Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c18.s2: (2) Occasional Exactions

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c18.s2

Language
English

Contents

(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

c18.s2.31

(3) six mattars in Pareyaloku to the west of the boundary of Sugandhavatī or modern Saundatti. (91)

c18.s2.32

The fact that this king should find it necessary to give only detached pieces of cultivable land situated in the different corners of the village shows that the state was not, and did not claim, to be the proprietor of the entire land of the realm. This conclusion is quite in harmony with the views on the subject prevailing in the Hindu period proper. Jaimini distinctly says that the king is not the owner of the soil and his commentator S'abara agrees with him. The same is the view of Kātyāyana. (92) Nīlakaṇṭha (93) refers to the text of Jaimini and asserts that a king cannot grant in charity the proprietary right in the soil in the realm, because it does not belong to him but to various individual proprietors. The view of Mādhava (94) and Mitramiśra (95) is the same. It is only Jagannātha, who advocates the view that the king is the owner of the soil and the subjects are mere lessees, and that the former's right of ownership arises out the fact of his being the first occupant of the country.(96) But Jagannātha is a very late writer and his testimony is contradicted by the almost unanimous views of both earlier and later writers. It may be observed that Manu(97) also does not support the state-ownership of land as is sometimes contended by some authors. The topic discussed in the verse in question is about the ownership of the treasure-trove and not of land. Some of the Greek writers suggest that the theory of the state-ownership of the land existed in the days of Chandragupta Maurya, but hardly any value can be attached to their statements since they are contradicted by others.(98)

c18.s2.33

⁹¹ J. B. B. R. A. S., X, p. 199.

c18.s2.34

⁹² Quoted in Vīramitrodaya, Rājanīti, p. 271.

c18.s2.35

⁹³ Vyavahāramayūkha, Svatvanirūpaṇam, p. 56.

c18.s2.36

⁹⁴ Nyāyamālā, p. 358.

c18.s2.37

⁹⁵ See No. 91 above,

c18.s2.38

Though the state was not the owner of the entire cultivable land in the kingdom, it used to own some pieces in most of the villages situated in the realm. These may have been lands which had lapsed to it as heirless property, or which had been confiscated by it for offences committed by their former owners or which were actually purchased by it for state purposes. In some cases these state lands may also have been waste lands brought under cultivation by government. The examples given above show how the state owned stray pieces of lands in many villages and more can be quoted. The Silāhāra ruler Govunarasa is known to have granted 206 mattars of land to the Salotgi College;(99) the Raṭṭa prince Snātivarman had given 150 mattars in the field of his own S'ivata.(100) The meaning of this word S'ivata is not definitely known, but it seems to stand for the crown lands. Honawad inscription of Someśvara(100) shows that when actual pieces of land were granted away they were not always free from the land tax. Either its full amount or a certain quit rent was charged.

c18.s2.39

⁹⁶ Quoted in Sen's Hindu Jurisprudence, p. 27.

c18.s2.40

⁹⁷ VIII, 39.

c18.s2.41

⁹⁸ MacCrindle, Megasthenes, p. 48.

c18.s2.42

⁹⁹ E. I., IV, p. 56.

c18.s2.43

Forests were government properties in our period. A Pallava record(101) falling within our period mentions a grant of four pieces of forest land in the vicinity of Kanchi, showing thereby that the state used to claim ownership in the forest lands situated within its jurisdiction. Most of our records granting villages use the expression savṛkṣamālākuḷaḥ. It is very likely that the expression refers to the transfer of the state's right in the forest lands that may be situated within the boundaries of the village. It must be, however, admitted that another interpretation of this term is possible. Some of the Indian states of the Deccan still claim the right of ownership in certain trees like sandal, hirḍa etc. even when they may be growing on private soil. The same was the case with many of the states in the Punjab.(102) The records of the Gahadwar dynasty show that its rulers claimed proprietary rights in mango and Madhuka trees growing in the kingdom.(103) It is, therefore, not unlikely that the expression savṛkṣamālākuḷaḥ may be referring to the state's ownership of some such trees as well. There is, however, no evidence belonging to our period to prove that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas used to claim this right. The expression can be interpreted as referring to the state's ownership of the trees growing in the forests or by the roadsides, or on the village waste lands.

