Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c47: Chapter XXXIV: Economics in Government and Theory of Ownership in Land

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c47

Language
English

Chapter XXXIV: Economics in Government and Theory of Ownership in Land

c47.2

§ 340. Measures are enjoined in the chapters on taxation for the suppression of certain classes of persons who are regarded as economic enemies. Public women, gambling establishments and gamblers, theatrical, and similar parasites were to be controlled,¹ beggars and burglars to be eradicated,² and usurers to be discouraged.³ Agriculturalists were especially to be protected from the parasites.⁴

c47.3

¹ MBh., XII. 88. 14-17.

c47.4

² *Ibid.*, 17; 24.

c47.5

³ MBh., XII. 88. 26.

c47.6

⁴ नटनर्तन-गायन-वादक-वाग्जीवन-कुशीलवा वा न कर्मविघ्नं कुर्युः Artha-Śāstra, II. 1, (p. 48).

c47.7

Monks and Monasteries were regarded as another economic evil.

c47.8

"No wanderers other than men who have reached the hermit stage, no (*samgha*) corporate community—[i.e., the Buddhist Samgha and the like,] other than that of the Sajātas [village people], no union formed on mutual compact other than those of merchants, shall be allowed to establish themselves in the country. Nor shall there be Halls [religious], rest-houses and Vihāras" (Artha-Śāstra).⁵ Men leaving society and becoming monks before they had provided for their family were similarly treated. They were arrested and punished. Only those who had passed the age of manhood were allowed to become monks under the orthodox administration.⁶

c47.9

⁵ वानप्रस्थादन्यः प्रव्रजितभावः सजातादन्यः सङ्घस्सामुत्थायिकादन्यस्समय्यानुबन्धो वा नास्य जनपद-मुपनिविशेत। न च तत्रारामविहारार्थाः शालास्स्युः II. 1, p. 48. Compare the Sajāta in coronation ceremonies, § 232.

c47.10

⁶ पुत्रदारमप्रतिविधाय प्रव्रजतः पूर्वस्साहसदण्डः ; स्त्रियं च प्रत्राजयतः (also those who made women nuns were punished with the highest criminal amercement). लुप्तव्यवायः प्रव्रजेदापृच्छ्य धर्मस्थान् । अन्यथा नियम्येत । *AŚ*., p. 48. Law Sūtras also lay down restrictions on leaving one's home.

c47.11

§ 341. In the art of government the first lesson taught to the ruler was that on economics depend government and freedom of the country.

c47.12

(*a*) "**कृषि पाशुपाल्ये वणिज्या च वार्ता।**....
**तया स्वपक्षं परपक्षं च वशीकरोति कोशदण्डाभ्याम्" ।**
*AS.*, p. 3.

c47.13

Again,

c47.14

(*b*) "**अर्थानर्थौ वार्तायाम्"**
(*c*) "**वार्तया धार्यते सर्वम्"**
**वार्ता वै लोकसंश्रया"**
(*d*) "**वार्ता वै लोक संश्रया"**

c47.15

(*a*) "'Agriculture, cattle-culture, and commerce and trade "comprise the [Science (*vidyā*) of] Vārtā. Success in that "leads through Exchequer and military power to the control of "one's own state as well as one's enemies'."

c47.16

(*b*) **अर्थानर्थौ वार्तायाम्** (Artha-Sāstra) (II, p. 7). "In Economics lies politics as well as the reverse of politics."

c47.17

(*c*) **वार्तया धार्यते सर्वम्** (Mahā-Bhārata, Vana Parvan I. 50): "By economics the whole [body politic] is held."

c47.18

(*d*) **वार्ता वै लोकसंश्रया** (Kāmandaka, IV. 27): "Vārtā is the shelter of society."

c47.19

Therefore Rulers had to give their best thoughts to Economics. To maintain an economic government was part of their duty. In fact it came first in the division of their duty; and this position is quite in conformity with the coronation declaration:

c47.20

'This state to thee (is given) for agriculture, for well-being, for prosperity, for growth' (§ 227).

c47.21

The word ‘pālana’ which is employed in classical literature to denote the duty of the king combines the two elements: ‘seeing to the growth’ and ‘protection in general.’ The second is a corollary from the first which alone is found in the Vedic formula. Hence policy was directed to keep up and develop the *Vārtā* or National Economy.

c47.22

§ 342. To secure the economic prosperity of the country the mercantile class were treated with particular attention and solicitude.

