Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c10.s8: Section 8. Rent from Land
Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c10.s8
- Language
- English
Section 8. Rent from Land
v1.c10.s8.1
The system of renting out land was in great vogue in Vijayanagara times.⁸ An enquiry into some of the details relating to rent from land leads us to the question whether the method by which it was derived can in any way be identified with the method by which the kings of Vijayanagara received revenue from their viceroys. In other words, it is important to know the difference between the status of provincial governors, whom the Central Government placed over large districts, and that of the farmers and other people, who agreed to pay a stipulated sum to the rulers for having received from them certain productive agencies, for a definite time. Mr. Moreland writes thus: "The practice of appointing provincial Governors on farming terms prevailed in the Hindu Empire of Vijayanagar, and it is probable that the farming system extended down from the province to the village under the Empire, as it certainly did in this region after the Empire had collapsed".¹ In another place, Mr. Moreland states the following: "As to the Hindu territories in the south, we know from a large number of references in the Dutch records that farming was the regular practice from Pulicat at least as far as Negapatam. The farms were, sometimes at least, of short duration, for we read that the nāyak of Tanjore put in new governors almost every month (doubtless an exaggeration); and the post commonly went to the highest bidder in Tanjore, and also in Pulicat. From time to time we hear of severity and extortion".²
v1.c10.s8.2
¹ Moreland, *Agrarian System of Moslem India*, p. 12, n. (2).
v1.c10.s8.3
² Moreland, *From Akbar to Aurangzeb*, p. 244.
v1.c10.s8.4
We shall not concern ourselves with what the later Dutch records have to say on the matter, since we are able to ascertain with the aid of contemporary foreign evidence corroborated by trustworthy local records, the actual state of affairs in the Hindu Empire. At the outset it may be stated that in the passages given above, Mr. Moreland confounds two distinct systems prevalent under Vijayanagara—the granting of a fief to lords or noblemen under what was essentially a military tenure, and the leasing out of lands, groves, liquor shops, and the like, on what was purely a contract system. The former question will be dealt with in its proper place;³ for the present, we may note that the confusion between the two systems arises out of the futility of maintaining that the contract system—which for practical purposes, may be here taken to mean the farming system—was an innovation brought by the Muhammadans, and that as such it was unknown to the land before their advent into southern India. From contemporary epigraphs we know that the rulers of Vijayanagara appointed, at first, members of the royal family as viceroys over the provinces; that the most important provinces were, at least for the greater part of Vijayanagara history, directly controlled by the nearest relations of the Emperor himself; that famous generals and noblemen were raised to the rank of governors: and that, as in the famous instance of Virūpaṇṇa Oḍeyar, the tenure of office of a viceroy sometimes extended over a period of twenty years. Foreign travellers do not give us these details, but they have a few observations to make on the nature of the system of conducting the provincial government. Paes narrates the following: "These captains whom he has over these troops of his are the nobles of his kingdom; they are lords, and they hold the city, and the towns and villages of the kingdom; . . . and as each one has revenue so the king fixes for him the number of troops he must maintain, in foot, horse and elephants".¹ According to Nuniz: "Within these nine days (i.e., of the great Mahānavami festival) the King is paid all the rents that he receives from his kingdom; for, as already stated, all the land belongs to the King, and from his hand the captains hold it. . . only the captains are put to charges on account of the troops for whom the King makes them responsible, and whom they are obliged to provide in the way of service".² Neither of these contemporary witnesses says that the Provincial governors, the lords, and the captains of Vijayanagara enjoyed their estates on a contract or farming system. On the other hand, their observations conclusively prove that the nobles held land—"the city, the town and the village of the kingdom"—on military tenure, that is to say, they were obliged to supply the ruler with troops in virtue of the fiefs which they held at the hands of the king. There cannot be any divergence of opinion, we believe, about the fact of the fief system having been indigenous to the land.³
v1.c10.s8.5
³ Infra, Chapter VI. Administration—Local Government and Corporate Life in Political Matters.
v1.c10.s8.6
¹ Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 280.
v1.c10.s8.7
² Ibid., p. 379.
