | Chariots. | Elephants. | Authority : McCrindle's "Invasion of India." |
| 1. Malloi and Sudracæ | 90,000 | 10,000 | 900 (700 ?) | ? | p. 252, 234 |
| 2. Aphrikes | 20,000 | 10,000 | ? | 15 | p. 272 |
| 3. Porus | 50,000 | 3,000 | 1,000 | 130 | p. 278 |
| 4. Agalassian | 40,000 | 3,000 | ? | ? | p. 285 |
| 5. Kingdom next to Sibi | 40,000 | ? | ? | ? | p. 232 |
| 6. Assakenians | 30,000 | 20,000 | ? | 30 | p. 66 |
| 7. Ambri and Sigambri | 80,000 | 60,000 | ? | ? | p. 324 |
| 8. Cuphitas | 200,000 | ? | ? | ? | p. 323 |
| Total | 550,000 | 96,000 | 1,900 | 175 | |
c8.18
(a) Total man-power of eight countries = 550,000 + 96,000 + 54,000 (approximate figures for chariots and elephants) = 700,000.
(b) Total man-power of 84 countries, or of the whole of India = 700,000 / 8 * 84 = 7,350,000 (= 18 akṣauhiṇīs).
c8.19
From the above table it is clear that the fighting strength of the eight ancient Indian countries comes to 550,000 foot, 96,000 cavalry, 1,900 (?) chariots, and 175 (?) elephants, or in round numbers approximately 700,000. On this basis the fighting-strength of four and two-thirds countries would be 408,333, or in round numbers 400,000. If we divide 700,000 by eight and multiply the quotient by eighty-four, we get the war strength of the whole of India as 7,350,000. According to the *Mahābhārata* the war strength of four and two-thirds countries and of the whole of India was nearly the same as calculated from the figures furnished by the Greek historians, namely 400,000 and 7,200,000 respectively. An estimate based upon the figures given in the *Āīn-i-Akbarī* leads to a remarkably similar conclusion. In the time of Akbar the man-power of forty-seven *sarkārs*, according to Abu ’l-Fazl was as shown below :—
c8.20
THE WAR STRENGTH OF THE FORTY-SEVEN SARKĀRS, ACCORDING TO THE *Āīn-i-Akbarī
c8.21
| Name of Ṣūba. | No. of sarkārs. | No. of parganas. | Cavalry. | Infantry. | *Āīn-i-Akbarī*, vol. ii. |
| Bihar | 7 | 199 | 11,415 | 449,350 | p. 153 |
| Allahabad | 10 | 177 | 11,375 | 237,870 | p. 160 |
| Oudh | 5 | 38 | 7,640 | 168,250 | p. 173 |
| Malwa | 12 | 301 | 29,668 | 470,361 | p. 198 |
| Delhi | 8 | 232 | 31,490 | 242,310 | p. 285 |
| Lahore | 5 | 234 | 54,480 | 426,086 | p. 315 |
| Total | 47 | 1,181 | 146,068 | 1,994,227 | = 2,140,295 |
c8.22
(a) Total man-power of the whole of India calculated from the figures given in the *Āīn-i-Akbarī* = (2,140,295)/47 × 84 × 2 = 7,650,384 approximately (= 18 akṣauhiṇīs).
c8.23
(b) Total man-power of 4⅔ countries = 428,059 approximately (= one akṣauhiṇī).
c8.24
Thus the fighting strength of forty-seven *sarkārs* in the time of Akbar was approximately 2,140,295 (i.e. 146,068 cavalry, 1,994,227 infantry). It has already been computed that two *sarkārs* of Akbar may be taken as equal to one ancient Hindu country (*deśa*). On dividing 2,140,295 by forty-seven and multiplying the quotient by 84 × 2, the manpower of the whole of India would come to 7,650,385, or in round numbers about 7,500,000. According to Abu'l-Fazl " the Zamindars of the country furnish more than four millions, four hundred thousand men " (the *Āīn-i-Akbarī*, vol. i, p. 231) and the empire of Akbar " consisted of one hundred and five *Sarkārs* ". (The *Āīn-i-Akbarī*, vol. ii, p. 115.) Dividing 4,400,000 by 105 and multiplying the quotient by 168 (= 84 × 2), we get the war strength of the whole of India as 7,040,000.
c8.25
Thus we arrive at very similar figures from different sources. Seldom do we find authorities so diverse in their nature as the *Mahābhārata*, the Buddhist books, the Greek accounts, palæographic evidence and the *Āīn-i-Akbarī* furnishing such similar facts and figures. Had India already been surveyed in the time of Candragupta Maurya ? Were details of the country well known to the Emperor Aśoka, who erected pillars all over the land and sent Buddhist missionaries to Ceylon ? Should most of the credit which is usually given to Sher Shāh and Toḍar Mal for the settlement of the land really be given to someone else ?
c8.26
Adopting the above methods of arriving at an estimate of the total population, it would seem to have lain between 100,000,000 and 140,000,000; but it cannot be too clearly stated that this estimate must only be regarded as a conjectural approximation.
c8.27
As far as can be ascertained from the evidence available to us, I am inclined to think that the population of the country as a whole did not greatly vary between the early Hindu period and the first advent of the Muhammadans, and it may be supposed to have lain roughly between the above limits.
c8.28
The people of ancient India may be regarded as divided into two main classes : (1) the upper orders, often described as the 'twice-born' classes, and (2) the lower orders, or the 'masses', a term which comprises a vast population of diverse origins generally included in the comprehensive title *śūdra*. In the ancient fabric of Indian society there was no separate group comprising the ‘middle classes’ as this expression is ordinarily understood in English. The absorption of western ideas of recent years may have led to the application of this term to certain strata of the population which appear to correspond with the middle classes so-called in Europe; but the distinction is really foreign to the Indian genius. No account of the social structure of ancient India would be complete without reference to the commercial and trading classes. Certain aspects of their organization have already been the subject of careful study; but the economic conditions under which commerce and trade were carried on, the cost of production, prices realized, the taxes, tolls, and port dues paid, the organization of industries and the distribution of wealth, etc., have not yet been dealt with on a thorough or scientific basis. The subject is one that would call for a separate and lengthy treatise. Moreover, the centres of trade and commerce were the large cities and towns, with which the present work is not directly concerned. In the present thesis I concentrate attention upon the main orders, and deal with the two most representative sections thereof, namely, (1) the landowning, aristocratic or ruling classes, and (2) the working or labouring classes as a whole.
c8.29
CHAPTER VI
Linked texts (2)
- Vulgate (Nīlakaṇṭha's text) — Sanskrit
- Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit