Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c12.s5: Sec. v. The Land and the Village Community

Hindu Administrative Institutions c12.s5

Language
English

Sec. v. The Land and the Village Community

c12.s5.1

In speaking of rural administration in ancient India we could not afford to neglect one important aspect of that administration, namely, the cultivation and improvement of land systems in general. In the days of Kauṭalya there was a department of agriculture manned by efficient officials. The superintendent of agriculture had some important duties to discharge. But Kauṭalya’s regulations refer mainly to crown lands, or lands under the direct control of the state.

c12.s5.2

There are two significant terms in the *Kauṭalīya*, *sīta* and *bhāga*.¹

c12.s5.3

¹ The *Śrīmū lam* Commentary on these words is as follows :- सीता कृषिः ; भागः धान्यषड्भागः । (vol. i, p. 136.) Kauṭalya himself explains the term *Sīta* as सीताध्यक्षोपनीतः सस्यवर्णकः सीता । (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, Sec. 15.)

c12.s5.4

*Sīta-adhyakṣa* is the superintendent of agriculture or crown lands. The grains produced therein are sent to the king's treasury by the superintendent of crown lands. The very fact that the superintendent attends to the choice of seeds, the sowing and the gathering of the agricultural produce,² and also the fact that the lands are given to tenants for life, or for a period of time on contract³ and are confiscated at any moment, bear testimony to the regulations of public lands only. A further evidendce that confirms our view is the expression ‘खमू’ in the chapter entitled the *sīta-adhyakṣa*. It means ‘the king's land’. This meaning is evident from another expression in the same chapter ‘खसेतुभ्यः’ ‘sources of irrigation established by the king for the use of which special water-taxes were paid by the enjoyers for their own private lands.’⁴

c12.s5.5

² *Ibid.*, Bk. ii, Sec. 24.

c12.s5.6

³ *Ibid.*, Bk. i, Sec. 1.

c12.s5.7

⁴ On this the *Śrīmūlam* Comment is apposite. उदककरक्षायं भूमिकरवत् द्रष्टव्यः, यतो राजा भूम्युदकयोरविशेषान् स्वामी । तदुक्तः राजा भूमेर्पतिर्दृष्टः शास्त्रज्ञैरुदकस्य च । ताभ्यामन्यत्तु यद्धव्यं तत्स्वाम्यं कुटुम्बिनाम् ॥ इति. (*Arthaśāstra*, vol. i, pp. 286-7.)

c12.s5.8

Thus Kauṭalya had in mind both crown lands and communal lands when he used the terms *sīta* and *bhāga*. Foreign travellers could hardly be expected to understand the complexity of land tenures and hence their accounts cannot certainly be taken at their face value. Strabo and Diodorus speak of the king's ownership of all lands, the cultivators' claim being one-fourth of the produce as remuneration. Arrian does not state anything about the proprietorship of land, but records that a certain tribute was paid to the king for land by husbandmen. Neither of these writers makes the distinction between state lands as such and lands held by the community. The *Arthaśāstra* which ought to be credited with the full knowledge of the subject throws more light on the question. Briefly then for purposes of the land revenue Kauṭalya divides the whole country (*jānapada*) into four districts, and classifies the villages as the first, second and third order.

c12.s5.9

Generally the superintendent¹ was one who had specific and special qualifications to occupy that position. He was to supervise the choice of good seeds, ploughing, and sowing. These were done primarily by hired labour as well as convict labour. The village artisans consisting of blacksmiths, coppersmiths and similar other professionists were to supply the necessary accessories for

c12.s5.10

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, Sec. 24.

c12.s5.11

The second line of the stanza is important as it shows the existence of private property or the propriety right enjoyed by the *kuṭumbins* or the heads of the joint-family. That the state was no owner of the land is attested again by Jaimini न भूमिस्यात्सर्वांप्रति अविशिष्टत्वात् । (*Pūrva Mīmamsā*, vi. 7. 7. 3.) See also Nilakaṇṭha's observations in the *Vyavahāramayūkha* संपूर्णपृथिवोमण्डलस्य तत्तद्ग्रामक्षेत्रादौ स्वत्वं तु तत्तद्ग्रामिकानामेव राज्ञां तु करग्रहणमात्रम् । which they were amply paid for. In the choice of different seeds and in the sowing of them particular attention was paid and everything was happily regulated.

