Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c18: Chapter XI. Revenue and Expenditure

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c18

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XI. Revenue and Expenditure

c18.2

An enquiry will be made in this chapter into the various sources of revenue of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire and the way in which they were utilised. Our principal sources of information in this connection are the statements made in the copper-plate grants about the immunities of the village alienated in favour of Brahmanas and temples. This information can be compared with the rules of the contemporary Smriti writers and statements in the records of other contemporary dynasties. Accounts of the Muslim traders are also, to some extent, useful.

c18.3

The principal sources of revenue may be classed under five heads. These were:—

c18.4

(1) Regular taxes,
(2) Occasional taxes or exactions,
(3) Fines,
(4) Income from government properties, and
(5) Tributes from feudatories.

c18.5

Of the above items, the last one will be considered in detail in the next chapter where the position of the feudatories will be considered; the remaining will be discussed here.

(1) Regular Taxes

c18.s1.1

An analysis of the epigraphical evidence shows that the following taxes were regularly levied in all the villages of the empire:—

c18.s1.2

(i) *Udraṅga*.
(ii) *Uparikara*. It will be shown that *Bhāga-bhoga-kara*, mentioned in some of our records, is the same as the items Nos. i and ii mentioned here.

c18.s1.3

(iii) Bhūtotpātapratyāya or s'ulka or siddhāya.
(iv) Viṣṭi.
(v) Miscellaneous taxes.

c18.s1.4

(2) Occasional exactions These were principally of three kinds:—
(i) Cāṭabhaṭapraves'adaṇḍa.
(ii) Rājasevakānām vasatidaṇḍaprayāṇadaṇḍau.
(iii) Emergency demands of the State.

c18.s1.5

(3) Fines This item requires no explanation.

c18.s1.6

(4) Income from Government properties Under this head were included:—
(i) Sheri or crown land, waste lands and trees.
(ii) Mines and salt.
(iii) Treasure trove and property of persons dying without any heirs.

c18.s1.7

(5) Tributes from the feudatories This item will be discussed in the next chapter where the position of the feudatories will be considered in detail.

c18.s1.8

(1) Regular Taxes (i and ii) Udranga and Uparikara These taxes are mentioned very frequently not only in the grants of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas but also of the earlier dynasties like those of the Parivrājakas, Maitrakas and the later Guptas of Magadha. It must be, however, confessed that modern scholarship has not yet succeeded in ascertaining satisfactorily their exact meaning; nor do Sanskrit dictionaries help us much. This latter fact is rather surprising and perplexing; for these expressions are very common in the numerous records of our period and yet are unknown to most of the Kosha writers. It is only in S'ās'vata Kosha that we come across a sense that can be reasonably considered in connection with the present enquiry; the work gives *Uddhāra* or *Udgrāha* as a synonym of the term.¹ The only other Kosha where the word is mentioned at all is the *Trikāṇḍa s'esha-kosha*, according to which *Udraṅga* is the name of the celestial city of Harischandra moving in the air.² This meaning, which has been copied from this Kosha by some of the modern Sanskrit and English dictionaries, can be hardly considered in connection with the present enquiry. Since the word is very common in the epigraphical literature and almost unknown to the Koshas, can it be possible that the word is a Sanskritised form of some non-Indo-European word? The term *Udraṅga* cannot be also connected with the word *draṅga* which means a frontier town in the *Rājatarangiṇī*; it is not possible to argue that the expression *sodraṅgaḥ* might mean ‘along with the octroi duties’, for then the form would have been *sadraṅgaḥ* and not *sodraṅgaḥ*. As it is, though we get several variations of the fiscal terms occurring in epigraphical records, the form of the term *sodraṅgaḥ* is constant; not even once do we get *sadraṅgaḥ* as an alternative form.

c18.s1.9

¹ Referred to by Buhler at I. A., XII, p. 189 N, 30.

c18.s1.10

² II., 79.

c18.s1.11

What etymology or dictionaries cannot explain can be attempted to be elucidated by the method of analysis. An analysis of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa records shows that the terms *sodraṅgaḥ* and *soparikaraḥ* do never figure along with the expression *sabhāgabhogakaraḥ* in one and the same grant. In the Samangad plates of Dantidurga³ and the Kapadwanj plates of Kṛṣṇa II⁴ the term ‘*sabhāgabhogakaraḥ*’ is used, but the expressions *sodraṅgaḥ* and *soparikaraḥ* are missing. In all other records of our dynasty the latter terms are figuring, but the former one is absent. There is not a single record where neither set of taxes is mentioned. It is, therefore, clear that *bhāga* and *bhoga* are nearly synonymous with *udraṅga* and *uparikara* and stand for taxes that were universally levied.

c18.s1.12

³ I. A., XI, p. 111.

c18.s1.13

⁴ E. I., I, p. 52.

c18.s1.14

What then could have been these universally levied taxes? The Smriti literature invariably uses the term *bhāga* or its synonym *aṃśa* for denoting the land tax.(5) In the Sanskrit literature the king is very often described as subsisting on *ṣaṣṭhāṃśa* i. e. the 6th part of the produce of the land. It is, therefore, almost certain that the *bhāgakara* of the inscriptions must be standing for the land tax.

c18.s1.15

Bhogakara represents the petty taxes in kind that were to be paid to the king every day. From the very nature of the case, these taxes in the form of betel leaves, fruits, vegetables etc., could have been exacted by the king only when he was on tour; they were, therefore, usually assigned in practice to local officers as part of their incomes, as shown already in the last chapter. Every day these taxes in kind were seen being enjoyed by the local officers and, therefore, the term *bhogakara* used for them was quite appropriate. In this connection attention may be drawn to Manu VIII, 307, where the expression *pratibhāgam* has got a v. l. of *pratibhogam* which has been explained by the commentator Sarvajña Nārāyaṇa as ‘*Phala-kusuma-śākhātṛṇādyupāyanam pratidinagrāhyam*’ ‘daily presents in the form of fruits, flowers, vegetables, grass etc.’ The interpretation proposed for *bhāgakara* is, therefore, supported by the usage that was known to some of our commentators. Sometimes, however, Government used to impose additional taxes for the salaries of some of its officers. We have already seen how the village of Tuppad Kurahatti had to pay an additional tax in money for the remuneration of the district officers in the reign of Kṛṣṇa III.(6) Contemporary Ganga-Pallava and Chola records also mention fees for the district and village officers that had to be paid by the villagers.(7) This additional tax on land may also have been included in the term *bhogakara*.

