Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Administrative System of the Marathas c23.s13: 2. The Principle of Assessment

Administrative System of the Marathas c23.s13

Language
English

2. The Principle of Assessment

c23.s13.1

It is not for us to decide whether the revenue derived from lands by Hindu monarchs was a land tax or rent. But the principle of assessment, as it existed in Shivaji's time, was very old indeed. Agriculture was then, as it is now, the principal industry in India and land revenue naturally formed the principal source of income of the Peshwas as well as of the Chhatrapatis. But while a long lease and a fixed rent were the special features of the land revenue system under the Peshwas, the founder of the Maratha Empire preferred to share the actual produce of the field with his subjects. Sabhasad tells us that an estimate was made of the produce (in grain) of each bigha and after dividing the grains into five shares three of the shares were left to the Rayat; two shares were taken for the government.⁶ In the Rumindei pillar inscription of Asoka mention is made of *Athabhagiye* or the eighth share of the produce claimed by the crown.⁷ ‘Bhaga,’ as we have already seen, means the portion of produce payable to the government according to Kautilya. According to Vishnu the king was entitled to “a sixth part every year of the grain and a sixth part of all other seeds.”⁸ Manu lays down that the king may take the eighth, sixth or twelfth part of the produce⁹ “according to the difference of the soil and labour necessary to cultivate it,” adds a commentator.∗∗ Youan Chwang found the Maratha tenants paying one-sixth of the produce as rent.¹⁰ The Chola kings, as Rice tells us, also claimed a sixth of the actual produce in the eleventh century A. D. Sher Shah collected one-fourth and Akbar expected one-third of the total crop though the Quran permits no more than one-tenth. Thus it is clear that although the proportion demanded varied from time to time, the principle that a certain proportion of the total crop should be annually rendered to the state was in operation can be traced from Shivaji back to the time of Asoka if not earlier.

c23.s13.2

⁶ S. N. Sen, *Siva Chhatrapati*, p. 37.

c23.s13.3

⁷ Smith, *Asoka*, p. 199.

c23.s13.4

⁸ S. B. E., Vol. VII, p. 16.

c23.s13.5

⁹ S. B. E., Vol. XXV, pp. 236-237.

c23.s13.6

∗∗ The Institutes of Manu, by C. G. Haughton, quoted by Thomas, *Revenue Sources of the Mughal Empire*, p. 15.

c23.s13.7

¹⁰ Watters, *On Youan Chwang*, Vol. I, p. 176.

c23.s13.8

It should however be noted that this principle was not peculiar to the Hinds or to India. Abul Fazl informs us that the rates in Turkey, Turan and Iran were one-fifth, one-sixth and one-tenth respectively.¹¹ From a specified share of the actual crop in Shivaji's time to a fixed rent assessed after the actual inspection of the harvest, under the Peshwas, was but a natural change.

c23.s13.9

¹¹ Ain-i-Akbari, Gladwin, Vol. I, p. 349.

c23.s13.10

Rent or land tax did not form the only item of a state's income in any country in any age remote or recent. This was supplemented by customs duties, taxes, cesses, and undefined exactions. But it was the fixed principle of the Maratha financiers that these levies should not in any case exceed the resources of the tax-payers or in their own words taxes should always be *jivan maphik*. Here also consciously or unconsciously they were following the precepts of their ancestors. Manu, for example, lays down that "after due consideration the king shall always fix in his realm the duties and taxes, in such a manner that both he himself and the man who does the work receive their due reward. As the leech, the calf, and the bee take their food little by little, even so must the king draw from his realm moderate annual taxes."¹² And again, "Let him not cut up his own root (by levying no taxes), nor the root of other (men) by excessive greed; for by cutting up his own root (or theirs), he makes himself or them wretched." ¹³ Shukracharya was of opinion that "the king should receive rent from the peasant in such a way that he be not destroyed. It is to be realised in the fashion of the weaver of the garland not of the coal merchant." ¹⁴ Baudhayana recommends the same principle of moderation when he says "Let him also lay just (duties) on other (marketable goods) according to their intrinsic value without oppressing (the traders)." ¹⁵ This may be an accidental coincidence, as the principle is one that will recommend itself to the good sense of every statesman in every age. But it cannot be an accident that many of the taxes and duties of the Maratha age can be traced to a remote past. The reason of course is not hard to guess as kings in general and autocrats in particular seldom forget a single item of revenue sanctioned by law or custom. ¹⁶ Human nature being the same everywhere neither the Muhammadan nor the Hindu rulers (it is true the Muhammadan rulers often remitted many obnoxious taxes at the time of their accession to the throne, but it seems that the royal mandate was not either respected in distant provinces, or the prohibited duties were revived before long) were likely to forego any of their old rights in this particular direction and this explains the survival of many of these levies with or without legal sanction even to the present times. Let us now see how many of these taxes, duties and extra cesses had been inherited by the Maratha rulers from their predecessors of the Epic and the Pauranic ages.

