Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The History of Bengal (Vol. I: Hindu Period; Vol. II: Muslim Period 1200–1757) v1.c19.s4: IV. Land Tenures

The History of Bengal (Vol. I: Hindu Period; Vol. II: Muslim Period 1200–1757) v1.c19.s4

Language
English

IV. Land Tenures

v1.c19.s4.1

Land was the bed-rock of ancient Bengal’s political economy. It was the main source of wealth and the chief support of life. Even so, our knowledge of the system or systems of land-tenure, as they obtained in this province in ancient times, is extremely vague and incomplete. Most of the early copper-plate grants refer to the sale or gift of waste lands for pious purposes. The right of the state over these lands and the procedure by which they were sold or alienated to private individuals have been discussed in a preceding chapter.² It may be added here that the estates thus created either by sale or by gift were marked off from the neighbouring holdings. The copper-plate Grants often give us the details of these boundary-marks. Where, however, no natural boundary-marks existed, the new holdings were delimited by such artificial devices as chaff and charcoal (*chira-kāla-sthāyi-tush-aṅgār-ādīnāṁ chihnaiḥ*)³ or pegs (*kīlaka*) ‘bearing the impress of a string of lotus seeds’ (*kamal-āksha-māl-āṅkitā*).⁴ The holdings themselves were governed by a law described in contemporary documents as *nīvī-dharma* (Dāmodarpur Plate. No. 1),⁵ *akshaya-nīvī-dharma* (Baigrām and Pāhārpur Plates)⁶ or *apradā-dharma* (Dāmodarpur Plate, No. 5).⁷ It was a peculiar kind of tenure by which the purchaser, or the person or institution on whose behalf the land was transferred after purchase, obtained the right of perpetual enjoyment,⁸ but not of further alienation by sale or mortgage. In other words, the state, although it sold away plots of land out of the unappropriated waste, still reserved to itself certain rights over the property, and the purchaser or the donee was allowed only the usufructuary right over the land. Whether all holdings in the country were regulated by the law of *nīvi-dharma*, we have no means to ascertain; the probability, however, is that it applied only to estates created for pious purposes.¹ It is also not definitely known whether lands alienated by sale or gift under this form of tenure were rent-free, or “became liable,” as Dr. Ghoshal suggests, “to a progressive enhancement of the revenue till the normal rate was reached.”² There are good reasons to think, however, that immunity from taxation was one of the privileges enjoyed by the assignee in such cases. It is necessary to emphasise that the holdings under discussion were, without exception, created for pious purposes; and the age-old tradition of this country has been to regard pious endowments as rent-free.³ The Baigrām Plate definitely states that the alienation of three and a half *kulyavāpas* of fallow field (*khila-kshetra*) and homestead land (*vāstu*) was effected “in accordance with the principle of perpetual endowment (*akshaya-nīvi*) ... free from (the liability of payment of) any kind of taxes” (*a-kiñchit-pratikarāṇām*). The Nidhanpur Plate of Bhāskaravarman⁴ shows that rent-free pious endowments were not unknown in Bengal in the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. It further proves that the loss of the copper-plate, which registered such an endowment, involved the loss of this immunity from taxation, unless, of course, a fresh charter was granted renewing the privilege.

v1.c19.s4.2

² *Supra* pp. 266-71.

v1.c19.s4.3

³ Baigrām CP. (*EI*. XXI. 82).

v1.c19.s4.4

⁴ Mallasārul CP. (*EI*. XXIII. 160).

v1.c19.s4.5

⁵ *EI*. XV. 130.

v1.c19.s4.6

⁶ *Ibid*. XXI. 82; XX. 63.

v1.c19.s4.7

⁷ *Ibid*. XV. 143.

v1.c19.s4.8

⁸ This is clearly indicated by the expressions “*putra-pauttra-kramena*” and “*chandra-tār-ārkka-sthiti-kāla-sambhogyam*” used in the copper-plates of Gopachandra and Dharmāditya (*IA*. XXXIX. 204, 196).

v1.c19.s4.9

¹ That the law of *nīvi-dharma* applied not merely to estates created out of waste lands, but extended to pious grants of settled villages, is shown by the Vappaghoshavāṭa Grant of Jayanāga, which records how an entire village was given away by a Sāmanta to a Brāhmaṇa under the conditions of *akshaya-nīvi* (*EI.* XVIII. 63).

v1.c19.s4.10

² U. N. Ghoshal, *Agrarian System in Ancient India* (1930), p. 41.

v1.c19.s4.11

³ Cf. *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra*—Bk. II, Ch. 1; *Yājñavalkya Smṛti*, I. 318.

v1.c19.s4.12

⁴ *Kam. Sas.* 17.