c18.s1.16

⁵ Cf. Gautama, X, 24-7; Manu, VIII, 130; Kauṭalya, V, 2; etc.

c18.s1.17

⁶ Ante, p. 179.

c18.s1.18

⁷ S. I. I., II, pp. 530-1; III, p. 391.

c18.s1.19

We have already seen that the terms *udranga* and *uparikara* are very nearly or identically the same as the expressions *bhāgakara* and *bhogakara*. The two Gadyāṇas, which the villagers of Tuppad Kurahatti had to pay for the remuneration of the country *gāvuṇḍa*, was a tax on land which had to be paid over and above (=*upari*) the normal land tax. *Uparikara*, therefore, was quite an appropriate term to denote it, since it was an additional impost. *Bhogakara*, therefore, becomes identical with *uparikara*, either term denoting taxes, normal or additional, in kind or cash that were imposed for the part payment of the salaries of the mofussil state officers. Fleet was inclined to hold that *uparikara* may have been the tax on temporary tenants who had no proprietory rights in the village soil.⁸ There is, however, no independent evidence to show that the government used to impose any extra or special taxation on such tenants. There was besides no reason why state records should distinguish the tax paid by the permanent tenants from that obtained from temporary cultivators. The theory, therefore, that *udranga* was a tax on permanent and *uparikara* on temporary tenants yet remains to be proved and is not likely to be correct.

c18.s1.20

⁸ C. I. I., III, p, 98.

c18.s1.21

Since *udranga* and *uparikara* have been shown to be nearly identical with *bhāgakara* and *bhogakara* and since *bhogakara* is further shown to be identical with *uparikara*, it follows that *udranga* has to be equated with *bhāgakara*, which has been shown to stand for the normal land tax of the government. It has to be confessed that no etymological derivation of the term can be suggested, which will explain this interpretation; but the word itself is practically unknown to dictionaries in its fiscal sense, and may have been derived from some non-Aryan stock; hence the difficulty of properly deriving it.

c18.s1.22

It is not easy to determine the exact incidence of the taxation on land in our period. The Smṛiti and Nīti writers lay down that the state demand should vary between 8% to 16%⁹. The Arthaśāstra would advocate a levy of 25%¹⁰. Śukra, a medieval writer, permits land taxation between 25% to 50% in the case of irrigated lands, but adds that the taxation on ordinary dry lands should be such that the net produce should be twice the cost of production, the latter term including the government dues as well.¹¹ Caṇḍeśvara, another medieval writer, states that the expression ‘*shadbhāga*’ with reference to land tax is merely figurative, and means that the king should take such amount as is necessary for the needs of government and may not be felt as oppressive by the subjects.¹² Since the theory writers differ so greatly and allow so wide an option to the state we may take it that the land tax in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa dominions must have varied with the quality of the land and the needs of the state.

c18.s1.23

⁹ E. g., Manu, VIII, 130.

c18.s1.24

¹⁰ Book V, Chap. 2.

c18.s1.25

¹¹ IV, ii, 110 ff.

c18.s1.26

¹² Chap. XII, p. 62. (Jayaswal's edition).

c18.s1.27

Let us now try to determine the actual amount of the land tax that was levied by the governments of our period. The paucity of records throwing any light on the subject, the vagueness of their statements when available, and the difficulty of interpreting the technical terms used in them are the main reasons that have so far deterred an enquiry in this direction; but it is high time that an effort at least should be made. Let us consider a few concrete cases that are available in this connection.

c18.s1.28

(1) Bevinahalli inscription from Chitaldurg district¹³ of Mysore State, belonging to the time of Khoṭṭiga, informs us that the revenue of two villages Madlur and Malagavadi was 50 *gadyāṇas*, petty taxes in kind being excluded. A *gadyāṇa* was equal to two *kaḷanjus* and the latter was a gold coin weighing about a quarter of a *tola*¹⁴ or about 45 to 50 grains. The revenue of these two villages was thus about 25 tolas of gold or 375 tolas of silver, since the ratio between the prices of the two metals in our period was about 1:¹⁵. (15) Making allowance for the alloy, 25 tolas may be roughly equated to Rs. 500.

c18.s1.29

¹³ E. C., XI, Chitaldurg No. 74.

c18.s1.30

¹⁴ Elliot, *Coins of South India*, p. 47.

c18.s1.31

¹⁵ Sukranīti gives the ratio of the prices of the two metals as 1: 16 (IV, ii, 98). Tavernier, writing in 1660, says that one golden rupee was equal to 14 silver ones during his times [p. 13]. We may, therefore, well assume that the ratio of the relative prices of the two precious metals was somewhere in the vicinity of 1:15 during our period, though no epigraphical record from the Deccan of our period is at present available to support that statement.

c18.s1.32

(2) The second of the three Kongu inscriptions, edited by Kittel, (16) gives us some idea of the taxation under the Gangas, who were for some time the feudatories and for some time the neighbours of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. The record informs us that Beli-ur, which consisted of 12 hamlets, used to pay 80 golden coins and 800 measures of paddy. Since the inscription hails from Coorg, the gold coins were probably Kalanjus and the measure of paddy a kalam. The latter measure differed in different localities from about 36 to 72 maunds. (17) The Government tax on Beli-ur and its 12 hamlets amounted to 20 tolas of gold or 300 tolas of silver and about 4000 maunds of paddy *i. e.* 1600 maunds of rice.. It will be shown in chapter XVI that ten kalams of paddy measuring about 400 seers used to cost about a kalanju or a quarter of atol a of gold. If the kalam of this place was of the same measure, the total government demand would have amounted to 40 tolas of gold or 600 tolas of silver. In modern figures this may amount to about Rs. 800.

