Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c10.s5.t2: B. Land Revenue under Vijayanagara

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c10.s5.t2

Language: English

B. Land Revenue under Vijayanagara

v1.c10.s5.t2.1

The Vijayanagara monarchs followed the Karṇāṭaka method of naming the measuring rod after one of the titles of the king. This accounts for the *rājavibhāḍan-kōl* and the *gaṇḍara-gaṇḍān-kōl*, which for the sake of publicity were cut on stone.⁴ The former appears in Śaka 1360 (A.D. 1438-39) under Dēva Rāya II.⁵ The standard rod was thirty-four feet in length.⁶ The existence of a standard rod presupposes that there was uniformity in the measurement of land.⁷ Land was divided into two or three kinds. In the Karṇāṭaka dry and wet lands were called *gadde* and *beddalu*.⁸ But the more universal classification of land was after the Tamilian method of dividing it into *nañsey* or wet land, *puñsey* or dry land, and *toppa* or groves, orchards and woods. This threefold division has survived to our days.⁹ When land was thus classified into different kinds, and the fields demarcated, the boundaries were shown generally by means of stones bearing the sign of a dwarf, (*Vāmana*), and somtimes by what were called *Lōkēśvara* stones.¹⁰ A newly formed plot of ground thus marked was divided into shares which were generally bestowed on persons of conspicuous merit. Thus Śrigiribhūpāla, or Śrigirindra, the brother of Dēva Rāya II, in A.D. 1424, while ruling from his provincial capital of Maraṭakapuri, gave the village of Nipaṭaṭūka alias Vijayarāyapuram (mod.

v1.c10.s5.t2.2

⁴ 212 of 1916.

v1.c10.s5.t2.3

⁵ 193 of 1916.

v1.c10.s5.t2.4

⁶ *Ep. Report* for 1916, p. 141.

v1.c10.s5.t2.5

⁷ See E.C., X, Mb. 173, p. 117.

v1.c10.s5.t2.6

⁸ E.C., II, No. 335, p. 144.

v1.c10.s5.t2.7

⁹ Ellis, *Mirasi Right*, p. 47 (1818 ed).

v1.c10.s5.t2.8

¹⁰ E.C., IV, Gu. 67, p. 47; E.C., III; Ml. 95, p. 65; TN. 41, p. 75.

v1.c10.s5.t2.9

Kadappēri, North Arcot district) to a Brahman named Sampat Kumāra Paṇḍita, who was well versed in the science of Āyurvēda. This learned man divided the village into fifty-six shares, gave two to the temple, one for feeding Brahmans, retaining twenty-two for his own use and bestowed the rest on his brothers, relatives and learned men.¹

v1.c10.s5.t2.10

¹ S. R. Aiyangar, Cat. of Copper-plates in the Madras Museum, N. 9, pp. 45-6.

v1.c10.s5.t2.11

Lands brought under cultivation, and sometimes entire hamlets and villages, were sold. In A.D. 1403 six villages together with their five hamlets rated at 150 honnu were sold at 150 varāha "the price of the day".² These transactions relating to the sale of land were often conducted in the presence of all the people concerned. In A.D. 1407 Tipanna-ayya, with the consent of all the nāḍ people of the Āraga Eighteen Kampana and all the cultivators of the three cities, sold to Bommaṇṇa-ayya land (specified) in the Mayise village rated at 60 hon, wherein to make an agrahāra, and other land (specified) at the rate of three ga (dyāna) for land yielding one ga (dyāna) receiving the price of 200 ga (dyāna).³ Thirdly solage of land in Arunavalli were sold for eighty varāha, in A.D. 1427.⁴ The people were careful enough to pay a reasonable price of land. Certain Gauḍas in A.D. 1475 bought from Gōvinda Dēva, son of Kañchi Sambu Dēva, land at the proper price, which was forty-five gadyāṇa.⁵ Nobles as well as ordinary citizens had to buy or sell land on payment of money. When Channarāya Oḍeyar of Dānavīsa and Sāmantabhadra Dēva of Gērusoppe wanted to provide for the offering in the temple of Sāntīśvara, they paid a tribute to the palace and acquired thirty khaṇḍis of land costing 120 gadyāṇa.⁶

v1.c10.s5.t2.12

² E.C., VI, Kp. 52, p. 87.

v1.c10.s5.t2.13

³ E.C., VIII, Tl. 190, p. 203. See infra, Volume II, Chapter VIII. Corporate Life in Social Matters.

v1.c10.s5.t2.14

⁴ E.C., VI, Kp. 27, p. 80.

v1.c10.s5.t2.15

⁵ E.C., VIII, Sb. 527, p. 87, text, p. 233.

v1.c10.s5.t2.16

⁶ E.C., VI, Kp. 21, p. 79.

v1.c10.s5.t2.17

The price of land varied according to the nature of soil. This explains why in A.D. 1588 they paid for seventy-two khaṇḍuga of rice land at Nāgalāpura sixty varaha, for 150 khaṇḍuga in Āraḍikoppa, 100 varāha, and for thirty khaṇḍuga in Kāgalagōḍu, twenty varāha.⁷ This system of purchasing or selling landed property was extended to plantations as well; and even the highest officials were constrained to give a sale-deed to the party to whom they sold land. Chikkanṇa Oḍeyar of Musure gave to Appāji Sēnabōva of Koppa, in A.D. 1578, and again in A.D. 1601, a sale-deed in which he wrote that he had sold a garden of 500 areca-trees, which he had purchased from a man called Dēvappa, through middle-men (*madhyasta-parakalpitavāgi*) for thirty *varāha*, to Appaji Sēnabōva for thirty *varāha*, "the price of the time".¹

v1.c10.s5.t2.18

⁷ Ibid., Kp. 57, p. 89.

v1.c10.s5.t2.19

¹ E.C., VI, Kp. 59, p. 90. This sale-deed seems to have been confirmed in A.D. 1601. The inscription bears the two dates. B.A.S.