c12.s5.12

Kauṭalya makes a scientific classification of the whole land into four broad divisions: sandy, swampy, wet, and dry lands answering roughly to the regional classification of Tamil literature.¹ Of these the first two were generally discarded as unfit for cultivation purposes. The other lands were usually taken up for cultivation of different grains, fruits, and roots. Some of the fields depended entirely on rainfall whilst others were provided with irrigational facilities. Kauṭalya’s knowledge of geography as well as astronomy was accurate. He knew the system of meteorology by which the amount of rainfall was calculated in different parts of the empire. The scientific methods of ploughing and sowing were not unknown. The *Arthaśāstra* recommends the sowing of grains like rice, *tila*, *kodrava* and *priyanku* in the commencement of the rainy season (पूर्ववापाः); *mudga*, *māsha*, and *śaibya* in the middling of the season (मध्यवापाः); and *kusumba*, *masura*, *yava*, *goduma*, etc., towards the close of the rainy season (पश्चाद्वापाः). In irrigation again the state evinced abiding interest. In the absence of facilities for digging canals or channels, aqueducts and water-lifts by bullocks were provided to feed the crops. These are still common in many parts of South India. But such irrigation facilities were given to all for nothing. A water-tax was collected which amounted to one-fifth of the produce. In Kauṭalya’s time the interest in irrigation was so intense and the interest in agriculture so great that the reclamation of the waste was advocated by the state. Uncultivated lands were let on lease to tenants who would offer their services to cultivate them and for the use of which they were empowered to pay from one-fourth to one-fifth of the produce, the state affording irrigational conveniences. If the lands were fed by irrigation canals, the state claimed only one-fifth of the produce; but if water-lifts were provided for, one-fourth of the produce was generally demanded. At least the rate was fixed in such a way that the tenant or the labourer would have a decent and economic living.¹ The village superintendents, physicians and *sthānikas*, veterinary surgeons, horse-trainers, and messengers were endowed with lands, the produce of which went to them for life or during the period of active service. These had no right to alienation. Evidently these refer to crown lands.²

c12.s5.13

¹ Supra, p. 334.

c12.s5.14

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, Sec. 24.

c12.s5.15

² अध्यक्ष सङ्ख्यायकादिभ्यो गोपस्थानिकानीकस्थ चिकित्सकश्चदमक-जड़वारिकेयश्च विक्रयाधानवर्जम् । (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, Sec. 1.)

c12.s5.16

There are four methods of irrigation: by hand (हस्तप्रावर्तिमम्), by water taken on shoulders (स्कन्धप्रावर्तिमम्), by mechanical contrivances (स्रोतोयन्त्रप्रावर्तिमम्), and lastly from tanks and rivers (नदीसरस्तटाककूपोद्घाटम्). Bridges, water-courses, and embankments are mentioned by the one word *setu*.³ It was also the duty of the state to look after these sources of irrigation that they never ran into waste, but were always kept in order. Even wind was used for driving power. Windmills are not gone yet out of use.⁴ Megasthenes writes, ‘the greater part of the soil is under irrigation and consequently bears two crops in the course of a year. . . .' ' Some superintend the rivers, measure the land as is done in Egypt, and inspect the sluices by which water is let out from the main canals into other branches so that every one may have an equal supply of it.'¹

c12.s5.17

³ *Ibid.*, Bk. ii, Sec. 24; cf. N. N. Law, *Studies in Ancient Indian Polity*, p. 13.

c12.s5.18

⁴ *Ibid.*, Bk. iii, Sec. 10; *Megasthenes*, Bk. i, Frag. 1.

c12.s5.19

¹ Frag. 34.

c12.s5.20

The crops are divided into three; wet, summer, and winter crops. Under the first category is included rice, under the second sugarcane, and under the third vegetables. The care with which the soil was selected for different crops affords an interesting study. But these do not come under the present survey.²

c12.s5.21

² *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, Sec. 24 ; *vide* Kāmandaka, iv. 51-56.

c12.s5.22

Agriculture was, as it is now, the prime industry of Hindu India and hence every writer has something to say on it. *Amarakośa* defines the word सीता as 'methods and means connected with the plough.'³ Further the importance of agriculture is seen from a popular verse⁴ which says that agricultural wealth alone is wealth. The same ideas are reflected in the soul-stirring line of the famous Tamil poet Kambanāṭṭār.⁵

c12.s5.23

³ लाङ्गलपद्धतिः ।

c12.s5.24

⁴ सीतायत्तं प्रजानां हि वित्तं वित्तद्विजोत्तमाः ।

c12.s5.25

⁵ 'கொழுமீதில் குடிகொண்ட குடிச்செல்வமே செல்வம்.'

c12.s5.26

There is no other wealth superior to that of agricultural wealth, for our very existence depends upon it. It is one of the laws of war in ancient India that even during the operations of war no damage or injury was to be inflicted even to the enemy's crops, and that the agricultural classes were not to be molested.