c18.s1.33

(3) In the Cambay plates of Govinda IV, dated 930, (18) we have got the following passage:—

c18.s1.34

Brāhmaṇebhyashshaṭśatāni agrahārāṇam suvarṇalakshatraya-sametāni......devakulebhyo grāmāṇāmashṭaśatāni suvarṇalakshachatuṣṭayam drammalakshadvātriṃśatam cha dadatā. ...

c18.s1.35

¹⁶ I. A., VI, p. 103.

c18.s1.36

¹⁷ See chapter XVI.

c18.s1.37

In connection with the temples, 32 lakhs of drammas were paid in addition to the assignment of 800 villages, and therefore, the text uses the particle *cha*. In the clause referring to the donations to the Brahmanas this particle does not figure and, therefore, the expression *suvarṇalakshatrayasametāni* must be taken as referring, not to an additional gift of that amount, but as an adjective of *shaṭsatāni*, indicating that the government revenue from the 600 villages granted was three lakhs of *suvarṇas*. It, therefore, follows that the expression *grāmāṇam ashṭas'atāni suvarṇalakshachatushtayam* is intended to indicate that the revenue of the 800 villages granted to the temples was 4 lakhs of *suvarṇas*; *suvarṇalakshachatushtayam* is a mistake for *suvarṇalakshachatushṭayasametāni*. In both the cases the average revenue of one village works out to be 500 *suvarṇas*. *Suvarṇa* is not to be taken here as the gold coin of that name, referred to by Manu as weighing 80 raktikas or about 146 grains, and introduced into currency by Skandagupta in the latter half of his reign. In South India the normal gold coin of our period was *kalanju*, weighing about a quarter of a tola. It is this *suvarṇa* or golden coin that is obviously referred to in the Cambay plates. The revenue of an average village in the time of Govinda IV was thus 500 *suvarṇas* i. e. *kalanjus*; it thus amounted to 125 tolas of gold or 1875 tolas of silver; we may equate it to about Rs. 2,500.

c18.s1.38

(4) In the Bāṇa principality, which was sometimes on the border of the Rāshṭrakūṭa empire and sometimes included in it, the revenue of the village Viprapītha, which is the same as modern Guddimalam in Kalahasti Zemindari in Arcot and Nelore districts, was 10 *kalanjus* of gold and 500 *kādis* of paddy.¹⁹

c18.s1.39

¹⁹ E. I., XVII, p. 7.

c18.s1.40

In the above 4 cases we have no doubt the actual amount of the revenues collected in the villages concerned, but they do not enable us to determine the incidence of taxation, since the acreage under cultivation is not given in a single case.

c18.s1.41

Nor does the Tuppad Kurahatti inscription of Kṛṣṇa III²⁰ help us in this connection. This record states : Tondayya, the country gāmuṇḍa of Belvola 300, and six gamuṇḍas granted in concert to the temple constructed by Aychayya 50 mattars (of land) by king's measure and one mattar for a garden. On this for the share of the king the fixed revenue shall be 2 gadyāṇas and for the revenue of the country gāmuṇḍas the fixed revenue of two gold gadyāṇas. The total taxation for this field of 50 mattars and the garden of 1 mattar would be only 4 golden gadyāṇas i. e. 2 tolas of gold or 30 tolas of silver. Unfortunately the precise dimensions of a mattar are not known, and there is ample evidence to show that the measure varied with localities. The grants made by the Śilāhāra prince Gonakarasa on one and the same occasion but in three different localities were by mattar of three different dimensions, prevailing in the places concerned.²¹ The Mangoli inscription of Bijjala, dated 1161 A.D.,²² assigns eight mattars to the four Brahmanas whose households constituted the Brahmana house-hold of the deity. It would thus seem that a Brahmana family required two mattars of dry land for its subsistance. A mattar therefore, may have been equal to about 4 or 5 acres of land at Mangoli, and its dimensions in other localities could not have been very much different. The tax of eight kalanjus of gold that was levied from about 50 mattars of dry land in the time of Kṛṣṇa III at the village of Tuppad Kurahatti would thus be from a piece of about 200 acres. The taxation per 100 acres is thus found to be only one tola of gold. This may have been, however, due to the fact that the permanent assessment for that piece of land was not the normal government demand, but only a kind of quit-rent, since the land was given to a temple as a devadāya grant. There is evidence to show that the temple lands were taxed on a lower scale. It will be soon shown that the average demand of government under the Cholas was 100 kalams of paddy per veli; but an inscription from Konerirajapuram informs us that 12 velis of temple land in the locality were charged a tax of only 600 kalams of paddy, before it was altogether exempted from taxation. The average taxation on temple land in this case is thus found to be only half of that on ordinary lands. Even then the taxation amount per acre at Tuppad Kurahatti would be too low, for it would be only 2 tolas of gold per 100 acres. It is possible that the quit-rent in this case was only nominal, or that the land was very poor in quality.

c18.s1.42

²⁰ E. I., XIV, p. 366.

c18.s1.43

²¹ Salotgi Pillar inscription, C. E. I., IV, p. 66.

c18.s1.44

²² E. I., V, p. 22.

c18.s1.45

A record from Honawad in Dharwar district, dated 1054 A.D., (23) refers to an allotment of ordinary dry land to a temple by king Somes'vara ' at the payment of half a paṇa as the payment for a mattar.' The rate referred to here must be obviously of taxation and not of the price of the land in question. The record, however, does not mention whether the paṇa mentioned was intended to be a gold, or silver, or copper coin. If we assume it to be a gold paṇa, weighing 80 raktikas or about a 3/4 tola, the rate of government taxation per mattar, which seems to have been equal to about 4 or 5 acres as shown above, was about 3/8 tola of gold or about 6 tolas of silver. But, it is possible that the paṇa may have been intended to be a silver or even a copper one; for Somes'vara may have decided to charge only a nominal quit-rent on the land he had given to a temple for his spiritual benefit.

c18.s1.46

The effort to determine the incidence of actual taxation on the agricultural land in the Deccan of our period cannot succeed in the present state of our knowledge. But inscriptions Nos. 4 and 5, (24) engraved in the Rājarājes'vara temple at Tanjore in 1014 A.D., give us a good idea of the land taxation towards the beginning of the 11th and the end of the 10th century A. D. The incidence of the land taxation under Kṛṣṇa III in the portions of Tamil country annexed by him to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa empire, towards the middle of the 10th century, could not probably have been much different; hence the utilisation of these inscriptions cannot be regarded as unjustifiable for the purpose of the present work.

