Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c7: Chapter III. Revenue Administration

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c7

Language: English

c7.t1 Method of Assessment — 22 parts
c7.t2 Rates of Assessment — 301 parts
c7.s1 Section IV. The Department of Taxation — 28 parts
c7.s2 Section V. The Burden of Taxation — 29 parts
c7.s3 Section VI. Expenditure — 25 parts

Chapter III. Revenue Administration

c7.3

" The revenue systems of the south while resembling those of the northern India in their broad outline present many distinctive features which alone would justify their independent treatment."1

Inscriptions are our main source for the study of the revenue system under the Vijayanagar kings. Almost every Vijayanagar inscription refers to some assignment of land, remission of the revenues, income from land, levy of fresh taxes, or the renewal of obsolete ones. Though the number of such inscriptions bearing on this subject is very large, yet there is great difficulty in handling them. Many of the inscriptions still remain unpublished. and of these only summaries are available in the Epigraphy Reports. It is true that these summaries and the connected remarks in the Reports are valuable, but the lack of the texts of the inscriptions handicaps the student greatly. Further even in the study of the published texts of the inscriptions, we experience some difficulty, for, there are in them technical terms which still await explanation. Another difficulty is the use of several terms signifying almost similar ideas or ideas which differ only in certain minute details which it is difficult to understand now. A few of the more important of such words used in the inscriptions are kaḍamai, magamai, kāṇikkai, kaṭṇam, vari, pāṭṭam, irai, kaṭṭāyam, etc. Still another difficulty we meet with is that we see one and the same inscription mentioning not only various dues or obligations to be met by an individual or an institution towards the government, but also communal contributions for certain specific social purposes, certain local cesses for meeting particular local expenses, and payments made to the overlord by the tenant for the lands he held of him. When these different dues to different persons are jumbled together in one inscription, we find it very difficult to analyse them under different heads. To add to all this, many of these payments were of a customary character, and as we often hear nothing more than their names, it is not easy to make out the exact nature of the contributions.

c7.5

¹ Ghoshal, Hindu Revenue Systems, p. 165.

c7.6

Besides the inscriptions of the period we have the writings of the foreign travellers who have left their accounts of the revenue administration under the Vijayanagar kings. Among such accounts those of Abdur Razāk, Nuniz, and Paes are indispensable. Especially Nuniz gives an account of the revenues of the Vijayanagar state, how they were collected through the ‘captains’, and how far the revenue policy of the Vijayanagar kings weighed heavily on the subjects. But one fact is worth noting here; that is, the foreign writers, who did not know the real nature of the village life, rural organisation and the dues from the villages contented themselves with making prominent mention of the transit duties, excise and other dues payable on the import and export of merchandise to and from a city. Abdur Razāk for instance has nothing to say about the land tax, but he speaks only about the customs and the taxes on the prostitutes which struck him much. Hence they have not examined all the sources of revenue to the state, the differentiation between the imperial and the local revenues and other questions connected with the revenue administration of the state.

c7.7

For purposes of convenient handling, we can classify the sources of the revenues of Vijayanagar under certain broad heads. They are:

c7.8

1. The land tax
2. The tax on property
3. Commercial taxes
4. Profession taxes
5. Taxes on industries
6. Military contributions
7. Social and communal taxes
8. Judicial fines and such other income, and
9. Miscellaneous items of income.

c7.9

1. Land Tax: The most important of the sources of revenue was the land tax which still continues to be the mainstay of Indian finance. We may analyse this source of income to the state under the following heads:

c7.10

(a) Tax on wet crops: All the wet crops were taxed by the government. In levying taxes on the lands certain factors were taken into consideration, such as the nature of the village and the tenure of the land, the nature of the soil and the kind of crop raised on the soil. For instance, before the government levied the tax on a particular piece of land, it considered whether it was a *devadāna* (land belonging to a temple), or a *brahmadeya* (land belonging to the Brahmans), or was situated in a *daḷavāy agrahāra* (village granted for military service), or was in a *karagrāma* (revenue village).² Distinction was made between *kārpāśānam* land and *puṇpayir* land, and taxes were collected on the land according to the nature of the crops raised.³ Even in the *kārpāśānam* lands, those that died in the planting (*naṭṭupāl*), those that yielded only blighted grains (*śāvi*), and those that were otherwise damaged (*aḷivu*) were not counted.⁴ In the taxable land a distinction was made between paddy fields, uncultivated waste (newly brought under cultivation), forests reclaimed, and *kaḍaippū* lands (lands on which only the last crop is raised) and lands irrigated by lifting water. The government also considered if they were wet lands on which were grown plantain and sugarcane, or were *paḍugaitākku* (banks of rivers) where these were grown, or marshes in which red lotuses were grown, or lands producing brinjals (*vaḷudilai*), pumpkins, turmeric, ginger, onions, garlic, *nelluparutti*, castor seeds, *varaguparutti*, mustard, Bengal gram, wheat and *kuśumbai* (*carthamus tinctorius*), *ērivāy*, *tāṅgalvāy* and *puḷudi*, (lands producing) gram (*kāṇam*), paddy and *śāmbalādi* and a large number of others crops.⁵ There was also some differentiation made between wet crops being raised on wet lands and wet crops being raised on dry lands.⁶

c7.11

² E.C., III, Sr. 6.
3. 54 of 1914; Rep., 1915, para 44.

c7.12

⁴ Ibid., para 44 fn. 1.

c7.13

⁵ Ibid., para 44.
6. 91 of 1918; Rep., para 68. 6a. M.A.R., 1920, para 79. See Wilson, *Glossary*, s.v. *Maḷā*.
7. 91 of 1918; Rep., para 68.
8. 59 of 1914; Rep., 1915, para 44 and fn.

c7.14

(b) Tax on dry crops: Similarly a tax on the dry crops and edible vegetables (*maḷabraya*) was also levied.⁶ᵃ Here too a distinction was made between the dry crops raised on dry lands and dry crops raised on wet lands (*nañjai*).⁷ Further a difference was made between the various crops raised on the dry land. Of the *puṇpayir* (dry crops), *pāl*, *śāvi* and *aḷivu* were not counted as in the case of the wet crops. Areca palm (*kamuku*), cocoanuts, jack trees,⁸ *karṇṇu*, *vaippu* (margosa), *koḷundu*, *vāḷai* (plantain trees), karumbu (sugar-cane), mañjal (turmeric), iñji (ginger), śeṅ-kaḷunīr (flower) and other vānpayir (minor cultivation) were also taxed.⁹ According to a record of Ś 1311 from Tiruvenṇainallūr, a tax called tōṭṭapuravu (tax from garden lands) also seems to have been collected from the people.10 The above lists clearly show how, for purposes of assessment, the government carefully noted the nature of the crops raised and the nature of the land on which a particular crop was raised.