c47.23

"The power of production in the merchants should be always encouraged. They make the Realm strong, enhance agriculture, and develop its trade. A wise king should be favourable to them in a studied manner . . . . . . . . . . .
There is no greater wealth in a kingdom than its merchants."\1

c47.24

\1 अजस्रमुपयोक्तव्यं फलं गोमिषु भारत । प्रभावयन्ति राष्ट्रं च व्यवहारं कृषिं तथा ॥ ३८ तस्माद्गोमिषु यत्ने न प्रीतिं कुर्याद्विचक्षणः दयावानप्रमत्तश्च करान् संशमयंमृदून् ॥ ३९ * * * * * नह्यतः सदृशं किंचिद्धनमस्ति युधिष्ठिर । —MBh., XII, 87. 39-40.

c47.25

Again, "the king should always honour those who have earned wealth. He should give them feasts, drinks, and robes of honour. In every realm the wealthy form an estate (*anga*—limb)"\2

c47.26

\2 *Ibid.*, 88. 29-30, धनिनः पूजयेन्नित्यं पानाच्छादनभोजनैः * * * * अङ्गमेतन्महद्राज्ये धनिनो नाम भारत ।

c47.27

§ 343 The State at times worked large industries. They were worked by State departments. Both the Artha-Śāstra and the Mānava-dharma-Śāstra have departments of *Ākara* and *karmānta*, mining and manufacturies. From them the State gained first-hand industrial experience for its economic administration, and at the same time the income of the State was greatly enhanced. It saved the statesmen, partially at any rate, from the necessity of 'begging' 'affection' tax from the people for war preparations and cognate purposes.

c47.28

§ 344. Hindu politicians disliked direct taxation. They had practically no direct tax in their system except the produce-tax. Even the produce-tax in its last analysis was an indirect tax. Import duties which were exclusively 'indirect' in their incidence were the next great tax after the produce tax. Export duties were few and they were more of administrative than revenue levies. Generally those articles which were not encouraged to go out were taxed as exports. The next great source of revenue was the mining industry. The State under Chandragupta and earlier generally nationalized the industry. But in the Mānava Code (VIII. 39) mining is open to the public. The tax demanded, however, is still heavy. A tax of 50% is laid down, on the principle that mine is like treasure-trove which belongs as much to the State as to the person who finds it. A tax for protection, as in any other case, is deemed but lawful, for the king is the protector of both the upper and sub-soil (*adhi-pati*: 'bhūmeradhipatir hi saḥ,' Manu, VIII. 39). Medhātithi in explaining the law of the Mānava Code says that although no one knows what is there in the land and the government has to do very little guarding there yet as there is a likelihood of the whole land being taken away by a strong enemy, the king is entitled to his 'share' for this constructive protection.¹

c47.29

¹ Bühler (*S. B. E.*, XXV., p. 260, n.) gives a mutilated passage of Medhātithi and makes him say what he does not mean. The real portion is left out: यदहंतुरक्षणादिति यद्यपि क्षिती निष्क्रयता नेनविदानाभावा राजकीयवच्छोच्युच्यते तथापि तस्य रक्षणतापकतादृ संभाव्यते अतोसोव रक्ष्यद्या वर्द्धयन्नं एतदर्थमेवाह भुमेरधिपतिर्हि सः।

c47.30

§ 345. This leads us on to the important Hindu theory on the proprietorship in land, which is connected with taxation. It is not so connected in Hindu politics in the slightest degree but in the controversy of the present day raised by Indianist politicians and scholars. Some of these writers have confidently asserted that property in the soil, according to the Hindu view, always vested in the Hindu sovereign. The fact on the other hand is that this is exactly the reverse of the Hindu theory on the subject. The writers unconsciously have read their own feudal law into Hindu jurisprudence. Nothing is so distant from Hindu law as this theory. Any one who is conversant with the general tendency of the principles of Hindu law in constitutional matters would not believe his eyes even if he be given a Śloka in support of the feudal theory. Numerous instances of gifts and sales of land by private individuals can be given from the earliest literature. Law books give provisions for sale of land and for acquirement of proprietory right (*svāmya*) by prescription. Inscriptions² proving to the hilt private property in the soil are extant. Above all it is expressly and emphatically declared that the king has no property in the soil and this is declared in no less an authority than the very logic of Hindu law, Mīmāṁsā. I give below the discussion from Colebrooke's essay on Mīmāṁsā.

c47.31

² *E.g.*, *I. A.*, 1910, p. 199.

