Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c20: Chapter XIII: Income and Expenditure

State and Government in Ancient India c20

Language
English

Chapter XIII: Income and Expenditure

c20.2

Sound finances are absolutely necessary for a stable and prosperous state. The importance of this proposition was well realised by ancient Indian political thinkers. They have included prosperous treasury and ample reserve funds among the essential constituents of the state and have declared that any deterioration in this connection would be one of the most serious national calamity.¹

c20.3

¹ कोशमूलाः कोशपूर्वाः सर्वारम्भाः तस्मात्पूर्वं कोशमवेक्षेत । *A. Ś.* II. 2 कोशमूला हि राजानः कोशो वृद्धिकरो भवेत् । *Mbh.*, XII. 119. 16 कोशमूलो हि राजेति प्रवादः सार्वलौकिकः । *Kāmandaka*, XIII. 33

c20.4

Vedic literature, owing to its predominantly religious nature, naturally supplies meagre information about the revenues of the state in the contemporary times. In the earliest period, the king's power was not well established and the taxation seems to have been occasional and voluntary, the king probably supporting himself, his retinue and meagre administrative staff out of the proceeds of his own lands, pastures and herds. The term *bali*, originally used to denote voluntary offerings made to gods for securing their favour,² came to be applied later to the presents and taxes offered to the king, more or less voluntarily. It is also significant to note that a prayer is often offered on behalf of a king, restored to the throne after an earlier deposition, that Indra may compel his subjects to pay him his dues and taxes,³ or that he may have the good fortune to see ample presents brought to him by his subjects.⁴ These prayers suggests that people were not yet quite accustomed to pay regular taxes to the state as a matter of normal liability.

c20.5

² Cf. *R. V.*, V. 1. 10

c20.6

³ अथा ते इन्द्रः केवलीः प्रजा बलिहृतस्करत् । *R. V.*, X. 173. 6

c20.7

⁴ *A. V.*, III. 4. 3

c20.8

There was a change in the situation in the course of time. In the coronation ritual of the later Vedic literature, the king is described as the ‘eater of his subjects’¹ ; this metaphor was obviously suggested by the regular payment of taxes by the people to the king which enabled him and his officers to live in dignity and pomp.

c20.9

¹ विशामत्ता समजनि । *A. Br.*, VII. 29

c20.10

In the Vedic period, Brāhmaṇas were engaged in the unproductive profession of priesthood, and the Kshatriyas were mostly occupied in conquering and annexing new territories ; the Śūdras held no property. The incidence of taxation, therefore, naturally fell heavily on the Vaiśyas who were engaged in the productive profession of agriculture, trade and cattle-rearing. The Vaiśya is, therefore, often described as the payer of tributes and taxes.² It is not, however, to be supposed that the other classes escaped altogether ; for the king is often described as taxing all his subjects.³

c20.11

² अन्यस्य बलिकृत् । *A. B.*, VII. 29. See also *S. Br.*, XI. 2. 6. 14

c20.12

³ विशोऽद्धि सर्वाः । *A. V.*, IV. 22. 7

c20.13

We have already shown in Chapter V how in early times the king was but the president of council of nobles. It is not unlikely that the latter also might have often imposed their own tributes. This conjecture derives some support from a statement in the Brāhmaṇa literature that the weak have to offer tributes to the strong.⁴

c20.14

⁴ *S. Br.*, XI. 2. 6. 14

c20.15

*Bhāgadhuk*, ‘the collector of the (royal) share,’ and *samāhartā* ‘the bringer (of tributes)’, who figure as members of the king’s council (*ratnis*) at this period were probably concerned with duties of the taxation department. Probably the former collected the taxes and tributes which were mostly in kind and the latter stored them in the royal granary and treasury.

c20.16

The state derived its revenues from the agriculturists and cattle-breeders. The farmers paid a certain portion of the produce of the crops, the amount of which is not disclosed by the Vedic literature. The cattle-breeders formed a much more important class in the Vedic than in the succeeding ages, as the society was then just emerging from the pastoral stage. They paid taxes in the form of cows, bulls and horses,¹ a certain per cent. of the herds being claimed by the state.

c20.17

¹ एमं भज ग्रामे अश्वेषु गोषु । *A. V.*, IV. 22. 2

c20.18

Apart from taxes from their subjects, Vedic kings often used to receive tributes from conquered chieftains.² Trade and commerce were not held in high esteem in the Vedic age and do not seem to have made any appreciable contribution to the royal exchequer. Whether mines were actively worked and were regarded as state property, we do not know.

c20.19

² *R. V.*, VII. 18. 19

c20.20

Hopkins has advanced the view that the taxation in the Vedic period was oppressive and grinding. Instead of checking the predatory tendencies of the king, the priests of the age, he says, encouraged the king to devour his subjects.³ This view is however untenable. Hopkins is misled by the phrase *viśāmattā*, ‘the eater of the people’ used to describe the king. As observed in the *Vedic Index*, this phrase might have had its origin in a custom by which the king and his retinue were fed by the people’s contributions, a plan with many parallels’.⁴ In the Brāhmaṇa literature, the term *attā* is often used in the sense of the enjoyer; for instance, in one place the husband is described as the *attā* (enjoyer), and the wife as *ādya*, the object of enjoyment.⁵ It would be too far fetched to argue that these terms indicate that the husband was the eater or the oppresser of his wife. The expression ‘the eater of the subjects’, it must be further remembered, is obviously used metaphorically in a coronation proclamation intended to describe the pomp and power of the king in the most grand-eloquent manner; “Here comes into existence today the ruler of all people, the eater of the subjects, the breaker of forts, the destroyer of demons, the protector of Brāhmaṇas and *dharma*”. We have shown already in Chapter V how the king’s position was far from secure in the Vedic period and how the Assembly (*samiti*) exercised a fairly effective control over his actions. It is therefore unlikely that people would normally have suffered from grinding taxation in that age.

c20.21

³ Hopkins, *India Old and New*, p. 240

c20.22

⁴ *Vedic Index*, under *Rājan*.

c20.23

⁵ *S. Br.*, I. 8. 3. 6

c20.24

Very little definite is known about the system of taxation during the post-Vedic and pre-Mauryan period. Jātakas may be presumed to give us a glimpse of this age, but their information is meagre. They tell us how good kings levied only legal taxes and how bad rulers oppressed the subjects so much by illegal imposts that they would often flee to forests to escape from tax-collectors.¹ These statements hardly enable us to have a proper picture of the taxation system.