c7.15

⁹ E.I., XVIII, p. 139.
10. 510 of 1921 ; Rep., para 43.
11. 319 of 1921 ; M.E.R., 1913, Rep., para 56; E.C., IV. Gp. 1.
12. 324 of 1911 ; Rep., para 49. It appears that it was levied only on houses with a compound.
13. 203 of 1921 ; Rep., para 41.

c7.16

(c) Allied charges : We may include in this list certain other sources of revenue to the government which were in the nature of allied charges on the owners of land. A tax was levied on the shepherds as grazing fee. There seems to have been set apart certain portions near the village for the cattle to graze. A few inscriptions refer to this tax.11

c7.17

There was levied a tax known as vāśal paṇam12 on houses and house sites (maṇai).13 In the imposition of the tax on houses the following points were considered, whether the house was a roofed one,¹⁴ or aḍaipputtāḷvu (with small door ways ?),¹⁵ or was a storied one or was one with inside verandah.16

c7.18

¹⁴ E.C., XI, Cd. 2.

c7.19

¹⁵ E.I., VIII, p. 304, ll. 133-34.
16. 585 of 1919.
17. 73 of 1888 ; S.I.I., II, No. 23.
18. 55 of 1897 ; S.I.I., VI, No. 4.

c7.20

(d) Besides these a few contributions were collected from people which were meant to cover the cost of the payment and maintenance of the village officers and the special messengers coming from the governmental headquarters. Among such collections were the karaṇikka jōḍi,17 talaiyārikkam,18 nāṭṭu kaṇakkuvari, rāyasavarttanai, avasaravarttanai,¹⁹ adhikāravarttanai, nōṭṭavarttanai,20 nirūpaccambaḷam21 (pay of the nirūpa or the royal order carrier), ālukkuṇīrpāttam22 (a tax for maintaining the person appointed for regulating the supply of water to the fields), and pāḍikāval²³ (police duty or fee for maintaining the police).

c7.21

¹⁹ E.I., XVIII, pp. 139; M.A.R., 1920, para 79.
20. 103 of 1918.
21. 510 of 1921; S.I.I., II, No. 23.

c7.22

²³ I.P.S., 681; 244 of 1914; Rep., 1915, para 40.

c7.23

(e) In ancient and mediaeval times the temples, choultries and other public institutions collected from the people some money for their maintenance and upkeep. Under such a head can be grouped the following taxes: *magamai*²⁴ (contribution formerly levied on merchants and cultivators for a temple now given optionally), *piḍārivari*²⁵ (a contribution to the temple of the village goddess,) *vibhūti kānikkai*²⁶ which was collected by the state, *āḍi paccai* and *kārttigai paccai*,²⁷ *kārttigai kānikkai*²⁸ and the *tiruppuḍiyīḍu*²⁹ (holy first fruits) and *prasāda kānikkai*.³⁰

c7.24

²⁴ M.A.R., 1916, para 96.

c7.25

²⁵ 117 of 1897; S.I.I., VI. No. 71.

c7.26

²⁶ 389 of 1911; E.C., X. Bp. 18.

c7.27

²⁷ E.I., VIII, p. 304.

c7.28

²⁸ 294 of 1910.

c7.29

²⁹ 35 of 1887; S.I.I., I, No. 55.

c7.30

³⁰ 118 of 1897; S.I.I., VI. No. 72.

c7.31

These taxes were collected by the local authorities on behalf of the imperial government and paid to the temples concerned; or in a few cases the temples themselves took these contributions directly from the people.

Method of Assessment

c7.t1.1

A careful study of the inscriptions of the period shows that the principle followed by the Vijayanagar kings with regard to the assessment varied with the crop raised on a particular piece of land and the part of the empire where the crop was raised, for the assessment depended on the locality and fertility of the soil. But one thing is clear that the assessment on a piece of land depended on its gross yield. This general practice is indicated by a copper-plate grant dated A.D. 1673-74 wherein it is stated that a *magamai* tax was levied at the rate of one *nāḷi* on every *kaḷam* of produce.³¹ From an inscription at Tirukkaṭṭaḷai in the Ālaṅguḍi taluk of the Puḍukkōṭṭai State we learn that the government took five-tenths share of the produce from wet and dry lands which were the *devadānam tirunāmattukkāṇi* from Uḍaiyār Tirukkaṭṭaḷai-Īśvaram Uḍaiya Nāyaṉār.³² Thus one of the factors in fixing the assessment on land was the yield of the land.³³ But this practice does not seem to have been either universal in the empire or applicable to all cases both with regard to wet and dry crops.

c7.t1.2

³¹ Cp. 7 of 1923-24.

c7.t1.3

³² I.P.S., 711. A valuable inscription at Palaṅkarai, also in the Puḍukkōṭṭai State, registers an order issued by Śūraiyadēvar *alias* Kulaśēkhara

c7.t1.4

³³ Similarly the government demanded tax only on the quantity of merchandise actually sold. For instance Abdur Razāk observes: "The officers of the customs department levy a duty on the goods of one-fortieth part when a sale is effected; if they are not sold they make no charge on them whatsoever."

c7.t1.5

Another basis of assessment on wet land was the sowing capacity of a unit of land used for wet crops. The inscriptions refer to certain measures, namely kōḷagas and puṭṭis which mean that a piece of land requires so many kōḷagas or puṭṭis of some seed to be sown. We are told for instance that the taxes on a tūm (a cubic measure in the Telugu districts) of land was 8 varāhas. This means in fact that the unit of land requiring a tūm of seed to be sown was assessed at eight varāhas.³⁴ Thus the quantity of seeds required for raising crops on a particular unit of land was also taken into consideration for purposes of assessment by the state.

c7.t1.6

³⁴ 21 of 1927-28.

c7.t1.7

While this was the principle with regard to the assessment on wet lands, the number of ploughs required for tilling the soil was taken into account for purposes of assessment on dry lands. An epigraph coming from Āḍuturai in the Trichinopoly district records the fixing of a graded rate of assessment on each plough of dry land.³⁵ But it does not seem that this was the only principle with regard to the assessment on dry land, for the principle followed for assessment on wet lands was at times followed for the dry lands as well. An inscription from the Kōlār taluk in the district of the same name mentions a khaṇḍuga of dry land,³⁶ which means that the said land had the sowing capacity of a khaṇḍuga.

c7.t1.8

³⁵ 36 of 1913.

c7.t1.9

³⁶ E.C., X, Kl. 39. See Narasinga Rao, Ullal, A Kisamwar Glossary, pp. 164-65, for the different meanings of the term; Saletore, Soc. and Pol. Life in the Vij. Emp., II, p. 442.

c7.t1.10

According to tradition which is incorporated by Buchanan in his Journey through Mysore, South Canara and Coorg Kṛṣṇadēva

c7.t1.11

Toṇḍaimāṇār and his men to the residents of Pālaiyūr nāḍu in obedience to the commands of his father Piccai Toṇḍaimāṇār determining the rate of rent to be collected from the people. Here the phrase விளைஞ்ச நிலத்துக்குள்ள பணம் is of great significance and interest to us, for it clearly shows that assessment on land was calculated on the extent of land harvested (I.P.S., 784). But the reference here is to the rent and not to the tax.