v1.c10.s5.t2.20

These agents who are called *madhyastas*, and who effected such transactions, generally fixed the price of land. When Jakkaṇṇa Heggaḍe of Honnohole and others (named) in order to meet the expenses of a marriage in their family, were compelled to sell certain land to Nimbarasa, son of Vīrappa, of the Viśvāmitra-*gōtra*, in A.D. 1406, the price which mediators fixed was thirty-five *gadyāṇa*.² It was not only the *nāḍ* people who were present on such transactions, as related above; the presence of temple officials and the relations of the parties concerned was also necessary for confirming the legal deed. And sometimes the whole transaction was conducted in the presence of the god of a temple. Chikka Bommaṇa Heggaḍe of Hedḍase in Kela-*nāḍu* and a number of others (named), sold certain land to meet the expenses of an auspicious ceremony (marriage), to Viṣṇu Bhaṭṭa, with the consent of those born with them, their sons-in-law, children, heirs and dependents, for thirty-three *varāha*, the price settled by mediators.³ And arranging that the fixed rent of three honnu three haṇa should be paid by Jakkaṇṇa Heggaḍe to the Śrī-maṭha (of Śṛingēri) from the wet cultivation, the people of the nāḍ made over the lands to Viṣṇu Bhaṭṭa (with all the usual ceremonies) in the presence of the god Mallikārjuna on the bank of the Tuṅgabhadrā. The compact was signed by Dēvaru Sēnabōva with the (approval of) both parties.¹ Siṅgaṇṇa Ayyaṅgār (of Śṛingēri Maṭha?) sold in about A.D. 1521 to the people of Kigga 36 Nāḍ his agrahāra-makki (or high level rice land) together with a tank for thirteen honnu with all the rights in the presence of the god Śṛingēśvara.² Such rights which figure in the transactions of the ancient and mediaeval times were called the aṣṭa-bhōga-tējas-svāmya, or the eight rights of full possession: akṣṇī (present profit), āgāmi (future profit), nidhi (hidden treasure), nikṣēpa (underground stones), jala (springs), pāṣāṇa (stones or minerals), siddha (actualities), and sādhya (possibilities).³

v1.c10.s5.t2.21

² Ibid., Sg. 26, p. 99.

v1.c10.s5.t2.22

³ These mediators were also common to the Tamil land in the earlier ages. See *Ep. Report* for 1916, p. 116. As regards the official status of the *nāḍ* people and the *madhyastas*, the following may be suggested: Inscriptional evidence does not positively define the status of these functionaries. The idea of comparing the *nāḍ* people with the Tamil *nāṭṭār* is not altogether improbable. But in most of the Vijayanagara inscriptions found in the Karṇāṭaka, the term *nāḍ* people is used for all the people of the *nāḍ*. Thus in A.D. 1377 all the *gauḍas*, and subjects (*ā-Aragaḍa . . . gauḍa-prajegaḷu tammoḷu sarvēkamatyavāgi*) of the Araga province gave the village of Huṭṭada-haḷḷi to Virūpākṣa Oḍeyar, the Viceroy, as a gift. E.C., VIII, Tl. 125, p. 187. In A.D. 1379 the *nāḍ* people of the two Mandu-*nāḍ* Thirty (Mandu-nāḍu-Mūvattarolagaḷa gauḍu-prajegaḷu) (many of whom are named) granted lands in Niṭṭūr to Mallappa of the Treasury. E.C., VIII, Tl. 114, p. 185. According to the inscription already cited elsewhere, all the *nāḍ* people of the Araga Eighteen Kaṭhpaṇa (Aragaḍa-vēṇṭeyada hadineṇṭu

v1.c10.s5.t2.23

¹ E.C., VI, Sg. 25, p. 99.

v1.c10.s5.t2.24

² Ibid., 15, p. 97.

v1.c10.s5.t2.25

³ Rice, My. Ins., p. 3, n. For Fleet's note on aṣṭa-bhōga, read I.A., IV, p. 278, n.

v1.c10.s5.t2.26

These instances show us that the revenue regulations of Vijayanagara were of such a nature as not to allow even transactions pertaining to the buying and selling of land to be left unrecorded, since such a procedure, if permitted by the State, would have affected the revenue of the government to a considerable extent. The vigour with which they maintained revenue regulations is seen in the

v1.c10.s5.t2.27

kampaṇada samasta-nāḍu-paṭṭaṇada halaru kūḍi tammoḷu sarvvaikamatya-vāgi sarvvānumatadim) and all the people of the three cities, united and agreeing together, sold the Baudavali village to Viṭṭhappa. E. C., VIII, Tl. 133, p. 190. This same person Viṭṭhappa, who had thus bought the village of Kaudavalli on Sunday, 2nd March A.D. 1404, sold it on Sunday, 5th October, of the same year, to Bēlūr Narasiva-dēva's son Suṅgaṇṇa, for 300 hon, the price fixed by arbitrators. E.C., ibid., P. 11. Tl. 133, 134, pp. 597-600; Swamikannu, Ind. Eph., V, p. 10. This enables us to conjecture that madhyastas were persons of some consequence, since a private individual who had bought a village from "all the nāḍ people", thought it worth while to sell it at a price fixed by the arbitrators. How far this could be maintained in all cases is a knotty point. The assumption is that in those days when corporate activities in social matters were common, the madhyastas may have been what may be called honorary judges, especially in disputed issues, and that they may have had the informal sanction of the State. We shall have something to say in detail about this while describing the corporate life led by the people of Vijayanagara in social matters. For the present we may remark that the term nāḍ people stands for the people of the district, and that they may not seem to have been regular functionaries. See also E.C., VIII, Tl. 122, dated A.D. 1407, p. 187. B.A.S.

v1.c10.s5.t2.28

fate which befell the Maravas of Velanguḍi in Punguṇḍanāḍu in Śaka 1432 (A.D. 1501-2). They were compelled to sell their lands to the local temple of Tirukkōḷakkuḍi Aṇḍa-Nāyaṉār in the Tiruppatūr tāluka, Ramnad district, in order to pay the taxes due by them on their holdings.¹

v1.c10.s5.t2.29

¹ 50 of 1916.