c20.25

¹ See *Jātakas*, IV. p. 399 ; V, pp. 98-9 ; 101 ; II, p. 17 The tax collectors are called *balisādhakas* or *balipaṭiggāhakas* in the *Jātakas*, terms reminiscent of *bali*, the Vedic word for taxes.

c20.26

With the Mauryan period we come on firmer ground. The *Arthaśāstra*, the Dhramasūtras and the Smṛitis supply considerable data, which can to a great extent be checked by the statements of Greek writers and the contents of contemporary state documents preserved in stone inscriptions and copper-plates.

c20.27

It would be convenient to discuss at the outset the general principles of taxation. Nothing can be more admirable and less flawless than the scheme propounded by the Smṛitis and epics in this respect.

c20.28

(1) The taxation was to be reasonable and equitable ; the king was never to forget that nothing exposed him to greater hatred than oppressive taxation.² The gardener plucks fruits and flowers, but does not harm the trees ; the bee sucks the honey but does not damage the flower;³ in the same way the king should collect his taxes, but should not cause any sufferings to his subjects. One who kills the goat can at best get one meal : one who feeds it well can get milk for several years.⁴ (2) The criterion of equitable taxation was that the state on the one side and the agriculturist or the trader on the other should both feel that they have got a fair and reasonable return for their labours.¹

c20.29

² प्रद्विषंति परिख्यातं राजानमतिखादिनम । *Mbh*, XII. 87. 19

c20.30

³ फलार्थी नृपतिर्लोकान्पालयेद्यत्नमास्थितः । दानमानादितोयेन मालाकारोऽङ्कुरानिव । *Pañchatantra*, I. 243

c20.31

⁴ अजामिव प्रजां हन्याद्यो मोहात्पृथिवीपतिः । तस्यैका जायते प्रीतिर्न द्वितीया कदाचन ॥ *Ibid*, 242

c20.32

¹ विक्रयं क्रयमध्वानं भक्तं च सपरिव्ययम् । योगक्षेमं च संप्रेक्ष्य वणिजो दापयेत्करान् ॥ *Manu*, VII. 127 न हीनसममल्याद्धि शुल्कं विक्रेत्तृतो हरेत् । लाभं दृष्ट्वा हरेच्छुल्कं क्रेतृतश्च सदा नृपः ॥ *Śukra*, IV. 2. 19

c20.33

(3) In the case of trade and industry, the taxation was to be on net profits and not on gross earnings.

c20.34

(4) An article was to be taxed only once and not twice.²

c20.35

² वस्तुजातस्यकवारं शुल्कं ग्राह्यं प्रयत्नतः । *Śukra*, IV. 2. 111

c20.36

(5) If increase in taxation becomes inevitable, its hould be gradual and not sudden and steep.³

c20.37

³ अल्पेनाल्पेन देयेन वर्धमानं प्रदापयेत् ॥ ततो भूयस्ततो भूयः क्रमवृद्धिं समाचरेत् । दमयन्निव दम्यानि शश्वद्भारं विवर्धयेत् ॥ *Mbh*, XII. 88. 7-8

c20.38

(6) Extra taxation was to be imposed only in times of national calamity after taking comprehensive steps to explain the situation to the people with a view to ensure a willing response. The king was never to forget that it was only an exceptional remedy to be adopted when there was no other alternative.⁴

c20.39

⁴ *Mbh*, XII. 87 26-39; *Śukranīti*, IV. 2. 10

c20.40

There can be no doubt that the above principles will be universally recognised as sound, applicable as much in modern as in ancient times. How far they were actually given effect to in the ancient times, we shall discuss later in this chapter.

c20.41

Equally sound principles have been enunciated about partial or total remission in the normal taxation, when the situation justified such concession. Both the *Arthaśāstra* and *Śukranīti* recommend that if enterprising persons bring fresh land under cultivation or seek to make it more fertile and productive by irrigating it with water from tanks built by themselves, the state should charge only a nominal tax in the beginning and gradually raise it to the normal rate during a period of four or five years.⁵ There is ample evidence to show that governments in ancient India were actually following this advice down to the 18th century.¹

c20.42

⁵ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. VI. Chap. 9; *Śukranīti*, IV. 2. 122

c20.43

¹ *E C.*, III. Seringapattan, No. 148; No. 422 of 1912; *I. M. P.*, Vol. II Madura No. 3A.

c20.44

Military villages were exempted from taxation in consideration of the regular supply of recruits, which they ensured for the army.

c20.45

Exemption from taxation has been recommended also on the ground of incapacity in the case of the dumb, deaf and blind persons, who are usually poor. Students studying at *gurukulas* and hermits practising penance in forests were not earning members of society and were, therefore, not to be taxed. Women in early times could hold only a negligible amount of property and have, therefore, been also recommended for exemption from taxation.² When later on their right of inheritance was recognised by society, only poor widows and destitute women must have got the benefit of this concession.

c20.46

² अकरः श्रोत्रियः । सर्ववर्णानां स्त्रियः । कुमाराश्च प्राग्व्यंजनेभ्यः । ये च विद्यार्थिनो वसन्ति । तपस्विनश्च ये धर्मपराः । शूद्रश्च पादावनेक्ता । अंधबधिरमूक रोगाविष्टाश्च । *A D. S.*, II. 10. 26. 1-17 *E. C.*, IV. Chamarajanagar, No. 186 and Yelandur No. 2 supply concrete evidence to show that this precept was followed in practice. The latter record states that if a woman lost her living, she should be not only exempted from the payment of five *varāhas* (gold coins), but be given an unemployment bonus of six *varāhas*.

c20.47

Dumb, deaf and decrepit persons required greater protection from the state. The ancient theory that taxation was a payment for protection would normally result in heavier taxes being imposed upon such persons. But humanitarian considerations were given greater weight than the above theory and persons of these categories were universally exempted from taxation.

c20.48

Smṛitis further recommended that learned Brāhmaṇas (*śrotriyas*) should be also exempted from taxation.³ An ideal *śrotriya* was vowed to poverty and was required to impart higher Vedic and Sanskritic education free to all students.