c7.t1.12

Rāya completely surveyed the whole of his empire for purposes of assessment and fixed the rates of taxes; and this tradition is confirmed by an inscription of the period of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya himself. A record dated A.D. 1513 in the Mysore district registers the grant of a village with all the wet and dry lands according to former measurement.³⁷ According to this inscription there appear to have been two measurements in the district and perhaps in the empire too. One was an old one according to which this particular grant was made, and the other was the new one which appears to have also been in existence on the date of this particular inscription. This piece of evidence clearly shows that the lands were systematically measured in the time of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya for purposes of assessment. Rice too after studying the Mackenzie Manuscripts came to this conclusion. He observes: "It appears that in the time of Krishna Rāya and Acyuta Rāya the revenues of the Vijayanagar State were first reduced to a regular form checked by ordinances, and a system of accounts and management introduced, calculated to improve the revenue of the empire gradually in yearly amount without distressing the inhabitants."³⁸

c7.t1.13

³⁷ E.C., III, Nj. 195.

c7.t1.14

³⁸ Mys. Gaz., I, p. 578.

c7.t1.15

As regards the measurement of the land there were local variations, and there was no one uniform rod in the empire. The inscriptions of the period mention a large number of measuring rods as having been in use then.³⁹ Even in the same place two rods seem to have been used almost at the same time. For instance from the inscriptions at Tiruppuli we learn that there were two rods in use, one the nāḍaḷavukōl in A.D. 1365⁴⁰ and the other rājavibhāḍankōl in A.D. 1374 and 1438-39⁴¹, and at Tiruppālaivaṇam in the same district we learn that there was in 1390 a measuring rod which was known as the gaṇḍarāyagaṇḍankōl.⁴² The Vijayanagar government, however, tried to introduce some reform in the existing measuring rods, with a view to effect uniformity. According to an inscription at Kūgaiyūr in the South Arcot district, at one time the residents near Vṛddhācalam even went to the extent of migrating from the place when the government did not introduce a change in the measuring rod of the locality. This lithic record registers an order of Vāsudēva Nāyakkar Tirumalai Nāyakkar to the people of Magadai maṇḍalam fixing the length of the rod for measuring the wet and dry lands. Up to 1447, the date of the inscription, "lands in Magada maṇḍalam were measured by a rod 18 feet in length and assessed. This procedure having affected rājagaram and given room for theft and ruin, it was thought that if two feet more were added to the old measuring rod, the tax would become easy of payment and the cultivators would be in a flourishing condition and be able to answer for the rājagaram. On this representation it was ordered that the length of the measuring rod should thereafter be fixed at 20 feet, by increasing the length of the old rod by two feet; that the lands, both wet and dry, should be measured out again by the new rod; and the changes entailed noted in the account books ".⁴³

c7.t1.16

³⁹ Some of the more important of such rods were the nāḍaḷavukōl (18 of 1899; A.D. 1365) at Tiruppukuli in the Chingleput district; rāja-vibhāḍaṇ kōl (107 of 1923; A.D. 1374; 193 of 1916; A.D. 1438-39) at Tiruppukuli and Mēlōttivākkam in the same district; the paṇiraṇḍaḍi kōl, the pole twelve feet long, (I.P.S., 685; A.D. 1388) in the Tirumayyam taluk in the Pudukkōṭṭai State; gaṇḍarāyagaṇḍaṇ kōl (357 of 1928-29; A.D. 1390) in and near Tiruppālaivanam in the Chingleput district; māṇḍyas (Nel. Ins., Cp. 1; A.D. 1390-91) at Paracūr in the Nellore district; the paḍināraḍi kōl, the pole sixteen feet long, (I.P.S.. 687 ; A.D. 1391-92) at Kuṇṇāṇḍārkōyil in the Pudukkōṭṭai State; the Rājavibhāḍaṇ Ālapadinaṭṭaḍi kōl (255 of 1894 ; S.I.I., V, No. 554 ; A.D. 1429) at Tiruvaiyāru in the Tanjore district; the ūñjalpārai śarivutaḍi (583 of 1893) in and about Koḷuñjuvāḍi in the Coimbatore district ; the measuring rod of 30 and 20 feet (274 of 1916) in the South Arcot district ; gaṇḍaragaṇḍaṇ kōl (212 of 1916) at Tiruppukkuli in the Chingleput district ; mūvāyiravaṇ kōl, about 15 feet in length (249 of 1928-29 ; 15th century) in the South Arcot district; taḍi (I.P.S., 715 ; A.D. 1477) marked by a sign used in and around Kāraiyūr in the Pudukkōṭṭai State; the standard rod of 34 feet in the South Arcot district (237 of 1916 ; A.D. 1504); a pole 32 feet long (Nel. Ins., Cp. 16; A.D. 1515) used in the Nellore district; a pole measuring 24 feet (51 of 1887 ; S.I.I., IV. No. 50 in V, p. 54 ; A.D. 1535).

c7.t1.17

⁴⁰ 18 of 1899.

c7.t1.18

⁴¹ 107 of 1923; 193 of 1916.

c7.t1.19

⁴² 357 of 1928-29.

c7.t1.20

⁴³ 97 of 1918; Rep., 1918, para 69.

c7.t1.21

But at Śrīmuṣṇam (South Arcot) we see a rod called the standard rod measuring 34 feet being used about 1504-05.⁴⁴ Thus there were local variations with regard to the unit for measuring lengths, each locality having its own rod. This want of a general uniform rod for the whole empire was the cause of great difficulty felt by the government in fixing a uniform rate of assessment on the land in all the parts of the empire.

c7.t1.22

⁴⁴ 247 of 1916; Rep., para 64.

Rates of Assessment

c7.t2.1

According to immemorial custom, the share of the state in the produce from a unit of land was one-sixth, of the Brahman onetwentieth and of the temple one-thirtieth, each of which was paid either in kind or in the money equivalent. Of the remaining three-fourths, one-fourth was retained by the cultivator for his share, while the balances of the gross produce went towards the expenses of cultivation. Wilks when discussing this question remarks that in the early days of the Vijayanagar dynasty Harihara’s minister, Vidyāraṇya. published for the use of the officers of state, a manual founded on the text of Parāśara with a copious commentary in which the assessment of the land and the conversion of the grain revenue into money are elaborately dealt with. Briefly, he took the Śāstra rate of one-sixth of the crop as the government share, and assuming that the average out-turn was twelve times the seed sown, he distributed 30 *kuṭṭis* of paddy, the produce from 2½ *kuṭṭis* of land, as follows :

c7.t2.2

| To the lord 1/4 | .. | 7½ |
| To the cultivator 1/2 | .. | 15 |
| To Sarkar 1/6 | .. | 5 |
| To temples 1/30 | .. | 1 |
| To Brahmans 1/20 | .. | 1½ |
| **Total** | **..** | **30 *kuṭṭis*.** |

