The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3.t7: Taxation

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3.t7

Language: English

Taxation

v2.c15.s3.t7.1

Very little is known about the incidence of taxation during the Kākatīya period, though the names of many taxes are mentioned in the inscriptions of that period. The main source of government revenue was the taxation of agriculture, the chief and most important occupation of the people. Next to it in value came charges levied on trade and industry and last but not least were the assessments of forests and pasture lands on their yield of timber and the value of grazing rights. Taxes were collected by regular officials (both from the sources of income mentioned above and from a number of others). Some of these taxes were conventional and customary and had been in existence in a long time before the appearance of the Kākatīya dynasty. *Darśanamu*, *appanamu*, and *upakriti* were such traditional and accepted charges,¹ of which the first had to be paid to the king when visiting him on important occasions such as festivals and State ceremonials. This custom of offering presents to the king in kind or in cash at the time of *darśan* (seeing him) and of paying him *kānikas* in money on State occasions remained in vogue till very recent times, in the Native States. *Upakriti* was another offering consecrated by long usage, paid not only to the king but also to the officials of the State. Gifts thus offered in acknowledgement of some benevolent action on the part of the ruler were known as *upakriti*. They may be regarded as a kind of customary tax levied by the government on villagers or townsmen in return for some kind of service, permanent or temporary, performed for their benefit.

v2.c15.s3.t7.2

¹ SII, x, 427, 499, 509.

v2.c15.s3.t7.3

The government, as has been stated already, derived the bulk of its revenue from the land tax. More land was brought under cultivation in this than in any previous periods, as is proved by the *Local Records*. These state that much of the forest in the Śrīśailam and other regions was cut down by the Kākatīya monarchs Gaṇapatidēva, Rudramadēvi, and more particularly Pratāparudradēva, who thus vastly extended habitable and cultivable areas. Since the Kākatīya kings further encouraged agriculture by improving irrigational facilities, especially by the construction of large tanks called in regional language *samudrams*, and the extent of arable land thus rapidly increased, the income derived from the soil must have been augmented in due proportion. A study of the inscriptions of the Kākatīya period shows that land was divided, as at present, into dry (*veli-volamu* or *veli-chēnu* or *veli-bhūmi*), wet (*nīru-nēla*), and garden areas (*tōṭa-bhūmi*) for purposes of assessment, in accordance with the nature and fertility of the soil. *Tōṭa-bhūmi* was also called *tōṭa-polamu*. After this preliminary classification the land was surveyed by means of a bamboo pole (*gaḍa* or *daṇḍaka* or *kōla*) usually of thirty-two *jēnas* in length.¹ A study of the inscriptions of the period reveals the fact that there were regional variations in the standard length of the pole in different parts of the Kākatīya empire; for instance, poles of eight and twenty-four cubits in length for measuring house sites and fields respectively are referred to in an inscription at Penumūli in the Guntur district.² The pole used for measuring or surveying lands in many places during the Kākatīya period was of thirty-two cubits in length, known as *Kēsaripāṭi-gaḍa*, a pole which was in use in the village of Kēsaripāḍu. The assessment on wet land differed from that on dry land in accordance with the difference in standard measure. It was customary that the wet land should be measured in *marturu* or *mattar*, and its subdivisions, while dry land was reckoned in *khaṇḍuva*, *khaṇḍuka*, or *puṭṭi* and its component parts; it is clear that the former comprised a comparatively smaller area than the latter. How the assessment was made is not known. The monarch had his own land called ‘*rācha-doḍḍi*’ or ‘*rāchapolamu*’ probably in each village in the district.³ This land as well as its produce was the exclusive property of the king himself.

v2.c15.s3.t7.4

¹ *Corpus*, 55.

v2.c15.s3.t7.5

² *SII*, x, 509.

v2.c15.s3.t7.6

³ Ibid. x, 510, *Corpus*, 26.

v2.c15.s3.t7.7

Cheluka or *Chelika bhūmi*, fallow land which had been newly brought under cultivation, was taxed progressively in proportion to the yield of the crop after a period of three or four years had passed, no tax being levied during the first two, three, or even four years. The tax was collected both in kind and in money. The expressions ‘at the rate of one *chinnamu* per *marturu* of sowable ploughed field’ and ‘one *chinnamu* per *puṭṭi* of dry land’ occur in inscriptions of this period.⁴ It cannot be said that these were the invariable rates at which money payments were assessed on wet and dry lands respectively but these records do furnish us with definite proof that taxes were assessed not only in kind but also in cash. The tax on dry land and garden land (*tōṭa-bhūmi* or *tōṭa-polamu*) was always paid in cash and was respectively known as *puṭṭi-pahiṇḍi* and *tōṭa-sunkamu*.⁵

v2.c15.s3.t7.8

⁴ *dukkivaḍḍa vittupaṭṭunaku marturu chinnamu lekkānu*, *Corpus*, 26.