c47.32

"A question of considerable interest, as involving the "important one concerning property in the "soil in India, is discussed in the sixth lecture.

c47.33

"At certain sacrifices such as that which is called Viśwajit, "the votary for whose benefit the ceremony is performed is "enjoined to bestow all his property on the officiating "priests. It is asked whether a paramount sovereign shall "give all the land, including pasture ground, highways "and the sites of lakes and ponds? an universal monarch the "whole earth? and a subordinate prince the entire province "over which he rules? To that question the answer is: The "monarch has not property in the earth, nor the subordinate "prince in the land By conquest kingly power is obtained, "and property in house and field which belonged to the enemy. "The maxim of the law, that 'the king is the lord of all "excepting sacerdotal wealth,' concerns his authority for "correction of the wicked and protection of the good. His "kingly power is for government of the realm and extirpation "of wrongs; and for that purpose he receives taxes from "husbandmen, and levies fines from offenders. But right of "property is not thereby vested in him; else he would have "property in house and land appertaining to the subjects "abiding in his dominions The earth is not the king's, but "is common to all beings enjoying the fruit of their own labour. "'It belongs, says Jaimini, to all alike;'¹ "therefore, although a gift of a piece of ground to an "individual does take place, the whole land cannot be given "by a monarch, nor a province by a subordinate prince, but "house and field acquired by purchase and similar means, "are liable to gift"∗

c47.34

¹ The text referred to by Colebrooke's authority is न भूमिः स्यात् सर्व्वान् प्रत्यविशिष्टत्वात् 6.7.3

c47.35

∗ *Mis. Essays*, I., pp. 320-321. The comment of Śabara who is the greatest authority on Mīmānsā agrees with the discussion summarised above by Colebrooke. Śabara on Jaimini, 6. 7. 3, has:— अथैष सर्वदाने संशयः। किं भूमिर्देया न इति। का पुनः भूमिः यत्राभिमेता। यदेतन्मृद्दारवं द्रव्यान्तरं पृथिवी-गोलकं न क्षेत्रमात्रं मत्तिका वा। तत्र किं प्राप्तम्। 'अविशेषेण'यो प्रभुत्वसम्बन्धो ऽपि तत्र अस्मदो वर्तते प्रकामं च मानसेन व्यापारेण स्वता निर्वर्त यितुम्। इति। एवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः न भूमिर्देया इति। कुतः। क्षेत्राणाम् ईशितारो मनुष्या दृश्यन्ते न कृत्स्नस्य पृथिवीगोलकस्य इति। आह य इदानीं सार्वभौमः स तर्हि ब्रूमः। कुतः। यावता भोगेन सार्वभौमो भूमेशीष्टे तावता अन्योऽपि न तत्र कश्चिद्विशेषः सार्वभौमत्वेस्य त्वेतदधिकं यत् असौ पृथिव्यां सम्भूतानां व्रीह्यादीनां रक्षणेन निर्विष्टस्य कस्यचित् भागस्य ईष्टे न भूमेः तन्निमित्तानां च मनुष्याः तैरन्यत् सर्वमुपचिनाम् चारपरिक्रमणादि यत् भूमिकृतं तन्मीयते प्रति न कश्चिद्विशेषः। तस्मात् न भूमिर्देया।

c47.36

The previous discussion is as to what a man legally gives when he gives 'all his' (स्वं). The literal meaning of this aphorism is 'Land [of a country] is not transferred [by a king], for it equally belongs to all.'

c47.37

The very discussion of Mīmāṁsā proves, for it presupposes, the existence of private property in land. Such private property was deemed inviolable. All possible pretensions by the Crown to such right was denied in the clearest possible terms. And this was quite in consonance with the spirit of Hindu Law which held even the gods subject to law and prescribed punishment for the sovereign, if he was arbitrary.

c47.38

§ 346. The Hindu lawyer Nīlakaṇṭha carries the discussion further and examines the right of the conqueror in these words :

c47.39

एवं क्षत्रियादेर्जयादिरिति तु युक्तम् ॥ जयेऽपि जितस्य यत्र गृहक्षेत्र-द्रव्यादौ स्वत्वमासीत्तत्रैव जेतुःस्वप्युत्पद्यते ॥ जितस्य करग्राहितायां तु जेतुुरपि सैव न स्वत्वम् । अतएव सार्वभौमेन सम्पूर्णा पृथ्वो माण्डलिकेन च मण्डलं न देयमित्युक्तं षष्ठे ॥ सम्पूर्णपृथ्वोमण्डलस्य तत्तद्ग्रामक्षेत्रादौ स्वत्वं तु तत्तद्भौमिकादीनामेव राज्ञां तु करग्रहणमात्रम् ॥ अतएवेदानीन्तनपारिभाषिक क्षेत्रदानादौ न भूदानसिद्धिः किन्तुवृत्तिकल्पनमात्रमेव ॥ भौमिकेभ्यः क्रीते तु गृहाक्षेत्रादौ स्वत्वमप्यस्त्येव ॥

