Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jataka Stories c4.t5: V. The Ministers

Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jātaka Stories c4.t5

Language: English

V. The Ministers

c4.t5.2

The next element of the Central administration was constituted by the ministers and the Council. It is rather disappointing to learn that the *Jātakas* do not give us any clear idea about the ministers, the Councillors, the assembly or the Court,—institutions which have played, since the dawn of history, a considerable part in the actual working of the administration of the State. There have been plenty of discussions and arguments, views and counter-views, as to the meaning and real significance of the *sabhā* and *samiti* of the Vedic times, or the *mantri pariṣad* of later days, and of the words *amātya* *mantrin* and *saciva* and even the so-called *Paurajānapada* bodies.⁴ All these leave not a shadow of doubt in our mind that howsoever it may have been in its real nature in different periods, there was some form of a State-Assembly whose members were called the ministers—variously termed according to their functions and portfolios which are, unfortunately, never so clearly stated.

c4.t5.3

⁴ For the views of Vedic scholars see Vedic Index, II, pp. 426-428; 430-1; also Jayaswal, op. cit., I, pp. 11-21; II. pp. 21-2; 60 ff; 121; N. N. Law, I.H.Q., II, pp. 385 ff; 638 ff. Corporate Life in Ancient India, pp. 117 ff. 132 ff. 134, 151 ff. 216. Mookerji, Local Government in Ancient India, pp. 193 ff. Dikshitar, Hindu Administrative Institutions, pp. 135-62; for the Epic period, Hopkins, J. A. O. S., 13 ff. 99 ff; 148 ff.

c4.t5.4

However, let us see what the *Jātakas* have to give us on the point.⁵

c4.t5.5

⁵ We should always keep in mind, while dealing with these stories that they are particularly meant for the simple folk of India of those days for whom it was not possible to dive deep in the grand and multifarious working of the state organisation. If therefore we don't get any clear idea about the various offices, it is because of this popular character of the stories.

c4.t5.6

First of all, there is no clear evidence in the stories as to the composition and constitution of the administrative council or assembly—corresponding to the *mantripariṣad* of Kauṭilya, let alone the Vedic *samiti*; that a council did exist during this period, there cannot and should not be any doubt in the face of overwhelming evidence gleaned from the *Dharma Sūtras* and other literary works dealing with politics, the *Arthaśāstra*, the *Aśoka* Inscriptions and the notices of Megasthenes and other foreign writers—all covering a period not very far from that which is covered by the stories.

c4.t5.7

There are references here and there in an assembly—*parisā*. No doubt can be entertained on this point. But how far do they go in attaching a constitutional meaning is not quite clear. Scholars have tried to attach this technical meaning to it, and equated it with the *pariṣad* of Kautilya² and the *parisā* of *Aśokan* Edicts,³ which clearly mean a ‘body of Ministers’. It must be stated that among the several references to *parisā* that we have been able to trace in the *Jātakas*,⁴ there is not a single instance where the technical administrative meaning cannot be applied. But the fact of the matter is that, we cannot be too much certain on the point. It may not be unreasonable to infer that the ‘council of ministers’ of the *Arthaśāstra*⁵ was a later development of, and a smaller body than, the *parisā* of the *Jātakas* which seems to be a larger body of ministers.⁶ The *Jātaka* *parisā* was probably an intermediate stage between the Vedic *samiti* and the *Arthaśāstra* *pariṣad*.⁷

c4.t5.8

² *Arthaśāstra*, I, 15. He cites opinions of his predecessors—Bṛhaspati, Manu and Uśanas, on the composition of the council.

c4.t5.9

³ R. E., III; VI. See Mookerji, *Aśoka*, pp. 224, 227.

c4.t5.10

⁴ J., II, p. 186 (*atthakāraka parisā*) referring to the council of the judge; III, p. 513; IV, pp. 225 (*rāja parisa*) distinguished from the ‘amaccas’ in general, thus indicating the real smaller nature of the body; 394 (*rājaparisā*); 400 G. 51; 414 (*parisā*); 449 (*Kumāra-parisā*) referring to the council of the prince; VI, p. 151 GG, 703-5 (*rājaparisā*).

c4.t5.11

⁵ I, 15.

c4.t5.12

⁶ Cf. Jayaswal, “The tradition of a large Pariṣad, e.g., of 1000 members, is preserved both in Kautilya, and in the *Rāmāyaṇa*. Probably this is a reminiscence of the Vedic Pariṣad: op. cit. II, pp. 132-3; cf. Basak, *I. H. Q.*, I, p. 524.

c4.t5.13

⁷ Cf. Dikshitar, “The institution of samiti was not a longlived one. It became practically extinct with the commencement of the period of the *Jātakas* (600 B. C.)”: op. cit., p. 156.

c4.t5.14

Nothing can be obtained from the stories, even indirectly, as to the constitution or composition of the *parisā* or about the real nature of the business it was entrusted to carry out.⁸

c4.t5.15

⁸ See for this Jayaswal, op. cit., II, pp. 130 ff. Dikshitar, *Mauryan Polity*, pp. 133-4. Mookerji, *Aśoka*, p. 148.

c4.t5.16

There is no clear indication of the existence of an inner cabinet like that of the *Arthaśāstra*⁹ though there is reference in a *gāthā*¹⁰ to *mantino*, the mantrins (spoken as distinct from the *Mahāmattas*) who according to Jayaswal¹¹ formed the inner cabinet of the *Arthaśāstra*. Anyway, the exact interpretation of *parisā* is open to question. It is however not improbable that there should have been a smaller advisory board consisting of such ministers, ex-officers, as the *uparājan*, *Senāpati*, *Seṭṭhi* and the *Purohita*.