v2.c15.s3.t7.9

⁵ *SII*, x, 509, 530.

v2.c15.s3.t7.10

Taxes in kind were generally paid to the government in two instalments, one in the month of Kārtika (October-November) and the other in the month of Vaiśākha (April-May),⁶ these evidently being the two main crop-seasons. The king’s officers went round the villages to collect his share of the grain from them. There were *kolakāṇḍru*, persons engaged in measuring the king’s share of grain, and also *tirparulu*, umpires or judges, to see that no injustice was done to either party, the ryots of the village, or the government.⁷ The king’s share of a householder’s income in kind was called *puṭṭi-koluchu* and that of its income in cash, *puṭṭi-pahiṇḍi*.⁸ The government also collected a nominal rent even on lands which had been granted to gods and brāhmans. That which was collected from wet land was called para and that from dry land, paṅgamu. Paṅgamu, according to the Telugu dictionaries, means one-fourth part of the rent and para meant probably one-eighth part. Even this minimum rent was remitted in certain cases and the land was listed as entirely tax-free. The general term for land tax was ari, and those ryots who were subject to it were called arigāpulu.

v2.c15.s3.t7.11

⁶ Ibid. x, 468.

v2.c15.s3.t7.12

⁷ Ibid. x, 480.

v2.c15.s3.t7.13

⁸ Ibid. x, 509.

v2.c15.s3.t7.14

Śuṅkamu is a term of broad import. It is used in inscriptions to denote taxes on garden lands, duties on exports and imports, customs duties collected on articles of merchandise brought to and taken from the pēṭas or market-towns or places, and excise duties. These tolls, either customs, duties, or others, collected on articles of trade, including salt, were farmed out to merchant-guilds or associations comprising members of the trading community like the Vīrabalañja-samaya or the Ayyāvaḷi guild of merchants, on payment of a fixed sum to the government. It is not known whether the right of collecting taxes was sold by auction, nor have we any information as to the exact length of the period during which the bidders were empowered to collect. These tax-farmers had their own branches in different localities, and their own officials, office establishments, and accountants to keep records of their transactions, receipts, and remissions in the course of the collection of tolls and duties. The tax-collectors were called śuṅkarulu and their accountants śuṅka-karaṇālu. Probably with the common consent of the members of the local branch, the money collected as duty on certain articles of trade in the locality was sometimes bestowed as a gift for charitable or religious purposes such as the setting up of lights before gods in temples, &c. The duty collected on sales effected in the pēṭa, market-town or marketplace, on articles of trade, was called pēṭa-śuṅkamu or magama.¹ These tax-collectors' guilds were held responsible only for the amount to be paid to the government, being allowed full freedom to manage their own affairs without any interference by the government or its officials. The extent of autonomy allowed to these trade guilds in managing their own affairs, and the limits to which the policy of non-intervention was followed by the government during the Kākatīya period, are revealed to us by two very interesting copper-plate records of the period dated in Śaka 1244, corresponding to A.D. 1322, and in Śaka 1225, corresponding to A.D. 1304, respectively. The inscription of A.D. 1322 mentions the Kākatīya monarch Pratāparudra of Warangal and records the grant of a privilege to trade in certain articles without paying duty, to a certain Attena, son of Lōkiśeṭṭi, by the merchants of the Eighteen Samayās of all countries residing in the Nandyāla sthala, as a reward for having killed Annamarāja and Siṅgarāja, the Śuṅka-karaṇas of Cherunūru in the Peḍakaṇṭidēśa.² The other grant dated in Śaka 1225 is similar in its general terms to the above; but it does not mention King Pratāparudra. This document too records the grant of the same kind of privilege by the same body of merchants to a certain Puliyamaseṭṭi for having killed Kārapākala Kāṭināyaka who had shown himself a traitor to the *samayās*.¹ These two records—if they are genuine as is generally supposed, and there is nothing to disprove this supposition—throw considerable light on these trade guilds. Even retail dealers were not exempted from paying these duties. It was left to the merchants of the Eighteen *Samayās* of all countries, who were the toll-farmers, to exempt any dealer from paying the stipulated duty or to grant such exemption to him as a privilege for some important service which he might have done for the guild organization.

v2.c15.s3.t7.15

¹ SII, x, 429.

v2.c15.s3.t7.16

² AR, Cp. 11 of 1918-19.

v2.c15.s3.t7.17

¹ AR, Cp. 10 of 1918-19.