c18.s1.47

²³ I. A., XIX, p. 272,
24. S. I. I., II.

c18.s1.48

These two valuable records give us the precise area of 35 different villages, stating in each case what area was actually taxed and what area was exempted from taxation. In the case of 5 villages the taxation was levied in cash and the rate works out to be 10 gold *kalanjus* per *veli* i. e. 2½ tolas of gold or about 37 tolas of silver for about 6½ acres. In the remaining 30 villages the tax was collected entirely in paddy, and the average is seen to be about 100 *kalams* per *veli*. Dr. S. K. Krishnaswami Aiyangar informs me that a *veli* in Tanjore district yields at present an average crop of 200 to 250 *kalams* of paddy (by the Tanjore measure) and that two crops on the average are grown in the course of the year, except in the narrow belt on both the sides of the Kaveri, where as many as three are possible. If we assume that the rainfall in our period was the same as it is now and that the present yield is not far different from that in the 10th century A.D., the government demand would be about 100 *kalams* from the gross produce of about 500 *kalams*; for in the villages given by Rājarāja only 2 crops are possible, and the modern *kalam* of Tanjore district is nearly the same as the *kalam* of our period. Land taxation at 20 per cent of the gross produce is fairly high, but it may be pointed out that about 15 per cent of this revenue was returned to the village for its own needs, ²⁵ and that there were no further demands as Water cess or Local Fund cess or Road cess. The records give the entire amount of the revenues paid by the villagers. All the revenues that were collected in our period remained in the country and no part was exported to any country outside India in the form of pensions or recruitment charges.

c18.s1.49

²⁵ Altekar, *Village Communities*, p. 70.

c18.s1.50

The land taxation under the Rāṣṭrakūṭas was probably equally high. The empire was almost continuously engaged in incessant warfare, and its opponents were also powerful rulers like the Gurjara-Pratīhāras, the Pālas and the Cholas. The military expenditure, therefore, must have been very heavy and the taxation, therefore, could not have been light. Al Idrisi, apparently relying on earlier writers, expressly declares that the subjects of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa kingdom were paying heavy taxes, and that, as a result, the king was immensely rich.²⁶ The land taxation, therefore, under the Rāṣṭrakūṭas may have been as high as 20 per cent of the gross produce. Since the Rājarājeśvara temple inscriptions Nos. 4 and 5 give the total demand realisable by the state from the farmers, we may reasonably presume that this 20 per cent taxation included all the miscellaneous dues like the uparikara or bhogakara. It may be pointed out that Sher Shah and Akbar used to claim 33% of the gross produce from the peasant,²⁷ and that in Vijayanagar, the incidence of taxation seems to have been still higher.²⁸

c18.s1.51

²⁶ Elliot, I, pp. 85-6.

c18.s1.52

²⁷ Moreland: *Agrarian System of Moslem India*, pp. 76 ff.

c18.s1.53

²⁸ Moreland: *India at the Death of Akbar*, p. 98.

c18.s1.54

The lands which were charged this high percentage are situated in the fertile district of Tanjore, and it may be presumed that less fertile lands were charged a lower percentage. Contemporary Chola inscriptions refer to 3 or 4 different classes of land, classified according to their quality, and it is quite probable that the taxation may have varied with each class. The same procedure was probably followed in the Deccan as well. It may be pointed out that S'ukranīti²⁹ lays down that the government revenue demand should vary with the nature of the irrigation of the soil.

c18.s1.55

²⁹ IV, ii, 115-6.

c18.s1.56

To conclude, it seems fairly clear that the states in our period were not following the advice of Gautama or Manu, who lay down a land tax varying between 8 to 16 per cent, but of Kauṭalya and S'ukra who permit a much higher taxation. It may further appear as probable that the percentages referred to in the Dharmaśāstra and Nīti works refer to gross produce and not to net produce.

c18.s1.57

In the case of some special tenures, the taxation was either very low or non-existent. Mānya, Aradhamānya, Namasya and Baḷagachchu are the principal tenures to be noted in this connection. In the case of Mānya tenures, the land was entirely free from all taxes; neither Mel-vāram (Governmen's dues ) nor Cūdi-vāram (30) ( inhabitants' dues ) had to be paid. We sometimes find the holders of this tenure paying voluntary cesses for works of public utility; an 11th century record refers to a voluntary cess of 1 Paṇa on all the rent-free lands at Tavargere for the maintenance of a Pujari in a local temple. (31) In the case of the Ardha-mānya tenures, the inhabitants' dues (Cūdi-vāram) had to be paid. The lands, assigned to public servants as their salaries, either in full or in parts, may have belonged to one of these categories. Namasya tenures consisted of lands alienated in favour of the temples and Brahmanas; they were sometimes fully and sometimes partially free from the taxes usually levied on landed property. Lands, granted to military officers for distinguished bravery were known as Baḷagachchu or swords-washing grants; (32) these too may have paid only a light tax, if at all they had to pay any, as the inhabitants' share.

c18.s1.58

Let us now consider the question whether the land tax was permanently fixed or periodically revised. Tuppad Kurahatti inscription of Kṛṣṇa III (33) states that the fixed revenue for the king's share on the land in question shall be two Gadyāṇas. The expression 'fixed revenue' may quite possibly point to a permanent settlement of the government demand; it seems not unlikely that when lands were given to Brahmanas or temples, their assessment may have been permanently fixed, if they had not been altogether exempted from taxation. Whether other lands were similarly permanently settled is a question on which our records throw no light. We have, however, seen that the writers of Smritis and Niti works allow a wide option, and permit the demand to vary between 8 and 50 per cent. It is, therefore, not unlikely that the government may have periodically revised its taxation demand in view of the changed circumstances or its own needs. This inference is supported by an inscription from Banavasi, dated 941 A.D., (34) which seems to refer to a fresh settlement necessitated by the drying up of an old irrigation canal.

c18.s1.59

³⁰ E. I., XIII, p. 35.

c18.s1.60

³¹ I. A., V, p. 345.

c18.s1.61

³² E. I., VI, p. 57.