c7.t2.3

The shares of the temples and the Brahmans were collected by the Sarkar and paid over by it, so that the share payable by the landholder was really ¼ of the gross produce.⁴⁵ According to Wilks this was the system recommended by Vidyāraṇya for the guidance of king Harihara I and his officers at the beginning of the fourteenth century. But Harihara introduced a few changes in the system due to the difficulties experienced in adhering to these recommendations. He abolished the system of payment of the government share in kind, and insisted on the payment being made only in cash at a particular rate. This conversion of the payment in kind to payment in cash was “founded on the quantity of land, the requisite seed, the average increase and the value of grain.”⁴⁶ Then as regards the assessment itself, he increased the rate. Thus “Harihara had recourse to the law of the Śāstras which authorised him by no very forced construction to attack the husbandman by a variety of vexatious taxes which should compel him to seek relief by desiring to compound for their abolition by a voluntary increase of their landed assessment."47 By so doing he did actually raise it by twenty per cent by his skill in applying to his calculations, a procedure which has been described by the Bombay High Court as "a thinly veiled violation of the law."48

c7.t2.4

⁴⁵ See *Historical Sketches of Mysore*, I. p. 95; *South Canara Manual*, pp. 94-96.

c7.t2.5

⁴⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 94.

c7.t2.6

But we have to examine here how far the account of Wilks is corroborated by the evidence of the inscriptions, which are the only source of information on this question of the rate of assessment in the Vijayanagar period, for the Parāśaramādhavīya, being an elaborate commentary on the Parāśarasmṛti, deals more with the theoretical side of taxation than with the practical side of it.

c7.t2.7

Burnell is of opinion that the share of the state in the produce of the land in South India was generally one half though the normal share of the state in North India was one-sixth. He says: "There is ample evidence to show that Manu's proposition of one-sixth was never observed, and that the land tax taken not only by the Muhammadan but by the Hindu sovereigns also was fully one-half of the gross produce".⁴⁹ Hayavadana Rao after a study of the relevant data comes to the conclusion that the assessment in the Vijayanagar days was very high, and remarks: "It seems....that Vijayanagar taxation was about seven times that of the British, or about 42 per cent, an estimate that agrees with the inference that the later Vijayanagar kings quite disregarded Mādhava's injunction of ¼ of the gross produce paid in cash and had in practice taken 50 per cent of it".⁵⁰ Srinivasa Raghava Aiyangar inclines to accept the view of Burnell.⁵¹ The views of Ellis are marked by greater caution. He is content with pointing out that the tax was always more than the sixth or fourth permitted by the Sanskrit lawyers.⁵²

c7.t2.8

⁴⁹ South Indian Paleography, p. 112, fn. 3.

c7.t2.9

⁵⁰ Ind. Ant., XL, pp. 271-72.

c7.t2.10

⁵¹ Report on Forty Years of Progress in British India, p. 10.

c7.t2.11

⁵² F. W. Ellis, Replies to Seventeen Questions, p. 4; A. Appadorai, Economic Conditions in Southern India, (1000-1500 A.D.), II, p. 674.

c7.t2.12

As for the total income of the state, Rice says it was 81 crores of Avakōṭi cakras or pagodas⁵³ an estimate arrived at by him on a study of the manuscripts collected by Colonel Mackenzie. The *Karṇāṭaka Rājākkaḷ Savistāra Caritram* or *A General History of the Indian Peninsula* states that during the time of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya the amount of revenue that had to be paid to the imperial treasury by eastern Karṇāṭaka (as distinguished from Mysore, etc.) was three crores of rupees.⁵⁴ Varthema, speaking about the revenues of the kings of Vijayanagar, says: "This king of Narasinga is the richest king I have heard spoken of" and in another place says: "His Brahmins, that is, his priests, say that he possesses a revenue of 12,000 pardai per day."55 Paes who visited Vijayanagar in 1520 says that Kṛṣṇa Rāya after retaining enough for his expenses and the expenses of the houses of his wives of whom he had 12,000, put in his treasury every year ten million *pardaos*.⁵⁶ Nuniz is of opinion that the feudatory nobles in the Vijayanagar empire paid to the king every year sixty lakhs of *pardaos* as royal dues, which was half of the gross income from the lands under the feudatories (120 lakhs or 12 millions of *pardaos*).⁵⁷ According to the *Burhān-i-Ma'sir* the revenue of "the accursed infidel" Sadāśiva Rāya was 120,000,000 *hūns*.⁵⁸ Even about A.D. 1611 Vijayanagar claimed good revenues. Antoine Vico for instance says: "The great Nayak of Madura and those of Tanjore and Ginji are themselves tributaries of Bisnagar, to whom they pay or have to pay an annual tribute of six to ten million francs."59 Besides, the royal demesne yielded some revenue to the kings.

c7.t2.13

⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 95.

c7.t2.14

⁴⁸ South Canara Land Assessment Case, p. 84; quoted in the South Canara Manual, p. 96.

c7.t2.15

⁵³ Mys. Gaz., I, p. 578, fn. 1.

c7.t2.16

⁵⁴ Taylor, *Catalogue Raisonne*, III, p. 39.

c7.t2.17

⁵⁶ Sewell, *op. cit.*, p. 282.

c7.t2.18

⁵⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 373.

c7.t2.19

⁵⁸ *Ind. Ant.*, L, p. 143.

c7.t2.20

Contemporary inscriptions do not however throw much light on the question of the rate of assessment in the period. Though some of them specify the amount of the revenue realised from the land, others merely indicate that taxes were collected both in kind and cash. Further we do not know if the rate of assessment in a particular area was the same as in the other parts of the empire. However the following available details may be noted.59a A valuable inscription of A.D. 1429-30 found at Tiruvaigāvūr in the Tanjore district “registers the decision arrived at by the residents of Parāntakanāḍu, the Valangai 98 sects and the Iḍangai 98 sects regarding the various items of taxation that had to be paid to government (rājagaram iraimuraimai) or to the temple, as had been already settled by the inhabitants of the other nāḍus of Valudalambaṭṭu uśāvaḍi…… It was decided that some specified lands in the district of Parāntakanāḍu which were rent-free were not to be interfered with, by classifying them as paṇḍā-ravāḍai (lands belonging to the state, crown lands) jīvita parru, aḍaippu (lands held in lease), oṭṭi (usufructuary mortgage), guttagai (contract of lease) and śērvai (service inām).” The rates of assessment were also fixed.⁶⁰

c7.t2.21

⁵⁵ Jones, *Varthema*, p. 129.

c7.t2.22

⁵⁹ R. Satyanatha Ayyar, *The Nayaks of Madura*, p. 293. 59a. According to a damaged epigraph of the cyclic year Dundhubhi, the exact date of which we are not able to know, it was agreed that the cultivators of lands below the tanks in the Koḍagattūr country were to give *śarivāram* (i.e., equal share of the produce to the owner) and pay a

c7.t2.23

⁶⁰ 59 of 1914; Rep., 1915, para 44. Though other taxes such as those on houses, professionals and workshops are mentioned here, we have confined ourselves to an examination of the rates of taxes on land alone, and reserve the other taxes for treatment in a later section.