v1.c10.s8.8
³ Floris speaks of "a great Officer under the King, which farmeth out his Revenues" in A.D. 1611. Floris, *Purchas, Pilgrims*, III, p. 321. But this refers to Masulipatam which was outside Vijayanagara influence.
v1.c10.s8.9
We now come to the contract or farming system. It may be interesting to know Mr. Moreland's conception of the farming system: "The idea underlying the method of farming the King's share seems to have been that an officer appointed to administer a province, or smaller area, could effect a great administrative simplification by undertaking to pay a fixed sum representing the net revenue of his charge, thus relieving the executive of all detailed financial responsibilities in regard to it".¹ In another connection Mr. Moreland speaks of the "new system". "It is a noteworthy fact that in the seventeenth century the agrarian system of the Vijayanagar territory was practically identical with that of the Moslem kingdom of Golconda, and it is most unlikely that the former should have borrowed a new system from the latter: the more probable inference is that Farming had become established as the mainstay of the Hindu agrarian system in the South by the end of the thirteenth century, and that 'Alā-ud-din Khaljī took it over at the time when he acquired the territories which later became the kingdoms of the Deccan."²
v1.c10.s8.10
¹ Moreland, Ag. Sy., p. 10. ² Ibid., p. 12. ³ For a detailed account of the farming system under the Muhammadans, read Metthwold, Relations of Golconda, p. 11.
v1.c10.s8.11
If "Farming had become established as the mainstay of the Hindu agrarian system in the south by the end of the thirteenth century", one fails to see how it could ever have been "a new system" introduced by the Muhammadans.³ Without entering into the question whether farming had become established as the mainstay of the Hindu agrarian system prior to the rise of the sons of Saṅgama, we may note a few facts about the futility of asserting that farming was an innovation brought by the Muhammadans into southern India. Farming or contract system existed in the south—if not also in the north—when the newcomers came to the land. This is proved by the measures which Ghyas-ud-din Tuglaq, Muhammad Tuglaq, and Firūz Shāh took to stabilize their revenues. We have to add to this the testimony of epigraphs which speak of the *guttige*, *guttage*, *gutta*, or *guttu*, and of four different names in connection with it, as distinct from the fixed rent or *siddhāya*, in pre-Muhammadan times in southern India. From both these sources it is clear that farming or contract system was also indigenous to the country.
v1.c10.s8.12
Mr. Moreland gives the following about Ghiyās-ud-dīn Tuglaq: "A third element in the policy of Ghiyāsuddin was his insistence on the dignity of provincial Governors, and a correspondingly high standard of conduct on their part. It is clear that, at his accession, speculative farming of the revenue was common; and the Ministry was crowded with touts and pests of various kinds, whose functions have to be guessed from the designation applied to them: 'spies', 'farmers', 'enchancement-mongers,' and 'wreckers'. The King put a stop to the activities of these pests, and chose his Governors from the nobility; he ordered that they were to receive all due consideraion from the audit-staff of the Ministry; but he made it clear that their position and dignity would depend on their own conduct".¹ While the prevalence of the farming system in pre-Muhammadan times is implied in the statement that "speculative farming of the revenue was common" at the accession of Ghiyās-ud-dīn, the fact of the existence of the contractors is proved by the following in the *Ta'rīkh-i-Fīrūz Shāhī* written by Ziā-ul-Dīn Barani. "He (Ghiyās-ud-dīn Tuglaq) fixed the land tax on principles of moderation, on the actual produce, and he took away innovations and levying of tax based on estimated crop. And he did not listen to the words of the speculators and the offers of those who out-bade others, and the applications of the contractors (*muqālia-garam*) about the Iqtas (revenue assignments) and the domains of the kingdom".² In connection with the rebellion of Nizām Mayin of Karra, Barani tells us the following: "For sheer vanity and recklessness he (Nizām Mayin) took the contract (*muqātia-girift*) for a couple of lacs, and became disconcerted when he found that he could get nothing out of it, and he could not get one-tenth of what he had undertaken to pay," and, therefore, he rebelled against Muhammad Tuglaq.³ Barani further informs us about the contractors, while writing about Firūz Shāh: "He (the King) would not permit any contractors and the spoilers and prospectors to go about his Iqtas and domains".¹ The fact that the early Sultans put an end to these contractors proves that the latter could never have belonged to "a new system" introduced by the Muhammadan rulers.
