The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c15.117

Language: English

c15.117.1

The Gupta Inscriptions bear out the inference suggested by the Dharma Śâstras and Arthaśâstras that the number of taxes was very large in ancient India. Unfortunately, some of the terms used are obscure. The inscriptions seem to assume that they were familiar to all. But they occur rarely in literature. The dictionaries are sometimes silent on them and sometimes contradict one another. Almost every grant is made with the Udraṅga (Sodraṅga). Some scholars have taken it to mean boundary or something like it. But the context supports the view that it was a species of revenue. Bühler drew attention to the fact that in the Śâśvatakoṣa (ed. Zachariaes, pp. xxix, 260) Udraṅga is explained as Uddhâra and Udgrantha (Udgrâha) and thus seems to mean the share of the produce usually collected by the king.² It is generally mentioned at the head of all dues in the inscriptions. Probably, it refers to the chief tax. Another term which is mentioned quite as frequently and, in general, immediately after Udraṅga, is Uparikara. A grant of land is usually made Soparikara (with the Uparikara). A few scholars have taken it to refer to a boundary or some variety of land but, most probably, it refers to another species of dues. Fleet held it to be a tax levied on cultivators who had no proprietary rights in the soil. Miscellaneous dues were levied under numerous heads.

c15.117.2

Thus the Poonâ Plates of the Vâkâṭaka Queen Prabhâvati Guptâ, daughter of Candragupta II and wife of Rudrasena II, speak of the claims of the state on pasturage, hides, charcoal, mines, purchase of fermenting drugs, hidden treasures, deposits, abundance of milk and flowers, succession of cattle.¹ In several inscriptions reference is made to Dhânya and Hiraṇya as heads of state dues. The former seems to be some special kind of contribution in grain, while the latter, which means gold, undoubtedly pertains to right of the state to gold and probably also other mines. Vâta, another due, defies explanation but Bhûta, which is often mentioned with it, is probably a tax on what is withered. Another source of revenue was the occasional contributions for the royal army, militia or police. Along with the enumeration of exemptions from taxation, it is stated in grant after grant that the plots of land in question are not to be entered by Câṭas and Bhâṭas. Fleet interpreted the last two terms to mean irregular and regular troops. Others have taken Câṭa to mean a thief or robber but it makes no sense to state that particular pieces of land are not to be entered by thieves or robbers. That command would be of universal application. In no case could there be any ground for making such a statement along with exemptions from taxation. Câṭa probably refers to a sort of police force.

c15.117.3

From the fiscal point of view, the importance of these provisions is that they indicate a distinct source of revenue in the form of levies. It will appear that the petty dues, particularly, those in kind, charged from a village went to pay the village headman and other local officers. Manu (VII, 199) says that the salary of a village headman should ordinarily be those articles which the villagers ought to furnish daily to the king such as food, drink, fuel.² Viṣṭika is forced labour which was counted among the regular royal dues. One of the commonest features of ancient Indian grants is that the pieces of land granted are declared free from the obligation of supplying forced labour. The grants of feudatories, too, contain that provision.¹ Daśāparādhāḥ refers to fines levied for ten offences, viz., (a) three offences of the body—theft, murder and adultery, (b) four offences of speech—harsh, untruthful, libellous, and pointless words, and (c) three offences of mind—coveting other's property, thinking of wrong, and devotion to what is not true. This traditional classification throws little light on the actual administration of justice. Thinking could hardly have been punished. Murder would have carried a higher penalty than fines. The term daśāparādhāḥ is only a generic name for sins and in its administrative sense, only means judicial fines in general.

c15.117.4

However, it definitely proves that justice was one of the recognised sources of revenue and, as such, could be alienated to favourite grantees.