c47.40

"Similarly conquest and the other (modes) are (available) "for a ruler (kshatriya) and the others. On conquest "the ownership of the conqueror arises "only in respect of the houses, lands, and "personalty, etc., of the ruler conquered. "Where the latter had a right to taking

c47.41

"taxes, the conqueror acquires that "much right, and no ownership. Hence 'by "'an emperor the whole country and by a provincial ruler the "'province *is not a deya* (a 'subject of gift')' is laid down in "Book VI (of the P. Mīmāṃsā). Proprietory right in the whole "land with regard to villages and lands etc., lies in their "respective land-lords etc. The king's right is "limited to the collection of tax there- "from. Therefore what is technically called at present 'gift "of land' etc. (by the king) does not mean giving away of "land, but a mere creation of allowance. If house, land "etc., are bought from the owner (by the "king) proprietorship indeed can arise."¹

c47.42

¹ Vyavahāra-mayūkha [Dāya Nirṇaya].

c47.43

§ 347. The Prime Minister Mādhava whose name in legal literature occupies the next place after Vijñāneśvara, is entitled to profound respect in what he may have to say on questions of Hindu-law. He discusses the very point in these words :

c47.44

देया न वा महाभूमिः स्वत्वाद्वाज्ञा ददातु ताम्।
पालनस्यैव राज्यत्वात् स्वमूर्दियते न सा॥

c47.45

यदा सार्वभौमो राजा विश्वजिदादौ सर्वस्वं ददाति तदा गोपथराजमार्ग- जलाशयाद्यन्विता महाभूमिसंज्ञेन दातव्या। कुतः भूमेस्तदीयधनत्वात् राजा सर्वस्येष्टे ब्राह्मणवर्जमिति स्मृतेः। इति प्राप्ते—

c47.46

बूमः। दुष्टशिक्षाशिष्टपरिपालनाभ्यां राज्ञ ईशितृत्वं स्मृत्यभिप्रेतमिति न राज्ञो भूमिर्धनम्। किन्तु तस्यां भूमौ स्वकर्मफलं भुञ्जानानां सर्वेषां प्राणिनां साधारणं धनम्। अतोऽसाधारणस्य भूखण्ढस्य सत्यपि दाने महाभूमेर्दानं नास्ति॥²

c47.47

² Nyāyamālā by Mādhavāchārya (Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series), p. 358.

c47.48

"*Mahā-bhūmi* (the Great Land, Public Land, cf. below '*nonpublic*') : is it or not an object of gift? 'King may give it away, "for he possesses it.' Land is not his property "because sovereignty is for protection "and growth only. Therefore it is not "given."

c47.49

"Doubt may arise in case a *Sārvabhauma* King (Emperor) "in Viśvajit and others 'gives away all he possesses.' In that "case (is) the Great Land which contains public roads, ways for "cattle, seats of water etc. to be given away? For in land "there is his wealth owing to the text of Smṛiti—'King may "'wish for (the wealth of) all excepting Brahmins.'

c47.50

"The reply is that the purport of the Smṛiti "is that King's sovereignty is for correcting "the wicked and fostering the good. "*Hence land is not king's wealth.* On the other hand "in that land (state land) there is the common wealth "of all living beings to enjoy the fruit of their labour. "Therefore although there can be gift of a piece of "non-public (*Asādhāraṇa*) land there can be no gift of "the Great Land."

c47.51

§ 348. The commentary *Bhaṭṭadīpikā* which is an accepted authority in Mīmāṁsā has the following exposition on the subject:

c47.52

सार्वभौमस्यापि न तस्यां स्वत्वम्। जयस्यापि च शत्रुस्वामिकधनगृहक्षेत्रादि-विषय एव स्वत्वोत्पादकत्वात्। महापृथिव्यां तु राज्यमात्राधिकारस्यैव जयेन सम्पादनात् राज्यं हि स्वविषयपरिपालनकण्टकोद्धारणरूपं तन्निमित्तकं च तस्य कर्षकेभ्यः करादानं दण्ड्येभ्यश्च दण्डादानं इत्येतावन्मात्रम्। न त्वेतावता तस्यां स्वत्वम्। \* \* \* परिक्रयादिलब्धं गृहक्षेत्रादिकं तु देयमेव॥¹

c47.53

¹ *Bhaṭṭadīpikā* on Purvamīmāṁsā Darśana (Mysore Edition), Vol. II. p. 317.