c7.t2.24

specified fee for strengthening the tank bunds with stones and earth (197 of 1910). But this epigraph refers to the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord, and hence though we take the inscription to belong to the Vijayanagar period it is not of great value in determining the rate of taxes collected by the state. Similarly in A.D. 1555-56 one Aubala Rāya was allowed to enjoy two-thirds of the produce from certain lands, and was required to give the remaining portion doubtless as mēlvāram to the temple from which he purchased lands at Ālamūru (66 of 1915). Here too the reference is to the rent from the land and the epigraph has no reference to taxes.

c7.t2.25

| Class of land. | Assessment in paddy on one vēli including araśupēru, ilakkai, etc. | Other taxes such as kāṇikkai, śammādam, paṭṭavaṭṭam, kānikūli, etc., on each vēli. |
| | **A.** | |
| 1. Paddy fields. | 50 *kalams* of paddy and ¼ *paṇam*. | 20 *paṇams*. |
| 2. Uncultivated waste (just brought under cultivation). | 40 *kalams* of paddy. | 18 „ |
| 3. Forest reclaimed. | 20 „ | 2 „ |
| 4. Kaḍaippū lands and lands irrigated by baling water. | 20 „ | 10 „ |
| | **B.** | |
| 5. Plantain and sugar cane gardens in wet land. | ... | 60 *paṇams* including araśupēru, kāṇikkai, etc. |
| 6. Plantain and sugar cane gardens in paḍugaitākku (embankments). | ... | 50 *paṇams*. |
| 7. Marshes in which red lotuses are grown. | ... | 40 „ |
| 8. Lands producing turmeric, ginger, onions, garlic, etc. | ... | 25 „ |
| 9. Lands producing brinjals (valudilai). | ... | 30 „ |
| 10. Lands producing nelluparutti, castor seeds, varaguparutti, mustard, Bengal gram, and kuśumbai (carthamus tinctorius) ērivāy, tāṅgalvāy, and puḷudi (lands producing) gram (kāṇam), lands producing paddy and śāmbalāḍi. | ... | 20 *paṇams* (including araśupēru and nīrōlai, etc.) |
| 11. Lands producing gram, green pulse, taṇiparutti, taṇi āmaṇakku, tinai, taṇivaragu, śāmai, etc. | ... | 1 *paṇam*. |

c7.t2.26

c7.t2.27

c7.t2.28

Dry crops (Vāṉpayiru).

c7.t2.29

c7.t2.30

⁶¹ M.E.R., 1915, p. 44. Of the Kārpāśāna (i.e. wet) lands, those that died in the planting (naṭṭuppāl), those that yielded only blighted grain (śāvi) and those that were otherwise damaged (aḷivu) were not counted, and of the puṉpayir (i.e., dry lands) pāl, śāvi and aḷivu were likewise not counted and the remaining holdings were charged at the reduced rate of 8½ to 10, it being, however, provided that in the excluded lands where on inspection they were found to have yielded ¼ crop a third of the produce would be charged as vāram from each holder.

c7.t2.31

Another record found at Vṛddhācalam in the South Arcot district dated A.D. 1430-31 gives the rates of taxes in grain and money to be levied from the Kaikkōḷar, Tantirimār and other castes in certain villages.

c7.t2.32

| Land. | Assessment. |
| 1. On wet land on which dry crops were cultivated, and dry land on which wet crops were raised, including the cultivation of plantains and sugarcane. | One *kalam* of paddy on each *mā*. |
| 2. For dry crops raised on wet lands. | Two *tūṇi* of grain on each *mā*. |
| " " " dry lands. | One *tūṇi* and one *paḍakku* on each *mā*.62 |

c7.t2.33

In about A.D. 1433 at Tirumalai in the Chittore district the *rājabhaṇḍāram* took two hundred *paṇams* for its half share, and the *Śrībhaṇḍāram* took the other half of the income in the Tiruviḍaiyāttam village of Śittakkuṭṭai.⁶³ At Āḍuturai in the Trichinopoly district a record of about A.D. 1450 registers the regulation of the taxes at 5 *paṇams* for the first year and 10 from the following year on each plough of dry land, and 8 *paṇams* on every 100 *kuḷi* of wet land.64

c7.t2.34

⁶³ T. T. D. I. No.

c7.t2.35

In this connection two epigraphs in the Pudukkōṭṭai State are invaluable. One found at Tirukkaṭṭalai and dated A.D. 1462 states that the tax on the *devadānam* lands to the provincial chief was five-tenths of the produce.65 The other one found at Paḷaṅkarai and dated A.D. 1481 records a grant of land and tanks to a hermit (*tapasvi*) as *kuḍinīṅgādevadānam* and fixes the following rates of assessment:

c7.t2.36

1/3 of the produce for *kuruvai* during winter: 1/4 for sesamum (*eḷḷu*) and rāgi (*kēḷvaragu*);

c7.t2.37

⁶² 91 of 1918; *Rep.*, para 68.

c7.t2.38

²⁰¹ As the inscription refers to the *Śrōtrikuttagai* of the said village of Śittakkuṭṭai otherwise known as Śrīnivāsagrāmam for money payments it appears to be a division of the *kadamai* tax and not of the produce. If it had been the latter, there could not have been any reference to the money payment; nor is it reasonable to assume that there was a division of not only the money income but also the grain produce.
64. 36 of 1913.

c7.t2.39

1/6 for millet (varagu) śāmai, kambu and other crops cultivated in dry lands.

c7.t2.40

1/4 for sesamum, horse-gram, payaru, etc.⁶⁶

c7.t2.41

⁶⁶ Ibid., 819.
67. 247 of 1916; Rep., para 64.
68. 721 of 1916.

c7.t2.42

An inscription at Śrīmuṣṇam in the South Arcot district dated 1504-05 records the fixing of a fresh rate of assessment for the taxes which had become exorbitant in the time when the country was in the hands of the Kannaḍiyas. According to the revision it was ordered that the lands might be measured year after year with the standard rod of 34 feet, and that 15 paṇams (including all items of taxation) be levied on one mā of dry land and 20 paṇams on one mā of wet land and that towards araśupēru 1/8 paṇam be levied on each tenant.67

c7.t2.43

A record at Śērmādēvi in the Tinnevelly district dated A.D. 1550-51 registers the fixing of the rate of taxes by Viśvanātha Nāyakkar, the agent of Rāma Rāja Viṭṭaladēva Mahā Rāja, who remitted all taxes (including uḷavu and paṇḍāravāḍai, since the devadāna and the brahmadeya lands in a number of villages surrounding Śēravaṇmādēvi had been abandoned by the dispensing kuḍi and the paḍais. According to the new rate only one kāṇi was charged per mā of land.68

c7.t2.44

The above list gives us an idea of the rate of taxes on landed property in the Vijayanagar period. There are also a few inscriptions which mention the total revenue to the state from a particular village or a group of villages. But as such a consolidated amount indicates the variety of the sources of revenue in which the tax on land was only one, it is difficult to fix from it the rate of assessment on land per village.