c20.49

³ म्रियमाणोऽप्याददीत न राजा श्रोत्रियात्करम् । *Manu*, VII. 133

c20.50

There is ample evidence to show that they were discharging this duty in spirit as well as in letter, and it was but meet that the state should have exempted them from taxation. In many cases, however, revenues of whole villages (known as *agrahāra* villages) were assigned to learned Brāhmaṇas for their maintenance; when such was the case, they were usually required to pay a quit rent.¹ This was but fair, for they could no longer put forth the plea of poverty. If, however the share which Brāhmaṇa scholars obtained in the revenue was very small, they were often granted full exemption from taxation.² But such cases however were exceptional.

c20.51

¹ Thus the *agrahāra* village of Dindugura had to pay a revenue of 100 *nishkas*, and that of Keśavapura 350 *nishkas*. *E. C.* V. Channarayapattana Nos. 173 and 179.

c20.52

² *I. M. P.*, I. 73 In this case, however, we find that the full exemption given to Brāhmaṇas was not respected by some of the succeeding rulers.

c20.53

The whole of the Brāhmaṇa class, however, has been recommended for exemption from taxation by some Smṛitis.³ Opinion seems to have been divided on this point, for the *Mahābhārata* emphatically declares that those among the Brāhmaṇas, who were holding lucrative appointments in the government service, or those who were following the money-making professions like trade, agriculture and cattle-rearing, were to be charged usual taxes and cesses at their full rates.⁴ When Brāhmaṇa writers themselves differed on this point, it is but natural that all states should not have regarded the recommendation as binding. We do get occasional cases of the entire Brāhmaṇa class being exempted from certain taxes. Thus a record of king Somasimhadeva of the Paramāra dynasty,⁵

c20.54

³ Cf. for instance, ब्राह्मणेभ्यः करादानं न कुर्यात् । ते हि राज्ञो धर्मकराः ।

c20.55

⁴ 4.

c20.56

⁵ *E. I.* VIII. p. 208.

c20.57

*Vishṇu*, III. 25-26

c20.58

येऽजाविमहिषाणां च वडवानां च पोषकाः ।
वृत्त्यर्थं प्रतिपद्यन्ते तान् (विप्रान्) वैश्यान्संप्रचक्षते ॥ ४ ॥
ऐश्वर्यकामा ये चापि सामिषाश्चैव भारत ।
निग्रहानुग्रह रतांस्तान्द्विजान्क्षत्रियान् विदुः ॥ ५ ॥
अश्रोत्रियाः सर्व एते सर्वे चानाहिताग्नयः ।
तान्सर्वान्धार्मिको राजा बलिं विष्टिं च कारयेत् ॥ ७ ॥
*Mbh.*, XII. 76. 4-7.

c20.59

another of king Achyutarāya of Vijayanagar¹ and two epigraphs from Guntur district² describe how taxes were remitted in the case of Brāhmaṇas in medieval times; but they also prove that the exemptions were new and unusual ones. The available evidence shows that such exemptions were not the rule, but the exception; hence the great credit claimed for them by the kings concerned.

c20.60

¹ *I. M. P.*, Vol. III. Nos. 768 and 946

c20.61

² *I. M. P.*, I. p. 22

c20.62

This is clearly proved by some concrete cases from south India, where we find the lands of Brāhmaṇa owners being sold away for the non-payment of the government dues. One record (*c.* 1229 A. D.) shows that even the Brāhmaṇa donees of *agrahāra* villages had to pay interest on the land tax remaining in arrears. The state, however, did not wait for more than three months; at the end of this period it would sell away the shares of the defaulters.³ Another record shows that the period of waiting was often extended to two years,⁴ at the end of which the sale could not be stopped except by the full payment of the state dues. We have no such cases recorded in northern India, but we shall not be far wrong in stating that the exemption from taxation seems to have been enjoyed by the entire Brāhmaṇa community only on rare occasions. As a general rule all Brāhmaṇas had to pay taxes, excepting those who were learned and poor and had received no state patronage.

c20.63

³ *E. C.*, V. Arsikera, No. 128

c20.64

⁴ *I. M. P.*, II. p. 1245

c20.65

Temples, which owned extensive lands, were naturally not exempted from taxation. Sometimes, if their income was small, only a quit rent was charged; but usually the full rate was in operation. We have cases of temples selling part of their lands in order to pay the government revenues due from them;⁵ sometimes we even find their lands being sold away by government for default in the payment of land tax.⁶

c20.66

⁵ No. 97 of 1890

c20.67

⁶ *I. M. P.*, II. p. 1322

c20.68

Let us now survey the field of taxation. Land tax was, as in later times, the main stay of the government revenue.

c20.69

It is referred to in inscriptions, sometimes as *bhāgakara* and sometimes as *udranga*. Smṛitis lay down no uniform rate of taxation; the percentage they recommend varies from eight to thirty-three.¹ This variation must be due partly to the quality of land; it is clear for instance, that Manu could not have the same types of land in his view when in the same breath he recommends that the land taxation should be either 8 or 12 or 16 per cent.² Kulottuṅga Chola is known to have divided land into eight classes for the purpose of taxation.³ The non-agreement among the Smṛitis must be partly due also to the varying practices of the different states or to the different rates charged by one and the same government at different times to meet its varying needs.⁴ The normal procedure, however, was to charge one-sixth of the produce as the land tax; the tax collectors were often called *shasṭhādhikṛitas*, as in Bengal and Bundelkhand.

c20.70

¹ *Manu*, VIII. 130; *Gautama*, X 24-27; *Arthaśāstra*, V. 2

c20.71

² धान्यानामष्टमो भागः षष्ठो द्वादश एव वा। VII. 130

c20.72

³ *I. M. P.*, I. pp. 125-130.

c20.73

⁴ षड्भागमुपलक्षणं यावता प्रजानां पीडा न स्यात् तावदेव प्रजापालनस्यावश्यकत्वात् ॥ *Smṛitiratnākara*, p. 62

c20.74

Land tax at 16% was, however, found insufficient for their needs by states which had chalked out a policy of imperial expansion. The testimony of the *Arthaśāstra*⁶ and the Greek writers⁷ shows that the Mauryan state charged 25% tax on agricultural incomes; the concession, which Aśoka showed to the inhabitants of Lumbinī, because the Buddha was born in their village, consisted in the reduction of this usual percentage to half.⁸ Under the Cholas in the 11th century, the taxation was 20%; a *veli* of land, yielding 500 *kalams* of paddy was taxed 100 *kalams*; sometimes, however, wet lands were charged 33%.⁹

c20.75

⁵ Sen, *Inscriptions from Bengal*, No. 1

c20.76

⁶ Bk V. Ch. 2

c20.77

⁷ Megasthenes, I. 46

c20.78

⁸ Cf. हिद भगवं बुधे जातेति लुंबिनिगामे उबलिके कटे अठभागिये च। Rumindei Inscription The *Rāmāyaṇa*, III. 16. 14 also suggests 25 per cent tax.