c47.54

"Even a *Sārvabhauma* sovereign has no proprietory right in "it (*Mahā-pṛithivī* = Great Land). For even conquest "produces proprietory right only in the "personal property, house, fields, etc. of "the enemy. In the *Mahāpṛithivī* (Great Land) "however, as the right is only of "government what is acquired by conquest "is merely government which is limited "to protection and growth of the country "and eradication of evil (therefrom) and for "that purpose to the realization of taxes "from cultivators and of fines from "offenders. *In the land there arises no right of any other* "*kind.*.........House, fields, etc. acquired by purchase and "the like, may however become a subject of gift."

c47.55

Kātyāyana, the lawyer, deals with the subject in these words¹:—

c47.56

¹ कात्यायनः,

c47.57

"When the king is called the *svāmin* (master) of the land and in no case of any other wealth, he only becomes entitled to receive the one-sixth share of the produce from it, not [that he is master] in any other way. The master-ship which is connected with him is due to the habitation thereof by living beings and is the one-sixth share arising from their acts whether good or bad."

c47.58

Mitra-miśra commenting on this says:—

c47.59

"Its meaning is [this]: king is called the *Svāmin* of land, not of other wealth connected with land. '*Not in any other way*' is [laid down] as there is want of master-ship in land. 'Living beings' are those having life; 'habitation thereof' is habitation of the land'; *master-ship* that is mastership of the king. Hence he can only receive one sixth from their acts"

c47.60

भूस्वामी तु स्मृतो राजा नान्यद्रव्यस्य सर्व्वदा।
तत्फलस्य हि षड्भागं प्राप्नुयान्नान्यथैव तु ॥
भूतानां तन्निवासित्वात् स्वामित्वं तेन कीर्त्तितम्।
तत्क्रियाबलिषड्भागं शुभाशुभनिमित्तजम् ॥ इति ।

c47.61

अस्यार्थः। राजा, भुवः स्वामी स्मृतः । अन्यद्रव्यस्य, भूमिसम्बद्धद्रव्यस्य, न स्वामी। अन्यथा, भूमिसाम्याभावे । भूतानां, प्राणिनाम् ; तन्निवासित्वात्, भूमिवासित्वात् । स्वामित्वं, राज्ञ इति शेषः। इत्यतः तत्क्रियाबलिषड्भागं राज्ञ इति शेषः। VMR, p. 271.

c47.62

§ 349. This is the traditional view of the law ; this is the view of Mīmāṁsā whose verdict in Hindu law is final. This is in complete agreement with the view of the constitutional writers who have decided that the king is a mere servant getting his wages in taxes. The servant cannot claim the very property as his, to guard which he is appointed and for guarding which he gets his salary. This unanimous view of law and constitution on king's position was not confined to books. It was the common and accepted opinion in the country—so common and accepted that it had become current coin even in the domain of folk-lore.

c47.63

The *Jātaka*, which we shall quote verbatim below in the next chapter, says [and there it is the speech of a king], that the king's authority is limited to magisterial duty, that he had nothing more than that, and that he is not the lord of the kingdom.

c47.64

It is further corroborated by the coronation ceremonial which is the very basis of Hindu Kingship and which I have already analysed for the reader. There is not even an atom of suggestion in that chain of formulae and symbolisms to imagine kingly proprietorship in the land of the realm. The idea is altogether foreign to the whole system.

c47.65

Gupta title-deeds inscribed on copper-plates and registered at the District Officer's office, whose seals they bear, clearly prove private ownership. In certain cases the king got only the ⅙th 'share'¹ as in any other sale (*e.g.*, of moveables).

c47.66

¹ *I. A.*, 1910, pp. 199-204 (Plates B and C). Plate A is a conveyance by the Municipal Corporation of a piece of land in town. The vendors are the president and the assembly (called Prakritis just as in Amara, § 252, p. 70 above). In this case the Emperor received "the legal ⅙th share" (*dharma-shaḍ bhāga*, plate A., *I. A.*, 1910, p. 195).