c18.s1.62

³³ E. I., XIV, p. 366.

c18.s1.63

Kautalya recommends (35) a remission of land tax in case of the failure of crops due to famines, pestilences, and wars. We get no evidence about the practice in this respect from the epigraphical records of our period, probably because there was no reason to enunciate such a principle in documents creating rent-free tenures. The case of a revision survey rendered necessary by the drying up of a village canal, referred to in the last para, would suggest that the principle of remission, recommended by Kautalya, may have been acted upon by some states. It may be further pointed out that when the land tax was collected in kind, as was usually the case in our period, and was fixed as a certain share of the actual crop that was produced in the field for the year in question, detailed rules about remissions were not necessary; if on any account whatsoever the yield was less, the share of the government also would automatically diminish. (36) Ukkal inscription No. 9(37) shows that if under normal circumstances the land tax was not paid for three years the lands were sold by the village communities to the exclusion of the defaulting landholders.

c18.s1.64

³⁴ E. C., VIII, Sorab, No. 83.

c18.s1.65

³⁵ II, 1.

c18.s1.66

³⁶ Cf. ‘Under the original Indian (i. e. Hindu) system, in which the produce was divided at the harvest, the peasant and the state shared the risk of the enterprise.’ Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar, p.

c18.s1.67

¹⁰⁰ Some of the records mentioned in the text above, show

c18.s1.68

The land tax was collected usually in kind and rarely in cash; inscription Nos. 4 and 5 at the Rājarājeśvara temple show that in the vast majority of the villages, the tax was realised in paddy in Tamil country. Coming a little to the north we have the instance of the actual taxation of a village in Gangawadi which used to pay a tax of 20 Kalunjus and 2000 Kadis of paddy.(38) It is very likely that the taxes in kind were those realised from lands and those in cash from other sources. Beli-ur, another village in the same province, is known(39) to have been paying a revenue of 80 gold coins and 800 measures of paddy in 887 A.D. Here also the same explanation might hold good. The Cambay plates of Govinda IV no doubt state that the Emperor had given 1400 villages to temples and Brahmanas, each of which yielded an average revenue of 500 Suvarṇas;(40) but it is not very likely that the entire revenues in all these villages were collected in cash alone. It is probable that the plates give the cash equivalent of the revenues collected in these villages, so that the imperial charity may appear imposing and magnificent. It must also be remembered in this connection that the Dharmaśāstras laud to the skies gifts of gold and land but not of corn; that may have been another reason for stating the revenues of

c18.s1.69

that this system of sharing was superceded as early as our period by that of assessment based on averages at least in some cases; but this latter system does not seem to have become common or popular. Down to the time of Sher Shah and Akbar, sharing of the actual crops produced in the season was the more common method of assessment even under Muslim administrations in Northern India, p. 41. (See Moreland), *The Agrarian System of Moslem India*, p. 44.

c18.s1.70

³⁷ S. I. I., III.

c18.s1.71

³⁸ *Ibid* p. 94.

c18.s1.72

³⁹ I. A., VI, p. 141.

c18.s1.73

these villages in gold rather than in corn. In some cases the payment of the tax may have been entirely in cash in the Deccan, as was sometimes the case in some of the Chola villages; the Begumra plates of Kṛṣṇa II⁴¹ refer to one such village, which seems to have been paying its entire taxes in drammas. It is, however, very likely that in the vast majority of cases the land tax in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa dominions was paid in kind, as was the case in the Ganga and Chola dominions.

c18.s1.74

⁴¹ I. A., XIII, p. 68.

c18.s1.75

The collection of the land tax in kind, the amount of which was to vary with the actual produce of the year, must have necessitated a large supervising staff to prevent the farmers from removing surreptitiously a portion of the crop with a view to evade the full share of the government demand. The commentator on the Kurundhama Jātaka⁴² refers to the case of a scrupulous Setthi, who regretted his having plucked a handful of corn from his own field before the king's share was paid, and the Arthaśāstra prescribes⁴³ fines for the purchase of field products like grass, corn and vegetables direct from the fields, since such a procedure was prejudicial to the interests of the government, as it was thereby deprived of its legitimate share of the produce. Śukra⁴⁴ draws the attention of the king to the necessity of preventing the contents of his treasury being destroyed by the depredations of insects; the treasury department had thus to take a good deal of care lest the corn should be destroyed; old corn used to be sold away, and new one purchased, so that the contents of the granary may always have the best market value.

c18.s1.76

⁴² No. 276

c18.s1.77

⁴³ II, 22.

c18.s1.78

⁴⁴ IV, ii, 28.

c18.s1.79

The land tax was collected in several instalments. From the Begumra plates of Kṛṣṇa of the Gujrat branch dated 888 A.D.,⁴⁵ we learn that it was collected in three instalments, one in Bhādrapada or September, one in Kārtika or November and one in Māgha or March. It is interesting to note that this record partially confirms the statement of Bhattasvāmin, the commentator of the Arthaśāstra, that the *kara* or the land tax was paid in the months of Bhādrapada, Chaitra and the like, (46) and that of Kullūka (47) that the tax was gathered every year in Bhādrapada and Pausha. It would, therefore, seem that government permitted the farmers to pay the tax in at least three instalments. Such an arrangement was also inevitable since the tax was usually collected in kind and not in cash.

c18.s1.80

⁴⁵ I. A., XIII, p. 68.

