Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c11.t30: 5. The Ability to Pay

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c11.t30

Language
English

5. The Ability to Pay

c11.t30.1

A study of the finances provokes naturally the correlated investigation into the general economic condition of the empire. But as yet it is hardly allowable to attempt a wide solution as to the "ability" of the people to meet the diverse demands of the government. In the first place, an enormous rise in prices may be postulated because of the high rates of customs and excise. This was sure to be felt by the entire community as consumers. In the second place, the normal land tax of 40 to 57 per cent, though it may not have shorn the landowning or agricultural classes to the skin, was certainly not a moderate levy. In the third place, the traders and the intellectual middle classes could not get scot-free from the imperial demand as the property tax was mercilessly applied to them especially in emergencies. And in the fourth place, the moneyed aristocracy, bankers, gilds and other wealthy groups had to "vomit" out their gold at the call of the empire.

c11.t30.2

Economically speaking, then, we have no grounds for believing that there was any class-discrimination of the type to which France, for instance, was a victim during the *ancien régime*. The Mauryas maintained no privileged class on anything like an appreciable scale. Nor would the government demands, though heavy, appear to have been oppressive or likely to sap the economic foundations of the society. On the contrary, there were certain distinctive services by which the state sought to develop the "staying power" and taxable capacity of the *prakriti*. We have spoken above of the socialistic trend of Hindu states as *dharmastaaten*, in so far as the sphere of their activity was coextensive with the range of human interests. It is necessary now to add that the same tendency is noticeable in two other directions.

c11.t30.3

First, the Maurya Empire owned several industries and controlled the production of wealth in certain lines. Government supervision of some sort or other brought the economic functions of the people within the compass of partial "public ownership." The consequent abolition of entrepreneurs or middlemen in a few channels of business was a positive advantage to the community. Secondly, the Empire sought to regulate by legislation the more important branch of a nation's economic life, viz. distribution and exchange, i. e. value. The maximum rate of interest was determined by the government.¹ The market was protected from the ravages of "profiteers". Reasonable prices and fair profits were fixed by official experts after calculating the legitimate expenses of production including the cost of marketing.² The government scheduled likewise the rates of wages and fees for laundrymen, painters, dramatists, singers, and artists.³

c11.t30.4

² See details in the *Ind. Ant.* 1905, pp. 55—57.

c11.t30.5

³ *Ibid*, p. 59.

c11.t30.6

Such an imperial intervention in the *prakriti's* economic activity, or what is the same thing, such "state socialism" under "enlightened despots", must have been appreciated at least by the common laborer. The rate of wages in Maurya India was 5 *paṇas* a month or 15 dollars a year.⁴ It is interesting to observe that in Chola India in the eleventh and twelfth centuries a temple janitor earned 8¹/₃ Rupees per month, i. e. $ 30 a year.⁵ These rates, howsoever low by the present day American standard, were much above the Ricardian "iron law of wages" when compared with the current prices and the purchasing power of money during the two periods.⁶

c11.t30.7

¹ The rate was 15 per cent per year (Law's *Hind. Pol.* pp. 171—177). The usual rate at Athens was 12 to 18 per cent (Schömann, p. 435).

c11.t30.8

⁴ *Ibid*, p. 53.

c11.t30.9

⁵ Aiyangar, p. 181.

c11.t30.10

⁶ *Ind. Ant.* 1905, p. 53. One Rupee in Maurya India bought 49 *sers* (Madras) of rice. In British India one Rupee today buys not more than 8 *sers*. *Cf.* Aiyangar, p. 183.

c11.t30.11

And as for the salaries paid by the government they were liberal enough to satisfy the officers' appetite. They were indeed, humanly speaking, calculated to prevent the desire for "squeeze".¹ The common soldier of the Maurya Empire received 500 *paņas* ($ 125) per year. The highest salary in the third and fourth centuries B. C. e. g. that for the generalissimo was 48,000 *paņas* ($12,000) a year. The *samâhartâ* (collector-general) was paid at half this rate. The earning of a middle class man e. g. of an accountant in southern India under the Cholas was 16⅔ Rupees per month, i. e. 60 dollars a year.² Payments were either in kind or in money. The Cholas used to pay even handicraftsmen often in land for customary work. Under the Mauryas payment in gold might be commuted for that in kind at fixed rates.³

c11.t30.12

¹ Vide the list of salaries in the *Artha*, V, iii. (*Ind. Ant.* 1909, pp. 263, 264).

c11.t30.13

² Aiyangar, p. 181.

c11.t30.14

³ *Ind. Ant.* 1909, p. 264. For 5 *paņas* one obtained 165 *sers* (Madras). *Ind. Ant.* 1905, p. 53.

c11.t30.15

We are not concerned here with "index numbers" or the statistics of wages and prices nor with the manner in which the tariff, if it was really protective to some extent, may have affected the course of investments, commerce and industries. The stray figures for the third and fourth centuries B..C. and the eleventh and twelfth centuries may be taken for what they are worth. Only, it is necessary to bear in mind that in British India today the average *per capita* income is 20 Rupees or 6⅔ dollars *per annum*. On the whole, then, it may reasonably be concluded that the financial burden⁴ of *pax sârva-bhaumica*, howsoever heavy it might be whether absolutely or relatively, was easily borne by a contented peasantry and working class, a prosperous industrial and commercial aristocracy, and last but not least, a well-paid civil service and army, especially in view of the fact that under Chandragupta and Asoka the people of India had the conscious satisfaction of being citizens of the first and greatest power of the world.

c11.t30.16

⁴ For a Hindu theory of state housekeeping see *Pos. Back.* Vol. II, pp. 111—126.

Linked texts (1)