The History of Bengal (Vol. I: Hindu Period; Vol. II: Muslim Period 1200–1757) v1.c19.s4.1

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.