c20.79

⁹ *Rāshṭrakūṭas*, p. 22. See also, *E. C.* X. Mb. Nos. 44 (a) and 107

c20.80

In the reign of Rājādhirāja the temples are seen paying a quit rent of 10%; the charge on the land of ordinary cultivators must, therefore, have been higher, probably varying from 20 to 30%.

c20.81

It is difficult to state whether the percentage of the land tax, mentioned above, refers to gross or net produce. The Jātaka literature shows how the government agents were present on the fields when the yield of the crops was garnered; so the share they claimed must have been of the gross produce.¹ There is, however, no definite evidence to show that the government did not make an allowance for the cost of agriculture, when it was charging a tax as high as 25% or 33%. The *Śukranīti*, which permits 33% taxation, definitely states that the cultivator should get as his net income twice the amount which he spends by way of the land-tax and the cost of production.² This would show that the share claimed by the state would be about 16% of the gross produce and 25% of the net income.

c20.82

¹ II. p. 378

c20.83

² राजभागादिव्ययतो द्विगुणं लभ्यते यतः। कृषिकृत्यं तु तच्छ्रेष्ठं यन्न्यूनं दुःखदं नृणाम्। IV. 2. 115

c20.84

When the cultivator suffered owing to an adverse change in the circumstances, e.g. the land becoming sandy due to the encroachment of the sea, the state used to remit or reduce the tax as demanded by the situation.³ In all cases, however, an automatic relief was obtained to a certain extent, for the dues were usually collected in kind; if the yield was less, the state naturally got less.

c20.85

³ *I. M. P.*, I. p. 136

c20.86

The evidence to show that the land tax was usually paid in kind is overwhelming. The very term used to denote it, *bhāgakara*, the tax in the form of a share, suggests that it was paid as a part of what was actually produced in the field. In the Jātakas the tax collecting officer is called *droṇamāpaka*, 'the measurer of the corn by the *droṇa* measure'. They also narrate the stories of overscrupulous land-owners regretting their conduct in casually taking a handful of rice blades from their own fields, because the king would not thereby get a share in that part they had thus removed earlier;¹ the *Arthaśāstra* imposes a fine for such a conduct.² State used to have huge granaries at different centres, where the corn collected in taxes was stored. Officers in their charge used to dispose of it before its quality started to deteriorate on account of the action of time or insects.³

c20.87

¹ *Ibid*, II. p. 378

c20.88

² Bk. II. Ch. 2

c20.89

³ *Śukranīti*, II. 26 29

c20.90

A few records, however, show that the land tax was in some localities collected in cash after about the 9th century A. D. A 10th century Gurjara Pratīhāra record from the U. P. assings 500 *drammas* for a temple out of the revenues of a certain village.⁴ An inscription from Orissa of about the same period records the gift of a village yielding 42 *rūpyas* or silver coins.⁵ Two 11th century inscriptions in the Rāja-rājeśvara temple record the amount of the government revenue from 35 villages; in the case of 30 of them, the taxation was levied in kind at the rate of 100 *kalams* of paddy per *veli*; but in the case of 5, it was collected in cash at the rate of 10 gold *kalanjus* per *veli*.⁶ It thus appears that cash taxation was introduced in some cases from about the 9th century A. .D. These, however, appear to be exceptional cases.

c20.91

⁴ *I. A*, XVI. p. 174

c20.92

⁵ *E. I.*, XII. p 20

c20.93

⁶ *S. I. I.*, Nos. 4 and 9

c20.94

When the land tax was collected in kind, the annual dues must naturally have been recovered at least in two instalments at the time when the autumn and spring crops were garnered.⁷ A Gujarat record, however, shows that it was sometimes collected in as many as three instalments under the Rāshtrakūṭa administration.⁸

c20.95

⁷ This practice has been recommended by Bhaṭṭasvamin at *Arthaśāstra* II. 1 and Kullūka at *Manu*, VIII. 307

c20.96

⁸ *I. A.*, XIII. p. 68

c20.97

There was no permanent settlement of the land tax. The large variation in percentage permitted by the Smṛitis naturally rendered its enhancement possible, when required by the exigencies of the state finance. On the other hand, when canals irrigating certain fields dried up, their taxes had to be reduced. An inscription from Banavāsi (Karṇāṭak) shows that the state in ancient times did not fail to grant the needed relief on such occasions.¹

c20.98

¹ *E. C.*, VIII. *Sorab*. No. 83

c20.99

When the land-owner failed to pay the land-tax, his land was sold away after a certain period, which varied from place to place and time to time. Under Rājendra Chola the period of grace extended to three years,² but it was reduced to two by Kulottuṅga.³ Interest was often charged on the amount in arrears. We have shown already how this principle was allowed to operate even in the case of lands belonging to Brāhmaṇas and temples. It is, however, rather surprising to find that Smṛitis should nowhere refer to the state's right to confiscate the lands of the defaulting owners. Was this right claimed only after *c.* 900 A. D.?

c20.100

² *S. I. I*, Vol. III. No. 9

c20.101

³ *I. M. P.*, Vol. II. p. 1245

c20.102

It would be convenient to discuss here the question about the ownership of cultivable land. For, if we regard the state as its owner, the amount which the cultivator paid would be land revenue and not land-tax ; if on the other hand, the ownership vested in private persons, the same amount would be a land-tax.