v1.c19.s4.13

Inscriptions ranging from the eighth to the twelfth century, and belonging to Pāla, Sena, and other contemporary dynasties, introduce us to pious endowments of a somewhat different character. These were, with rare exceptions, made by kings in favour of temples and religious foundations, of individuals like priests and learned Brāhmaṇas, and sometimes of institutions and persons combined. The conditions and immunities attaching to these grants are found enumerated in the copper-plate charters which registered them. For instance, the Khālimpur Plate of Dharmapāla, the earliest of these charters, records the grant of four villages ‘with the (immunity from) penalties for the ten offences’ (*sa-daśāpachārāḥ*), ‘with the immunity from all burdens’ (*parihṛita-sarva-pīḍāḥ*)¹, ‘with the immunity from all taxes’ (*akiñchit-pragrāhyāḥ*), ‘according to the maxim of the uncultivable land’ (*bhūmi-chchhidra-nyāyena*), and ‘to last as long as the sun, moon and earth shall endure’ (*ā-chandr-ārka-kṣiti-sama-kālam*). In addition, the donee was to receive all those taxes in kind and in cash which the cultivators in the alienated villages had hitherto paid to the sovereign.² In some of the subsequent grants this list of immunities and privileges is further supplemented by the addition of other concessions such as ‘the rent of temporary tenants’ (*? s-oparikaraḥ*) and ‘the prohibition of entrance by regular and irregular troops’ (*a-chāṭa-bhaṭa-praveśaḥ*; infra p. 648).

v1.c19.s4.14

¹ I have followed Dr. U. N. Ghoshal's translation of these technical terms. See Ghoshal, *Hindu Revenue System* (1929), pp. 244-46.

v1.c19.s4.15

² *Cf. supra* pp. 277-78.

v1.c19.s4.16

It is obvious that these were grants in perpetuity, rent-free, and accompanied with the assignment of all revenues (*pratyāyaḥ*) accruing to the crown. What is not obvious, however, is whether they made over to the donee merely the state-share of the produce and other state-rights in the land alienated, or conveyed to him the proprietorship of the land as well, that is, an out and out gift of soil and revenue both.³ If the latter was the case, it would involve either of the two assumptions — that the king was regarded as the ultimate owner of the soil or that he made the grants out of what may be called the royal demesne. It is probable, however, that the bulk of these grants transferred to the grantees merely the right to receive the royal share of the produce; they were not intended to deprive any existing land-holder of his right; in other words, they did not convey a title to the land itself. Sometimes the land donated already belonged by right of purchase to the donee, for whose support revenue charges were remitted. In such cases, the land became what may be described as “free-hold.”⁴

v1.c19.s4.17

³ That some of the grants belonged to this category may be inferred from the statement in the Edilpur Plate of Keśavasena that the grantee was to enjoy the land “having (thereon) erected temples, excavated tanks and so on, and planted betelnut, cocoanut and other trees” (*IB. 130*). The same clause occurs in the Madhyapāḍā Plate of Viśvarūpasena (*IB. 147*), but in this instance a portion of the land donated had been previously purchased by the donee.

v1.c19.s4.18

⁴ Two instances of this kind are mentioned in the Madhyapāḍā Plate of Viśvarūpasena (*IB. 140 ff.*).

v1.c19.s4.19

It should be noted that these beneficial tenures, called *śāsanas* and *agrahāras* in contemporary documents, never covered more than a fraction of the agricultural land; they did not touch the mass of the cultivators in the country. What rights the bulk of the cultivators possessed in the soil they tilled we do not know. That some of them, at any rate, were non-proprietary or exproprietary tenants may be inferred from the copper-plate charters.¹ That all or most of them had to pay various kinds of taxes and local cesses is also certain. But besides the payment of taxes and cesses, the holding of land seems to have entailed various other obligations. This is shown by the express provision in the land-grants exempting religious endowments from certain burdens, enumerated in general terms as *sarva-pīḍā.* What these consisted of is nowhere clearly explained, but specific mention is made of the right of entry of *cāṭa* and *bhaṭa.* The latter seems to refer to certain services which the cultivators had occasionally to render to an army such as provision of quarters and supply of provisions or labour. The exact purport of the other term is not known, but it was evidently of the same nature and might have included the provision of food on the occasion of a king or high official visiting the locality and 'milk-money' *i.e.* the perquisite paid on the occasion of the birth of a prince, marriage of a princess, *etc.* These were not regular taxes, but customary dues paid on specific occasions. On the other hand, the land-grants indicate that the possession of land carried with it certain inherent privileges. These included the right to everything under the ground and above it, such as mines, salt, wood, bush and trees including fruits. The right may have extended to the use of adjoining water, *i.e.* tanks or rivers and fishing therein.

v1.c19.s4.20

¹ For instance, the Ashrafpur Plate of Devakhadga (*supra* pp. 86 ff.) mentions a pāṭaka of land which was 'enjoyed by Śarvāntara but cultivated by Mahattara Śikhara and others' (MASB. I. 88, 90).

Cites (11)