c23.s13.11

¹² S. B. E., Vol. XXV, p. 236

c23.s13.12

¹³ S. B. E., Vol., XXV, p. 238.

c23.s13.13

¹⁴ Shukra Niti, S. B. H., p. 47.

c23.s13.14

¹⁵ S. B. E., Vol. XIV, p. 200.

c23.s13.15

¹⁶ We know how a lawyer commissioned by Charles I rummaged the state papers of England and ultimately discovered to the utter disgust of the English tax-payers the king's right to levy Shipmoney.

c23.s13.16

3. Taxes and Extra cesses:

c23.s13.17

1. Forced labour. *Begar* or *Beth Begar* as it is called by the Marathas, was certainly one of the most obnoxious, as it was one of the oldest, of these exactions. It is to the credit of the Peshwa Madhava Rao I that he finally abolished it not only on paper but in practice too, as Grant Duff tells us, although it had the sanction of most of the Hindu law-givers of old. Father Manu authorises the king to make mechanics, artisans, and Shudras work for him one day in a month. "Mechanics and artisans, as well as Shudras who subsist by manual labour, he may cause to work (for himself) one (day) in each month" ¹⁷ Vishnu also lays down that "Artizans (such as blacksmiths), manual labourers (such as carpenters), and Shudras shall do work for the king for a day in each month.¹⁸ According to Shukra, "The king should make the artists and artisans to work once in the fortnight."¹⁹ In the Sudhana Kinnaryavadan of the Bodhisattavadana Kalpalata the king Mahendra Sena is made to observe that in no king's dominion can the subject escape forced labour, the king's dues and the king's punishment.²⁰ Forced labour is mentioned by Youan Chwang also, but he says that it was very sparingly imposed.²¹ Lewis Rice says that from inscriptions it appears that towards the close of the thirteenth century forced labour formed one of the imposts levied by Hoysala kings on their subjects.²² It was in vogue under the Muhamadan rulers both in Northern and Southern India. *Begar* is somewhat analogous in principle to the feudal practice that demanded that the tenant should for certain days in the month work in his lord's field, and we need not be surprised if it still survives in some parts of the country. But *begar* is not the only heirloom that the Maratha rulers inherited from their predecessors.

c23.s13.18

¹⁷ S. B. E., Vol. XXV, p. 238.

c23.s13.19

¹⁸ S. B. E., Vol. VII, p. 17.

c23.s13.20

¹⁹ Shukra Niti, S. B. H., p. 149.

c23.s13.21

²⁰ Bodhisattavadana Kalpalata of Kshemendra, Sixty-fourth Pallava.

c23.s13.22

²¹ Watters, On Youan Chwang, Vol. I, p. 176.

c23.s13.23

²² Mysore and Coorg, p. 176.

c23.s13.24

2. *Rahadari* or *Rahdari*, a duty levied on goods or merchandise in transit through land, appears from its Persian name to be a tax of purely Muhammadan origin, but in reality it is an old tax (*Vartani*) frequently mentioned by Kautilya. "The officer in charge of boundaries (*Antapala*)," says he, "shall receive a pana and a quarter as road cess (Vartani) on each load of merchandise." ²³ Again, "In boundaries, ferry men shall receive the toll, carriage cess and road cess." ²⁴ One of the duties of Revenue Collectors and spies was that they should ascertain the amount of road cess. ²⁵ Shukra authorised the king to levy this cess not only upon the merchants but all who had occasion to use the royal road. "For the preservation and repair of the streets, he should have dues from those who use the streets." ²⁶

c23.s13.25

²³ Kautilya, Arthashastra, p. 137.

