Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c11.t24: a) Land Revenue

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c11.t24

Language
English

a) Land Revenue

c11.t24.1

As with the Roman Empire¹ the chief source of Maurya income was the receipt from land. In the West the process of fiscal reorganization from Hadrian to Diocletian led up to the system of assessment for fifteen years. But in regard to the Mauryas no information is available as to the period for which the valuations were made.

c11.t24.2

¹ Arnold, pp. 203, 204; Ramsay, 275—281; *Enc. Brit.* (Finance).

c11.t24.3

In Athens land belonged to the state. In Maurya India certain passages of the *Artha-śâstra* may lend color to the hypothesis as to the "public ownership" of the chief "agent of production". If Kautilya's statements may be taken as "positive law" on the subject, both land and water belonged to the government. The people could exercise their proprietary right in regard to all other species of property excepting these two.² But, on the other hand, this position will appear to be inconsistent with the fact noted above that two distinct items were enumerated as land-revenue from the *râṣṭra* or country districts of the empire. The *sîtâ* was the income from the crown-lands, and was therefore rent. The other realization was specifically known as *bhâga*, the "share" of the state in the "produce" of the people's lands. The private proprietors were known as *sva-vîryopajîvinah*. Besides, the right of private property in real estate was clearly recognized in the law of sales. According to the legislation in the *Artha-śâstra*,³ village lands were to be sold in the presence of forty neighbors who owned land in the vicinity. The state could demand only the legitimate excise on the sale. The same proprietary right is to be inferred from, though also limited by, the ruling that lands could be sold by cultivators only to cultivators, and that persons enjoying revenue-free lands could sell them only to persons who already possessed such lands. The distinction between crown-lands and private lands is also to be noted in the law of escheat. By the general law on the subject the rights of ownership over houses, fields, gardens, tanks and temples were forfeited if proprietors took no cognizance for a continuous period of five years.¹

c11.t24.4

² *Artha* II, i, vi. Cf. the Mohammedan theory of public domain, Aghnides, pp. 500—521. Note the conditions of land tenure in Japan, Asakawa's *Early Inst. Life*, p. 73.

c11.t24.5

³ *Ind. Ant.* 1905, p. 10; Law's *Hind. Pol.* pp. 161, 162.

c11.t24.6

¹ *Ind. Ant.* 1905, pp. 9, 105, 113.

c11.t24.7

In the budget of the Maurya Empire as in that of the Roman we have therefore to look for two entries, theoretically considered, under land revenue. The first was rent paid by the *ryot* or tenant to the state-landlord, the second was a "direct tax" paid by the citizen to the government. The imperial demand from land was very high, higher even than what we have seen under the Cholas. For the land alone,² where irrigation was carried on by hands the due was 1/5th of the yield; where irrigation was carried on by conveying water on shoulders or through water raised from tanks, lakes and streamlets the due was 1/4th; and where irrigation was carried on by pumping (*sroto-yantra*) water from rivers, the due was 1/3. An additional *udaka-bhâga* or water-rate was charged by the government at 1/4th or 1/5th of the produce. The total rates ranged therefore from 2/5ths or 40 per cent to 7/12ths or about 57 per cent of the gross outturn. Provisions for the remission of taxes are recorded. But it was not done on any doctrinaire principle. Abatements were graduated according to the difficulties and cost of improvement effected by cultivators.³ Gardens were assessed at the same rates as cultivated lands. An additional one-sixth or 16 2/3 per cent had to be paid as excise on sales.⁴

c11.t24.8

² *Ibid*, p. 110. Note the 50 per cent in Islamic theory, Aghnides, 529.

c11.t24.9

³ See details, *Ibid*, p. 9.

c11.t24.10

⁴ *Ibid*, p. 114.

Linked texts (2)