v1.c10.s5.t2.30

The documents relating to the cases arising out of such and other allied transactions in connection with land were called *sameya-patra*. These existed even in A.D. 1263.² This brings us to the question of land which was leased out in mediaeval days. A lease-deed was known as *aḍḍa-ōlai*. An *aḍḍa-ōlai* is mentioned in Śaka 1321.³ Two pieces of land, which belonged to the temple of Arulāla-Perumāḷ in Paḍaiparru alias Tēperumāḷanallūr and which had remained uncultivated on account of their non-irrigable high level, in the days of Virūpāksha, in Śaka 1389 (A.D. 1468-9), were purchased as *ulavakāṇi* by the treasury of Tirumēḷisaiḻvār, reclaimed and brought under cultivation. These were leased out for 200 *paṇam* of gold per year by the temple.⁴ This right of cultivation commonly known as *ulavu-kāṇiyākshi*, was generally granted, in the case of temple lands, by the temple authorities of the locality, as it happened in Śaka 1441 (A.D. 1519-20).⁵ The officer who was responsible for the granting of a lease was the temple treasurer. To Tirumalai Nāyaka, one of the Kaṇṇaḍiya Nāyakas, was granted a lease of certain temple lands, in Śaka 1442 (A.D. 1520-21) in the reign of Kṛshṇa Dēva Rāya, by the temple treasurer Īsāna-Śivāchārya of the Bhikshā Maṭha at Dēvakkapuram.⁶ In Śaka 1453 (A.D. 1531-2) the permanent lease (*ulavu-kāṇiyakshi*) of Dēvarāyaṉpaṭṭaḍai was granted again to a Kaṇṇaḍiya Nāyaka of Guṅgapuram in Paṅgala-nāḍu.⁷

v1.c10.s5.t2.31

² E.C., XII, Tp. 2, p. 42, text, p. 118.

v1.c10.s5.t2.32

³ Ep. Report for 1921, p. 102.

v1.c10.s5.t2.33

⁴ 658 of 1919.

v1.c10.s5.t2.34

⁵ 353 of 1912.

v1.c10.s5.t2.35

⁶ 352 of 1912; See also 354 of 1912.

v1.c10.s5.t2.36

⁷ 369 of 1912.

v1.c10.s5.t2.37

A permanent lease of cultivation was distinct from a permanent grant of land under a tank called *daśavaṇḍa*. *Daśavaṇḍa* was rent-free land granted for building or repairing a tank, on condition of paying one-tenth (or a small share) of the produce.⁸ The granting of a *daśavaṇḍa* of a tank, as in Śaka 1450 (A.D. 1528-29), was very common throughout the Vijayanagara Empire. In that year the permanent grant of *daśavaṇḍa* of the tank at Doṇḍavaṭe to a certain Maleśāṇi was made by the people of that village with the permission of Muddaṇṇa Nāyaka, who was enjoying the village as an *umbali* or rent-free gift.¹ This enables us to conjecture that land which belonged to a government official as *umbali* estates, was given by him as a gift to a person for agricultural improvements obviously in the presence of the village people. Rent-free lands granted to Brahmans below a tank were called *brahmedēya*, and those granted to temples, *dēvadēya* lands.² These sometimes came under the general designation of *sarvamānya* lands.

v1.c10.s5.t2.38

⁸ E.C., V. P. 1, Intr., p. iii. n (5).

v1.c10.s5.t2.39

¹ 194 of 1913.

v1.c10.s5.t2.40

² 179 of 1913 dated Saka 1455.

v1.c10.s5.t2.41

The system of letting out temple-lands on lease, however, seems to have been rather elaborate. We are told in an inscription of Saka 1457 (A.D. 1534-5) that the *mēlvāram*, or the Government share, on areca, cocoa-nut, mango, and other trees grown on the *tiruvidaiyāṭṭam* lands of the Aruḷāla Perumāḷ temple in Little Conjeeveram, Chingelput district, was formerly three-fourths of the yield, the remaining one-fourth going to the cultivator; that in a severe drought the above trees withered; that the tenants were asked to plant free trees and pay up the *mēlvāram* in the reduced ratio of two-thirds; that, in the case of sesamum, green-grain, and sugar-cane, the rates obtaining in adjacent villages were adopted; and that in cases where betel, plantain, and other quick-yielding crops were reared side by side in newly planted areca and cocoa-nut groves, the *mēlvāram* was fixed at three-fourths of old rate.³

v1.c10.s5.t2.42

³ 655 of 1910; *Ep. Report* for 1920, p. 114.

v1.c10.s5.t2.43

It was not only arable land that was leased out in the Vijayanagara days. We know that in Saka 1481 (A.D. 1559-60), in the times of the *Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara* Rāma Rāja Tirumalarājayyadēva, the lease of the forest land or *jaṅgali-guṭṭu*, as it was called, was also granted.⁴

v1.c10.s5.t2.44

⁴ 329 of 1920. The inscription was found in Yeggatimmarājucheruvu, Gooty tāluka, Anantapur district.

v1.c10.s5.t2.45

Our assumption that there must have been an efficient system of land revenue administration is further proved by references like the following relating to the legislation on mortgaged lands. A subordinate official of the last Vijayanagara ruler Srīraṅga Rāya, by name Siddarāmappa Nāyaka of the Haṇḍe family, issued an order in Saka 1565 (A.D. 1643-4) that the kāpus who had held any temple or Brāhmaṇ lands on "mortgage by possession" (bhōgya-āyakam) should restore those lands to the original owners after twelve years' enjoyment, without demanding any money from them, giving them at the same time written deeds (bhōgya-patra) recording the reconveyance. The order was issued with the consent of the Reḍḍis, Karaṇams, and the other people of the place (sthala). The defaulters were to be fined by the palace (nagari) i.e., king (or chief?).¹ The late Mr. Kṛṣṇa Sāstri rightly commented thus on the above: "The legislation appears evidently to have been made as a remedy against the conveyance by the owners of these lands for long periods to the kāpus in consideration of the loans paid on such usufructuary mortgages decidedly favourable to the mortgagee".² If this was a piece of legislation of the last period of Vijayanagara history, the following is another instance of the same pertaining to the early part of their administration. A record dated Saka 1360 (A.D. 1438-39) of the times of Dēva Rāya II, which refers to Lakkaṇṇa Daṇṇāyaka, informs us that service māms were neither to be sold or mortgaged by the parties who received them, and that the lands being measured by the rod rājavibhāḍan-kōl, this document was itself to be accepted as the royal order conveying lands. (அடைப்புத் திரு முகம்). He that sold or mortgaged the land would suffer the punishment that traitors to the king and to the community, would suffer, and in addition be liable to a fine imposed by the officers of the temple treasury.³

v1.c10.s5.t2.46

¹ Ep. Report for 1918, p. 170.