c4.t5.17

⁹ Jayaswal, op. cit., II, pp. 128-30

c4.t5.18

¹⁰ J., IV, p. 134 G. 101 “*Mahāmattā ca me atthi mantino paricārakā*.”

c4.t5.19

¹¹ *Hindu Polity*, I, p. 128.

c4.t5.20

We may now turn to the general body of ministers—*amaccas*—whose constitutional significance is again never clear.

c4.t5.21

¹ Jayaswal, op. cit., II, pp. 115 ff; Dikshitar, op. cit., pp. 138 ff.

c4.t5.22

The ministers formed a class by themselves. In the court of the king they are always distinguished from other classes—the Khattiyas and Brāhmaṇas, gahapatis and others,¹ This does not mean that no Khattiya or a Brāhmaṇa could be an amacca. It only means that the ministers did not belong to any particular caste. It means that the amaccakula was a separate group of people as against the Brāhmaṇas and the commoners (gahapatis).

c4.t5.23

It is very probable that these ministers, more or less, corresponded to the nobility or the knightly class around the king. These ministers were, as we are told,² “the thousand gallant warriors who would face the charge even of a rut elephant, whom the launched thunderbolt of Indra could not terrify, a matchless band of invincible heroes ready at the king's command to reduce all India to his sway.” In the same way the five hundred gallant warriors (pañcasatamattā mahāyodhā) of king Seyya were his amaccas.³ The 60,000 noble-looking warriors of King Sañjaya are his ministers, whose sons, again, are the birthmates and would-be ministers of Prince Vessantara.⁴ A king, intending to have a retinue for his son, calls the commander-in-chief (mahā-senagutto) who seems to be the leader of the ministers,⁵ and orders him to find out many young nobles were born in the ministers' houses on the same day as the prince. 500 young nobles are thus found and nurses are appointed to take care of them⁶. “These nobles,” to apply Hopkins's remarks,⁷ regarding the epic nobility, “for the most part native and well-born, took part in council, conducted the assemblies, led the army and were the king's vice-regents in all military affairs…. They are the real advisers of the king in all matters not purely judicial or spiritual.⁸ For the Mantrins or cabinet councillors consist chiefly of these nobles…. All the sacivas (comites) may be, and often are, purely military. These are officials of the highest rank, to whom in the king's absence, for instance, all the royal business is left.”⁹

c4.t5.24

The posts of ministers seem to have been generally hereditary, as the term amaccakulam, frequently used in the stories,¹⁰ suggests. But exceptions

c4.t5.25

1. J., I, pp. 260, 470; II, pp 98, 125; III, pp. 376, 408; IV, pp. 335, 414; VI, p. 43.
2. J., I, pp. 263, 264 “Samatthā rāhasamattā abhejjavārasūrā mahāyodhā….amacca-sahassā”; also III, pp. 5, 6.
3. J., II, p. 401.
4. J., VI, pp. 579-G. 2373 “Tato satthisahassāni yudhirocarudassanā; Ibid., p. 588 Saha-jātā satthisahassā amaccā; and G. 2335. Bhāradvāja, as quoted by Kauṭilya, is of the opinion that the king should employ his classmates as his ministers “for they can be trusted by him in as much as he has personal knowledge of their honesty and capacity. Other pre-Kauṭilya political thinkers differ. Arthaśāstra, I, 8.
5. Cf. J., V, p. 178 “Senāpatipamukhāni aśīṭiamaccasahassāni.”
6. J., VI, p. 2 “Mama puttassa parivārā….amaccakulesu jātadārakā”
7. J. A. O. S., 13, p. 101 The epic nobility comprised royal allies, family connections, subject kings used to a lesser degree, the priests: Mātāmacca is of constant occurrence in the Jātakas, as for instance, V, p. 123-G. 40, 178-G. 191, 223 G. 116, VI, p. 94-G. 403.
8. Cf. for instance J., IV, p. 335, where the ministers, when asked to interpret a dream, frankly refer the king to the Brāhmaṇas for its solution for they themselves do not know anything about such spiritual things: “The Brāhmaṇas know it, O great king.”
9. J., IV, pp. 283, 370, 408, 437.
10. J., I, p. 248; II, pp. 98, 125. Fick remarks on this hereditary character of the ministers, “…and in consequence of this hereditary character to which probably, as in the case of the Khattiyas, a specially developed class consciousness is joined.” op. cit., p. 143.

c4.t5.26

did exist. For instance a very poor man was once appointed by the king to the post of Lord Treasurer.¹

c4.t5.27

¹ J., I, p. 124.

c4.t5.28

We must confess that no complete idea can be formed from these stories regarding the status, life and functions of the ministers. Only casual references to them are to be noticed.