v1.c10.s8.13
¹ Moreland, *Ag. Sys.*, p. 42.
v1.c10.s8.14
² Ziā-ul-Dīn Barani, *Ta'rīk-i-Fīrūz Shāhī*, text, p. 429. (Bibl. Indica, Vol. 33, 1848). For this as well as the other passages from Barani, I am indebted to my friend and fellow-student, Dr. K. M. Ashraf. B.A.S.
v1.c10.s8.15
³ Barani, ibid., p. 487. Cf. Moreland, *Ag. Sys.*, p. 47. One looks in vain for the significant details of the contractors, while dealing with these rulers, in Mr. Moreland's book! B.A.S.
v1.c10.s8.16
¹ Barani, Ta'rik-i-Firūz Shāhi, p. 575. Cf. Moreland, Ag. Sys. pp. 59-60.
v1.c10.s8.17
There is every reason to believe that the farming or contract system existed from early times in southern India. Mr. Moreland's conception of farming as given in one of the above passages cannot be applied to the conditions in Hindu India, either during or before Vijayanagara times. The centralized system of revenue administration under the early Tamil and Karṇāṭaka kings,—about which we have mentioned a few details in this treatise,—precludes any idea of supposing that officers, who were appointed to administer provinces, undertook to pay a definite sum representing the net revenue of their charge, in their capacity as holders of contracts. These officers were certainly granted large provinces, or, as in the instance of the smaller officials, small estates; but they were distinct from the holders of the contracts or the guttars or the guttedārs, as they are even today called in many parts of southern India.
v1.c10.s8.18
That the people did not confound the revenue from the guttus with that derived from land leased out, or granted as an endowment, to tenants, is evident from the term siddhāya givn to the fixed rent. A stone inscription dated A.D. 1184 mentions the fixed rent of the immemorial agrahāra of Jambūr.² From inscriptions dated about the same time, it is clear that the guttige system had already become native to the land. In fact, there is reason to suppose that it was not known in the middle of the tenth century. A stone inscription dated about A.D. 960 of the times of Bira (Vira) Noḷambādhirāja, informs us that Komāramaṅgalam Oḍeyar Nāgamayya's son Kaṇṇayya and Saṅkarayya gave to one hundred and eight Brahmans of Kuṟambūr fifteen gadyāṇa of gold for daily providing one parivaḍi to anyone who stopped in the Kuṟambūr guṭṭe as a permanent endowment (ondu-parivaḍi Kuṟambūra guṭṭeyoḷ
v1.c10.s8.19
² E.C., VII, Sk. 145, p. 107, text, p. 256.
v1.c10.s8.20
ār iḷdoḍam candrādittyarkal uḷḷinam etc.).¹ This may be understood to mean that not only free provision was made for any traveller resting in the Kuṟambūr guṭṭe—which, we suppose, is another although rare form of the more common guṭṭe—but that even Brahmans in the tenth century held contracts under persons whose official status cannot be determined in the inscription.
v1.c10.s8.21
¹ E.C., X, Ct. 43, p. 251; P. II, p. 313. This epigraph is dated Saka nṛipa Kalātīta-sambatsara-śataṅgaḷ eṇṭu-nūṛa-ayvatta-mūganeya Raudriyemba saṃbatsara pravarttisuttire. Rice commented thus on the date "So in the original: Saka 853 expired=Khara, Raudri=883." Translit. p. 317, n. (1). According to Swamikannu, Khara=853; Raudri=882. Ind. Eph., II, pp. 264, 322.