v1.c10.s5.t2.47

² Ibid. We may briefly enumerate the three kinds of transactions mentioned till now—(a) bhōgya-patra or written deeds recording the reconveyance of lands, issued by the officials of the State; (b) sameya-patra or documents related to land, in most cases, issued by temple authorities; and (c) sādhana-krama or an agreement between the temple priests (in their private capacity as individuals) and ordinary persons. E.C., III, Sr. 139, p. 33, text, p. 111. Cf. These with those given in the Sukraniti, II, ll. 601-16, pp. 91-3.

v1.c10.s5.t2.48

³ Ep. Report for 1916, p. 140.

v1.c10.s5.t2.49

From the above it is clear that the Hindu State in mediaeval days bestowed careful attention on the question of land administration, since a happy solution of that problem alone enabled the monarchs to stabilize their resources. They had some definite methods of improving revenue which may be recapitulated before we pass on to the topic of the revenue administration itself. The Government advanced money to the ryots to enable them to provide themselves with cattle, etc.; it repaired broken tanks; it dug wells on high grounds; it invited colonists from foreign countries on easy terms and granted kāvulus to them; it encouraged the manufacture of articles in great demand by supplying seeds etc; and finally, it gave patronage to foreign merchants to settle in new pēṭhas by advancing to them loans.¹ To these activities of the State we should add those of corporate bodies, like the unions of the Vīra Baṇajas, the organization of the Brahmans in agrahāras and the like, which were also instrumental in giving an impetus to the cultivators. In about the year A.D. 1372 all the Brahmans of an agrahāra, the name of which is unfortunately defaced in the inscription, "agreeing among themselves" gave a loan of 150 gadyāṇa from the temple treasury of the god Rāmanātha to the ryots.²

v1.c10.s5.t2.50

¹ Rice, My. Gaz., I, p. 480, (1st. ed.); I, p. 586 (Rev. ed.).

v1.c10.s5.t2.51

² E.C., IV, Gu. 33, p. 41.

v1.c10.s5.t2.52

The State exempted from taxes land brought under cultivation for the first two years, as it did in A.D. 1379.³ Nuniz says that such land was sometimes exempted from taxation for nine years. "By means of this water they made many improvements in the city, and many channels by which they irrigated rice-fields and gardens, and in order that they might improve their lands he (the Emperor) gave the people lands which are irrigated by this water free for nine years, until they had made their improvements so that the revenue already amounts to 20,000 pardaos".⁴

v1.c10.s5.t2.53

³ E.C., IX, Ht. 50, p. 93. Here we may note that the persons who were responsible for passing this order were Aṅkaya Nāyaka, son of the Mahāsamantādhipati Soṇṇaiya Nāyaka, and Superintendent of Noṇḍigali-nāḍu, Achcha Gauḍa, and Nārāyaṇan and Veṅgaḍam Uḍaiyan, the pūjāris in the temple of Selva-Nārāyaṇa-pperumāḷ at Noṇḍuṅguḷi. The lands exempted from taxation were situated in the same nāḍu. The close co-operation of the official of the State, who, in this instance, is the Superintendent of the nāḍu, with the people,—who have been represented by Achcha Gauḍa, and the temple priests, only proves our assumption made elsewhere in this treatise that the Vijayanagara Government executed its revenue decrees, especially pertaining to land within the jurisdiction of a temple, through the temple authorities. B.A.S.

v1.c10.s5.t2.54

⁴ Sewell, For. Emp., p. 365.

v1.c10.s5.t2.55

It is interesting to observe that in this matter the Vijayanagara rulers paid much attention to ancient precept. Kauṭilya lays down as a rule that "in the case of construction of new works, such as tanks, lakes, etc., taxes (on the lands below such tanks) shall be remitted for five years. . . For repairing neglected or ruined works of similar nature, taxes shall be remitted for four years. For improving or extending water-works over-grown with weeds, taxes shall be remitted for three years. In the case of acquiring such newly started works by mortgage or purchase, taxes on land below such works shall be remitted for two years. If uncultivated tracts are acquired (for cultivation) by mortgage, purchase or in any other way, remission of taxes shall be for two years'.¹ The Vijayanagara monarchs, if Nuniz can be relied upon, by exempting new lands brought under cultivation for nine years, went beyond the limit of five years imposed by Kauṭilya. Their benevolent policy of assisting cultivators, which ultimately led to the enhancement of revenue, is seen also in the action which the State took in reclaiming waste land that had been devastated by floods. We are told in an inscription dated Śaka 1324 (A.D. 1402-3) of the times of Bukkaṇṇa Oḍeyar II, that some villages (*paṟṟu*) near Vaḷuvūr, in Tiruveluṇdūr-nāḍu, a subdivision of Eḷumuṟi-paṟṟu, Tanjore district, were lying fallow, since the time the river Kāvēri, overflowing its banks, had washed away the demarcation mounds between the fields, and silted up the irrigation channels, and in consequence the tenants had abandoned the fields for a considerably long period.² These fields were now reclaimed, the channels restored, the boundary banks repaired, and the tenants rehabilitated on certain favourable conditions which are thus enumerated in the inscription:

v1.c10.s5.t2.56

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. III, Ch. IX, 170, p. 209.

v1.c10.s5.t2.57

² 422 of 1912.

v1.c10.s5.t2.58

(1) During the first year of holding, half of the usual dues only would be collected on lands cultivated both for *kār* and *paśanam*, and three-fourths from the following years.

v1.c10.s5.t2.59

(2) Of money collections, *kuḍimai* and *kāṇikkai* being declared *nīṅgal*, half of *puḷavari* and *puḍuvari* alone would be levied.

v1.c10.s5.t2.60

(3) The tenants, too, would be assessed at half-rates during the first year, on *kaḍamai*, *araśu-pēru*, *vāśal-paṇam*, *āyam*, *puḷavari*, and other such taxes, while from the following year they would be required to pay three-fourths rates except in the case of *puḷavari* which remained the same.

v1.c10.s5.t2.61

(4) Magamai and *kāṇikkai* would be treated likewise.

v1.c10.s5.t2.62

(5) And the same concessions would be allowed also in the case of lands belonging to temples and Brahmans. Kambang Uḍaiyār, the person who was chiefly responsible in reclaiming these lands, was given the special privilege of collecting (?) kaḍamai from all the tenants who cultivated lands under his direction. This concession of charging half-rates of assessment during the first year was extended also to other waste lands which might similarly be brought under cultivation, year after year.¹

v1.c10.s5.t2.63

¹ Ep. Report for 1913, pp. 118-19.