c4.t5.29

Whereas, on the one hand, the courtiers seem to be afraid of the king and do not dare speak ill of him,² there are instances, on the other hand, which represent them as alert and watchful over the king lest he may grow slothful, and as ready to rouse him to activity by timely warnings.³ The ministers were completely at the mercy of the king. If he found them inefficient, or guilty of any wrong, they were dismissed at once.⁴ Did we not hear of such dismissed ministers joining the services of neighbouring kingdoms and planning destruction of their former masters? In spite of their getting equitable salaries,⁵ they are wont to fetch bribes.⁵ Some of the officers seem to have been so privileged as to wait upon the king without any ceremony (*vinā patihāreṇa upaṭṭhanam anujāni*).⁷ Needless to state, that jealousies and unhealthy rivalries among the officers of the Court were there.⁸ Often, and specially on the accession of the king, the ministers were inspected and their transfers or dismissals, as it was felt necessary, were carried out.⁹ Then, as now, the king received valuable gifts and presents from his officers. To King Kandari of Benares, his ministers daily brought a thousand boxes of perfume.¹⁰ An ascetic, while being received by a king, thus thinks in his mind: "Verily the king's court is full of hatred and abounds in enemies".¹¹ This remark is substantiated by the treacherous acts of the five ministers who do not see twice in carrying out their hedious plans against the poor ascetic who had superseded them in the Court. Finally they are found out and punished. The king "stripped them of all their property and, disgracing them in various ways, by fastening their hair into five locks, by putting them into fetters and chains, and by sprinkling cowdung over them, he drove them out of his kingdom."¹² Such a state of affairs does not seem to be impossible or even improbable, looking to the tendencies of the time.

c4.t5.30

² J., II, p. 2.

c4.t5.31

³ J., III, p. 140; also II, pp. 175-7; III, pp. 102-4. See I. H. Q., IX, p. 247. On the views of Hindu writers as to the necessity of having ministers see Basak, I. H. Q., I, pp. 528 ff.

c4.t5.32

⁴ J., I., pp. 262, 355.

c4.t5.33

⁵ J., IV, p. 134-G. 100 (*bhattavetanam*); V, p. 128 (*paribbayam*); VI, p. 295-G. 1285 (*vetanam*). No definite amount is mentioned. Kautilya gives a grand civil list where the allowances range from 60 to 48,000 *panas* per annum: See *Arthaśāstra*, V, 3; Jayaswal, *Op. cit.*, II, pp. 135-6; Dikshitar, *Hindu Adm. Inst.*, pp. 192-3; *Mauryan polity*, pp. 150-1.

c4.t5.34

⁶ J., II, p. 186; V, pp. 1, 229; VI, pp. 131; 430.

c4.t5.35

⁷ J., VI, p. 345.

c4.t5.36

⁸ J., II, pp. 88, 186 ff; III, p. 400; IV, p. 197.

c4.t5.37

⁹ J., III, p. 239. "*Amaccānam thānantarāni vicāretvā*."

c4.t5.38

¹⁰ J., V, p. 437.

c4.t5.39

¹¹ J., V, p. 228.

c4.t5.40

¹² Ibid., pp. 228-46.

c4.t5.41

Qualities and ideals essential on the part of a minister are, here and there, spoken out. A minister must above all be fertile in expedients (upāyakusalo).¹ Some of the practical precepts for a king, given in the Tesakuna Jātaka and already quoted by us in extenso while dealing with kingly duties,² may here be recalled, in so far as they appertain to the duties and qualities of ministers. The counsellors must be wise and such as would see the king's interests clearly (atthassa kovide), not given to riot and waste and free from gambling and drunkenness.³ A king hears slanders, without any base, about one of his ministers. He is perplexed how to find out whether a man is friend or foe. Then he is told by his Paṇḍitāmacca the sixteen signs by which a ‘bad intriguing minister could be easily distinguished from an honest one:’

c4.t5.42

¹ J., III, p. 3.

c4.t5.43

² Supra, pp. 81-2.

c4.t5.44

³ J., V, pp. 116—GG. 16-7.

c4.t5.45

“He smiles not when you see him, no welcome will he show,
He will not turn his eyes that way, and answers you with ‘No.’
Your enemies he honours, he cares not for your friends,
Those who would praise your worth, he stays, your slandersers commends,
No secret tells he to you, your secret he betrays,
Speaks never well of what you do, your wisdom will not praise.
He joys not at your welfare, but at your evil fame,
Should he receive some dainty, he thinks not of your name,
Nor pities you, nor cries aloud—“O, had my friend the same”
These are the sixteen tokens by which a foe you see,
These, if a wise man sees or hears, he knows his enemy.”

c4.t5.46

The opposite signs were to be found in a righteous and steadfast minister.⁴

c4.t5.47

⁴ J., IV, pp. 197, 8—GG. 77-87. Cf. the qualities and qualifications of persons who were eligible for consultation by a king, MHB, Śānti Parva, 83,35-40 and 41-7; also Manu vii-54; See Dikshitar, Hindu Adm. Instt. pp. 149-50.

c4.t5.48

The Vidhura Paṇḍita Jātaka⁵ embodies in many a gāthā a remarkable exposition on the qualities and requisites essential for the attainment of success and pre-eminence in the King's Court (rājavasati). A grand and minute perception of the court life, with all its good and evil, is revealed here in a marked manner. We cannot resist the temptation of reproducing these maxims, even though in a summary form,—maxims which would be found as sound, practical and weighty as can be found in any other ancient authority such as, for instance, Kauṭilya. Here then is a practical advice for a man aspiring to the King's court:⁶

c4.t5.49

⁵ J., VI, pp. 292-98 GG. 1264-1309.

c4.t5.50

⁶ A summary of this is also given by Dr. Sen, op. cit., pp. 120-1.