c20.103

It is but natural that in ancient as in modern times opinion should have differed on this important point. A verse in the *Manusmṛiti* states that the king is the owner of the treasures buried under ground, because he is the owner of the land;⁴ this suggests state ownership of all land, including the cultivable one. Bhaṭṭasvāmin, the commentator on the *Arthaśāstra*, quotes a verse averring that private ownership can have no application in the case of land, tanks and water pools.⁵ Diodorous states that land in India is the property of the crown and no private individual is permitted to own it. As against these three authorities, the testimony of none of whom can be regarded as conclusive on the point,¹ we have the definite evidence of the *Pūrvamīmāṁsā* stating that a king cannot dispose of the lands of private individuals, when he is called upon to gift away all his possessions in charity at the end of certain sacrifices.² The *Arthaśāstra* also clearly differentiates between the crown lands and private lands.³ Nārada points out that it would be highly iniquitous if the king proceeded to interfere with the ownership and possession of houses and lands, for it would result in utter chaos.⁴ Nīlakaṇṭha definitely declares that although an emperor is the lord of the entire earth, the ownership in different fields belongs to their several private owners, and not to the state.⁵

c20.104

⁴ निधीनां तु पुराणानां धातूनामेव च क्षितौ। अर्धभाग्रक्षणाद्राजा भूमेरधिपतिर्हि सः॥ VIII. 39

c20.105

⁵ राजा भूमेः पतिर्दृष्टो शास्त्रज्ञैरुदकस्य तु। ताभ्यामन्यत्तु यद्द्रव्यं तत्र स्वाम्यं कुटुंबिनाम्॥ Bk. II. Chap. 24

c20.106

¹ Manu may have put forth the theory of the state’s ownership of the entire land merely to find an argument for its claim to hidden treasures. The verse quoted by Bhaṭṭasvāmin may be interpreted merely as a general claim to all land and water; it may be compared to the sovereignty in land, sea and air, which is claimed by the modern state. Greek writers may have generalised from the crown lands. What was Yuan Chwang’s impression about the ownership of land is difficult to make out from his few observations at vol. I. p. 176

c20.107

² Śabara comments as follows:—

c20.108

³ Bk. II, Chap. 23

c20.109

⁴ 4

c20.110

⁵ तत्तद्ग्रामक्षेत्रादौ स्वत्वं तु तत्तद्भौमिकानामेव । राज्ञां तु करग्रहणमात्रम् । अत एव इदानींतनपारिभाषिकक्षेत्रदानादौ न भूदानसिद्धिः । किंतु वृत्तिकल्पनामात्रमेव । *Vyavahāramayūkha*, Svatvāgama Chapter.

c20.111

In pre-historic times, however, the ownership in land was regarded as vested in the whole community. This is suggested by the view of some authorities, which hold that the transfer of land can become valid only if assented to by the entire body

c20.112

न भूमिः स्यात्सर्वान् प्रत्यविशिष्टत्वात् ॥ VI. 7. 3
य इदानीं सार्वभौमः स तर्हि भूमिं दास्यति। सोऽपि नेति ब्रूमः। कुतः।
…….। सार्वभौमत्वे त्वस्यैतदेवाधिकं यदसौ पृथिव्या सम्भूतानां व्रीह्यादीनां रक्षणेन निर्दिष्टस्य कस्यचिद्भागस्येष्टे न भूमेः ।

c20.113

गृहक्षेत्रे च द्वे दृष्टे वासहेतू कुटुंविनाम् ।
तस्मात्ते नाक्षिपेद्राजा ते हि मूले कुटुंविनाम् ॥ Chap. XI. 42

c20.114

of villagers, agnates and castemen.¹ The communal ownership of land did not, however, permit the state to dispossess an individual of the land he owned ; it merely restricted his power of its disposal, lest an unwanted or undessirable person should be introduced in the village community to disturb its peace. It is interesting to note that in the Vedic age even the king was permitted to gift a piece of land only when the adjacent residents agreed to the proposal.²

c20.115

¹ स्वग्रामज्ञातिसामन्तदायादानुमतेन च । हिरण्योदकदानेन षड्भिर्गच्छति मेदिनी ॥ *Mitāksharā on Yāj.*, II. 113

c20.116

² *S. Br. I.* 7. 3. 4 ; VIII 1. 1. 8

c20.117

The theory of the communal ownership of land, that was accepted in pre-historic times, has left its trace and influence only in two matters in the historic period. The state’s claim to eject the land owners, who do not pay the land-tax, is similar to that of the land-lord to evict a tenant, who does not pay the rent of his house. It clearly pre-supposes the state's ownership in land. The ownership in waste lands, forests and mines, which the state claimed in historic times, was originally based upon its claim to the entire land in the realm.

c20.118

There is conclusive and overwhelming evidence to show that at least from *c.* 600 B. C. the ownership of private individuals in their arable land could not be affected by the action of the state, except when there was a failure to pay the land tax. People could freely gift away, mortgage or sell their lands. Ambapalli and Anāthapiṇḍaka gave extensive plots of land to the Buddhist *saṁgha* at Vaiśālī and Śrāvastī. In the Jātakas, we find a Brāhmaṇa of Magadha giving away his portion of land to another.³ Inscriptions also record numerons gifts of land made by private individuals without any let or hindrance from the state.⁴

c20.119

³ IV., p. 281

c20.120

⁴ *E. I.*, VIII, Nasik, No. 9

c20.121

It is no doubt true that some state grants recorded the gifts of entire villages to Brāhmaṇas or temples ; but this procedure does not support the theory of the state ownership of the arable land. For what the grants assign in most of these cases is the state’s right to receive the various taxes, including the land-tax; they never effect any chage in the private ownership of the landed property included in the village. The grant never calls upon private owners of the lands situated in the village to surrender their property to the donee; it simply exhorts them to show him proper courtesy and respect and pay all the state taxes in cash and kind, not to the state officers but to the new grantee. Future kings are requested to desist, not from taking possession of the village land, but from receiving the various taxes due from them.¹

c20.122

¹ Cf. ते यूयं समुचितभागभोगकरहिरण्यादिप्रत्यायोपनयनं करिष्यथ आज्ञाश्रवणविधेयाश्च भविष्यथ ॥ *C. I. I.*, III. p. 118 See also Khoh copperplate grants, *Ibid.* pp. 126, 133; Pali grant, *E. I.*, II. p. 304; Barah grant, *E. I.*, XIX. p. 19

c20.123

We have also many records which transfer full ownership in land to the donee. In such cases, however, not the entire land in the village, but certain small pieces situated in it, often detached, are usually transferred. Thus Dhruvasena I of Valabhī wanted to give 360 *pādāvartas* of land to a temple in his kingdom; he gave four pieces of land situated to the north-west and four others situated to the north-east of the village, eight together measuring 300 *padavaratas*; and two other fields, both irrigated by wells.²

