The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c11.t28: e) Economic Earnings
The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c11.t28
- Language
- English
e) Economic Earnings
c11.t28.1
The second head of non-tax revenue comprises the items of income that the Empire derived from its economic enterprises. Shipping lines² with fleets of boats for passengers and goods were operated by the state. The traffic by sea was large enough to render the undertaking a lucrative proposition. The Empire carried on another business under the supervision of the naval department. State boats were let out on hire by the *nâvadhyakṣa* or port commissioner for purposes of pearl fishery and the fishing of conch shells.² The ferry charges on rivers must also be considered in connection with the government's commercial ventures. These were regulated according to the size of rivers and the amount of freight carried.³ Any load of commodities whether for sale or not was charged four *mâṣâs* (about six cents). One *mâṣâ* was paid by a traveller with a minor quadruped carrying some load. Two *mâṣâs* were demanded for a load carried on the head or on the shoulders, a cow or a horse. Double was the rate for transporting a camel or a buffalo. The ferry charge for a small cart was five *mâṣâs*, for one of medium size drawn by bulls six *mâṣâs*, and for a big cart seven *mâṣâs*. The ferry dues on large rivers were twice the respective rates.
c11.t28.2
² *Ind. Ship.* pp. 103, 106. Note *en passant* the regulations to protect passengers on ships operated by private companies, *Ind. Ant.* 1905, p. 113.
c11.t28.3
³ *Ind. Ant.* 1905, pp. 53, 111, 112. Sixteen *mâṣâs* make one *paṇa*.
c11.t28.4
But by far more important than these quasi-political commercial undertakings as sources of "sinews of war" or "roots of the army" were the industries owned and run or controlled by the government. Altogether three state-monopolies are mentioned in the Kautilyan schedule. The first monopoly was oil. The oil seeds were all brought to the government granary and pressed and made into oil by the state mills.⁴ The administration of tobacco monopoly in France since the time of Colbert (1674) furnishes a modern analogue. The next monopoly was salt, as we have mentioned above. In order to "protect" this government industry the Empire legislated that purchasers of foreign salts must have to pay compensation to cover the loss sustained by the state.⁵ Evidently foreign salt was not excluded altogether from the territory. There was, besides, the system of granting license by which private capitalists could manufacture and sell the commodity. In addition to the economic “profits” from the salt industry the government thus came to realize a large revenue from the customs, excise, and licenses.
c11.t28.5
⁴ *Ibid*, p. 55.
c11.t28.6
⁵ *Ibid*, p. 54.
c11.t28.7
The realization of salt *gabelle* was threefold. First, the importing merchant had to pay the regular 16⅔ per cent as customs plus the 5 per cent on the remainder as excise. Secondly, the indigenous manufacturer purchased license from the government on the same terms. There was thus no economic discrimination against foreign salt. The effects of a countervailing excise duty were brought in operation, indicating the “fiscal” character of the tariff. And thirdly, it appears that the government charged 13⅛ per cent as premium on the money that it received as price for the salt collected from the importer and the home manufacturer.¹
c11.t28.8
¹ *Ibid*, p. 53.
c11.t28.9
The most important monopoly of the Maurya Empire was the mines and minerals. Indeed the manufacture of salt was scheduled in the *Artha-śâstra* under the category of mining. As defined by Kautilya mining was a comprehensive term, including as in mediaeval British law “wreck of the sea and royal fish”.² There were therefore two branches of mining under the Mauryas: (1) ocean mining, i. e. pearl fishery, the fishing of conch shells and corals, and manufacture of salt, and (2) land mining.³ The revenues from land mining were described as those accruing from gold mines, silver mines, mines of rubies, and metals such as iron, copper, etc.⁴
c11.t28.10
² Palgrave, Vol. II, p. 765.
c11.t28.11
³ Law’s *Hind. Pol.*, pp. 5—10.
c11.t28.12
⁴ *Ind. Ant.* 1905, p. 47.
c11.t28.13
In ancient and mediaeval legislation or custom mines were “public” everywhere.⁵ The silver mines at Laurium were owned by Athens. Mines were state property under the Roman Empire. Down to 1688 all English mines belonged to the crown. In 1568 the Exchequer Chamber stated the theory that the “king shall have the whole of the base metal.”⁶ Under the Mauryas also both land and ocean mines as well as the essaying of ores, coining, and commerce in minerals were *jura regalia*, or crown rights *sui generis*. But the mines were not worked by the government except when the operations needed small outlay. Modern advocates of modified *laissez faire* i. e. partial public ownership may quote the Maurya precedent as an instance of the “individualistic minimum” of state intervention in industry. As a rule, the Empire let out the mines on royalty basis to private enterprise. The royalty included nine distinct items.¹ As usual, the rates were high. The rental for the Laurium mines was only 4⅑ per cent.² The French mines yielded 10 per cent.³ The English rate on copper was 12½ per cent to the state plus 11⅑ per cent to the landlord.⁴ But the Mauryas demanded 16⅔ to 20 per cent as *vibhâga*, i. e. the government's "share" in the yield. In addition the capitalists had to pay 13⅛ per cent plus 5 per cent as sundry charges.⁵
c11.t28.14
⁵ For a general discussion on “state mines” see Bastable’s *Public Finance*, pp. 174—176.
c11.t28.15
⁶ Palgrave, *loc. cit.*
c11.t28.16
¹ *Ind. Ant.* 1905, p. 113.
c11.t28.17
² Schömann, p. 448.
c11.t28.18
³ Brissaud, p. 487.
c11.t28.19
⁴ Palgrave, *loc. cit.*
c11.t28.20
⁵ *Ind. Ant. loc. cit.* Islamic law has 20 per cent, cf. Aghnides, 528.
c11.t28.21
There may have been some other industries similarly undertaken or let out on license with a view to augmenting the public income. The shipbuilding and munitions industries were of course state monopolies, as has been mentioned above. But obviously they are to be considered not so much from the standpoint of finance as of national defense.