c4.t5.51

It is not the coward, nor the foolish man, nor the thoughtless, that can win honour in the King's Court. When a minister first enters the Court he is a stranger, when the king finds out his moral qualities (sīla) his wisdom (paññā) and his purity of heart, then he may gain confidence and a chance to push forward. If he is really trustworthy, the king will not hide any secrets from him. He must be alert and balanced. When he is asked to carry out some business, like a well-fixed balance, with a level beam, and evenly poised, he must not hesitate; if like the balance, he is ready to undertake every burden, he may dwell in a king's court. He should not imitate the king. 'He who sees a path made for the king and carefully put in order for him and refrains from entering himself therein, though advised to do so, he is the one who may dwell in a king's court. He may not enjoy the same pleasures as the king! He may not put on a garment like the King's, nor garlands, nor ointments or ornaments like his. He should not practice a tone of voice like his.' If the king sports with his ministers or is surrounded by his wives, let not the minister make any allusion to the royal ladies. Not arrogant, nor fickle, prudent and possessed of insight and resolution and control over his senses. 'Let him not sport with the king's wives nor talk with them privately; let him not think too much of sleep, nor drink strong drink to excess, nor kill the dear in the king's forest. He should not hastily think of himself a privileged man and an intimate person with the king.' Let him prudently keep not too far from the king, nor yet too near to him. The king is not a common person, is easily vexed. He should not be hasty in his speech. Look for an opportunity. But the king should never be trusted—he is a fire. Be on guard, never criticise his deeds. Do not entertain doubts. The wise man will keep his belly small like the bow, but he will bend easily, like the bamboo. 'Trained, educated, self-controlled, experienced in business, temperate, gentle, careful pure, skilful, such an one may dwell in a king's court.' Let him keep at a distance from a spy sent by a foreign king to intermediate; let him look to his own lord alone, and own no other king. One who is energetic in business, careful and skilful and able to conduct his affairs successfully—such an one may dwell in a king's court. He should not employ or promote a son or a brother who is not steadfast in virtue. "Let him employ in offices of authority (ādhipaccam) servants and agents who are established in virtue and are skilful in business and can rise to an emergency." "Let him know the king's wish, and hold fast to his thoughts and let his action be never contrary to him." "He will rub him with perfumes and bathe him, he will bend his head low when washing his feet; when smitten he will not be angry; and outside the court "he will make his salutation to a jar full of water, offer his reverential greetings to a crow, yea, he will give to all petitioners.. he will give away his bed, his garment, his carriage, his house, his home and shower down blessings like a cloud on all beings."

c4.t5.52

This is the practical wisdom of a man of court, whosoever he may have been, probably of the pre-Christian era. The complete surrender, humility—or humiliation!—and submission that are inculcated in the above words can never be comprehended in all their implications by those who are brought up in this twentieth century civilization. But the mentality is not at all unfamiliar to those who have had a chance to know the inns and outs of some of the Native States of India of the present day.

c4.t5.53

FISCAL ADMINISTRATION

c4.t5.54

SOURCES OF REVENUE

c4.t5.55

WHILE WE CANNOT have any clear grasp of the actual working machinery of administration in general, it seems proper to divide it into its main parts i.e., the departments, and notice whatever information can be had with regard to each. With this end in view, we take up in this chapter Fiscal Administration, dealing with sources of revenue, assessment of revenue, tithes and taxes, other sources of income, and expenditure.

c4.t5.56

Revenue and taxation were, as they are now, the mainstay of the State. From the earliest times this principle, which reflects practice, must have been firmly established. "The legitimate functions of Government," to employ the economic language of Fawcett,¹ "....cannot be performed without incurring a considerable expense. To meet this expense taxation is necessary." Similarly, 'revenue is the condition of the existence of governments'.² These are no modern specialities. If Kauṭilya thinks and preaches that "finance is the basis of all activity of the state."³ and if other Hindu political thinkers of those ancient times agree with him,⁴ the condition must be as much true with the period traversed by the *Jātaka* stories, even though there may not be any such clear-cut principles and theories of taxation. As a matter of fact, the *Jātakas* do recognise the utmost importance of the treasury (*Kosa*) and the store-houses (*Koṭṭhāgāra*).⁵

c4.t5.57

¹ *Political Economy*, p. 196.

c4.t5.58

² Mill, *Principles of Political Economy*, p. 483.

c4.t5.59

³ *Arthaśāstra*, II, 8, "kośapūrvāḥ sarvārambhāḥ"

c4.t5.60

⁴ See Dikshitar, *Hindu Adm. Instt.* pp. 167 ff. Ganguli, *I. H. Q.*, I, pp. 696 ff.

c4.t5.61

⁵ J., V, p. 184—GG. 212; also VI, p. 27-G. 112.

c4.t5.62

Revenue from land was the chief contribution to the income of the state. Each state or dominion was divided, as we shall see, into three political or administrative units, *viz.*, *gāma* *nigama* and *jana-pada*.⁶ The general administration of the state was carried on, as will appear, on the lines of a perfectly decentralised state working on the 'devolution of powers.' So, as regards revenue administration the system seems to have been like this : As a rule the local official or officials of villages and towns and districts who carried on the civil, judicial and military administration, were also entrusted with the work of collecting the revenue. The central government may however maintain a separate department in this connection, and appoint and despatch from time to time officials for direct collection of the revenue or for co-operating with the local authorities.

c4.t5.63

⁶ J., III, pp. 3, 61; IV, p. 169; VI, p. 294-G. 1284; "It cannot be said with any definite-ness that the government of the provinces was an innovation of the Mauryas." *Mauryan Polity*, p. 109.

c4.t5.64

LAND-REVENUE

c4.t5.65

Land-tax or the king's share of the land produce (raññobhāga) had become the law of the land. This was signified by the title of ‘bali’, though differing in its significance from the Vedic one.¹ The ‘bali’ was usually, though not always, paid in kind.² What was the amount of this share of the king, the Jātakas never give out.³ It may however be presumed to have been, as a general rule, the traditional one-sixth, as even the Buddhist Mahāvastu⁴ agrees. Probably the rate varied according to the amount of the produce, the cost of cultivation, the condition of the market and the nature of the soil. This, when the king was just and equitable. Otherwise, it, in a great measure, depended on his whim and pleasure. For at his descretion the bali was liable to enhancement⁵ or remission.⁶ And with what of exhortations to establish bali justly,⁷ we find, not rarely, instances of oppressive imposition of bali by the king,⁸ not to speak of the exactions by, and tyrannies of, the tax-collectors (balisādhakas or niggāhakas) ‘whose name passed into a synonym for importunate demand.’⁹ Of this oppression, we shall speak later on. What we want to notice at present is, that the rate of land-produced-revenue is not given in the stories.

