The Rashtrakutas and their Times c22.221

c22.221

Two Paṇas can, therefore, just as well represent the ⅙th as the ⅒th or the ⅟₁₂th 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 2⅓ 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 writers expressly say so. Nīlakaṇṭha, while beginning the section on Praṇaṣṭādhigama, expressly observes:—