c23.s13.26

²⁴ Kautilya, p. 159.

c23.s13.27

²⁵ Kautilya, p. 180.

c23.s13.28

²⁶ Shukra Niti, S. B. H., p. 149.

c23.s13.29

3. Another minor tax we come across in Shivaji and pre-Shivaji state papers is *Mohimpatti* which literally means an expedition cess ²⁷ and we find a similar tax mentioned by Kautilya in relation to the duties of Revenue Collectors and spies. "As regards foreign merchandise of superior or inferior quality arriving thither by land or water, they shall ascertain the amount of toll, road-cess, conveyance-cess, military cess, etc.²⁸ But whether these two taxes were analogous in character it is hard to ascertain now.

c23.s13.30

²⁷ Vide the list of taxes compiled by me and embodied in Book I.

c23.s13.31

²⁸ Kautilya, Arthashastra, p. 180.

c23.s13.32

4 & 5. In Shivaji's time two taxes *Telpatti* and *Tup* by name were not uncommon. *Telpatti* literally means an oil cess and *Tup* is clarified butter. These were in all probability taxes in kind exacted from the manufacturer. We may seek their origin in that passage of Manu which authorises the king to take "the sixth part of trees, meat, honey, clarified butter, perfumes, herbs, substances used for flavouring food, flowers, roots, and fruits."²⁹ An identical provision is also found in the Vishnu Smriti.³⁰ Nor is Kautilya altogether silent about these taxes. We have already referred to villages that supplied dairy produce.³¹ But he includes oil and clarified butter in more unequivocal terms among the items of revenue when he recounts the imposts that come under the head of forts. "Tolls, fines, weights and measures, the town-clerk, the superintendent of coinage, the superintendent of seals and passports, liquor, slaughter of animals, threads, oils, ghee, etc., come under the head of forts."³² We have also seen in the famous Siyadoni inscription how the oilmen levied a voluntary impost of a certain measure of oil in favour of the local temple. This is however a North Indian inscription. But we have already seen that the impost was not at all unknown in Southern India as well. Ghi or clarified butter was one of the "imposts professedly abolished by Firuz Shah in A.D. 1375."³³ It may therefore be safely concluded that Telpatti and Tup were very old imposts possibly as old as the 4th century B.C. if not older.

c23.s13.33

²⁹ S. B. E., Vol. XXV, p. 237.

c23.s13.34

³⁰ S. B. E., Vol. VII, p. 16.

c23.s13.35

³¹ Kautilya, p. 178.

c23.s13.36

³² Kautilya, Arthashastra, pp. 65-66.

c23.s13.37

³³ Thomas, Revenue Resources of the Mughal Empire, p. 5.

c23.s13.38

6. "Weights and measures" formed one of those imposts that, as we have seen from an extract quoted above, came under the head of the forts in Mauryan days. Kautilya explains the nature of this tax while recounting the duties of the goldsmith in the high road. "Weighing balance and counterweights shall be purchased from the superintendent in charge of them. Otherwise a fine of twelve Panas shall be imposed."³⁴ The standard balance and weight are described at length in the chapter dealing with the office of the superintendent of weights and measures,³⁵ where we further find that "The Superintendent shall charge 4 mashas for stamping weights or measures. A fine of 27¼ panas shall be imposed for using unstamped weights or measures.

c23.s13.39

³⁴ Kautilya, Arthashastra, p. 108.

c23.s13.40

³⁵ Kautilya, Arthashastra, p. 125.

c23.s13.41

Traders shall every day pay one kakani to the Superintendent towards the charge of stamping the weights and measures."³⁶ Imported commodities were similarly stamped before they could be offered for sale. "When merchants with their merchandise arrive at the toll-gate, four or five collectors shall take down who the merchants are, whence they come, what amount of merchandise they have brought and where for the first time the sealmark has been made on the (merchandise). Those whose merchandise has not been stamped with sealmark shall pay twice the amount of toll. For counterfeit seal, they shall pay eight times the toll. If the sealmark is effaced or torn (the merchant in question) shall be compelled to stand in ghatikasthana. When one kind of seal is used for another or when one kind of merchandise has been otherwise named, the merchants shall pay a fine of 1¼ panas for each load."³⁷ Every information about this particular impost has been supplied by the Mauryan sage and there is hardly anything left to be desired. We are therefore in a position to estimate its exact character and even a careless comparison will convince one that this Mauryan impost is undoubtedly the prototype of the Marathi *Bat Chhapai*. It has been described by Mr. Elphinstone as a fee on the annual examination of weights (this specially affected the retail traders but fell on others too) and measures.³⁸ From an entry in the Peshwa's Diaries it appears that a fee was charged for *Chhapa* or stamping of cloth. "The duty on stamping cloth was 5 p.c. on the value of imported cloth and 2½ p.c. on cloth of local manufacture and sellers of unstamped cloths were ordered to be fined."