c4.t5.66

¹ J., IV, pp. 169, 399 ; V, p. 98; for Vedic meaning see Vedic Index, II, p. 62; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, pp.166, 167. Kauṭilya also seems to mean by bali a different kind of tax, perhaps a religious one as some scholars hold: See Thomas, J.R.A.S., 1909, pp. 466-7; The Rummindei Pillar Inscription of Aśoka also names ‘bali’ and bhāga separately; Mookerji, op. cit., p. 244; See also Dikshitar, Mauryan Polity, p. 144.

c4.t5.67

² J., II, p. 378.

c4.t5.68

³ Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar's statement that ‘in the Jātakas the rate seems to have been from a twelfth to a sixth’ is misleading. See Economic thought, p. 127.

c4.t5.69

⁴ Senart, Mahāvastu, I, pp. 347-8. Cf. Dialogues of the Buddha, III, pp. 84 ff. Ghoshal Agrarian System in Ancient India, pp. 25, 108. One-sixth was the traditional rate. But it varied from one-twelfth, one-tenth, one-eighth and one-sixth, in normal times, to as much as one-fourth and even one-third, in times of emergency. See for different authorities Samaddar, J.B.O.R.S. VI, pp. 101-2; N. C. Ganguly, op. cit., II, pp. 138 ff. On the information of Megasthenes that the royal share was one-fourth: J.A.O.S. 13, p. 88; For the village of Lumbini Aśoka reduced the share to one-eighth; Rummindei Pillar Inscription, Mookerji, op. cit., p. 244.

c4.t5.70

⁵ J., III, p. 9.

c4.t5.71

⁶ J., IV, p. 169.

c4.t5.72

⁷ J., IV, p. 399—G. 48 “Dhammam balim paṭṭhayassu rāja adhammikāro ca te mā huraṭṭhe.”

c4.t5.73

⁸ J., V, pp. 98, 240 etc.

c4.t5.74

⁹ J., II, p 17; V. pp. 98 ff. In J., IV, p. 362 G. 235, the class of Brāhmaṇas coming to the villages and towns and refusing to quit them unless given a gift, is compared to the tax collectors, niggāhakas.

c4.t5.75

Let us now turn to see how the administration of this Land-Revenue was actually carried on. We have, unfortunately, no information whatsoever of the different grades of officials connected with this work, from the village to the kingdom as a whole. No elaborate arrangements and the onerous functions of the gopa, sthānika and samāhartā of Kauṭilya¹⁰ or similar officers of the

c4.t5.76

¹⁰ Arthaśāstra, II, 35. See Ghoshal, The Agrarian System in Ancient India, pp. 13 ff.

c4.t5.77

ASSESSMENT & COLLECTION

c4.t5.78

Dharmasūtras,¹ can be seen in the stories which seem to represent much simpler methods. They nevertheless give us very interesting details of the work which are difficult to be obtained from other 'serious' works.

c4.t5.79

¹ See Gupta, The Land System in South India, pp. 268-9.

c4.t5.80

As far as the revenue administration was concerned, the afore-mentioned distinction between gāma and nigama was, it seems, not taken into consideration. And we might, for the present, forget that. Let us only imagine the land as a whole divided, leaving out other portions of land, into separate farm-holdings² in possession of individual farmers or villagers. From the produce of each farm-holding the king was to be given his share,—his bhāga. Now let us turn to the method of assessment. The details are given out by the Kāma Jātaka.³ In the story we read that a Prince renounces his claim to the throne in favour of his younger brother, and goes away to a village and lives with a merchant's (Seṭṭhi's) family. The Royal officers (rājakammikā) come to the village to measure the fields (khettappamāṇagahaṇatthāya) including that of the Seṭṭhi. The Seṭṭhi asks the Prince to write to the king for remission of the bali which the latter accordingly grants. On this instance other villagers also approach the Prince and request him to get the bali reduced, and it is done. We see here how the measurement of land by the State Officials is immediately associated with the assessment of bali. This implies the existence of a standard or average rate of the Government demand for a known unit area, which could be applied for the assessment of the individual holdings.⁴ That is to say, the land was surveyed and the field was measured to determine its area, which, when calculated by the known standard,⁵ would give the quantity of the produce of the field and thus settle the kings' share, whatever it was.

c4.t5.81

² These were, in the times of the Earlier Guptas, known as pratyayas. See Fleet, Gupta Inscriptions, No. 38, dated 571 A. D.

c4.t5.82

³ J. IV, p. 169.

c4.t5.83

⁴ See Ghoshal, The Agrarian System in Ancient India, pp. 25-6. This corresponds to the method prevalent in Moslem India and called Measurement. Ibid.; Moreland, The Agrarian System of Moslem India, p. 7.

c4.t5.84

⁵ What exact measurements in connection with land-survey were in vogue, we do not know. But we have reason to believe that they were measured in karisas as some references show: See J., III, p. 293; IV, p.

