State and Government in Ancient India c20.103

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