c23.s13.42

³⁶ Kautilya, p. 130.

c23.s13.43

³⁷ Kautilya, Arthashastra, pp. 135-136.

c23.s13.44

³⁸ Elphinstone, Report on the Territories recently conquered from the Paishwa.

c23.s13.45

These instances could be multiplied; even such minor imposts as *Shingshingoti* and *Jhadjhadora* can be traced to Kautilya, Manu, Vishnu, and other law-makers. House-tax is mentioned in the *Shukraniti*. Lewis Rice informs us that in the sixteenth century, "under Vijayanagar, the marriage tax was abolished causing much rejoicing among all classes."³⁹ Marriage tax or *Lagnapatti* therefore must have been in existence in the Vijayanagar dominions before its abolition in the sixteenth century. Even Jangampatti, a tax whose very name implied its recent origin (for the Jangamas or Shaiva Lingayets were first organised as a sect towards the close of the 11th century A.D.; the tax therefore must have been levied some time later) was a pre-Shivaji impost. From epigraphic evidence Rice concludes that Jangampatti or a tax on the Jangamas existed in 1505 under the Vijayanagar rule.⁴⁰ Octroi duties, such as the Marathas exacted on each load of grain or salt or merchandise carried by men or transport cattle had also been long customary in India. Such imposts are mentioned in the Munoli Panchalinga Deva inscription of Danda-Nayaka Purushottama as well as in the Pehava inscription.⁴¹

c23.s13.46

³⁹ Mysore and Coorg, p. 175.

c23.s13.47

⁴⁰ Mysore and Coorg, p. 174.

c23.s13.48

⁴¹ Bühler, Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 184.

c23.s13.49

4. Octroi:

c23.s13.50

Kautilya gives a long list showing the graduated scales of octroi which varied according to the capacity of the transport animal.

c23.s13.51

"A minor quadruped as well as a man carrying some load shall pay one masha.
A head-load, a load carried on shoulders, a cow, and a horse shall each pay 2 mashas.
A camel and a buffalo shall each pay 4 mashas.
A small cart 5 mashas; and a cart (of medium size) drawn by bulls shall pay 6 mashas, and a big cart 7 mashas.
A head-load of merchandise ¼ masha; this explains other kinds of loads."⁴²

c23.s13.52

⁴² Kautilya, pp. 158, 159.

c23.s13.53

An impost similar to Ashva Zakat is mentioned in the Harsha Inscription where we find that "one dramma on every horse was assigned by the * * * of horse dealers from the Northern country."⁴³

c23.s13.54

⁴³ Kielhorn, Ep. Ind., Vol. II, p 129.

c23.s13.55

We need not further pursue this question. The instances we have already furnished will suffice to establish that most of these taxes, cesses, and imposts of the Maratha times had long been in existence before the foundation of the Maratha empire. It is not a discredit to them that they continued to levy some or most of these, but it is really very creditable in those days of autocracy and irresponsible government that from time to time these Maratha rulers (characterised as mere plunderers, robbers and scoundrels by the late Dr. Vincent Smith in his Oxford History of India) rose to the occasion and abolished many harassing duties and obnoxious imposts as did the Hindu rulers of Vijayanagar⁴⁴ and the Muhammadan emperors of Delhi.⁴⁵

c23.s13.56

⁴⁴ Rice, Mysore and Coorg, p. 175.

c23.s13.57

⁴⁵ Thomas, Revenue Resources of the Mughal Emperor, Abul Fazl, Ain-i Akbari and Badauni's Muntakhab ul Labub.

Linked texts (7)