c4.t5.85

We turn to another Jātaka.⁶ Here the details are more informative. We are introduced to three important personalities With the remaining eight of the list we are not at present concerned...These are: the Rajjuggāhaka amacca (shortened in the gāthā⁷ into Rajjuko), the Seṭṭhi and the Doṇamāpaka Mahāmatta (or briefly, as in the gāthā, Doṇa). The Rajjuggāhaka amacca, whose title literally means the rope-holding minister, is seen measuring a Janapada field by holding one end of the rope tied to a stick, the other end being held by the owner of the field (khettasāmika). He sees a crab's lurk-hole at the spot where he wants to pitch the stick and the thought comes to him: "If I put the stick in the hole, the crab in the hole will be hurt; if I put it on the other side (purato), the king's property (rañño santakam) will lose; and if I put it on this side (orato), the farmer will lose."¹ This again is sufficient to show that the official measurement of land was connected with the assessment of the land revenue.

c4.t5.86

²⁷⁶ A Karisa, according to Childres, Pāli Dictionary, s. v. ammanam, is equal to 8 acres. If however the rajju of the Rajjuggāhaka Amacca had the technical meaning of a measure of length, it might then correspond to that of Kauṭilya which was equal to 10 daṇḍas or about 40 yards: Arthaśāstra, III, 20; Cf. I. H. Q., III, pp. 817-8. In the copperplate grants of the 6th century A. D. we have "pādāvarta" (a square foot) as a measure of length and also Kulyāvāpa as that of land area, See Fleet, G. I., p. 170; Pargiter, I. A., 1910, pp. 214-5; Pran Nath, op. cit., p. 84; Dikshitar, Mauryan Polity, pp. 365-6.

c4.t5.87

⁶ J., II, pp. 366 ff.

c4.t5.88

¹ Ibid. p. 376.

c4.t5.89

The Seṭṭhi again is described as carelessly plucking a handful of paddy (sālisīsamuṭṭhim) from his own field from which the king's share has yet to be paid.² "This doubtless points to the method of Appraisement of the standing crops."³

c4.t5.90

² Ibid., p. 378, Fick remarks, "By such considerations however characteristic they may be of thinking influenced by Buddhist morality, an officer can hardly be guided." op. cit., p. 151.

c4.t5.91

³ Ghoshal, op. cit., p. 26.

c4.t5.92

How was the bali collected? For this we turn to the third personality, an important one, viz. the Doṇamāpaka Mahāmatta, the measurer with the droṇa measure.⁴ The story describes him as sitting at the door of the royal granary and causing the king's share of the produce to be measured.⁵ He takes a grain out of the unmeasured heap of rice and employs it as a marker (lakkhaṃ). Owing to a sudden rainfall, he hastily rushes indoors after counting the markers and then sweeping them all together. He, standing on the doorway, is filled with doubt whether he has thrown the grains used as markers over the measured or the unmeasured heap. And he reflects that if he has placed the markers, over the measured heap, he has improperly increased the king's share and diminished that of the cultivator (gahapatika). "This evidently points to the method of Division of the crop at the granary."⁶ This moreover shows that the Doṇamāpaka, significantly styled Mahāmatta, was in this case the chief collector of land-revenue, probably, corresponding to the Koṣṭhāgārādhyakṣa of Kauṭilya,⁷ who was a subordinate officer to the Sannidhātṛ,⁸ Finance Minister, who looked after the Treasury and the store-house.⁹

c4.t5.93

⁴ For the different varieties of this drona measure see Pran Nath, A Study of the Economic Condition of Ancient India. pp. 75, ff. A drona is approximately equal to 26 lbs. Ibid.

c4.t5.94

⁵ J., II, p. 378. "So ekadivasam koṭṭhāgāradvāre nisīditvā rājabhāge vihiṃ mināpento."

c4.t5.95

⁶ Ghoshal, op. cit., p. 27.

c4.t5.96

⁷ Arthaśāstra, II 15; or was he the forerunner of the officer who was the head of the droṇamukha, headquarters in the centre of four hundred villages? Arthaśāstra, II, 1; III, 1.

c4.t5.97

⁸ Ibid., II, 5.

c4.t5.98

⁹ Dikshitar, Hindu Adm. Institutions, p. 202.

c4.t5.99

So far it is fairly clear. Lands were surveyed¹⁰ and divided into separate holdings (pratyayas) marked by denfinite boundaries.¹¹ These holdings were measured by the Rajjugāhaka amacca or by the Rājakammikas,¹² who also assessed the land-produce and settled the king's share. The crop could not be gathered in before the kings' portion was assessed. And finally, this kingly due in kind was collected under the supervision of the *Doṇamāpaka Mahāmattas* at the king's granary.

c4.t5.100

¹⁰ "The earliest references to land-survey are probably in the Jātakas" K. M. Gupta, The Land System in S. India, p. 288.

c4.t5.101

¹¹ See also J., IV, p. 281.

c4.t5.102

¹² J., III, p. 293, IV, p. 276; Cf. Karmikas of Kauṭilya, Arthaśāstra, II, 7.

c4.t5.103

Now a word about these two officers connected with the land-survey and revenue-collection viz. *Rajjuggāhaka* and *Doṇamāpaka*.