v1.c10.s8.22
Our assumption that Brahmans also, like the agricultural and commercial classes, held contracts is based on another stone inscription dated A.D. 1104 which speaks of bhaṭṭa-guṭṭas. The record relates that Īśvarayya Nāyaka with the knowledge of the townsmen of the great royal city of Baḷḷigāve, of the five maṭhasthānas and of Daṇḍanāyaka Gōvindarasa, having purchased certain land (specified), granted it for the offerings of the god Narasimha in A.D. 1104. And it was agreed on this occasion that "the ministers for peace and war of the Vanavāsi Twelve thousand will give one gadyāṇa a year, the bhaṭṭa-guṭṭa one pa, the king's servants ten vi (maṭṭam Vanavāsi-dvādaśa-sahasrādhikārigaḷa sandhi-vigrahigaḷu varsha prati kuḍuva ga 1 bhaṭṭa-guṭṭaru pa 1 arasāḷgaḷu vi 10).² We are unable to ascertain the official position of the bhaṭṭa-guṭṭas, who are here classed with the king and the ministers for peace and war. Nevertheless it may not be far wrong to assume that the term bhaṭṭa-guṭṭas was obviously used in connection with Brahmans who held some unspecified kinds of guṭṭas.
v1.c10.s8.23
² E.C., VII, Sk. 131, p. 100, text, p. 242.
v1.c10.s8.24
That there were four different kinds of guṭṭas is proved by other epigraphs. Thus in about A.D. 1150 the Seṭṭi-guṭṭas are mentioned together with the gavaṟegas, gātṛigas, seṭṭis, aṅkakāṛas, vīras, bīra-vaṇigas, gaṇḍigas, gāvuṇḍas, and gāvuṇḍasvāmis.³ The Seṭṭi-guṭṭas referred to here were evidently owners of what may be called commercial guṭṭas. We come across this name also in another inscription of the same period, assigned to about the year A.D. 1180.⁴ From a record dated A.D.
v1.c10.s8.25
³ Ibid., Sk. 118, p. 87.
v1.c10.s8.26
⁴ E.C., X, Kl. 170, p. 56. From these two epigraphs one may conclude that Seṭṭi-guṭṭas belonged to the Vīra Baṇajiga sect.
v1.c10.s8.27
1287 we can infer that Seṭṭi-guṭṭas were persons of some importance. The Nāḍ-Seṭṭi-Guṭṭa Chalaḍaṅka Rāma Seṭṭi, along with a number of prominent persons of Bem-maṭṭanūru, in that year, caused to be written and gave to Perumāḷa Dēva, the famous general of the Hoysala king Narasimha, a gift of imposts (specified) for rebuilding the Kurubara Kāleya tank in Bemmaṭṭanūru.¹ Seṭṭi-guṭṭas also figure under the Yādava rulers. An inscription dated A.D. 1271, while praising Beṭṭūr, situated in the middle of the Pāṇḍya-dēśa, also speaks highly of its maneyars, seṭṭi-guṭṭas, gauḍas, and ūr-oḍeyars.²
v1.c10.s8.28
¹ Rice, My. Ins., p. 12; E.C., XI, Cd. 12, dated A.D. 1286, p. 4; see text, p. 11, for the names which are not given in the translation.
v1.c10.s8.29
² Rice, ibid., p. 22, where the passage in question has been wrongly translated thus: "And the greatness of its Manneya Setti and Guttara-Gauda was as follows." The error is rectified in E.C., XI, Dg. 13, p. 28, text, p. 69.
v1.c10.s8.30
Another kind of guṭṭu is mentioned under the name guṭṭige-piṇḍa-dāna. An inscription assigned to the year A.D. 1210 informs us the following: "The gauḍike umbali of Amiṭya-daṇṇāyaka in Amṛitapura, together with the garden, was five maṭṭas of rice land by the Gaṅga pole. Its boundaries. Whoever plants areca gardens in the land of the god Amṛitēśvara in this Amityapura will always pay as guṭṭige-piṇḍa-dāna three paṇa per kamba according to the Gaṅga pole. On their planting the pits and making an areca garden, they will pay at this rate as soon as the trees come into bearing. And these gardens will be open to mortgage or sale".³ It appears from the above epigraph that guṭṭige-piṇḍa-dāna was a sort of fee levied from those who planted areca trees in an areca garden belonging to a temple.