c20.124

² *E. I.*, III. p. 321

c20.125

The donee in this case would certainly have preferred to get one entire connected piece of land measuring 360 *pādāvartas*, and the king also would certainly have given such a piece, were he the owner of the entire cultivable land in the village. If he gave disconnected pieces, the reason must be that the state possessed only a few fields in the village, the ownership of which had accrued to it, either through failure of heirs or through the non-payment of the land tax. As in modern days so in ancient times, state used to acquire ownership in some such pieces of land in most villages; they have been expressly described as *rājyavastu* or state property in some records.³ When kings wanted to donate, not land revenues but landed property, they used to give such small and usually disconnected pieces under their ownership.¹ Sometimes when kings did not own any land, they used to purchase the piece they wanted to give; thus we find a Vaidumba king (*c.* 950 A. D.) purchasing three *velis* of land from a village assembly in order to assign them to a temple. Some Chola records also expressly refer to the previous purchase of the rights of the former owners and hereditary proprietors, when the state wanted to assign, not land revenue but land itself, in villages where it possessed none of its own.²

c20.126

³ चेंडलूरग्रामे राज्यवस्तु भूत्वा स्थितं क्षेत्रं ब्राह्मणाय प्रदत्तम् ।

c20.127

¹ For other instances of the gift of small pieces of land see, *I. A.*, IX. p. 103 (Andhradeśa, 3rd century A. D.) ; *E. I.*, III. pp. 260-62 (M. P., 9th century) ; *I. A.*, VI. p. 36 (Tamil country, 6th century) ; *E. I.*, VI. p. 56 (Mysore, 10th century) ; *I. A.*, VI. p. 203 (Gujarat, 13th century).

c20.128

² *S. I. I.*, III. p. 104-6

c20.129

Some records, however, supply still more convincing evidence on the point. Thus the emperor Amoghavarsha of the Deccan (*c.* 850 A.D.) is seen donating the village of Taleyur and also a flower garden, 500 × 150 cubits in dimension, *situated in the same village*.³ King Govindachandra of the U. P. (*c.* 1150 A. D.) is found giving the village of Loḷisapāda *along with the field named Tiyayi situated in it*.⁴ If the donation of a village had meant the transfer of the ownership of the entire land situated in it, it would not have been necessary to specify the further gift of certain gardens or fields in it.

c20.130

³ *E. I.*, VI. p. 29

c20.131

⁴ *Ibid.* VII. pp. 203-4

c20.132

We thus possess conclusive evidence to show that in the post-Buddhist period at any rate the ownership in cultivable lands was vested in private individuals ; the state could not interfere with it except for the non-payment of the land-tax. What is claimed from the average cultivator was thus not a land rent but a land tax.

c20.133

Let us now proceed with our survey of taxation. Trade and industry had to bear their own burden like agriculture. Traders had first to pay octroi duties that were levied on most of the articles imported in the town or village at varying rates. The state justified these duties on the ground that it had to spend considerably for the up-keep and protection of roads on which the merchandise was carried.¹ The duties were usually collected at the gate of the town or village by customs house officers usually as *śaulkika*.² They had to be paid sometimes in cash and somtetimes in kind according to the local usage. The rules in the Smṛitis suggest that the payment was usually in kind;³ sometimes we come across inscriptions stating the actual quantity of ghee, oil, cotton, betel leaves etc., that was collected as customs dues in different places.⁴ Cash collections also were not unknown, and they must have been usual in the case of the imports of gold, silver and jewels. Assignments in cash against the income of the toll houses, which we sometimes come across in inscriptions,⁵ show that probably people had the option to pay the customs dues in cash as well, if they so liked.

c20.134

¹ मार्गसंस्काररक्षार्थं मार्गगेभ्यः फलं हरेत् । *Śukra*, IV. 2. 25

c20.135

² *I. A.*, XXV. p. 18 (Kumaon, 5th century) ; Sen, *Inscriptions from Bengal*, No. 1 (Bengal, 8th century).

c20.136

³ आददीताथ षड्भागं द्रुमांसमधुसर्पिषाम् । गन्धौषधिरसानां च पत्रमूलफलस्य च । *Manu*, VII. 131 Cf. also *Śukra*, IV. 2. 121; *Arthaśāstra*, II. 22

c20.137

⁴ *E.I.*, III. p. 36

c20.138

⁵ *E. I.*, I. No. 16

c20.139

Customs duties varied according to the commodities as in modern times. Manu recommends a 16 per cent duty on fuel, meat, honey, ghee, scents, medicines, flowers, vegetables earthen pots and leather goods.⁶ The *Arthaśāstra*, however, recommends a lighter tariff of 4% to 5% on medicines, fuel, leather goods and earthen pots. Cotton stuff also paid the same duty, but wines and silken pieces were charged a higher duty varying from 6½% to 10%.⁷ It is clear that the tariff differed from province to province and age to age according to the needs and policy of the different governments. There is ample epigraphical evidence to show that most of the articles mentioned in this connection by the Smṛitis had to pay the customs duty, though we are not usually informed about its incidence.⁸

c20.140

⁶ VII. 131-2

c20.141

⁷ *Arthaśāstra*, II. 22

c20.142

⁸ *E. I.*, I. p. 6; XV. p. 41

c20.143

Kauṭilya recommends that commodities intended for religious ceremonies and Saṁskāras like sacrifices, marriages etc., as also presents given to the bride, should be exempted from octroi duties (II, 21).

c20.144

Jewellry intended for the Hindu and Buddha images could be also imported tax-free. There are some indications that priests and monks were sometimes not above the temptation to be in collusion with crafty traders, who would urge them to carry it with them and declare that it was intended for divine images.¹

c20.145

¹ *Śramaṇeraṭīkā*, Chap. II (unpublished)

c20.146

Along with the customs duty, we may refer here to the ferry tax that had to be paid for passengers, goods, cattle and carts. As a general rule it was a small impost.

c20.147

In addition to the customs duties and ferry tax, trade had to bear some other burdens as well. Some states used to test and stamp weights and measures and charge a small free for the same.² A shop tax, which is to be rarely met with in Smṛitis, is frequently referred to in inscriptions. It existed in the Deccan under the Yādavas;³ its rate in South India was six *paṇams* per annum under the Pāṇḍyas and two *viṁśpakas* per month under the Gurjara-Pratīhāras.⁴ It appears that it was a small impost levied upon shops in small villages and towns. The 10% tax on sale proceeds referred to by Megasthenes is unknown to the *Arthaśāstra* or the Smṛitis; very probably the Greek ambassador confounded the customs dues with the sales tax.