c4.t5.104

It was Bühler who in 1893 first¹ pointed out the identity between our *rajjuggāhaka* or *rajjuko* and the *rājuka* of Aśokan Edicts.² He also equated these with the *rajjuya* of the Jaina *Kalpasūtra* where Jacobi translated it simply by a clerk or an accountant.³ His identification has been accepted by the majority of scholars⁴ while some⁵ would connect the word ‘*rājuka*’ with the Pāli ‘*rāju*’ meaning ‘king’ and not with ‘*rajju*’, rope. However the question must now be considered as finally decided after the elucidated discussion, on sound philological grounds, by Ghoshal and S. K. Chatterji⁶ in favour of Prof. Bühler. Our *Jātaka* does not give any thing more about the duties and functions of this officer than that he was connected with land measurement and survey. The *Rājukas* of Aśoka, on the other hand, are High Officers having a great responsible administrative status. It is again not improbable that these officials were the same as *Corarājjukas* of Kauṭilya⁷ and those of whom Megasthenes⁸ speaks thus: “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 their branches so that every one may have an equal supply of it.”⁹ It appears from all this that originally, and in the *Jātaka* period, the *Rājjukas* were very likely the chief provincial revenue officers connected mainly with survey, land settlement and irrigation.¹⁰ With time their powers must have increased as seen from Megasthenes' statement given above. And Aśoka, with his truly administrative zeal, invested them with more extensive powers “over hundreds of thousands of souls” granting them independence in their administration of Law and justice so that they may perform their duties confidently and fearlessly, distribute the good and happiness of the people of the country (*Janasa janapadasa*) and also bestow favours upon them.¹¹

c4.t5.105

¹ Z. D. M. G., 47, pp. 466 ff; *cf.* E I., II, p. 466 n.

c4.t5.106

² R. E. III, P. E., IV.

c4.t5.107

³ Bühler, E. I., II, p. 369.

c4.t5.108

⁴ *Cf.* Hultzsch, *Inscriptions of Aśoka*, p. xli : Lüders, *op. cit.*, *l. c.* Thomas, *C. H. I.*, I, p. 487. Fick *op. cit.*, pp. 148. Bhandarkar, *Aśoka*, p. 53; Dikshitar, M. P., pp. 365-6.

c4.t5.109

⁵ Jayaswal, *op. cit.*, II, pp. 129-30. Mookerji, *op. cit.*, 133-4.

c4.t5.110

⁶ *I. H. Q.*, VI, pp. 424-31; 628. The Epigraphic evidence, too, is clearly in support of this. See Lüder, *A List of Brāhmī Inscriptions*, No. 1195. We think moreover that No. 281 of his list, *Bhaḍata rājukasa* should also be included here.

c4.t5.111

⁷ *Arthaśāstra*, IV, 13.

c4.t5.112

⁸ Fragment 34.

c4.t5.113

⁹ McCrindle, *Megasthenes and Arrian*, p. 86, See Dikshitar, Mauryan Polity, pp. 216-7; 364-6.

c4.t5.114

¹⁰ Thomas, *C. H. I.*, I, pp 487, 508. *Cf.* “The office of the Rājukas had been in existence before Aśoka but Aśoka invested them with greater authority.” Mookerji, *op. cit.*, 53. But see Mitra, *Indian culture*, I, 2, pp. 309-10.

c4.t5.115

¹¹ P. E. VI; See Dikshitar, Mauryan Polity, pp. 218-9.

c4.t5.116

The *Doṇamāpaka Mahāmattas* seem also to have been important and influential district-officials, probably connected with direct collection of revenue. These were subordinate officers to the *Rājjukas* who may well be compared with modern District Collectors¹. It seems to us, moreover, that the Doṇamāpakas were the forerunners of the Dhruvādhikaraṇas who figure in Valabhi grants and are represented by the modern Dhruvas connected with revenue collectors.²

c4.t5.117

¹ S. N. Mitra, Indian Culture, I, 2, pp. 308 ff.—“The Rājukas and Prādesikas of Aśoka in relation to the Yuktas; “The Kurudhammajātaka mentions ‘rajjuka’ (lit, rein-holder of the royal chariot, i.e., of the State) as a highly important functionary. In the prose narrative he is described as a rajjugāhaka amacca.”

c4.t5.118

² I. A., V, pp. 204-5. The present writer recollects many an incident where he personally saw the austere and autocratic figures of these ‘Dhruvas’ troubling the poor villagers.

c4.t5.119

Before passing on to the discussion of other sources of income, a few more points in connection with land may here be noticed.

c4.t5.120

Villages in those days were of two kinds according as the revenues yielded by them were enjoyed by an individual or by the State.³ The former were known as ‘bhogagāmas,’ and the persons who enjoyed the income coming therefrom were styled Gāmabhojakas. The term gāmabhojaka has generally been taken to mean the village-headman. The natural inference from this would be, then, that the person who enjoyed the right of revenue of his bhogagāma was also the headman of that village. But this does not seem to us to be wholly true. Not every gāmabhojaka was the headman of the gāma he enjoyed, and not every headman the gāmabhojaka. Since we are to return to this subject when discussing the local or village government proper, we may not go in details here. Suffice it to bear in mind that there were some villages which were called bhogagāmas. Those others which the king's officers visited for the purpose of collecting revenue are not termed as bhogagāmas. The former were thus grants, endowments or assignments given as reward of merit or as an act of favour from the king.⁴ The revenue coming therefrom was enjoyed by the respective individuals and, may be, those individuals had to pay a certain portion of their income to the central Government.

c4.t5.121

³ Cf. Sen, op. cit., p. 105.

c4.t5.122

⁴ Cf. Ghoshal, op. cit., pp. 28-9.

c4.t5.123

“A stock phrase used in some of the Jātakas to describe the villages assigned or proposed to be assigned by the kings introduces us for the first time to an important development of the procedure in connection with such grants.”⁵ This phrase⁶ is ‘satasahassuṭṭhānaka gāma,’ meaning ‘the village which produces one hundred thousand pieces (of coins)’. The figure 100,000 is of course purely conventional, but as Ghoshal has pointed out⁷ “a careful consideration of the context in which it occurs is enough to show that it corresponds to the process concerned with assignment which prevailed in Moslem India, and has been conveniently indicated by the term ‘Valuation’, i.e., the estimate of the probable future income from any area, required in order to facilitate the allocation of grants or assignments to claimants entitled to a stated income.”