v1.c10.s8.31
³ E.C., VI, Tr. 43, p. 110, text, pp. 433-4.
v1.c10.s8.32
We assume that the guṭṭige-piṇḍa-dāna thus derived from areca gardens was related to the kaṭṭu-guṭṭige-piṇḍa-dāna mentioned in the epigraphs. In A.D. 1193 the greater leader Chamūnātha Erega made a grant of Chiyana-Sāliyūru in Muddha-Kunḍāni-vṛitti in the Sāntaḷige-naḍ of his government, with freedom from all imposts, for the first eighteen gadyāṇa payable to the treasury, and freedom from kaṭṭu-guṭṭige-piṇḍa-dāna, to the rāja-guru Vāmaśakti Dēva of the great temple of Kēdāra in the royal city of Baḷipura (Baḷḷigāme).¹ Another record dated A.D. 1252 informs us that the great ministers of the Hoysala king Sōmēśvara Dēva, Kēsirāja Daṇṇāyaka, Billayya Daṇṇayaka, Beṭṭayya Daṇṇayaka, made grants of land for the decorations and illuminations of the god Kēśava of Kēśavapura alias Belugali. One of their sons named Kēśiyaṇṇa granted additional land to the Brahmans enjoining that the latter were to pay forty gadyāṇa a year for the services of the god Kēśavēśvara together with kaṭṭu-guttige.² Our assumption that the guttige-piṇḍa-dāna was related to kaṭṭu-guttige is proved by an inscription assigned to about A.D. 1450 which relates that Viṭṭhaṇṇa and Hariyappa made a grant of land on the terms of a śrōtra-agrahāra kaṭṭu-guttage-vṛtti for the purpose of planting areca trees. And Tammaya Nāyaka with the consent of his relatives (tamma strī-putra jñāti-sāvanta-dāyādānumata aliyaṇdiramakkaḷu sahita sarvavaika matyavāgi), of his own free will, gave the stone śāsana and the copper śāsana and the kaṭṭu-guttage-patra śāsana.³
v1.c10.s8.33
¹ Rice, My. Ins., p. 107; E.C., VII, Sk. 105, p. 78. Rice translates the passage thus: 'freedom from kaṭṭu-guttige and piṇḍa-dāna'. But the original, especially when read in the light of the epigraph related to Armitapura cited above, does not warrant the separation of piṇḍa-dāna from kaṭṭu-guttige: gadyāṇam hadineṇṭakke sarvanamasya kaṭṭu-guttige-piṇḍa-dana sarva-bādhā-parihārav etc. Text pp. 199-200.
v1.c10.s8.34
² E.C., V, P. I, Cn. 242, p. 226. The above error is repeated here. But the original clearly says: 'A Kēśavēśvara-dēvara-śri-kāryyake kaṭṭu-guttige-piṇḍa-dānavāgi, ā-mahā-janaṅgaḷu etc. Part II, text, p. 674.
v1.c10.s8.35
³ E.C., VIII, Tl. 194, p. 206.
v1.c10.s8.36
In the mediaeval treatise of Sukrācharya, as we have already observed, reference may be found to one of the features of the guttige system. "Having determined the land revenue of the village the king should receive it from one rich man in advance, or guarantee (for the payment) of that either by monthly or periodical instalments. Or the king should appoint officers called grāmapas by paying one-sixteenth, one-twelfth, or one-eighth, or one-sixth of his own receipts".⁴ Receiving revenue from one man in advance is essentially of the nature of the guttige system, although we admit that Sukrāchārya does not make any provision for the element of bidding which is the most prominent, and, at the same time, the worst feature of the guttige system. Whether reference to this system is found in the Sukranīti or not is outside our purpose, since on the strength of the evidence of epigraphs, we may definitely assert that, long before the Muhammadans came to southern India, the farming or contract or guttige system had already come to stay in the country as a noteworthy feature of the agrarian life of the people.¹
v1.c10.s8.37
⁴ Sukraniti, IV, ii, ll. 248-52, p. 149, op. cit.