c7.t2.45

A lithic record of A.D. 1400 from a village in the Kaḍūr district in Mysore states that the Halamuttūr village in the Sāntaḷige nāḍ together with its hamlets (named) and plains was rated at 84 hon and 1 3/4 haṇa.⁶⁹ An inscription from a village in the Shimoga taluk, in the district of the same name, records that the total revenue from five villages in the Āragaveṇṭhe was 210 (?).70 An epigraph at Cidambaram in the South Arcot district belonging to the time of Acyuta Rāya states that the income from four villages near Cidambaram was 500 *pon*.⁷¹ But such information is not forthcoming in sufficient fullness to enable us to calculate the total revenue that went to the state. Rice's estimate that it amounted to 81 crores of *Avakoṭi cakras* or pagodas is based on the authority of some old manuscripts of doubtful accuracy. But it seems that it is an exaggerated figure, for it is really difficult to believe that the region south of the river Kṛṣṇa could have contributed so much by way of taxes.

c7.t2.46

⁶⁹ E.C., VI, Kp. 35.

c7.t2.47

⁷¹ 272 of 1913.

c7.t2.48

2. *Property Tax*: In ancient and mediaeval India as in modern India all property both immovable and movable was taxed. But the one difference between the levying of taxes on property in the mediaeval period and the modern period is that, while in modern India the annual income or the rental value of the property is taken into consideration for the levy of taxes, in the mediaeval period that did not form the principle of taxation, but the property itself as a unit was taxed. Such a principle was followed for making assessments on houses, house-sites, treasure troves, cows, bulls, sheep, etc.

c7.t2.49

With regard to estimating the rate of taxes on property we are at a disadvantage for two reasons. Firstly we have only a few inscriptions which give us an idea about them, and secondly even those few are found scattered in the different parts of the empire. We do not thus know for instance if the rate of a particular tax levied on a house in a certain part of the empire was the same as the rate for a similar house in another part of the empire. Anyway the following rates may be noted:—

c7.t2.50

| Storied house | .. | 2 | *panams* | } |
| House with inside verandah | .. | 1 | *panam* | } ⁷² |

c7.t2.51

⁷² 585 of 1919.

c7.t2.52

(Little Conjeevaram, Chingleput District.)

c7.t2.53

| House of a villager (*nāttār*), (including vilai, āsamdi, vāsalpanam, etc.) | | 3 | *panams* | } |
| House of a *Tantirimār* | .. | 1½ | *panams* | } |
| House of a *makkal* | .. | 1½ | *panams* | } ⁷³ |
| Verandahs with sloping roofs | .. | ¾ | *panam* | |
| (Tiruvaigāvūr, Tanjore District) | | | | |
| House of a Vaiśya (Bangalore) | .. | 1 | *panam*⁷⁴ | |

c7.t2.54

⁷³ 59 of 1914: *Rep.* 1915, para 44.

c7.t2.55

⁷⁴ E.C., IX, Bn. 96.

c7.t2.56

Each kōṭṭil of the vettis (Vṛddācalam, South Arcot) .. 1/8 paṇam⁷⁵

c7.t2.57

⁷⁵ 91 of 1918 ; Rep., 1918, para 69.
76. 335 of 1921.

c7.t2.58

Each vāśal (Tirukōyilūr, South Arcot) .. 1 paṇam76

c7.t2.59

Outhouse (Yelandūr) .. 1 gadyāṇa⁷⁷

c7.t2.60

⁷⁷ E.C., IV, Yl. 62.
78. 203 of 1921 ; Rep., 1922, para 41.

c7.t2.61

House site (Śērkāḍ, North Arcot) .. 1 paṇam78

c7.t2.62

Cow (C. nagar, Mysore) .. 1/2 gadyāṇa⁷⁹

c7.t2.63

⁷⁹ E.C., IV, Cn. 97.

c7.t2.64

There are other inscriptions which mention the property tax but do not give the rates of assessment. Among them were the taxes on aḍapputtāḷvu (small doorways),⁸⁰ the hidden treasure, underground stores, etc.,⁸¹ ūttaipāṭṭam (springs),82 houses of priests and other sacred buildings,⁸³ vāśalpaṇam, maṇaikuḷi84 she-buffaloes, he-buffaloes, horses, bullocks, etc.,⁸⁵ sheep,⁸⁶ carts, and cocoanut trees.⁸⁷

c7.t2.65

⁸⁰ E.I., VIII, p. 304.

c7.t2.66

⁸¹ E.C., VII, Sk. 241.
82. 373 of 1916 ; Rep., 1917, para 47.

c7.t2.67

⁸³ E.C., X, Kl. 94.
84. 89 of 1889 ; S.I.I., IV, No. 318 ; 335 of 1921.

c7.t2.68

⁸⁵ E.C., VII, Sh. 30.

c7.t2.69

⁸⁶ E.C., XI, Jl. 2.

c7.t2.70

⁸⁷ M.A.R., 1920, para 79 ; E.C., VII, Sh. 30.

c7.t2.71

An inscription from Sravaṇa Belgola in the Mysore State of the time of Bukka I records the following settlement:

c7.t2.72

"Tātayya Tirumala by consent of the blessed people (the Jainas) of the whole kingdom, will, out of the money levied at the rate of one haṇa a year for every house according to the door from the Jainas throughout the whole kingdom for the body guard to be appointed by the Vaiṣṇavas at the holy place Bellgula appoint twenty servants as a bodyguard for the God, and with the remainder of the money have the dilapidated Jinālayas (or Jina temples) whitewashed."88

c7.t2.73

Unoccupied houses were exempted from the taxes.89 3. Commercial Taxes: Duties on trade and commercial transactions contributed a large share to the state revenues. The customs and octroi duties were levied both on land and water transports, at fixed rates. Further, inscriptions mention the opening of new fairs which brought revenue to the government.

c7.t2.74

⁸⁸ E.C., II, Sb. 344.