v1.c10.s5.t2.64

These changes in the rates of taxes payable to government, with the manipulation of other details in connection with them, came under the jurisdiction of the Revenue Department, which was called aṭhavane.² We gather this from an inscription dated A.D. 1416, which speaks of Timmarasa and Tipparasa of the aṭhavane.³ Then again we have under Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Rāya the Great, in about A.D. 1515, Chennarasa of the Revenue Department (aṭhavaneya).⁴ The chief director of this department was called sarvādhikāri or aṭhavaneya-pārupalyagāra, who in vital matters was not allowed to exercise independent judgment without the knowledge and sanction of the sovereign.⁵ The superficiality of some of the observations of Nuniz is apparent when he asserts that such a department never existed at all. "The King has no controller of the revenues nor other officers, nor officers of his house, but only the captains of his kingdom. . . ."⁶

v1.c10.s5.t2.65

² Rice, My. Gaz., I, p. 472, (1st. ed.); I, p. 579, (Rev. ed.). Rice says that the aṭhavane was also called śiṃa mūlam.

v1.c10.s5.t2.66

³ E.C., III, Sr. 105, p. 30.

v1.c10.s5.t2.67

⁴ E.C., XI, Jl. 7, p. 84.

v1.c10.s5.t2.68

⁵ Rice, My. Gaz., I, p. 475, (1st. ed.). See also p. 485 for an account of the officers of the department.

v1.c10.s5.t2.69

⁶ Sewell, For. Emp., p. 384.

v1.c10.s5.t2.70

Land revenue was called by the general name of śist. Anāyakā-ayya's agent Nāgappa Nāyaka in about A.D. 1557 made a grant of śist to Toṭada Uchchappoḍear.⁷ A general order issued by the Emperor was called nirūpa or rāyasa.⁸ Such royal orders were entered in four registers, the original order, in the case of temple-lands, being placed in the hands of the sthānikas or temple-managers, as a śāsana. Dēva Rāya II gave an order to Śrīgirinātha of Chandragiri, so we are told in an inscription dated only in the cyclic year Sādhāraṇa, permitting him to remit the *jōḍi* of 131 *pon* (varāham), and 6½ *paṇam* or 1,361¼ *paṇam* at ten *paṇam* per *pon* due to the Chandragiri-rājya from Tiruppukkuḷi, Chingleput district, in order that that amount might be utilized for the temple of Pōrēṟṟupperumāḷ of that place. The order further requests the Viceroy to send his own *tiruvahichchiṭṭu* to the *sthānikas* of the village, to make copies of the king's order (*rāyasa*) in the four registers, and to place the original document in the hands of the *sthānikas* as a *śāsana*. Srīgirinātha issued the *tiruvahichchiṭṭu*, in compliance with the order of the king, to the *sthānikas* of Tiruppukkuḷi.¹

v1.c10.s5.t2.71

⁷ E.C., XI, JL 47, p. 89.

v1.c10.s5.t2.72

⁸ Ep. Report for 1916, p. 139.

v1.c10.s5.t2.73

¹ 172 of 1916; *Ep. Report* for 1916, p. 140.

v1.c10.s5.t2.74

Some more details about the working of the Revenue Department in general, especially in connection with the granting of lands, may be gathered from a stone inscription dated A.D. 1418 of the times of Dēva Rāya II. After recording the grant of certain lands by Peddaṇṇa Nāgaṇṇa's son Mallana, of the *Kāśyapa-gōtra*, to Nāgaṇṇa's son Nāgaṇṇa of the *Viśvāmitra-gōtra*, the inscription proceeds to give the previous history of the lands granted. The lands, which had been received by the donor along with a copper-plate grant from Harihara Rāya II, were situated in Dēviyaka's Haravari at Koppavaḷḷi. When Viṭhṭhaṇṇa Oḍeyar was ruling the Āraga-rājya by order of the king Dēva Rāya, he gave a *śilā-śāsana* or stone grant about the details of the *okkalu* or tenants to the *mahājanas* of the *agrahāra* of Pratāpahariharapura and to Peddaṇṇa Nāgaṇṇa-ayya's son Mallaṇṇa-ayya as follows: "Formerly when śri (with titles) Harihara Mahārāya granted, with pouring of water, as a *sarvamānya*, along with a copper-plate inscription, the *agrahāra* named Pratāpahariharapuram after himself to Peddaṇṇa Nāgaṇṇa-ayya and the Brahmans, he sent an order to Sōvaṇṇa Oḍeyar, who was then ruling over the Āraga kingdom, telling him to make a distribution of the tenants paying assessment to the *dharmasthala* or *agrahāra* so that there might not arise any trouble between the Government tenants and those of the villages constituting the *agrahāra*. Accordingly Sōvaṇṇa Oḍeyar sent for Arasaṇṇa Heggaḍe and Vīra Heggaḍe of Neluvāgilu in the Mēlubhāgi of the Sāṭalige-nāḍu, and having convened a meeting of the residents of the nine *agrahāras* and the 1,005 land-owners of Sātaliġe at the chāvaḍi, or court of Āraga, called upon Arasaṇṇa Heggaḍe and Vira Heggaḍe to distribute the tenants paying assessment to the dharmasthala whereupon Arasaṇṇa Heggaḍe, having distributed the tenants for the Government village Neluvāgilu and separated the tenants for Tumbaravalli which was a dharmasthala, gave a paṭṭe or roll of assessment to Peddaṇṇa Nāgaṇṇa-ayya stating that these tenants were not to be molested either by the king or the nāḍu for any loss that might occur at Neluvāgilu. Then follow the names of the tenants and the amounts of assessment they had severally to pay, as entered in the paṭṭe, together with the names of the witnesses who affixed their signatures to it. This paṭṭe was produced by Peddaṇṇa Nāgaṇṇa's son Mallaṇa before Viṭṭhaṇṇa Oḍeyar, who, observing that it contained the distribution of the tenants according to the order of Harihara Mahārāya, granted a śila-śāsana in confirmation and affixed his own signature to it.¹

v1.c10.s5.t2.75

¹ My. Arch. Report for 1916, p. 60.