v2.c15.s3.t7.18

The non-intervention policy of the government even when murders were committed, though these had been perpetrated flagrantly in the interest of the organization, is quite incomprehensible. The two records mentioned above show how much power these guilds wielded and how powerful they were during the last days of the Kākatīya empire. This complaisant policy on the part of the rulers was probably due to the help which these merchant guilds had given to the Kākatīya monarch during the Muslim invasions. Members of these guilds probably joined the army in times of need to form a distinctive component part—*śreṇi-bala*—guild-force, one of the six divisions of the royal army which performed meritorious services for the king and were accordingly rewarded with these powers and privileges. The *praśasti*, or formal preamble, of the Virabalañja guild in their inscriptions always contains a long list of titles indicative of their valour and achievements, some of which, like those of the *Ballāḷa-rāya-mardana*, are historical. Whatever may be the case as to the origin of these immunities it is a fact that these merchant-guilds wielded unlimited powers and enjoyed full autonomy in the internal management of their own affairs.

v2.c15.s3.t7.19

*Suṅkams*, that is tolls or duties with varying designations such as *ammu-baḍi-suṅkamu*, *ammu-kaḍa-suṅkamu*, *peruka-eḍla-suṅkamu*, *gānuvula* (oil-mills)-*mudra-suṅkamu*, *gānuvuku-ari-suṅkamu*, and *uppu-perike-suṅkamu*, &c., find mention in the records of the Kākatīya period. These were all duties collected by toll-farmers and merchant-guilds in market-places, in places of pilgrimage, and in the precincts of shrines and temples of acknowledged repute. *Ammubaḍi-suṅkamu* and *ammu-kaḍa-suṅkamu* appear to be equivalent terms for the same impost. If it is argued that they were in fact separate fiscal dues, then the former may be the duty collected at some specified rate, now unknown, on sales effected, and the latter the duty levied on each shop or *kaḍa* as a going concern. The tax on pack oxen (*perike-eḍlu*) laden with sacks containing articles of trade, was called *perike-eḍla-suṅkamu*. *Gānuvula-mudra-suṅkamu* was probably the duty on oil mills paid as a registration fee, whilst *gānuvuku-ari-suṅkamu* may be the annual or semi-annual tax payable on an oil mill as such. Tolls were collected not only on the sale of all goods but also on the possession of many other commodities such as carriages (baṇḍi), slaves (bānisa), and horses (gurramu).¹

v2.c15.s3.t7.20

¹ SII, x, 358.

v2.c15.s3.t7.21

Salt was probably a monopoly of the State. Pedda Gañjāmu, Pinna Gañjāmu (China Gañjāmu), Kaḍakudura, Choṃpaṛēla Kaṇupaṛti, Devaraṅupalli, and Pāṃdoṛti—all on the sea coast—were some of the places known from the records where salt was produced during the Kākatīya period.² These salt pans were either managed by government officials like the accountants who collected the duty on salt,³ or were farmed out to merchants as explained above.⁴ Since this is a commodity which has to be measured like grain, there were also salt officials called kolakāṇḍru and tīrparulu.⁵

v2.c15.s3.t7.22

² Ibid. x, 427.

v2.c15.s3.t7.23

³ uppu-suṅkamu-tiseḍi karaṇālu, SII, x, 480.

v2.c15.s3.t7.24

⁴ Ibid. x, 427.

v2.c15.s3.t7.25

⁵ Ibid. x, 480.

v2.c15.s3.t7.26

Another source of income for the State was the pullari or tax on pasture lands (pullu = grass and ari = tax). The tax called pullari was collected on cattle grazing on the government pastures attached to each village or in the adjacent forest areas.⁶ Besides pullari some of the Kākatīya inscriptions mention another kind of suṅkamu known as aḍḍavaṭṭa-suṅkamu. What this tax was is not definitely known. According to some scholars it was a tax on a herd of sheep and amounted to a kind of property tax on cattle. It is not known whether this term denoted a tax on all classes of cattle or only on certain kinds. If it referred exclusively to sheep, then it would have to be interpreted as an impost relating to industry, since blankets are woven with the wool of the sheep, and not as a pure property tax levied on all classes of cattle. Just as it was on the loads of pack-oxen, in general duty was also collected on each pack-load of salt (uppu perike suṅkamu).

v2.c15.s3.t7.27

⁶ pasula pullari, SII, x, 427 and 509.

v2.c15.s3.t7.28

Beside those mentioned before, there are other taxes such as gaḍḍuga-māḍa, gaḍḍuga-kānika, upakshiti, talāri-pannu and baṇṭela-(baṇṭula-)āyamu.⁷ Gaḍḍuga-māḍa and gaḍḍuga-kānika are evidently the same, since the word means an offering (kānika) compulsorily made to the king as an act of homage, and generally it was a māḍa. What upakshiti was, is not known. Could this be a mistake for upakṛti? Talāri-pannu was the tribute collected from the public for the maintenance of a talāri or watchman. Baṇṭula-āyamu was similarly a maintenance-rate and formed the allowance paid to foot-soldiers for their support.