The Rashtrakutas and their Times c22.213

c22.213

Two Paṇas can, therefore, just as well represent the ⅙th as the 1/10th or the 1/12th price of the cow. The price of a cow, even if we accept this line of argument as valid, can be 12 or 20 or 24 Paṇas. The fact, however, is that the ransom prescribed for the recovery of a lost article had no mathematical ratio with its price. If we accept the theory that it was everywhere one sixth the price of the article, we shall have to assume that the price of a slave was only 30 copper Paṇas, since Kauṭalya prescribes a ransom of 5 Paṇas for the recovery of a biped. A slave would thus be only 2½ times costlier than a cow. Another corollary of this proposition would be the necessity to assume that the price of a cow was the same as the price of a she-buffalo, since the ransom for both is the same, viz., two Paṇas. We have shown above that a she-buffalo was three times costlier than a cow and Dr. Pran Nath's view is also the same.(131) It may be further pointed out that immediately after stating the ransom for horses, cows, etc., the Arthaśāstra adds that in the case of jewels and metals, the ransom was to be only 5%.(132) The ransom figures in the case of animals were higher because the custodian had to spend for their maintenance during the time they were with him. The ransom thus seems to have varied, not with the price of the article, but with the cost of its custody. Nibandha the host was ridiculed. Usually the leavings at the table of one man could satisfy three persons, but in the case of a meal supplied by a rich host, they could not be eaten even by 10 men. These observations will explain why the cost of feeding one Bhikshu was as high as the interest of 12 Dīnāras or 30 Kaḷanjus. Like I-tsing, the donor at Sanchi might have been warned that if the food supplied was just enough for the appetite, he would be ridiculed. The capital provision of 12 Dīnāras or 30 Kaḷanjus, that has been made in the Gupta inscription No. 62, may thus have been, to some extent, in excess of the actual needs of the situation. We may perhaps presume that for the real cost of a rich dinner where there was no waste, a capital outlay of about 8 Dīnāras or 20 Kaḷanjus was sufficient. The capital outlay for a similar meal in the south in our period was 16 or 17 Kaḷanjus as shown already. The capital outlay for an ordinary meal in the 10th century was only about 8 Kaḷanjus as will be shown later. It will be thus seen that the prices of our age, far from being 725% higher than those of the Gupta period, were actually somewhat lower. Precise comparison is unfortunately not possible, as we have not any information about the cost of an ordinary meal and the actual rate of interest in the Gupta period.