c18.s2.44

Ownership of the waste lands was naturally vested in the state. Specific evidence to prove this theory is afforded by the two Ganga records in the Bangalore museum(104) which record the grant of uncultivable waste lands situated in Guladpadi and Bempur 12 to two soldiers for their distinguished bravery in war. That the Gupta administration also claimed this right is proved by the Damodarpur plates,(105) where we find government officers disposing off waste lands by sale.

c18.s2.45

¹ A., VII, p. 169.

c18.s2.46

¹⁰² Punjab States Gazetteer, VII, A. p. 16.
103. e. g. E. I., XI, p. 24.

c18.s2.47

¹⁰⁴ E. I., VI, p. 44.

c18.s2.48

The first part of the expression *sakāśṭhatṛṇakūpataḍā-gopetaḥ*, which occurs in many of our records¹⁰⁶ transfers to the donees the right to utilise grass, fuel etc., growing on the waste lands included in the boundaries of the village concerned. It must be, however, noted that the Smriti writers lay down that a certain portion of the village waste lands should be set apart as pasturage¹⁰⁷ and most of the Deccan villages still possess them. In our period, too, the same must have been the case. The ownership of the pasture lands was vested in the village Mahājanas.

c18.s2.49

¹⁰⁶ *e. g.* E. I., I, p. 53.

c18.s2.50

¹⁰⁷ *e. g.* Manu, VIII, 237, Vishṇu V, 147.

(4, ii) Mines and Salt

c18.s2.t1.1

In ancient as in modern times the state was the owner of the mines in the realm. The expression *sahābhyantarasiddhi*, which occurs in most of our grants, transfers to the donees the state's right to the mineral wealth in the interior of the earth. *Vāchaspatya-bṛhadadhidhāna* and *S'abdārthachintāmaṇi* both give *nishpatti* or production as a synonym of *siddhi*; according to *Dharaṇi* the word also means *sampatti* or wealth. Macdonell and Apte state in their dictionaries that the word has also the sense of payment or recovery. *Abhyantarasiddhi* would, therefore, mean 'realisation of whatever is in the interior (of the soil)' or 'wealth in the interior (of the earth)' or 'recovery of whatever is in the interior (of the earth)' It is, therefore, clear that the meaning, which is here ascribed to this term for the first time, is the correct one and the expression proves that the state was the owner of the mines and minerals.

c18.s2.t1.2

Mineral wealth included salt mines as well, the ownership in which was expressly claimed by the Gahadwals and the Cholas.¹⁰⁸ The Rāshṭrakūṭa records nowhere expressly claim this right for the state. That may be perhaps due to its not having claimed any royalty in the salt manufacture; it is, however, also possible that the expression *sahābhyantara-siddhi* having included that right as well, it was not deemed necessary to specify it separately. It is, however, rather strange that even the records of the Sīlāhāras, whose dominions included the coastal districts where salt must have been manufactured on a large scale, should not be specifically claiming this right. That might perhaps show that the Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their feudatories did not claim the salt monopoly like the Cholas and the Gahadwals.

c18.s2.t1.3

¹⁰⁸ *e. g.* Saheth Maheth plates of Govindachandra, E. I., XI, p. 24, Tandonotottam plates of Vinayanandivikramavarman, S. I. I., II, pp. 531-2.