(I, iii) Bhūtopāttapratyāya

c18.s1.t1.1

This tax has been almost universally mentioned in all the grants of our period, and the same is the case with the documents of the earlier and later centuries. This expression has so far defied the efforts of scholars to discover its meaning. It was proposed to explain the term as a tax for protecting those who have come into existence, or as a tax for spiriting away ghosts; (48) Dr. Ghosal proposes to translate it literally as 'a revenue derived from the elements and the wind,' (49) but admits that the precise meaning of the expression is uncertain.

c18.s1.t1.2

Our records give several readings of this term. *Sam-bhṛtopāttapratyāya*, (50) *bhūtapātapratyāya*, (51) and *bhūtavāta-pratyāya* (52) are the main ones. Of these *bhūtapāta* occurs only twice and may be a mistake for *bhūtavāta* or *bhūtopātta*.

c18.s1.t1.3

⁴⁶ Arthaśāstra, II, 15.

c18.s1.t1.4

⁴⁷ On Manu, VIII, 307.

c18.s1.t1.5

⁴⁸ It is no doubt true that a 10th century record from Banavadi mentions an offering of boiled rice which the villagers had to pay for the ghosts of the village, (E. I., XI, p. 6) but as no other record mentions such a tax it is almost certain that it was not a universal one. It is also unlikely that Brahmana donees would have ever consented to receive for themselves such a tax.

c18.s1.t1.6

⁴⁹ Ghosal, *Hindu Revenue System*, p. 217.

c18.s1.t1.7

⁵⁰ *e. g.* in Konnur inscription of Amoghavarsha I, E. I., VI, p. 29.

c18.s1.t1.8

⁵¹ *e. g.* in Baroda plates of Karkka, I. A., XII, p. 161.

c18.s1.t1.9

⁵² *e. g.* Kavi plates, I. A., V, p. 145.

c18.s1.t1.10

The remaining three readings signify more or less the same thing. The term *Bhūtopāttapratyāya* means a tax (*Aya*) on (*prati*) what has been taken in i. e. imported (*upātta*), and what has been produced (*bhūta*) in the village. The reading *Sambhṛtopāttapratyāya*, if not a mistake for *Sabhūtopātta-pratyāya*, would indicate a tax upon articles (manufactured and) stored (*sambhṛta*) and goods imported. *Bhūtavātapratyāya* is more enigmatical, but the expression *vāta* may refer to articles imported (*vā*, III conj., to wish to gain, to invite, to invoke) into the villages. It is, therefore, clear that these expressions refer to the general excise and octroi duties that were collected at the villages. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that the expression *Bhūtopāttapratyāya* does not figure along with the term *sas'ulka* in any of our records; Karda plates of Karkka II, dated 973 A.D., (53) Kauthem plates of Vikramāditya, dated 1008 A.D. (54) and Miraj plates of Jagadekamalla dated 1024 A.D. (55) describe the respective grants of the villages as *sas'ulka*, but they omit the expression *sabhūtopāttapratyāya*; the remaining records use the latter term but omit the former. It is thus clear that the *s'ulka* tax is nearly the same as the *bhūtopāttapratyāya* one.

c18.s1.t1.11

The Sirur inscription of Amoghavarsha I (56) and the Soratur inscription of Kṛṣṇa III (57) mention a tax on clarified butter and charcoal respectively; the government's right to claim, apparently from the herdsmen and cattle-breeders, the best bull and she-buffalo is mentioned in some of the records of the Vākāṭakas and the Yādavas of the Deccan, and of the Cholas of Tamil country, (58) a copperplate of the S'ilāhāras of Konkan, who were administering the coastal territories of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, mentions a customs duty of one golden Gadyāṇa from every ship arriving from a foreign country and of one silver dharaṇa from every one coming from coastal ports.(59) Some of the inscriptions of the Cholas(60) mention a tax on potters, shepherds, weavers, oilmen, shopkeepers, stall-keepers, brewers and gardeners. Siddāya tax, i.e. a tax on articles manufactured, was levied at Badami in the 12th century.(61) All these taxes will fall under the category of Bhūtopāttapratyāya. Some of the taxes mentioned above do not figure in the records of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, but most of them, and others also of a similar nature, may have very probably been levied by them also. The general expression Sabhūtopāttapratyāya being used in the plates there was no further necessity to specify them individually. It may be pointed out that most of these taxes have been advocated in standard books on polity and Dharmaśāstra.(62)

c18.s1.t1.12

⁵³ I. A., XII, p. 264.

c18.s1.t1.13

⁵⁴ I. A., XVI, p. 24.

c18.s1.t1.14

⁵⁵ I. A., VIII, p. 18.

c18.s1.t1.15

⁵⁶ E. I., VII, p. 203.

c18.s1.t1.16

⁵⁷ I. A., XII, p. 257.

c18.s1.t1.17

⁵⁸ *E. g.* Chammak plates, C. I. I., III, p. 238; Behatti inscription of Kṛṣṇa, J. B. B. R. A. S. IV, p. 48; Tandontottam plates, S. I. I., II, pp. 530-1.

c18.s1.t1.18

Octroi and excise duties were collected sometimes in kind and sometimes in cash. The taxes on butter and charcoal at Sirur(63) and Soratur(64) were collected in kind, but the octroi duties at Badami(65) and the customs dues at Kharepatan were collected in cash. The taxes collected in kind were very often assigned to local officers as shown already; this was inevitable, for the central government could hardly have managed to have at the capital a store of shoes, flowers, betel-leaves etc. that were paid as taxes in the distant villages of its empire. Even if a store had been opened there, most of these articles would have been rendered useless before they reached the depot. Epigraphical records do not supply any information about the percentage of the taxes we are discussing, but a number of writers like Manu, (VII, 131-2) Viṣṇu, (III, 33) Gautama (II, i, 30) and Kauṭalya (II, 21) lay down that the excise duty to be levied should be 16% in case of articles like fish, meat, honey, medicines, fruits.

c18.s1.t1.19

⁵⁹ E. I., III, p. 286

c18.s1.t1.20

⁶⁰ S. I. I., III., p. 391.

c18.s1.t1.21

⁶¹ I. A., VI, p. 141.

c18.s1.t1.22

⁶² Manu VII, 131 ff.; Viṣṇu, III, 29 ff.

c18.s1.t1.23

pottery, fuel, etc. The taxation may have varied in practice with different articles to some extent, but the average may have been in the vicinity of 16%. From Ibn Batuta we learn that the octroi duties in the first half of the 14th century A.D. were 25%. The percentage of customs duties seems to have varied between 5 and 10%. Viṣṇu (III, 30) and Gautama (II, i, 26) prescribe 5%, Śukra (IV, 2, 110) recommends a duty varying from 3% to 6% and Baudhāyana (1, 10, 15) permits a levy at 10%.