c47.67

§ 350. In the face of all this we have in the repeated editions of popular text books like Mr. Vincent Smith's *Early History of India* confidently stated:—

c47.68

"The native law of India has always recognised agricultural "land as being crown property."

c47.69

"The native law of India" as laid down by its own lawyers of unquestioned and unquestionable authority is the other way. It may be the native law of any other land; it is certainly not the native law of India. It is not fair that a popular text-book should embody such a prejudiced and unwarrantable view dogmatically asserted, and asserted without taking the slightest notice of competent discussions on the subject. Wilks in his *History of Mysore* published as early as 1869 has exhaustively dealt with the subject on materials which were accessible to him¹ and which are accessible to Mr. Vincent Smith. Wilks shows that no foundation exists for attributing the feudal theory to Hindu Law. In the '*Introduction to Hindu Polity*' the constitutional view of Hindu literature was pointed out. Professors Macdonell and Keith who cannot be accused of over-liberal sympathy to matters of Indian history have had to admit in their *Vedic Index*² on a survey of all the arguments and materials for the feudal theory that— "the evidence is however inadequate "to prove what is sought; that the Greek "observers are contradictory on the point; that the evidence "adduced from the Vedic literature, and the *Mānava* "*Dharma-Śāstra* and the *Mahā-Bhārata* does not prove the "theory; that the evidence so far as it goes of other Aryan "peoples does not support the theory of original kingly "ownership. Such ownership did not exist so far as can be "seen in Anglo-Saxon times, nor in Homeric Greece, nor "at Rome." The learned authors, however coolly pass by Jaimini, totally ignoring him, although they go to South Africa to find analogy for Vedic India!¹

c47.70

¹ Vol. I, Chapter V, pp. 65-138.

c47.71

² Vol. II, pp. 214-15.

c47.72

¹ Macdonell and Keith, *Vedic Index*, Vol. II, pp. 214-15. The authors also say "It is not denied that gradually the king came to be vaguely conceived—as the "English king still is—as lord of all the land in a proprietorial sense." The authority for this statement is nil, except 'as the English king still is' which is the *basta*, the original sin, of the theory. The relic of the theory still lingers vaguely.

c47.73

§ 351. While in the second edition (p. 129) no authority was suggested by Mr. Vincent Smith, in the last edition (1914, p. 131*n*) from the translation of the *Artha-Śāstra*, Bk. II, Ch. 24 (p. 144), he has quoted a passage given by the translator: 'These who are 'well-versed in the Śāstras admit that the king is the owner 'of both land and water, and that the people can exercise 'their right of ownership over all other things excepting these 'two.' The passage purports to be the translation of a "couplet of far-reaching political significance" quoted by a commentator of the *Artha-Śāstra*. I have obtained a copy of the manuscript of the commentary which is at the Oriental Government Library, Madras, made under the supervision of the Librarian, through the kind agency of Prof. Krishna Swami Aiyangar. The original couplet reads as follows:—

c47.74

राजा भूमेः पतिर्द्दष्टः शास्त्रज्ञै रुदकस्य च।
ताभ्यामन्यत्तु यद्द्रव्यं तत्र साम्यं कुटुम्बिनाम् ॥

c47.75

A mere reading of this śloka will satisfy those who are familiar with Hindu law that the translation is not what the Śloka says. The natural, unforced meaning of the śloka is:— "The king is the protector (*pati*), according to the "opinion of the learned in the Śāstras, of the *bhūmi* (land) "and water. Excepting these two whatever property there "may be, his family members have sameness of right therein."

c47.76

In effect it is the theory of Mīmāṁsā and the law and constitution retold. It is retold in connexion with the rights of the family of a ruler. A kingdom is not partible, because according to the Śāstras it is not the property of the king. As the Śāstrakāras have said, *bhūmi 'with seats of water' upon "it* belongs to the king, only in as much as he has to protect it and no more." He is only its Protector. Hence of his family members (*kutumbinām*) there is no coparcenary therein. As protector he takes taxes, and as he is the protector of the *bhūmi* 'with seats of water' on it, he is entitled to derive taxes both from land and water. His family members have nothing to do with these taxes or with the sources of these taxes.

c47.77

To attribute the sense of the translation cited to the *śloka* is little short of sacrilege. And to attribute the sense to the commentator of the Artha-Śāstra is to attribute madness to a Hindu writer of Hindu times. Any one in whose veins ran the culture and tradition of "the Śāstras" could never mean in sound mind what has been fathered on the author of the Śloka.¹

c47.78

¹ His name and date are not known.

Linked texts (8)