c20.148

² *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. II. Chap. 19

c20.149

³ *I. A*, XII. p. 127

c20.150

⁴ *E. I.*, III. No. 36

c20.151

Let us now consider the taxes payable by industry. As far as petty artisans like smiths and carpenters wrere concerned, it appears that they were usually required to work one or two days a month for the state.⁵ The Central Government usually transferred the right to receive the labour tax to the local bodies which could utilise it in carrying out their schemes of works of public utility. Inscriptions refer to this tax as *kārukara*, ‘the tax on artisans’. It may have also included small imposts realised from barbers, washermen, goldsmiths and potters.

c20.152

⁵ Earlier authorities like Manu (VII. 138) and Vishṇu (III. 32) prescribe the monthly liability of one day only; later ones like Śukra double the number of days.

c20.153

Weavers used to pay a tax of 1½ *paṇam* per loom under the Vijayanagar administration;¹ it is not unlikely that a similar cess might have been levied upon them in earlier centuries as well.

c20.154

¹ *I M.P*, I. p. 50

c20.155

Trade in wine was under strict state control. It was manufactured partly in state distilleries and partly by private agency; the wine prepared by the latter had to pay an excise duty of 5%.²

c20.156

² *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. II. Chap. 25

c20.157

All mines were regarded as state property. Some of them were worked by the government, but others were often leased out as well. When such was the case, the lessee had to pay a fairly heavy excise duty. According to Śukra it was to be 50% in the case of gold and diamonds, 33⅓% in the case of silver and copper and 16 to 25 per cent in the case of other metals.³ A two per cent tax on gold, mentioned in the Smṛitis,⁴ is probably the customs duty and not the excise duty.

c20.158

³ IV. 2. 118-19

c20.159

⁴ *Eg.*, *Vishṇu*, III. 24

c20.160

Excise duty was levied on salt. Salt deposits could be worked only by the state or its licensees. Copper plate grants donating villages usually invest the donee with the right to dig for salt and metals without the payment of any fee.⁵

c20.161

⁵ *Eg.*, *I. A* XVIII. pp. 34-5

c20.162

Cattle breeding was an important trade, especially in earlier times, and it had to bear its own share of taxation. When Manu requires a cattle breeder to pay 2% of the herd as the tax,⁶ he obviously thinks of the corpus of the herd. When Śukra imposes a duty of 6 to 12%, he probably refers to the increase in the herd effected during the year. Inscriptions on the other hand refer to a third method of taxation at a certain cash rate per head per cow, sheep or she-buffalo.⁷

c20.163

⁶ VII. 130

c20.164

⁷ Under Vīrapāṇḍya (*c.* 1250 A. D.) a tax of one *paṇam* per annum was cvied on 50 sheep or 10 cows or 5 buffalloes. *Paṇam* was probably a silver coin, equal to a six-anna piece.

c20.165

Customs and excise duties, so far dealt with, are often referred to in inscriptions by a comprehensive term *bhūtopātta-pratyāya*, 'a tax on what has come into existence (*bhūta*) *i. e.*, has been manufactured, and on what has been imported (*upātta*).¹ Some times the simple word *śulkika* is also used for the customs duties.²

c20.166

¹ *E. I.*, VI. p. 29; *I. A.*, XII. p. 161; Vol. V. p. 150; Altekar, *Rāshṭrakūṭas*, pp. 228-9

c20.167

² *I. A.*, XII. p. 264; *XVI*. p. 24

c20.168

*Vishti* or forced unpaid labour was fairly common in ancient times. Poor people could afford to pay a tax neither in cash nor in kind, but it was felt that they also should pay something to the state in return for the protection they got from it. This they could do most conveniently by offering free service to the state. They were not usually employed all through the month and it was therefore felt that it would be but equitable to require them to work for the state free for one or two days in the month.³ The state was of course to feed them during this period.⁴

c20.169

³ *Gautama*, II. 1. 31; *Manu*, VII. 138 and *Vishṇu*, III. 32 prescribe only one day's free labour, while *Śukra* lays down two days' liability

c20.170

⁴ भक्तं च तेभ्यो दद्यात् । *G. D. S.*, II. 1. 35

c20.171

The state could usually utilise its right to this free service only during the visit of its officers on tour in the moffusil.⁵ Otherwise it would authorise the local bodies to exact this labour on its behalf in order to carry out their public works programmes.

c20.172

⁵ *Skanthaka* tax mentioned in some northern Indian inscriptions probably refers to the liability of labourers to carry the luggage of the touring officers upon their shoulders, see *E. I.*, III. p. 266

c20.173

Forced labour is always an unpopular liability. Yuan Chwang found it non-existent in some places and sparingly exacted in others.⁶ The visits of inspecting officers were not every-day events; the right to free labour therefore eventually benefited the village communities themselves, as it enabled them to get the help and cooperation of a number of labourers, carpenters and smiths in building and repairing roads, rest-houses and tanks.

c20.174

⁶ Watters, I. p. 176

c20.175

It would be convenient to refer here to certain contributions which villagers had to make when inspecting officers or members of the police force visited the village on duty. They had to be provided with free boarding and lodging out of the subscriptions raised for the purpose.¹ Fodder had to be supplied to their horses. Relays of draught animals had also to be provided to enable them to reach the next destination.²

c20.176

¹ राजसेवकानां वसतिदंडप्रयाणदंडौ न स्तः । *I. A.*, XIV. p. 319

c20.177

² *Cf.* अपारंपरगोबलीवर्दः । in Vākāṭaka plates.