(1, iv) Viṣṭi or forced labour

c18.s1.t2.1

This tax has been referred to in most of the records of our period. The Hindu polity has laid down the proposition that every citizen ought to pay something by way of taxation to the state in return for the protection that he gets, howsoever poor he may be. Taxation, whether in cash or in kind, was both impracticable and cruel in the case of the poorer classes. The state therefore ⁶³ levied a tax in labour from them. Manu and other writers have laid down that artisans, labourers etc. should be made to work for one or two days in the month for the state. It was obviously impossible for the central government to collect this tax in labour in its central treasury. It was, therefore, realised partly during the tours of the king and the officers of the central government, partly for the routine government work in the village like the cleansing of the government granary, weighing or measuring the land-tax paid in kind etc., and partly when public works in villages like the excavation of village tanks or wells had to be carried out. On such occasions the headman could compel the artisans and the labourers to work for the state or the village community.

c18.s1.t2.2

⁶³ VII, 138.

(I. v) Miscellaneous Taxes

c18.s1.t3.1

Under this head may be included several miscellaneous dues. First may be mentioned a tax on houses, the existence of which is proved by an inscription from Hebbal, dated 975, (64) which records a grant of 12 sites of houses for a temple with complete exemption from taxes. The existence of a ferry tax, which is recommended by most of the Smriti writers, is proved by the Torkhede plates of Govinda III, dated 813 A.D., (65) which expressly mention this impost. It is difficult to say whether the tax on marriage, which is mentioned in some Chola records, (66) and the duty leviable at the festival of attaining puberty, which is referred to in an inscription of Vinayāditya, (67) dated 680 A.D., were universal taxes, or imposed only by some whimsical rulers. The last mentioned inscription also mentions a tax on men dying without a son, and a 13th century Yādava document (68) attests to the existence of a tax levied on persons who were not blessed with a son.

c18.s1.t3.2

The tax on persons having no son or dying without a son seems at first sight a strange one. Some might imagine that it was levied by the Hindu state in its desire to see that its subjects discharged the religious duty of procreating a son. The tax, however, was due to no such desire, nor could it have appeared to our age as an unjust imposition. Its imposition as a matter of fact marked a great concession to the subjects. To understand its genesis, we shall have to cast a glance at the history of the widow's right to inherit her husband's property. This right was recognised late in the history of the Hindu society, as was also the case elsewhere. S'atapatha Brāhmaṇa, (69) Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā, (70) Āpastamba, (71) Baudhāyana (72) and Vasiṣṭha (73) Dharmasūtras do not recognise this right, which Yājñavalkya seems to have been the first writer to advocate vigorously. He was later followed by Nārada, Kātyāyana and S'ankha.⁷⁴ When the widow was not recognised as an heir, at the death of her husband living separately from other collaterals, the property would have either escheated to the crown as heirless or devolved upon distant collaterals, who it may have been thought, ought to pay to the state a portion of the wealth they had got as wind-fall. Some of the states seem to have continued the tax even when the widow was recognised as her husband's heir as a partial compensation for the loss they had to sustain by the new theory that the property could devolve upon the widow as well. This tax in the Deccan will have to be pronounced as humane, when compared to the practice of some of the earlier and contemporary states of confiscating all the property of a person dying without a son on the plea that it was heirless, even when the widow was surviving. We shall discuss this theory in detail under the item 'Income from government properties.'

c18.s1.t3.3

⁶⁴ E. I., IV, p. 355.

c18.s1.t3.4

⁶⁵ E. I., III, p. 53.

c18.s1.t3.5

⁶⁶ E. g. Tandontottam plates, S. I. I., III, p. 531.

c18.s1.t3.6

⁶⁷ I. A., XIX, p. 145.

c18.s1.t3.7

⁶⁸ Pool, Kolhapoor, p. 393.

c18.s1.t3.8

⁶⁹ IV, 4; 2, 13.

c18.s1.t3.9

⁷⁰ IV, 6, 4.

c18.s1.t3.10

⁷¹ II, 14, 2-4.

c18.s1.t3.11

⁷² XI, 2, 53.

c18.s1.t3.12

⁷³ XVII, 62.

c18.s1.t3.13

⁷⁴ Quoted in the Mitākṣarā on Yājñavalkya II, 135-6.

c18.s1.t3.14

Some of the taxes mentioned under the present head do not figure in the Rāṣṭrakūṭa records, but it would be rash to say that they did not exist in our period, since they are mentioned in the inscriptions of the earlier, contemporary and later dynasties.

(2) Occasional Exactions

c18.s2.1

(2. 1) *Cāṭabhaṭapraves'adaṇḍa* :—'Exactions at the time of the arrival of regular and irregular military and police forces.' Most of the village grants are stated to be free from this exaction. Cāṭas and Bhaṭas were the members of the police and military forces of the state, and when they were quartered in a village while on the march, the villagers had to meet a number of demands of their unwelcome guests. S'ukra lays down that soldiers should encamp outside a village and should not enter it except on official business.⁷⁵ It would thus appear that good governments of our period were trying to minimise the exactions of the soldiery by preventing it from entering into villages, except with the permission of the higher authorities. S'ukra's rule would, however, minimise only individual high-handedness. That the military authorities would call upon the villagers to meet their various needs is made clear by a record from Davangiri belonging to the 10th century A.D.⁷⁶ This inscription states that when Mahāsāmantādhipati S'āntivarman of Banavasi 12,000 came in to due course to Palarur, he sent a summoner to the Mahājanas to say:—‘A supply of grass is wanted for our troops of horses and elephants’. Thereupon, the cutters said, ‘Right well we cut.’ The king was pleased and set free the offering of boiled rice for the ghosts. It is obvious that the inhabitants must have been required to subsidise the troops and officers with many commodities besides grass. The tax Senābhaktam mentioned in the Arthas'āstra⁷⁷ corresponds to this exaction.

c18.s2.2

⁷⁵ V. 84.

c18.s2.3

⁷⁶ E. I. XI, p. 6.

c18.s2.4

⁷⁷ II, 15,

c18.s2.5

(2, ii) *Rājasevakānām vasatidaṇḍaprayāṇadaṇḍau.* ‘Fines or dues leviable at the time of the halt or departure of the royal officers’. These are mentioned in a Yādava grant⁷⁸ but may have been common in our period as well. Tandon-tottam plates of Vijayanandivikramavarman⁷⁹ mentions a fee for the man, who used to bring the royal orders to the village. This fee would also come under the present category.