c7.t2.75

Rice divides the customs under three different heads: *sthalādāyam*, *mārgādāyam*, and *māmūlādāyam*. Under the first head came the customs on goods imported to be sold at one place; under the second came the duty levied on goods in transit through a district; and under the third came the duty levied on goods exported to foreign countries. "All kinds of goods even firewood and straw paid these duties excepting glass rings, brass pots, and soap balls".⁹⁰ Taxes were levied on the shops,⁹¹ *vilaikāṇam* on sales,92 *virpaṇam* and *kaivilaikāṇam* (share of sales for cash price?),93 duties on piecegoods, animals, grain⁹⁴ and baskets of eggs.⁹⁵ There were transit dues on loads of betel,⁹⁶ dues on loads, oil and *māsti*.⁹⁷ There were also *aḍikāśu* (tax on stalls in markets)98 *śandaimudal* (market fees),99 tax collected on the sale of branded cattle,¹⁰⁰ women's cloth and other beautiful articles,¹⁰¹ tolls on *kāvaḍis*, pack horses, bullocks, asses, and head-loads,102 water-sheds, market towns, and on all articles at different rates going through roads to towns of pilgrimage,103 *pāsivilai* (tax on the sale price of fish),104 *aḍḍagaḍa śuṅkam* (a tax levied on the sellers of sheep)¹⁰⁵ and the *mūla viśābadi*.¹⁰⁶ An inscription of the time of Acyuta Rāya found at Rūpanaguḍi in the Bellary district mentions that tolls were collected on the grains passing either way through Rūpalaguḍiya thānya in Yalapēya śīme.¹⁰⁷ In the Telugu country customs were collected about A.D. 1520 in vasanta garuvus (rest houses), watersheds, salt beds, market towns and roads frequented by people.¹⁰⁸

c7.t2.76

⁹⁰ Rice, *Mys. Gaz.*, I, p. 583.

c7.t2.77

⁹¹ M.A.R., 1926, No. 120.
92. 203 of 1921; *Rep.*, para 41 : 87 of 1889.
93. 28 of 1890; *S.I.I.*, IV, No. 351.

c7.t2.78

⁹⁴ E.C., V, Bl. 75.

c7.t2.79

⁹⁵ E.C., III, Ml. 95.

c7.t2.80

⁹⁶ E.C., VII, Sh. 30.

c7.t2.81

⁹⁷ E.C., X, Ct. 40.
98. 196 of 1910.
99. 324 of 1911; *Rep.*, 1912, para 49.

c7.t2.82

¹⁰⁰ E.C., VII, Hl. 71.

c7.t2.83

¹⁰¹ Nel. Ins., Gj. 132.
102. 18 of 1915 : 704 of 1919.
103. 242 of 1892; *E.I.* VI. p. 232.
104. 121 of 1894; *S.I.I.*, V. No. 410 : 373 of 1916; *Rep.*, 1917, para 47.

c7.t2.84

¹⁰⁵ See Butterworth and V. Venugopal Chetty, *Nel. Ins.*, On. p. 947 and note.

c7.t2.85

¹⁰⁶ A tax on the profits of trade levied in periodically settled proportions upon the merchants, traders, shop-keepers, retail dealers, mercantile agents, and all the inhabitants of a village or town engaged in trade. (Wilson, *Indian Glossary*, p. 549).

c7.t2.86

¹⁰⁷ 223 of 1913.

c7.t2.87

¹⁰⁸ E.I., VI, p. 232.

c7.t2.88

An epigraph of A.D. 1379 mentions the following rates of taxes levied on towns and shops :

c7.t2.89

Old town, one ga ; Small town, five ma ; Village, three ma ; A shop at a festival, one ma.¹⁰⁹

c7.t2.90

¹⁰⁹ E.C., XII, Si. 76. Ga seems to stand for Gadyāna and Ma for Māṇa.

c7.t2.91

A few inscriptions give the rates of taxes levied on commodities. The Koṇḍavīḍu inscription of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya is one such, and it gives the following details.

c7.t2.92

| No. | Article. | Unit taxed. | Rate. |
| 1. | Great millet | per bag. | ½ paikam. |
| 2. | Millet | ” | ” |
| 3. | Salt | ” | ” |
| 4. | Mangoes | ” | ” |
| 5. | Myrobalan | ” | ” |
| 6. | Fruits | ” | ” |
| 7. | Brinjals | ” | ” |
| 8. | Clearing nuts | ” | ” |
| 9. | Māvine (a fragrant root like sarasaparilla) | ” | ” |
| 10. | Green gram | ” | 1 paikam. |
| 11. | Black gram | ” | ” |
| 12. | Bengal gram | ” | ” |
| 13. | Horse gram | ” | ” |
| 14. | Red gram | ” | ” |
| 15. | Wheat | ” | ” |
| 16. | Sesamum seeds | ” | ” |
| 17. | Oil seeds | ” | ” |
| 18. | Black pulse | ” | ” |
| 19. | Anumula | ” | ” |
| 20. | Cotton | ” | ” |
| 21. | Tamarind | ” | ” |
| 22. | Gall nuts | ” | ” |

c7.t2.93

| No. | Article | Unit taxed. | Rate |
| 23. | Myrobalan seeds | per bag | 1 *paikam* |
| 24. | Yarn | " | " |
| 25. | *Cāma* | " | " |
| 26. | *Cirugadam* (root) | " | " |
| 27. | Onions | " | 1 *damma.* |
| 28. | Turmeric | " | " |
| 29. | Dammer | " | " |
| 30. | Fenugreek | " | " |
| 31. | Cumin | " | " |
| 32. | Mustard | " | " |
| 33. | New gunny bags | per *śalage* | " |
| 34. | Green ginger | per bag | " |
| 35. | Lime fruit | " | " |
| 36. | Cocoanuts | " | " |
| 37. | Jaggery | " | 2 *dammas.* |
| 38. | Cleaned cotton | " | " |
| 39. | Ghee | " | " |
| 40. | Castor oil | " | " |
| 41. | Sangadi nuts | " | " |
| 42. | Dry ginger | " | " |
| 43. | Iron | " | " |
| 44. | Steel | " | " |
| 45. | Chisels | " | " |
| 46. | Sugar | " | 4 *dammas.* |
| 47. | Areca nuts | " | " |
| 48. | Cotton thread | " | " |
| 49. | Betel leaves | " | " |
| 50. | Long pepper | " | 6 *dammas.* |
| 51. | Pepper | " | " |
| 52. | Sandal | " | " |
| 53. | Cloves | " | " |
| 54. | Nutmeg | " | " |
| 55. | Mace | " | " |
| 56. | Lead | " | " |
| 57. | Tin | " | " |
| 58. | Copper | " | " |
| 59. | Women's garments | Double Bullock load | 1 *cavela.*¹¹⁰ |

c7.t2.94

¹¹⁰ 242 of 1892 : E.I., VI. p. 232. For another inscription see E.C., V, Bl. 75.

c7.t2.95

The above list clearly shows the multiplicity of the taxes levied on articles of trade and on commercial transactions. The gross income from such duties levied on articles coming into and going out of the various important places in the empire was enormous. According to Nuniz the city of Nāgalāpura alone yielded forty-two thousand pardaos of duties for the things which entered into it. He says : "The duties in this land being (are) very great ; since nothing comes through the gates that does not pay duty, even men and women as well as headloads and merchandise."111 If that city alone yielded so much, it is not difficult to imagine that the gross collection from this source should have been considerable. There were a large number of business centres in the empire. An inscription already referred to mentions as many as twenty-six important cities.¹¹² But as said earlier the duties were imposed only on the articles that were sold, and not on all articles carried for sale. But this obviously refers to the sthalādāyam of Rice's classification.