v1.c10.s5.t2.76

The foregoing inscription enables us to deduce the following:

v1.c10.s5.t2.77

(a) That the king himself gave orders in revenue matters;

v1.c10.s5.t2.78

(b) That such orders were communicated to the governors of the province;

v1.c10.s5.t2.79

(c) That the governors were directed to take personal interest even in the matters of distributing tenants who had to pay assessment either to the dharmasthala or the agrahāra;

v1.c10.s5.t2.80

(d) That the governors, in order to execute the decree of the king, sent for the chief men of the village and convened a general meeting of the residents of the village at their chāvaḍi or court;

v1.c10.s5.t2.81

(e) That these chief men of the village were required to distribute the tenants, which they did by separating the tenants of one village from those of another, and to give a paṭṭe or roll of assessment to the chief of the donees who received the charter;

v1.c10.s5.t2.82

(f) That the assessments which the tenants had to pay were clearly indicated and provided against damage even at the hands of the king;

v1.c10.s5.t2.83

(g) That the names and signatures of the witnesses were included in the paṭṭe;

v1.c10.s5.t2.84

(h) And that such a roll of assessment was confirmed only when it was produced before the provincial governor, who, on being satisfied about its veracity, gave a stone inscription embodying its contents, affixing his own signature to it.

v1.c10.s5.t2.85

Revenue orders, therefore, were executed in the Vijayanagara age with a care and minuteness which does credit to their administration. The royal nirūpa had to pass successively through the officers of the king before it could be recorded as a grant. The funds of a temple at Talakāḍu were found to be insufficient in A.D. 1400, and the State took prompt measures to increase the revenue of the temple. The inscription narrates that Lakkaṇṇa Daṇṇāyaka having been informed that the income from the former grant was insufficient for the proper conduct of the service in the temple of the god Vaidyanātha at Talakāḍu alias Gajāraṇyakshētra, situated on the bank of the river Kāvērī flowing westward, for the long life, health, and prosperity of the king, passed an order to the effect that the customs dues amounting to six gadyāṇa, which were being paid to the palace customs-office at Belakavāḍi by the village of Kigugusūr which belonged to the above mentioned temple, should thenceforward be paid to the temple itself, and communicated it to Rāyaṇa Oḍeyar of Paṭṭaṇa. On receiving the order from the latter officer, Perumāle Dēva of Talakāḍu wrote the grant and gave it to the temple.¹

v1.c10.s5.t2.86

¹ My. Arch. Report for 1920, p. 36.

v1.c10.s5.t2.87

The existence of revenue officials is also seen when we notice a few details about tax-collection in those days. The provincial governments evidently imitated the procedure prevalent at the capital. The southern province of Rājagambhīra was in Śaka 1283 (A.D. 1361-62) under the famous Kampaṇa, son of Bukka I. His great minister Sōmappa, and the treasurer Viṭṭappa Ayyan, both of whom were styled "officers of the palace", issued an order to Meydēvar, who was in charge of the taxes of Puli-nāḍu, to assign certain duties, imposed in kind, on all articles that passed through his district, for the benefit of the Viṣṇu temple at Kurumāvi (mod. Kūrmāyi), Chittoor district.²

v1.c10.s5.t2.88

² Ep. Report for 1931, p. 118.

v1.c10.s5.t2.89

We may presume that there may have been occasional friction between the people and the revenue officials of the government, when the latter went round to collect dues, obviously in arrears, from the fact that special mention has been made in inscriptions of the necessity for the people to treat the tax-collectors with consideration. On the representation of Vira-Saiva Vira Pratāpa Chōḷa Rāya to certain Seṭṭis, the heads of the caste, in about A.D. 1402, a grant of specified dues was made by the latter. The inscription ends as follows: "Directions for honourable treatment of the bearers of the śāsana when they came to collect the dues". The honourable treatment which the tax-collectors received is expressed in the following words: *yi śāsana tegedukoṇḍu archakaru sthalāntaragaḷige bandalli yedurra koṇḍu karadukkoṇḍuhōgi biḍidi vulupe vuḍugere sakalavū koṭṭu varttaneyū koḍisi maryādegūḍi naḍisikoṇḍu baratakkad-embaḍāgi baresi-koṭṭa dāna śāsana.*¹

v1.c10.s5.t2.90

¹ E.C., IX, Bn. 96, p. 19, text, p. 35, op. cit.

v1.c10.s5.t2.91

There were customs officials, too, as an inscription of A.D. 1411 informs us. The customs officers (*suṅkada adhikari*) of Erumaṟai-nāḍu, Kārai-Kiḷan Puliyar and Aḷagiya-Varadar Sokkar, servants of Tigāya Perumāḷ, the customs-officer of Muḷuvāyi-nāḍu, granted the tax on the looms of the Paraiyans in Samaiyamantripaḷḷi in Erumaṟai-nāḍu.²

v1.c10.s5.t2.92

² Ibid., Ht. 149, p. 108, text, p. 133.

v1.c10.s5.t2.93

There is every reason to believe that the Government gave receipts to the people for the taxes paid by them. Here however we have epigraphical evidence at variance with contemporary comments. Nuniz, whose accuracy was by no means so infallible as one may wish it to be, informs us that the king granted no receipts to the nobles from whom he received revenue. "In this way the kingdom of Bisnaga is divided between more than two hundred captains who are all heathen, and according to the lands and revenues that they have so the King settles for them the forces that they are compelled to keep up, and how much revenue they have to pay him every month during the first nine days of the month of September. He never gives any receipts to them, only, if they do not pay they are well punished, and are ruined and their property taken away."³ From this we may infer that if the granting of receipts for moneys received was unknown to the monarch, it must necessarily have been a matter of which the royal officials were ignorant in the kingdom. Whether a government which, according to the same traveller, trained in the royal palace women to "compare their books with those of the writers outside",¹ could have failed to institute a system of granting receipts, is a question which may pertinently be asked in spite of the adverse evidence of Nuniz. The fact that there were tax-collectors make us believe that they must have had a system of assuring the people for the revenue which the latter gave to the Government. Our surmise is strengthened by the evidence of an inscription dated A.D. 1558-9 which is positive about the granting of receipts by officials on behalf of the Government. This epigraph informs us that it was authorized that taxes should be levied in the Chadalavāḍa village in the Nellore district, and that the temple people themselves should credit the taxes to the estate of Śrī-Raghunāyakulu, and grant receipts to the merchants who buy there and receipts for the taxes raised in the two simas.²

v1.c10.s5.t2.94

³ Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 389. Cf. Metthwold, *Relations of Golconda*, p. 11.