c12.s5.27

The *Dharmasūtras* also advance certain rules for agricultural improvements in general. Baudhāyana rules that the study of the *Vedas* and the industry of agriculture are not inconsistent.¹ On the other hand they are interdependent and one could take to both. This indicates the importance of the agricultural industry. In the opinion of Āpastamba any lessee who takes the land on certain conditions and is not able to realize the maximum produce through sheer carelessness and want of proper exertion on his part, would be held responsible for the satisfaction of his agreement. He further rules that any labourer engaged in cultivation abandons the work incomplete is liable to be flogged. Such a high penalty imposed would merely show with what care and exertion an agricultural labourer was expected to work.

c12.s5.28

¹ 5. 10. 30.

c12.s5.29

In addition to the literary evidence the inscriptions furnish us with the various kinds of land tenure in vogue in ancient India. (1) The *brahmadeya* lands were chiefly grants conferred on learned Brahmans (the *śrotriyas* of the village for their remarkable learning and character). Such grants of lands were indeed a common feature of practically every sovereign who reigned in ancient India. His grantees are those who cultivate themselves or get them cultivated by others, or even assign them to others.² These lands were free from taxes and forced labour. (2) There were *paribhoga* villages which had cultivated lands, wells, houses, slaves, etc. These were perpetual settlements. (3) There were besides *bhaṭṭa* villages which had private quadrupeds, fields, houses and slaves.³ There were again *sarvamānya* and *ekabhog* grants.⁴ Some of them were *paribhoga*, *aṣṭa-bhoga*, *aṅgabhoga*, and *ranga bhoga*.⁵

c12.s5.30

² *Ep., Ind.* xx. 3. 46.

c12.s5.31

³ *Ibid.*, x. 3. 44.

c12.s5.32

⁴ *Ibid.*, vii. 8.

c12.s5.33

⁵ *Ibid.*, vi. 10.

c12.s5.34

A village was generally divided into shares, and these were made by different standards of measure.⁶ Different kinds of these were in vogue during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. One such was known as the *bhakti*.¹ There is evidence to indicate a wide and elaborate survey and measurement of land though different for the different parts of the country. The earlier Gupta inscriptions mention lands being surveyed, measured, and divided into various holdings known as *pratyayas*.² The measurements were *pādāvarta*³ equal to a square foot.⁴ These holdings had different measurements. Each of them was definitely marked by boundary limits.⁵ These boundaries were fixed by special officials who were called *sīmakarmakāras* or *sīmapradāta*.⁶ The surveyor was *pramātha*, and the judicial officers and adjudicators who decided such cases of dispute were *nyāya-karmikas*. There were proper records maintained in the villages by the accountant.⁷ Next in rank was the headman. These records showed the size of different holdings with the respective proprietors besides every detail of the settlement. The official who collected the royal share of the produce in grain was named *dhruvādikaraṇika* or *dhruva*.⁸

c12.s5.35

⁶ *Ibid.* viii. 33.

c12.s5.36

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, viii. 20.

c12.s5.37

² No. 38 of Fleet, dated A.D. 571.

c12.s5.38

³ *Ep. Ind.*, x. 3. 46.

c12.s5.39

⁴ No. 38 of Fleet, p. 170, footnote 4.

c12.s5.40

⁵ Cf. Yājñavalkya, ii. 153; No. 24 of Fleet; *S. I. I.*, vol. ii, part v, p. 98.

c12.s5.41

⁶ No. 46 of Fleet, dated A.D. 571; *Ep. Ind.*, vol. xii, p. 75.

c12.s5.42

⁷ *Talavetaka*, No. 46, Fleet, p. 217, footnote 8.

c12.s5.43

⁸ No. 38 of Fleet, pp. 169–170.

c12.s5.44

Among the officials referred to in South Indian inscriptions two of them are important for our present purpose⁹—the official in charge of tax-free villages *puravuvari* and the official in charge of the tax-register *varippottagam*. In this connection a reference may also be made to an inscription of Vīrarājendradeva.¹⁰ This records the grant of the revenue of a village and incidentally furnishes information regarding revenue officers and their duties. Here are mentioned one official for the *puravuvari* and one for the *varippottagam*. Other officials mentioned are six officers of the *udaṅkūṭṭam*, the thirty-three officers of *viḍaiyil* (despatch office), the *mugaveṭṭi*, the *variyiliḍu*, the *paḷanyāyam*, etc. From other inscriptions we understand there were no fixed number of officials in charge of the *puravari*. Among the fourteen inscriptions of Ukkal¹ one mentions it as the order of Rājarāja the Great, empowering the village assembly to confiscate and sell off the lands for which no revenue was paid for two full years. This indirectly serves to diminish the number of defaulters, for default meant sometimes the loss of ownership of the land.

c12.s5.45

⁹ See K. V. Subramania Aiyer, *Historical Sketches of Dekhan*, pp. 372–3.