c7.t2.96

¹¹² E.C., V, Bl. 75; Vijayanagari, Hastināvati, Dorasamudram, Guṭṭi, Penuguṇḍi, Āḍavani, Udayagiri, Candragiri, Muluvāyi, Kāñci, Paḍevidu, Caduraṅgapaṭṭaṇa, Maṅgalūru, Bārakūru, Honnāvūra, Candavūra, Āraga, Candraguṭṭi, Annigere, Huligere, Niḍugallu, Cimatanakallu, Taṛiyakallu, Āneviddaśari, Kalheya, Telakalambi and Śiṅgapaṭṭaṇa. An epigraph of A.D. 1606 mentions as many as 42 customs houses in the western parts of the empire. (E.C., VIII, Sa. 123.)

c7.t2.97

The customs due to the government were not collected by them direct, but only farmed out to local persons who paid a fixed amount to them. That such customs duties were farmed out on contract to bidders is shown by an inscription in the present Shimoga district in the Mysore State.¹¹³ The rates of duties differed from place to place for the renters "took various measures frequently for increasing the perquisites of their respective caukis at the expense of others. For instance they advanced money to some of the merchants, requiring only one-half of the duty which was paid by others thus encouraging them to come by their kaṭṭes (custom houses), where they paid reduced customs, with a view to inducing others to follow the same route. It is impossible to fix on any certain rate in collecting customs on goods imported. When one farmer demanded ten pagodas for 100 loads, another took only two pagodas, and their rates widely differed as collected at various places. These farmers, from the collections of the customs on different descriptions of goods and trades, paid the amount of the agreed rent to the Sarkar, reserving the profits which were more or less considerable according to circumstances."114 Nuniz makes a few interesting observations on this system of the farming out of the customs. Speaking about a particular gate in Vijayanagar he remarks: "This gate is rented out for 12,000 pardaos each year, and no man can enter it without paying just what the renters ask, country folk as well as strangers. In both these cities there is no provision or merchandise whatever, for all come from outside on pack-oxen, since in this country they always use beasts for burdens; and every day there enter through these gates 2000 oxen and every one of these pays three vintees except certain polled oxen without horns which never pay anything in any part of the realm."¹¹⁵

c7.t2.98

¹¹¹ Sewell. op. cit., pp. 363-4.

c7.t2.99

¹¹³ E.C., VII, Sh. 30.

c7.t2.100

¹¹⁴ Rice, Mys. Gaz., I, pp. 583-84.

c7.t2.101

¹¹⁵ Sewell, op. cit., p. 366. A vintem was about 1½od. (ibid., n.).

c7.t2.102

Excise duties were levied on the manufacture of salt, and the drawing of toddy. The unit of taxation of the manufacture of salt was the salt pan.¹¹⁶ As for the drugs however we do not know the unit of taxation. But a few inscriptions mention the duties on such drugs.¹¹⁷

c7.t2.103

¹¹⁶ E.C., V, Cn. 174.

c7.t2.104

¹¹⁷ E.C., V, Bl. 75; E.C., III, Ng. 22, etc.

c7.t2.105

4. *Profession Taxes*: Taxes on professions contributed a fair share to the state revenues. The principle that underlay the levy of this tax does not seem to have been to tax the income derived by a person exercising a profession, but to levy a tax on him as he was born in a particular community or caste and thus was exercising or was expected to exercise a particular profession. We are not able to know the exact rates of the taxes levied on the followers of the different professions throughout the empire. Yet from the details of a few epigraphs of the period we notice that the following were the rates on a few of the professionals.

c7.t2.106

c7.t2.107

(At Tiruvaigāvūr, Tanjore district)¹¹⁸

c7.t2.108

¹¹⁸ 59 of 1914; Rep., 1915, para 44. Here it deserves to be noted that the above taxes not only included those levied on them for their pro-

c7.t2.109

Each Mudali, Kaiviṇakkārar and other residents .. 1 paṇam. (At the seven pēṭṭais at Tiruvaṇṇāmalai, N. Arcot district).¹¹⁹

c7.t2.110

¹¹⁹ M.E.R., 1928-29, para 69.
120. 91 of 1918; Rep., para 68.
121. 293 of 1910.
122. 294 of 1910.
123. 59 of 1914; Rep., 1915, para 44.

c7.t2.111

Each Kaikkōlar .. ½ paṇam on each loom. Each Śēṇaikkuḍaiyār .. ½ paṇam Each fisherman .. ½ ” Each shepherd .. ½ paṇam on each kuḍi. Each oilmonger (Vṛddhācalam, S. A.) .. ½ paṇam 120 Each Śeṭṭi, Kaikkōlar and Vāṇiyan .. 2 paṇams. (At Puḷipparakoil, Chingleput district).121

c7.t2.112

Each Kaccaḍavāṇiyar (family) .. 3 paṇams. Each Śeṇbaḍavar (family) .. 3 paṇams. (At Puḷipparakoil, Chingleput district).122

c7.t2.113

There were taxes on certain officers of government: Each judge (niyāyattār) .. 5 paṇams. Each member of the village council .. ½ paṇam. (manrāḍi) Each Śeṭṭi proprietor .. 3 paṇams (including araśupēṟu, vaṭṭam and kānikkai). Each principal collector of tolls .. 4 paṇams. (At Tiruvaigāvūr, Tanjore district).123

c7.t2.114

Under this head can also be included a variety of other professions and castes that were taxed. Mention may be made of the tax on the shop-keeper who opened his shop in his house (manaikkaḍaiyār), which was 3 paṇams¹²⁴ and puṟakkuḍi (farm servants) which was 1 paṇam.

c7.t2.115

¹²⁴ Ibid.; I.P.S., 687.

c7.t2.116

fession, but also those on the instruments or the materials they used in their profession. Thus for example the potter's tax was a tax not only on the potter for his profession but also for the tirigai or the wheel he used. But Gopinatha Rao translated the term tirigai āyam as the tax on the sale of mundirigai, cashew nuts or common grape wine. (E.I., XVII, p. 117). This is clearly wrong. The tax on barbers included the tax on the razor (karivi) he used. The washerman paid his tax also for the stone he used in doing his work. Gopinatha Rao thinks that kallāyam was very likely a tax payable for quarrying stones from hills. (ibid.).

First 168 of 441 passages. Read on

Linked texts (10)

Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Āmuktamālyada — Kṛṣṇadevarāya 1515, Telugu
Parāśarasmṛti — Parāśara, Sanskrit
Paṭṭattāḷ Maṅkalam grant, time of Nandivarman, year 61 — Tamil
Epigraphia Indica
Epigraphia Carnatica
Travancore Archaeological Series
South Indian Inscriptions
Srirangam copper-plate grant of Devaraya II; Saka 1349 (1350) — Sanskrit
Jambukeśvara Inscription of Vālaka-Kāmaya. Śaka-Saṁvat 1403 — Tamil

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c7: Chapter III. Revenue Administration

Contents

Chapter III. Revenue Administration

Method of Assessment

Rates of Assessment