v1.c10.s5.t2.95

¹ Sewell, *For Emp.*, p. 382. See also pp. 374-5, where Nuniz speaks of the secretaries of the king.

v1.c10.s5.t2.96

² Butterworth-Chetty, *Nellore Ins.*, II., p. 952.

v1.c10.s5.t2.97

Here it may reasonably be objected that these temple people were not government servants, and that, therefore, the assertions of Nuniz are not invalid. But it must be remembered that in Vijayanagara times, temples were under the direct control of the State, and that the officials of the temples must have been authorized to issue receipts to persons who gave them taxes, on behalf of the temples as well as the Crown. That the State had a definite voice in the management of the temples is evident from epigraphs. An inscription dated Śaka 1291 expired, Saumya, (A.D. 1369) records that three men were made over to the temple of Śiva at Tiruppaṅaṅgāḍu, under orders from the ruler Kampaṇa Oḍeyar, son of Bukkaṇa Oḍeyar, to look after the lamps in the temple.³ Another inscription dated only in cyclic year Sādhāraṇa (i.e., Śaka 1293) [A.D. 1371-72], informs us that three men were likewise made over to the same temple by Aḍaipattu Ilakkappar and Anaikuṇḍi Viṭṭappar under orders from the king.⁴ In Śaka 1304 Durmati (A.D. 1381-82), in the reign of Harihara Rāya, under orders from Kampaṇa Oḍeyar, four new pillars were placed to support the broken beams of the Channakēśava temple at Bēlūr.¹ The famous general of the same monarch, Guṇḍa Daṇḍanātha, according to an inscription dated about A.D. 1397, laid down rules for the performance of all the ceremonies (sixty-seven specified) formerly ordained by Biṭṭi Dēva Rāya; (i.e., Viṣṇuvardhana Hoysala); and rebuilt with seven storeys the gōpura over the doorway of the same temple.² We may also recount here the evidence from two inscriptions cited elsewhere in this treatise, referring us to the time of Dēva Rāya II. That dated only in the cyclic year Sādhāraṇa tells us that a copy of the rāyasa, or royal revenue order, was deposited in the custody of the sthānikas or temple managers of Tiruppukuḷi, Chingleput district.³ In another inscription dated Śaka 1326 (A.D. 1414-15) we are informed that the Central Government ordered the fixing of the amount of consolidated taxes from the commercial classes of Perunagar, Chingleput district, in return for their burning a perpetual lamp in the local temple of Brahmapurīśvara.⁴ According to an epigraph dated Śaka 1471 (A.D. 1549-50), in the province under the jurisdiction of Jaṭilavarman Kulaśēkhara Parākrama Pāṇḍya Dēva, under the orders of Prince Vīravēṇbāmālai, a gift of land together with a house in Kuṇṇakkuḍi was made to a private individual for looking after the accounts of the temple of Viśvanātha at Teṅkāsi.⁵ As we shall relate in a subsequent chapter, Mallarasayya, the minister of the Queen Bommarasiammā, who ruled over the Kuppaṭur-Bhāraṅgi-sime, in about A.D. 1500, "in the course of his enquiries from village to village, coming to Beṇṇagere, he stopped the daily allowance at the Nārāyaṇa temple", for some fault not stated in the epigraph.⁶ A record dated Śaka 1482, Raudri, (A.D. 1560-61) conclusively proves that in the reign of Sadāśiva Rāya temples were directly managed by the State. For, it states that Jñānaprakāśapaṇḍāram of Tiruvārūr was appointed supervisor of Sikkal, Vadakudi, Vōḍāchchēri and other temples under orders from Kṛṣṇamarāsayyan, son of Aḷiya Rāmarāsayyan.⁷

v1.c10.s5.t2.98

³ 248 of 1906.

v1.c10.s5.t2.99

⁴ 249 of 1906. There is an inscription dated in about A.D. 1371 which mentions the penalty imposed on a temple by Bhōdarūpa Bhāgavarasu, E.C., I, No. 9, p. 55, (2nd ed.).

v1.c10.s5.t2.100

¹ 58 of 1901-2; *Ep. Report* for 1911, p. 53. ² E.C., V, P. 1, Bl. 3, p. 45. ³ *Ep. Report* for 1916, p. 140, op. cit. ⁴ 367 of 1923. See infra. p. 196. ⁵ 553 of 1917. ⁶ E.C., VIII, Sb. 323, p.

v1.c10.s5.t2.101

⁵⁵ Infra. Volume II, Chapter V. ⁷ 104 of 1911.

v1.c10.s5.t2.102

We are informed in an epigraph dated A.D. 1568 that Sadāśiva Mahārāya deposited a fund for the perpetual lamp and other festivals of the temple of Gōpāla Kṛṣṇa at Hoḷalakere.¹ This custom of depositing a fund in a temple is evidently the same referred to by Nuniz who speaks of one of the predecessors of Sadāśiva Rāya granting one-fifth of his revenue to the temples.² From the above instances it is clear that the Central Government reserved to itself the right of controlling the temples in the kingdom; and we can only assume that it must have permitted the authorities of various temples to grant receipts for taxes levied, especially on temple lands, on behalf of the State. It is obvious that if the authorities of temples granted receipts, the officers of the government must also have been aware of the system. The absence of the slightest reference to any confusion in the revenue of Vijayanagara in the writings of foreign travellers strongly suggests that receipts were granted by the State to persons who paid taxes to it.³

v1.c10.s5.t2.103

¹ E.C., XI, Hk. 7, p. 117.

v1.c10.s5.t2.104

² Sewell, For. Emp., p. 304.

v1.c10.s5.t2.105

³ For further notices of the control of temples by the State, see infra, Ch. VII, Judicial Administration, Section 3.