c12.s5.46

¹⁰ Epigraphist Report, 1916, pp. 118 and 119.

c12.s5.47

¹ *S. I. I.*, vol. iii, part 1.

c12.s5.48

Reclamation of waste and uncultivated lands by means of digging tanks, and thus introducing cultivation is definitely mentioned in a South Indian inscription.² There were periodical settlements.³ Here the reshuffling of new boundaries, of holdings, of expropriations of previous owners and the recording of new proprietors were done and recorded in the document called *vyavasta* or *araiyaolai*. The Tanjore inscriptions which are interesting in more than one respect speak of the smallest unit of the land of Rājarājadeva's time. 1/52428800000 of a *veli* was measured and assessed to revenue. Students of economics may say that there were uneven and uneconomic holdings in ancient times. But this is to judge the tenth century fact by the twentieth century standard.

c12.s5.49

² *Ibid.*, vol. i, p. 65.

c12.s5.50

³ *Ibid.*, vol. ii, part 5, p. 98.

c12.s5.51

*Cattle.*—Closely allied with this subject of agriculture is the protection and improvement of cattle.

c12.s5.52

Pasture lands are necessary for cows, horses and other animals. The improvement of livestock is still an unsatisfactory problem even in modern times. There was a special department which looked after the grazing grounds and meadows for the proper supply of fodder, etc., to the livestock. A register of cattle was maintained fixing the scale and standard of diet as determined by the working capacity of each animal.¹

c12.s5.53

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk, ii, Sec. 29; *Imperial Gazetteer*, vol. iii, pp. 77-8; *Studies in Polity*, pp. 17 and 22.

c12.s5.54

To-day we hear of mechanical contrivances for ploughing, sowing, and reaping the crops without much strain on the part of human or even animal labour. But conditions were quite different in those days of which we are speaking. In England until recently horses were used in the driving of ploughs. But in India from the very earliest times only bulls have been yoked to the plough. Generally we notice in our rural parts the plough drawn by two bulls only. But during the period when *Atri* composed his *Dharma Śāstra* we find that as many as eight bulls were employed in drawing the plough. According to this law-giver² ploughing with two animals is a heinous sin and the man who does it is the veritable killer of the animal. But two bulls could draw a plough for a reasonable time over a *prakara*. If four are yoked the plough could be taken to midday and if six upto the third part of the day and if eight for the whole day. The more the work the more animals are to be employed, for excessive work would break the back of the animals. Though according to *Atri* ploughing by eight bulls is the righteous method ploughing by two bulls is common. The reason is not far to seek. There is a perceptible deterioration of cattle wealth in point of both physical and numerical strength. The supply lacking, demand has to be adjusted. The Law-Books contain regulations as to cattle grazing and improvements of agriculture.¹ Various rules are given in the Kauṭalīya as regards cattle protection, dairying, trespass, preventing cruelty to animals, etc.²

c12.s5.55

² *Atri Samhita*, 218-9.

c12.s5.56

¹ Manu. ix. 10; Viṣṇu, v. 14. 1-5.

c12.s5.57

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. ii, Sec. 29.

c12.s5.58

In examining these allied topics under the heading ‘Cattle and Pasture’, Law mentions six officers:³ superintendent of cows, of pastures, of game-keepers, elephants, of horses, of forests.⁴

c12.s5.59

³ See Studies in Ancient Indian Polity, p. 18.

c12.s5.60

⁴ There was a special officer who looked after the forests. Here abounded wild tribes and uncivilized hunters. The superintendent would employ some of them to exploit these forests. With the help of their hounds it was their practice to hunt, shoot, and kill wicked animals which were a source of danger to the neighbouring crops and villages. Besides wild tribes, thieves and other enemies of the state would be found concealed among the thick of the bushes, lying in wait for an opportunity to fall on the people and deprive them of their wealth and property. The hunters in the employ of the state were expected to reconnoitre these wild regions, and report every day through the pigeons if they came across any particulars that must needs be communicated (Arthaśāstra, Bk. ii, Sec. 34.) Kauṭalya divides forests into three classes: forests for Brahmans, game-forests, and reserve forests. Each has to be specially provided for by the state. In the first class of the forests, the Brahmans lived and performed penance and sacrifices. It was provided with a good and never-failing lake. No wild animals found their habitations there. They were often visited by kings and used by them for hunting purposes. It was ager publicus of ancient India. On the extreme limits of the state were elephant forests. Here elephants were caught and trained. There were what were known as reserve forests where no one was allowed freedom of entry. There was a special officer who collected the various rich forest-produce. Even manufactures were open there to carry on a large scale the various cottage industries of rope-making, basket-making, medicines, tanning of skins, metallurgy, etc. (Arthaśāstra, Bk. ii, Sec. 17).

Linked texts (14)