(4, iii) Treasure-trove and the property of heirless persons

c18.s2.t2.1

This is the last item to be considered under this head. Our copper plate grants usually transfer to the donees the right to the treasure-troves that may be discovered in the villages or lands granted. The expression used in this connection is *nidhinikshepasametaḥ* (109) ‘along with the right to treasures and buried wealth’; there is no ambiguity whatsoever about its meaning. Most of the Smriti writers (110) also state that the king was entitled to a fairly large share of the treasure-troves, except when the discoverer was a Brahmana.

c18.s2.t2.2

Gautama, (111) Vasiṣṭha, (112) Viṣṇu (113) and Manu (114) lay down that the heirless property of the non-Brahmanas was to escheat to the state. The interpretation of the term ‘heirless’ seems to have differed with different times. It is true that the widow was not recognised as an heir for a long time as shown already; but the Dharmaśāstras, which deny her that right, concede it to other collaterals, like the brothers, cousins or uncles. A person who dies without a male issue but leaves behind him some collaterals cannot, therefore, be regarded as dying without an heir. It would, however, appear that some states in the ancient period regarded such persons as dying without heirs in order to claim their property for themselves. Some of the Jātaka stories disclose such a state of affairs, (115) and the 6th act of the S'ākuntala provides us with a most convincing case. There we find that the king stops the intended confiscation of the property of a dead merchant in order to see whether one of the widows, who was enceinte at the time of the tragedy, would give birth to a son. A similar case is mentioned in the Mohaparājaya of Yashaḥpāla who flourished in Gujarat in the 12th century. Kumārapāla is there grieved to learn that his subjects should be under the justifiable impression that their king always desired that rich persons should die without leaving behind any sons. (116) The king consequently renounces this right after his conversion, and the Kumārapālapratibodha claims that the magnanimity of permitting the weeping widow to keep her property was not shown in the past even by kings like Raghu and Nahusha. (117) The case in the Deccan, however, was different. The tax on persons dying without a son, which has been already referred to, proves that only a fraction of their property passed to the state as a kind of succession duty. Managoli Inscription, dated 1178 A.D., further makes it absolutely clear that the property of persons dying without a male issue did not escheat to the crown, as was the case in contemporary Gujarat. The inscription states:—

c18.s2.t2.3

¹⁰⁹ Cf. I. A., II, p. 301; XIX, p. 345 etc.

c18.s2.t2.4

¹¹⁰ *e. g.* Manu, VIII, 35-39; Yājñnavalkya, II, 34-5; Viṣṇu. IV; 1; etc.

c18.s2.t2.5

¹¹¹ XXVIII, 41-2.

c18.s2.t2.6

¹¹² XVII, 73

c18.s2.t2.7

¹¹³ XVII, 13-4.

c18.s2.t2.8

¹¹⁴ IX, 189.

c18.s2.t2.9

115. e.g., Vol. IV, pp. 485-6.
116. Cf. निष्पुत्रं म्रियमाणमाद्यमवनीपालो हहा वाञ्छति । p. 43, Act III, v. 50.
117. > न सुक्तं यत्पूर्वं रघुनहुषनाभागभरत-

c18.s2.t2.10

प्रभृत्युर्नाथैः कृतयुगकृतोत्पत्तिभिरपि ।
विसृक्चन्संतोषात्तदिह रुदतीवित्तमधुना
कुमारक्ष्मापाल त्वमसि महतां मस्तकमाणः ॥ p. 48.

c18.s2.t2.11

‘If any one should die at Manigavalli without sons, his wife, female children, divided parents, and brothers and their children.........and any kinsmen and relatives of the same Gotra, who may survive, should take possession of all his property, i. e. bipeds, quadrupeds, coins, grains, house, and field ; if none such should survive, the authorities of the village should take over the property as Dharmadeya property.’(118)

c18.s2.t2.12

It would be clear from this valuable record that the property of sonless persons did not escheat to the crown but devolved on the kinsmen in an order which is very similar to that laid down by Yājñavalkya.(119) Somadeva, a contemporary writer from Karnatak, also states that the king may take a share of the property of the widow only when in difficulty.(120) This would show that normally the property was allowed to devolve upon the widow and other near heirs. It is interesting to note that the epigraphical evidence from the Deccan confirms the tradition that the widow was recognised in that province as her husband’s heir since early times. This tradition is mentioned as early as in the Nirukta;(121) Yājñavalkya also, who recognises the widow as an heir and permits the king to inherit the property of the dead under no circumstances whatsoever, was most probably a southerner like his commentator Vijñāneśvara.

Linked texts (17)