v1.c10.s8.38
¹ As regards the remarks of foreign travellers, who, often confound the rent (i.e., revenue) paid by the viceroys to the Central Government with the rent derived from land and the income derived from the farming system, e.g., in the case of the main gate of the capital—which, as we shall presently relate, yielded according to Nuniz, 12,000 pardaos a year,—allowance must be made for their unfamiliarity with the agricultural habits of the people and revenue terms current in the country. B.A.S.
v1.c10.s8.39
We may now consider questions relating to rent. An inscription of A.D. 1229 mentions rents, shares, and other details of a sameya-śāsana. Shares of a particular kind were called ōhala.² The rental in the Vijayanagara times was known as sotta (sūtra) guttige, and the grant which embodied it, sotta-guttigeya-kallu-paṭṭe (stone roll of the rental). This we gather from an epigraph dated A.D. 1533.³ Yereme Nāyaka in A.D. 1498, gave to Nañjaṇa Seṭṭi and Rāma Seṭṭi of Maṭhakere, for the boundary erected by the Oḍagere sub-tenants, on the south side of Horanahaḷḷi, seven gadyāṇa as a sūlla guttige.⁴ This same donor, who is called in an inscription of the same year, Yarama Nāyaka, together with Narasaṇṇa Nāyaka, granted to Gaṇāchari Liṅga a sūtra guttige of thirty gadyāṇas.⁵ The hereditary nature of the holding of a sotta guttige is made clear in an inscription dated about A.D. 1560 which informs us that a certain Ara . . . . bemalā Dēva of Agara, the immemorial Durgga agrahāra gave for the (?) carpenters, potters, goldsmiths, and barbers, . . . .whoever is in enjoyment of the guttige land granted by our father. . . . Timmayya, will pay rent as follows for that guttige . . . ? carpenters, five gadyāṇa; goldsmiths, eight; potters eight; barbers, eight;
v1.c10.s8.40
² E.C., V, P. I. Ak. 128, p. 171.
v1.c10.s8.41
³ My Arch. Report for 1920, p.
v1.c10.s8.42
⁴² According to Mr. R. Narasimhachar sōtta seems to the derived from śrōtriya. But it is more probable that sōtta may have been the corrupt form of sūtra. The term sūtra guttige refers to the rental system, while śrōtriya was the name given to a village granted to a temple and a number of Brahmans. Thus in A.D. 1468 Hosahaḷḷi is called the śrōtriya village situated in Kuruvaṅka-nāḍ-veṇṭheya given as a gift by Dēva Rāja of Nāgamaṅgala to the god Rāmachandra together with 76 Brahmans of Harahu. E.C., III, Sr. 139, p. 33. Śrōtriya is also the name given to one of the judges who sits in a law court. Gautama, XXVIII, 49-50, p.
v1.c10.s8.43
³¹⁰ Infra, Chapter VII. Justice and Oppression.
v1.c10.s8.44
⁴ E.C., IV, Hg. 97, p. 78.
v1.c10.s8.45
⁵ Ibid., Hg. 35, 36, p. 71.
v1.c10.s8.46
for outhouses, one *gadyāṇa* per house".¹ We may note in this connection that some kinds of quit-rent were called the prime minister's quit-rent (*pradhāni-jōḍi*), the *karaṇam*'s quit-rent (*karaṇika-jōḍi*), and the village watchman's quit-rent (*talavārike-jōḍi*).² "Fixed rent" (*siddhāya*) was the name given to a consolidated amount of rent payable by the people to the State. Thus Sadāśiva Nāyaka and Rāma Rāya Nāyaka, in about A.D. 1545, granted to Benakappa Seṭṭi of Araga and others, a *dharma-śāsana* in confirmation of that granted by Harihara Oḍeyar. "Harihara Oḍeyar made the dharma that for the Araga city the fixed rent and combined dues should be 100 *varāha*. Customs and watchmen's dues at the former rate. Thus much will we continue".³ Rent was paid, if we may be allowed to repeat, in money. Thus in about A.D. 1570 a certain Nāyaka gave to the *agrahāras* of the Araga-Gutti-sīme land having a money rent of 415 *varāha*.⁴ The residents of the *brahmadēya* village of Tirupputtūr, in Kērala-śinga-vaḷa-nāḍu, in Saka 1421 (A.D. 1499-1500), were allowed to enjoy their rent-free lands without imposition of any cess or service.⁵ Such rent-free villages in the Tamil lands were also called *taṇiyur*,⁶ and in the Karṇāṭaka *umbali*.
