Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c13.s4: 2.—7½ Lakhs Rattapadi.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c13.s4

Language
English

2.—7½ Lakhs Rattapadi.

v1.c13.s4.1

S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar in his Ancient History of India gives discrepant explanations of this figure. In a foot-note at page 40, he says that this figure refers either to the revenue or the number of villages. In a foot-note at page 78 explaining Gangavaḍi 96000, Nolambavaḍi 36000 and Banavāsi 12000 he says that these figures refer either to the revenue or the value of the produce, and refers to the opinion of Mr. Rice that they indicate the former and also to the opinion of Dr. Fleet that they refer to the number of townships in spite of the apparant exaggeration. Contrary to his previous note Mr. Aiyangar adds that this cannot be from the existing practice and that it must be either revenue or income or thirdly the quantity of seed required. Now these figures are indeed a riddle, but they cannot apparently stand for the number of villages which for Mahārāshtra’s Raṭṭapaḍi has been expressly stated to be 99000. The proportion of 99000 to 750,000 is approximately 7½. This cannot be either the revenue or the amount of produce nor the number of ploughs as the average of ploughs for a village is about 25. Yet the agricultural statistics of India for 1904 gives the number of ploughs for the Bombay Presidency as 9,34.031. The extent of the later Chālukya Empire may be taken a little less and the number 7½ lakhs may even stand for ploughs. We shall, however, leave the question undecided and refer to it again hereafter. The word saptārdha laksha as applied to Raṭṭapāḍi cannot be referred to the number of villages even in the whole portion of India to the south of the Narmadā. For even the whole of India does not contain at present more than 730, 806 villages. (Of course we are here arguing on the supposition that the number of villages in India or in any part of it cannot vary far from the number of villages existing in the 7th century A. D., (such variation at best not exceeding 10 or 12 per cent). The number of villages to the south of the Narmadā at present is approximately, Bombay Presidency 36,593 Madras Presidency 59858, Hydrabad State 20,089, Mysore 17,012, total 1,33,552. But as a matter of fact Raṭṭapāḍi probably includes only Bombay Presidency two divisions, Berar, Nagpur, Hydrabad and a part of Mysore being the extent of the territory subject to the Chālukyas. The number of villages given for this tract in the Aihole inscription viz. 99,000 is approximately correct. Previously the Sātavāhana kingdom of Paithana extended over nearly the same territory. And this explains why the word saptārdha laksha occurs in a Bāṇa inscription also* (Ind. Ant. XV, 195) of about 420 A. D. The word may thus be of old standing even and includes the Āndhra territory also. Even in Bāṇa's time the word Dakshiṇāpatha meant the Deccan exclusive, of South India that is the Deccan plateau down to the Malaya mountain. The following extract from H.C. p. 288 is geographically interesting उत्साहिनः किष्कुस्तुरुष्कविषयः प्रादेशः पारसीकदेशः शशपदं शकस्थानम्। अदृश्यमानप्रतिप्रहारे पारियात्रे यात्रैव शिथिला। शौर्यशुल्कः सुलभौ दक्षिणपथः। दक्षिणार्ववकलोलानिलचलितचंदन-लतासौरभसुंदरीकृतदरीमन्दिराद्रैर्द्र्नेद्यासि मलयः मलयलम् एवच महेन्द्रः। The दक्षिणपथ of this passage corresponds with the above described territory and does not include South India or India south of the Malaya. This country is always called सप्तार्धलक्ष or 7½ lakh territory in inscriptions, a number which cannot represent villiages nor ploughs as we have already stated.

v1.c13.s4.2

What does it then represent? That is almost a riddle. Can it be the amount of land produce paid as government share? This question it is very difficult to answer. The amount then collected was in kind and not in coin as now. Moreover the government share then was not what it is now, though I think that the British Government does not now take much more than the ⅙th traditional revenue demand in India. Prices moreover have largely changed and we cannot argue from the revenue in money now derived. Yet the produce of land has not much varied, agriculture still remaining primitive, nor the number of villages in the same tract of the country. Hence an estimate may be made of the share of government then realised in kind. Taking the cultivable average of a village as 1000 acres and the produce of one acre as 10 maunds we may take the government share of one village's produce 10000/6 maunds. Here another difficulty intervenes. The present measures of capacity or weight have been introduced since Mahomedan times; the śer, the maund, the Khaṇḍi are all Mahomedan. The old measures were Prastha, Ādhaka and Droṇa for measures of capacity and also weight. To what an Ādhaka or Droṇas comes as compared with the maund or khandi, cannot possibly be determined with any pretence of exactness. The Manu Smṛiti gives a Droṇa of corn as a month's sustenance wage of a labourer धान्यद्रोणस्तु मासिकः which at present is taken to be 1¼ maund. Placing these data before the curious reader, we remain content and leave this subject unfinished.

v1.c13.s4.3

∗ आन्ध्रमण्डलद्वादशसहस्रग्रामसंपादित सप्तार्धलक्षविषयाधिपतेः &c.

Cites (2)