c20.178

Apart from the usual taxation, the state was naturally empowered to levy extra cesses to meet unforeseen calamities, or to finance costly works of public utility, or to carry out its plans of ambitious expansion. The *Mahābhārata* is reluctant to sanction extra taxation even on such occasions, but it admits that there is often no alternative to it. It however urges the state to send out special messengers to the people to explain the gravity of the situation and to win their willing assent to the new taxation proposals.³ The *Arthaśāstra* describes these extra contributions as *praṇayas* or benevolences and lays down that the farmers may be called upon to pay about 25% and merchants from 5 to 50% according to their circumstances.⁴

c20.179

³ XII. 87. 26-39

c20.180

⁴ Bk. V. Chap. 2

c20.181

Epigraphs often refer to these benevolences and extra taxes. Rudradāman (*c.* 150 A.D.) proudly states that he carried out the huge project of the Sudarśana lake without troubling the people either with forced labour or benevolences. It is clear from this that extra levies were normal when such huge works were undertaken. Virarājendra is known to have levied a special tax of one *kalāñju* of gold per *veli* to finance his war against the Chālukyas of Veṅgi.⁵ The *turushka-daṇḍa*, which was levied by the Gāhaḍawālas throughout their kingdom, was a special tax, the proceeds of which were most probably intended to meet the cost of extra military forces and preparations to meet the danger of the Muslim invasions.⁶

c20.182

⁵ *S I. E. R.*, No. 520 of 1920

c20.183

⁶ Eg., *E. I.*, XIV. p. 193

c20.184

It would be convenient here to consider how far the taxation in ancient India was fair, equitable and reasonable in actual practice. The general principles, which most of the Smṛitis prescribe in this connection, are all very admirable, as we have shown already. But the question we have to answer is how far they were actually followed in practice. We have to point out that the data in this connection are very poor and meagre. Royal panegyrists naturally represent the subjects as happy, contented and prosperous; on the other hand we often get clear evidence in literature and inscriptions to show that taxation very often pressed oppressively on the people. One Jātaka describes the pitiable condition of the people of a village, who had deserted their homesteads *en masse* to live in forests in order to escape the tyranny of the tax-gatherers.¹ King Lalitāditya of Kashmir is said to have recommended to his successors that they should tax the agriculturists so heavily that they should have with them corn just sufficient for the current year.² Under king Śaṅkaravarman of that kingdom we are told that the taxation was so heavy that people were left only with air to live upon.³ Instances are on record of the agriculturists of some villages in Tanjore district giving up all cultivation as a protest against heavy taxation.⁴ Under Kulottuṅga III, a feudatory of his imposed an unjust tax even on waste lands; the protests of the Assembly were of no avail. Members of the village council were imprisoned for failure to pay the dues and were released only when the amount was paid by selling away some land of the Assembly.⁵ Even the grantees of Brahmadeya villages often suffered from high-handedness and were made to stand in the sun or in water, and could get no relief against such ill-treatment.⁶

c20.185

¹ Vol. V. p. 98

c20.186

² *Rājātaraṅgiṇī*, VI. 344 ff.

c20.187

³ कायस्थप्रेरणादेतैर्देवेनाद्य प्रवर्तितैः । आयासैः श्वासशेषैव प्राणवृत्तिः शरीरिणाम् ॥ *Rājātaraṅgiṇī*, V. 184

c20.188

⁴ Nos. 96, 98 and 104 of 1897

c20.189

⁵ No. 202 of 1912

c20.190

⁶ No. 159 of 1895

c20.191

We should not, however, attach any undue importance to these cases. Kashmir kings referred to above were exceptional tyrants; Śaṅkarvarman, Diddā and Harsha were a class by themselves. The last mentioned king not only spoliated temple property, but also defiled and confiscated divine images. We cannot therefore regard these rulers as normal representatives of their order. As regards south India, we have hundreds of inscriptions detailing arrangements about the revenue collections. It is indeed surprising that we should have so few references to fiscal oppression. Most of the cases referred to above relate to the closing decades of the Chola dynasty, when there was a distinct deterioration in administration.

c20.192

Evidence is available to show that people could successfully oppose the levy of unjust taxes and imposts imposed by the state. We get an instance of the Assemblies of some *nāḍus* in Tanjore district meeting and resolving that they will pay only legitimate dues and resist all other demands.¹ Another Assembly in Karnāṭak met and resolved that the taxation on cows and she-buffaloes was not sanctioned by the usage of the district since immemorial times and should not be therefore paid. The Assembly further specified the rates at which it was going to pay the land tax.² These records show how people often tried to declare and protect their rights against undue encroachments. They might not have been successful in their efforts, when kings were tyrannical and self-willed; but there can be no doubt that they had strength enough to press their claims successfully when kings and their officers were of the normal type. The absence of a popular body like the Vedic *samiti* at the centre during the first millennium of the Christian era no doubt tended to increase the number of oppressive demands from the centre; but the village assemblies and their executives were usually strong enough to resist encroachments on their legitimate rights and interests.

c20.193

¹ *S. I. E. R.*, Nos. 96, 98 and 104 of 1897

c20.194

² *E. C.*, X. Mb. 44 (a)

c20.195

Let us now proceed to consider the items of state revenue other than taxation. The important ones among these were the income from state properties, the profits of the state industries and other similar undertakings, proceeds of fines and the tributes from feudatories. We shall now consider these one by one.

c20.196

State property consisted of crown lands, waste lands, forests, mines, treasure-troves, natural tanks and reservoirs and it yielded considerable income. As shown already, the ownership in arable lands was vested in private owners in historic times, but their lands would often lapse to the state on account of the absence of heirs, or the non-payment of state taxes or the commission of heinous crimes involving forfeiture of property. In most villages, the states in ancient times, as in modern days, possessed their own detached pieces of arable land, which they cultivated either through temporary labourers or by leasing them out to private tenants. To supervise over the administrative arrangements of the state lands was the work of a special officer called *sītādhyaksha* in the *Arthaśāstra*. What his designation was in later times we do not know.

c20.197

Waste-lands, being under nobody's occupation, were naturally regarded as state property. Steps were taken to induce enterprising persons to bring them under cultivation by guaranteeing a total or partial exemption from the land tax for the first four or five years.¹ The administration of waste lands was often left to the local bodies; in the Gupta administration their sale was usually effected with their consent and approval.² It appears that in South India the village assemblies not only administered these lands, but also claimed their ownership. We often find them selling or mortgaging common lands to tide over calamities like famines or floods.³

c20.198

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. VI. Chap. 9

c20.199

² *E. I.*, XV. pp. 129 ff.

c20.200

³ *S. I. E. R.*, No. 679 of 1898

c20.201

As in almost all times and climes, the ancient Indian state claimed ownership in mines and their products. When villages were granted, the donees were usually invested with the right to work all the mines that may have been situated within their boundaries. Mines always included salt deposits and sometimes stone quarries as well.¹ They were an important source of income, if they happened to be of precious metals. How they were worked has been already explained in chapter IX, pp. 201-2.

First 200 of 234 passages. Read on

Linked texts (40)