v1.c10.s5.t2.106

Some aspects of the manner in which the Vijayanagara Government effected a revenue settlement may now be seen. The term *nirūpa*, as we have already remarked in an earlier connection, was meant to denote the order of the government in matters relating to the revenue administration.⁴ A typical instance of a revenue settlement was that which was effected in Śaka 1351 (A.D. 1429-30) in the reign of Dēva Rāya II. The occasion for a revised settlement of land was the confusion that prevailed in the locality. Certain unauthorized persons were collecting revenue, and the inhabitants protested against the illegal taxation in their province. This is related in an inscripton dated above from Tiruvaigāvūr, Tanjore district, which registers the decision arrived at by the assembled residents of the Parāntakanāḍu, the Valangai ninety-eight subdivisions, and the Iḍangai ninety-eight subsects, regarding the various items of taxation that had to be paid to the Government (*rājagaram iraimuraimai*) or to the temple, as had been already settled by the inhabitants of the other *nāḍus* in Vaḷudalambaṭṭu-usāvaḍi. The necessity for adopting this procedure is stated to have arisen thus: "Since the time of the Kannaḍiyas (the Hoysalas?) the district had been declared to be the *jivita-parru* (of the temple?) servants. Collecting taxes was not made by one single person. The lands were leased out (*aḍavōlai*) to other persons and *pura-vari* taxes were collected. Thus the whole district came to be ruined." It was decided that some specified lands in the district of Parāntaka-nāḍu, which were rent-free, were not to be interfered with, by classifying them as *paṇḍārivāḍai*, *jivita-parru*, *aḍaippu*, *otti*, *guttigai*, or *sērvai*. The following rates of assessment on other lands were agreed upon:

v1.c10.s5.t2.107

⁴ Ep. Report for 1916, p. 143.

v1.c10.s5.t2.108

| Class of Land | Assessment in paddy on one *vēli*, including *arasupēru*, *ilaikki*, etc. | Other taxes such as *kānikkai*, *sammādam*, *paṭṭavaṭṭam*, *kāṇikūli*, etc., on each *vēli*. |
| | **A** | |
| (1) Paddy fields ... | 40 *kalam* of paddy and ½ *paṇam*. | 20 *paṇam*. |
| (2) Uncultivated waste land (brought under cultivation) ... | 40 *kalam* of paddy. | 18 ,, |
| (3) Forest reclaimed ... | 20 ,, ,, | 2 ,, |
| (4) *மடை* lands and lands irrigated by baling water ... | 20 ,, ,, | 10 ,, |
| | **B** | |
| (5) Plantain and sugarcane gardens in wet lands ... | ... | 60 *paṇam* (including *arasupēru*, *kāṇikkai* etc.). |
| (6) Plantain and sugarcane gardens in *பச்சை தாகு*. | ... | 50 *paṇam*. |
| (7) Marshes in which red lotuses are grown ... | ... | 40 ,, |
| (8) Lands producing turmeric, ginger, onions, garlic, etc. | ... | 20 ,, |
| (9) Lands producing brinjals, *வழுது*, pumpkins, etc. ... | ... | 30 ,, |

v1.c10.s5.t2.109

v1.c10.s5.t2.110

C Dry crops (vānpayir).

v1.c10.s5.t2.111

v1.c10.s5.t2.112

*Note.*—Tender trees which have not borne fruit, barren trees and trees in the backyard of houses are exempted.

v1.c10.s5.t2.113

| (3) Every jack-tree yielding not less than 20 fruits per tree | ... | Lost. |

v1.c10.s5.t2.114

*Note.*—The surrounding (i.e., the other) trees are not taxed.

v1.c10.s5.t2.115

| Class of Land. | Assessment in paddy on one vēli, including araśupēru, ilaikki, etc. | Other taxes such as kāṇikkai, sammādam, paṭṭavaḷḷam kūṇikūḷi, etc., on each vēli. |

v1.c10.s5.t2.116

D House and Profession Tax.

v1.c10.s5.t2.117

| (1) Every house of a villager—காட்டுபாடி | ... | 3 paṇam (including vilai-aśarudi, vāśal paṇam etc.) |
| (2) Each house of a follower, of the tantra-தந்திரி | ... | 1½ paṇam. |
| (3) Each house of...கடை | ... | 1½ " |
| (4) Verandahs with sloping roofs, (i. e. sheds ?) | ... | ½ " |

v1.c10.s5.t2.118

*Note.*—Unoccupied houses are exempted.

v1.c10.s5.t2.119

E Workshop (பட்டி) Tax, etc.

v1.c10.s5.t2.120

| (1) Every śeṭṭi proprietor... | ... | 3 paṇam (including araśupēru, vaṭṭam, kāṇikkai). |
| (2) Every principal collector of tolls | ... | 4 paṇam. |
| (3) Every kaikkōḷa weaver with one working loom. | ... | 4 " |
| (4) Every kaikkōḷa weaver with one loom that does not work. (? தறி-தறி) | ... | 2 " |
| (5) Every shopkeeper who opens the shop in his own house (அங்காடி-பட்டி) | ... | 3 " |
| (6) Every (śāliye) weaver for each loom | ... | 9 " |
| (7) Every judge (நியாய பதி) | ... | 5 " |
| (8) Every member of the village council (ஊர்வர்). | ... | ½ " |

v1.c10.s5.t2.121

v1.c10.s5.t2.122

N. B.

v1.c10.s5.t2.123

(1) Of the *kārpaśana*, (i.e., wet lands) those that die in the planting (*naṭṭuppāl*), those that yield only blighted grain (*śāvi*), and those that the otherwise damaged (*alivu*), not being counted; and of the *puṉpayir* (dry lands), *pāl, śāvi*, and *alivu*, being likewise not counted, the remaining holdings are charged at the reduced rate of eight and a half in ten, it being, however, provided that the excluded lands where on inspection they are found to have yielded a quarter crop, a third of the produce will be charged as *vāram* from each holder.

v1.c10.s5.t2.124

(2) It was ruled that anybody who collected taxes other than in the schedule given above, could do so (only) with the consent of the assembly body (maṇḍala) of the people.¹

v1.c10.s5.t2.125

¹ Ep. Report for 1915, pp. 107, and n. (1), 108.

v1.c10.s5.t2.126

From the details of the revenue settlement given above it appears that the State, in its desire to increase its revenue, made a judicious distinction between those sources which yielded maximum revenue at minimum expenditure of labour, e.g., dry and wet lands, and those which offered poor returns to the exertions of the labourers, e.g. barren trees and ground. The Government, it may also be observed, differentiated between the income of, for example, the collector of tolls, the chief oil-monger, and the shop-keeper on the one hand, and that of the member of the village council and a Paraiya on the other. The principle, if one may venture to say so, was obviously one of taxing in proportion to the income earned by members of each profession. This brings us to the question of the rate of taxation.

Cites (4)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Epigraphia Carnatica
Śukranīti (Śukrācārya) — Śukrācārya, Sanskrit
No. IV — Kannada