v1.c10.s8.47
¹ E.C., IV, Jl. 62, p. 33.
v1.c10.s8.48
² S.I.I., II, P. II, p. 119.
v1.c10.s8.49
³ E.C., VIII, Tl. 15, p. 166.
v1.c10.s8.50
⁴ Ibid., Tl. 18, p. 166.
v1.c10.s8.51
⁵ 89 of 1908.
v1.c10.s8.52
⁶ 386 of 1905 dated S. 1292 Sādhāraṇa under Karhpaṇa II; 390 of 1905 dated S. 1295.
v1.c10.s8.53
The system of farming out revenues was extended to all sources that were exceptionally productive. Forests, in some instances, were also leased out. In the revenue settlement effected in A.D. 1429-1430, as we have seen, reclaimed forest was taxed.⁷ Trees, especially the areca palms, were likewise rented out. Narasimha Bhaṭṭa, son of Liṅga Bhaṭṭa, in A.D. 1547, gave as *uttār* the fixed rent of seven *haṇa* on 500 areca-nut trees bought by him in the Tālakōḍu-kōhu from the people of Hedese-Tālakōḍu.⁸ Fisheries were also leased out. Dalavāyi Sēvappa Nāyaka, according to an inscription dated only in the cyclic year Vikrama, Tai, 5 . . . ., but presumably of the times of Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya, made a gift of the income from the lease of fishery in the tank at Koḍungālūr, in the North Arcot district, for purposes of deepening the tank, for the merit of Tirumala Nāyaka, the Agent of the king.¹ We may conjecture in this connection that the viceroys of the south, especially of Madura, also leased out the famous pearl-fisheries, although there is no proof to support our statement.
v1.c10.s8.54
⁷ Ep. Report for 1915, p. 107, op. cit. This was almost a violation of the classical principles. For Vasiṣṭha enjoins the following: 'No taxes (shall be paid) on the usufruct of rivers, dry grass, forests (places of) combustion and mountains. Vasiṣṭha, XIX, 26, p. 99, also ibid., 27-8, p. 99.
v1.c10.s8.55
⁸ E.C., VI, Sg. 10, p. 95.
v1.c10.s8.56
¹ 145 of 1924.
v1.c10.s8.57
We may likewise surmise that the people must have been slack in the matter of paying their rent, and that on being pressed by the officials of the government, they must have raised the necessary amount to pay their landlords or the government. For, as regards the question of their withholding the rent, the people could refer to the precedent set by the inhabitants of the earlier times. An inscription dated A.D. 1139 tells us how the ancient government sent a reminder to the people. "These hon you should pay without opposition and without keeping back, with the first payment of rent. The payment should be made from the first day of the order. (patthale-paḍiya-devasam.)"² That in Vijayanagara times, too, rents were in arrears we gather from the following inscription dated A.D. 1524 which deals with a grant from the head of the Śṛingēri Maṭha, Rāmacandra Bhārati, to Sūrappa Sēnabōva, a Brahman of Kārkaḷa. "The village of Keḷa Bellūr which, on account of the rent from the proprietors (named) being in arrears, was granted free of tax to the Śrī-maṭha, do we give you as a share, through love of the god Vidyāśaṅkara."³
v1.c10.s8.58
² E.C., V, P. 1. Cn. 200, p. 210.
v1.c10.s8.59
³ E.C., VI, Sg. 21, p. 98.
Linked texts (5)
- Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra — Vasiṣṭha, Sanskrit
- Gautamadharmasūtra — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit
- Epigraphia Carnatica
- South Indian Inscriptions
- Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf