The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c14.43

c14.43

The ideas of Manu are, for the most part, echoed by Viṣṇu, who, though technically a Sūtrakāra, really represents the Dharmaśāstra line and belongs to about the third century A.D. He stresses caste and wants the traditional social order to be enforced by the state. If the king could not recover stolen property, he must recompense its owners from his own treasury. For administrative purposes Viṣṇu prescribes the same scheme of local government as Manu, except that he omits the subdivision of twenty villages.⁴ Viṣṇu’s fiscal system is practically the same as that of Manu, though it is far from being definite. The state is entitled to one-sixth of the gross produce of the land, one-tenth of the price of the articles sold within its frontiers and to one-twentieth of those sold outside. The latter is tantamount to an export-duty which might have obtained in practice. The king could charge a sixth on meat, honey, clarified butter, herbs, perfumes, flowers, roots, fruits, liquids and condiments, wood, leaves, skins, earthen pots, stone vessels and anything made of split bamboo. He could take a fiftieth of cattle, gold and clothes. The government is entitled to the whole produce of the mines and to one-half of treasure-trove, the other half going to Brāhmaṇas. As in Manu, labourers are to contribute a day's labour in the month. Attempts at evading the customs mean forfeiture of all the goods. A novel provision is that one-tenth of a debt which might be the subject of a law-suit should go to the king.¹ In Viṣṇu, as in Manu, espionage is an integral part of the machinery of government.