c18.s2.6

⁷⁸ I. A., XIV, p. 319,

c18.s2.7

⁷⁹ S. I. I., II, p. 531.

c18.s2.8

Customary presents to the king and higher officers on occasions of festivity like the birth of a son, or marriage may also be mentioned here. The *utsaṅga* tax mentioned in the Arthas'āstra⁸⁰ has been interpreted in this sense by the commentator Bhaṭṭasvāmin. Such presents were made in the Indian States till recently and may have been common in our period as well, when some persons were so enthusiastically loyal as to offer their heads to deities in order that the king may have a male issue.(81)

c18.s2.9

⁸⁰ II, 15

c18.s2.10

( 2, iii ) Emergency demands of the State

c18.s2.11

The modern system of public debt was practically unknown in ancient times and the states were, therefore, compelled to levy extra taxation in case of emergency, in order to tide over the difficulty. This procedure is countenanced by the Mahābhārata(82), Arthaśāstra(83) and S'ukranīti(84) and may have very probably existed in our period too, since Somadeva, a contemporary Deccanese writer, permits the state to tax even the temples, Brahmanas and the wealth collected for sacrifice on such occasions.(85) Emergency taxation does not figure in the copper plates because the donees were not invested with the powers of levying it.

c18.s2.12

Exemption from Taxation

c18.s2.13

Exemption from taxation has been claimed as a privilege of the learned Brahmanas in most of the Smritis. It was conceded in practice only to a very limited extent. This question will be discussed in detail in chapter XIV where the position of Brahmanas will be considered in detail.

c18.s2.14

(3) Fines

c18.s2.15

The income from fines formed in our age, as in modern period, one of the items of the state income. Fines could hardly have formed any appreciable fraction of the total income of the state, and a considerable portion of them must have been consumed by the expense of the judiciary. When villages were alienated, the right to receive the fines imposed upon the delinquents was also usually transferred to the donees. The usual expression in this connection is sadaṇḍa.

c18.s2.16

⁸¹ E. C., VII, Sorab No. 479 82. XII, 87, 26-40.

c18.s2.17

das'āparādhaḥ; sometimes the more expressive terms like daṇḍāya or pratishiddhāya are used.(86) These alternative forms will show that Dr. Ghosal's view that the expression confers upon the donee the right to be exempted, at least in part, from the ordinary penalties for the commission of some of the traditional offences(87) is hardly sound. The incorrectness of this view will be at once manifest when it is remembered that the expression figures not only in grants given to Brahmanas, but also in those given to temples. Most of the village disputes were tried in the villages themselves; it was customary to impose a fine even in civil cases on the unsuccessful litigants. A part of these fines was spent in meeting the expenses connected with the trial of the case before the Village Panchayat; the balance, which normally went into the state treasury, was diverted to the donees in the case of the alienated villages.

c18.s2.18

(4) Income from Government Properties

c18.s2.19

(4, i) Crown lands; Waste lands and Trees.

c18.s2.20

Stray plots of cultivable lands in several villages, waste lands, lands awaiting cultivation, forests and some specific trees formed government property. The Rāshṭrakūṭa administration did not claim proprietary right in all the land under cultivation within its jurisdiction. The numerous copperplate grants, giving villages to temples and Brahmanas, assign to the donees the government's right to the taxes derived from the land and other sources; there is not a single case where the proprietary right in the entire land under cultivation in any village has been transferred to a donee. The plate uses a long series of expressions specifying the rights accruing to the donees, but not a single expression is used in any of our grants, suggesting that the donees acquired the proprietary rights in the cultivable lands in the village. Even the right of ejection is nowhere mentioned. It is, therefore, clear that in our period the state did not lay any claim to the ownership of the entire soil situated in the realm. Nay, there are actual cases of previous purchase when land, and not the revenue rights, were assigned to the donees. Tirukkoyalur inscription (88) of the 21st year of the reign of Kṛṣṇa III (c. 961 A.D.) states how a Vaidumba king purchased about 3 velis of land from the local assembly in order to assign it to a temple in the village. Some of the Chola records, granting land and not the right to the revenue, expressly refer to the previous purchase of the rights of the former owners and hereditary proprietors. (89) It is further worth noting that when the proprietary right in the soil is given to the donee, the grant is usually of a few acres and not of an entire village. In this connection the Konnur inscription of Amoghavarsha I (90) is very important. The record states that, at the request of his favourite general, Bankeya, Amoghavarsha I gave to a Jain temple

c18.s2.21

⁸⁶ E.g., I. A., XIX, p. 165.

c18.s2.22

⁸⁷ Ghosal, *Hindu Revenue System*, p. 220.

c18.s2.23

(1) the village of Taleyur,

c18.s2.24

(2) a flower garden, 500 × 150 cubits in dimension, situated in the same village, and

c18.s2.25

(3) 12 Nivartanas of land, situated in each of the 30 villages included in the sub-division in which the village of Taleyur was situated.

c18.s2.26

Now there was no necessity of specifying the precise dimensions of the flower garden, situated in the village Taleyur, if the grant of the village meant the grant of the entire land within its boundaries. The separate mention of this garden and of its precise dimensions shows that the proprietary rights in the soil were transferred to the temple only with reference to this small plot of land. Item No. 3 above further shows that when it was the case of transferring proprietary rights in soil, the state could usually give only small pieces scattered over different villages, and not entire villages themselves.

c18.s2.27

⁸⁸ S. I. I., III, pp. 104-6, 89. Ibid, II, Nos. 22 and 23.

c18.s2.28

A number of other records support the same conclusion. The Atkur inscription, belonging to the middle of the 10th century, records a grant of land to a temple by Būtuga II, the brother-in-law of Kṛṣṇa III; the piece given is one yielding an income of two Kaṇḍugas (3 Khaṇḍis) only. In an inscription from Mulgund, we find a king named Kanna granting

c18.s2.29

(1) a piece of 12 Nivartanas situated in the S'ivaṭa of that village,

c18.s2.30

(2) that portion of land which was situated between two tamarind trees to the south of that village, and

First 153 of 205 passages. Read on

Linked texts (44)