c4.t5.124

⁵ Ibid., p. 28.

c4.t5.125

⁶ J., I. p. 420; III, p. 229; V, pp. 360, 371.

c4.t5.126

⁷ Ghoshal, op. cit., pp. 28-9.

c4.t5.127

We may conclude this by noticing some of the instances of oppressive measures employed in connection with revenue or tax-collection.

c4.t5.128

Whatever the methods employed in collecting the taxes, the Collectors were certainly oppressing the poor folk to a very great extent. *Balisādha-kas*,¹ *Balipatiggāhakas*,² *Niggāhakas*,³ *Tuṇḍiyas*⁴ and *Akāsiyas*⁵ are the terms used for these tax-collectors. Never is a word said in praise or sympathy or favour of these officers. On the contrary, bitterest feelings and piteous cries of the oppressed are heard. We repeat what we have said before that it was on sound grounds that the name of these collectors passed into a synonym for importunate demand⁶ or hungry robbers-like⁷ draining the poor earnings of the cultivator.

c4.t5.129

¹ J., V. p. 106.

c4.t5.130

² J., II, p. 17.

c4.t5.131

³ J., IV, p. 362-G. 235.

c4.t5.132

⁴ J., V, pp. 102-G. 319; 104-G. 324; 328; 105-G. 333; 106-G. 338.

c4.t5.133

⁵ J., VI, p. 212-G. 913.

c4.t5.134

⁶ J., IV, p. 362-G. 235 “*Nādinne vutthahissāma gāmamhi ca vanamhica niggāhaka-samā rāja, te pi vuccanti brāhmaṇā.*” Fick, op. cit., p. 218 n., remarks, “As the tax-collectors sit down in front of the gates of the tax-payers and do not leave until the tax is collected, so the Brāhmaṇas do not cease begging till they are paid.”

c4.t5.135

⁷ J., VI, p. 212-G. 913.

c4.t5.136

“*Akāsiyā rājuhi vānusiṭṭhā*
*tad assa ādāya dhanaṃ haranti.*”

c4.t5.137

“His subjects being oppressed by taxation,” so says a story, “took their wives and families and wandered in the forest like wild beasts; where once stood villages, there now were none, and the people through the fear of the king’s men (*Rājapurisā*) by day did not venture to dwell in their houses but fencing them about with thorn branches, as soon as the day broke, they disappeared into the forest.⁸

c4.t5.138

⁸ J., V, pp. 98-9

c4.t5.139

“By night to thieves a prey are we, to publicans by day,
Lewd folk abound within the realm….”⁹

c4.t5.140

⁹ Ibid., pp. 102 G. 319; 104-G. 324, 328; 105-G. 303; 106-G. 338.

c4.t5.141

By taxes and fines the folk was crushed as it were sugar-cane in a mill,¹⁰ so much so that they could not lift up their heads.¹¹ These descriptions, with simple yet appropriate similes, are too vivid not to have a realistic background. And even to-day the cultivators’ plight is the same, if not worse.

c4.t5.142

¹⁰ J., II, p. 240 “*Ucchuyante ucchuṃ viya janaṃ pilesi.*”

c4.t5.143

¹¹ J., III, p. 9 “*Mayaṃ balinā piliyamānā sīsaṃ ukkhipituṃ na sakkoma.*”

c4.t5.144

Other sources of state-income are not very definitely stated in the stories. It seems that trade and commerce were a source of income. Such is at least the implication which the following *gātha* conveys:

c4.t5.145

“So should he spoil his citizens—
So apt by trade to gain,
A failing source of revenue
Will his exchequer drain.”¹²

c4.t5.146

¹² J., V, p. 248-G. 177.

c4.t5.147

That taxes were imposed by the king on merchants and fixed by his officials is also seen from another story, where a prince is described as having gained the merchant-folk and traders on his side, among other conciliatory measures, by fixing just and equitable taxes upon them.¹

c4.t5.148

¹ J., IV, p. 132 *Vāṇijānaṃ suṃkāni* (*sulkāni*?)

c4.t5.149

Another important source was that from the city-gates as we know from the *Mahāummagga Jātaka*,² where the king, being pleased with his wise minister, is stated to have given over to him the income, accruing from all the four city-gates (*catusu dvāresu sunkam dāpesi*). This corresponds to the *dvāradeya* of Kauṭilya,³ which was the tax on goods entering and leaving a town or a city, amounting to one-fifth of toll dues which again varied according to commodities imported or exported.

c4.t5.150

² J., VI, p. 347.

c4.t5.151

³ *Arthaśāstra*, II, 6; 21; 22; the *Sāmantapāsādikā*, 1, 52, says that Aśoka's income from the four gates of Pāṭaliputra was 400,000 *kakāpaṇas* daily. Beni Prasad, *The State in Ancient India*, pp. 213-4.

c4.t5.152

GATE-DUES.

c4.t5.153

Numerous references to *daṇḍa* and *kara*⁴ are found in the stories, but no definite conclusions can be formed from them. It appears, however, that litigation in courts of justice brought a considerable amount of income in the form of fines. Says a *gāthā*:

Linked texts (8)

Jātaka — Pāli
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Mahāvastu — Sanskrit
Aśoka
Kalpasūtra — Bhadrabāhu, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Rummindeī Pillar Inscription — Prakrit