Impact of Vedic Culture on Society
by Kaushik Acharya | 2020 | 120,081 words
This page relates 鈥楽ystem of Taxation鈥� of the study on the Impact of Vedic Culture on Society as Reflected in Select Sanskrit Inscriptions found in Northern India (4th Century CE to 12th Century CE). These pages discuss the ancient Indian tradition of Dana (making gifts, donation). They further study the migration, rituals and religious activities of Brahmanas and reveal how kings of northern India granted lands for the purpose of austerities and Vedic education.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
System of Taxation
Some donated villages had to pay a certain amount of revenue to the state treasury,[1] and some were completely tax-free. There are mentions of different types of taxes in the charters, and they would prove that the power to determine taxes and the measurement of taxes were mostly dependent on the king alone. The king has the potential to decide the revenue of approved lands and to increase or decrease taxes in those villages or states. Interestingly, if we go through the inscriptions issued from northern India, we may find the kings did not like oppressive taxations, instead delighted the tenants with light taxations.
Although there are also different interpretations, D.C. Sircar and others have explained specific tax-related terms that frequently used in the inscriptions under discussion. 狈腻濒补苍诲补 Charter of Samudragupta[2] was first mentioned as one of the exemptions when a village was granted as an 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 to 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺. It is said that the donee should not allow the tax-paying cultivators and artisans, etc., of other communities to enter these villages. Otherwise, the 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 will be resumed.[3] The charters, especially of the Maitrakas of 痴补濒补产丑墨, the Early Gurjaras, the Ka峁璦ccuris, and among others list, several taxes from which the donees were exempted.[4] Now we will discuss some tax-related terms those have been used frequently in north Indian inscriptions as follows-
础驳谤补丑腻谤补 and Brahmadeya:
As in the prior period of the Gupta, the 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s were given the pride of place in society, and they functioned as the fulcrum of the institutions. Though one grant was made to a 艢奴诲谤补[5] and several grants were made to Hindu temples,[6] but there has been some confusion in the use of the words 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 and brahmadeya. Both of which were grants made to 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s. These terms seem to have had a different significance. This difference may be examined here as they seem to have referred to different practices.
础驳谤补丑腻谤补:
础驳谤补丑腻谤补 is stated to be 鈥渁 rent-free village in possession of 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s.鈥�[7] This refers to the exclusive 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s ettlement or locality with appertaining land, freed from all taxes.[8] It is interesting to note, in the description part of 狈腻濒补苍诲补 plates of Samudragupta, it is said that all the customary dues such as gold, etc., should be made over the donee. The donee should not allow the tax-paying cultivators and artisans, etc., of other villages to enter these villages. Otherwise, the 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 will be resumed.[9]
In a charter, as it is stated that the village Va峁璦pallik腻 was granted as an 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 with the right to sarvva-pratyaya (all tributes) and as the inhabitants of the village were directed to pay unto the two donee-产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s the pratyayas, suvar艈a, 丑颈谤补峁噛补, etc., as properly measured (samuchitameya), it appears that the 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 donees in the charter were made the 鈥榣ords鈥� of the village, with the villagers subordinated to them. It was made rent-free in the revenue accounts of the king, but the villagers were not exempted from the payments. They were now to make these due payments to the donees.[10]
Any rent-free or tax-free villages or villages were given to the 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s were known as 补驳谤补丑腻谤补s. Again, if given to the gods and goddesses for worship and offerings were known as 诲别惫腻驳谤补丑腻谤补蝉. It is noteworthy that the villages given to 惫补颈艣测补蝉 were known as 惫补颈艣测腻驳谤补丑腻谤补蝉. [11]
Brahmadeya:
Though it was also a grant of a village or plots of land to a single or a group of 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s very often exempt from taxes with so many privileges attached, it is seen to have had significance different from that of an 补驳谤补丑腻谤补. It may appear that the grantee was eligible to be paid the taxes by the residents. But actually, it seems that he was only freed from the obligation the charges mentioned or to render free labor as these to pay charters say that while the grantee tilled the land or handed the land tilled on the strength of the granted land being given to him as brahmadeya (brahmadeya-sthitiya) he should not be hindered.[12] However, some of the inscriptions like Malavalli (Karnataka) inscription (mostly from south India) make it appear that the brahmadeyas were not exempt from the payment of taxes to the king but had to pay the fees to the temple.[13]
础惫补苍颈谤补苍诲丑谤补苍测腻测补:
It is referred to as 补惫补苍颈-谤补苍诲丑谤补-苍测腻测补 that same as 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补 and pertained to the right and privileges that could be enjoyed by one who brought some land under cultivation anew. Likewise, the term 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补-辫颈诲丑腻苍补-苍测腻测补 means the custom relating to the reclamation of fallow lands.
叠丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补:
The rule of 产丑奴尘颈肠丑丑颈诲谤补 is often mentioned in the context of rights over granted land to be enjoyed by the donee but has not been satisfactorily interpreted. Prima facie, it would appear to have referred to the rights of one who cut or brought under the plough, some land, for the first time. It may be stressed again that the clauses referring to the exclusion of such land in the grant-village as had already been assigned to gods and 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s and to the grant having been made with 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补-苍测腻测补 which more often does not include in grants of villages (sometimes even plots of land) as conventional formalities.
叠丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补 is ordinarily taken to refer to the rule concerning the concessions granted to one, on his bringing some virgin land under the plough. But from the frequency and context of occurrence of this regulatory clause in land grant charters, it appears that it was the law that enforced the continued agricultural exploitation of the land.[14] , [15] , [16]
Udra峁単a and Uparikara:
Though the exact derivation and meaning of this word 耻诲谤补峁単补 are not ascertainable, from the context, it can be concluded that it referred to a particular tax on land.[17]
The term uparikara was minor taxes or taxes on temporary tenants. From the derivation of the word seems that it was an additional tax on the leading tax. D.C. Sircar opines it was the cesses levied on land extra to the land tax.[18]
痴腻迟补-叠丑奴迟补-笔谤补迟测腻测补:
It was any income that might arise out of changes in the natural or climatic conditions. It seems to have referred to the royal rights over treasures blown in by the winds into the land and buried treasures.[19] Possibly the treasures blown in by the winds are those in ships wrecked being caught in storms of hurricanes over the sea and washed ashore.[20]
Dh腻nya-hira峁嚹錮eya and Suvar峁嘺hira峁嚹錮eya:
It seems to have referred to the contributions in paddy and gold demanded adhock from the land-holders by the king. It could have also related to the (land)-tax payable in kind and cash.[21]
As 蝉耻惫补谤峁嘺 and hiranya both meaning gold are stated to have formed the pratyaya, it must be understood that one of them referred to a minted gold coin and the other bullion. It is fascinating that the villagers in this area and during the period of rule of the king of this charter were obliged to pay bullion gold (to the king or a person nominated by him). It is not possible to say if these payments were apart from the taxes. The investiture of the status of 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 to the village in favor of the donees implied that the taxes would have to be paid to them.
Bh腻ga and Bhoga:
The term 产丑腻驳补 referred to the king鈥檚 share of the produce (as due to the proprietor of land), and bhoga meant the collections besides the 产丑腻驳补, which were claimed in kind by the proprietors of land from land-holders/tenants.[22] Again Bh og a means full ownership.
顿补艣腻辫补谤腻诲丑补:
This term denotes fines for the ten offenses.[23] It is the right, 诲补艣腻辫补谤腻诲丑补 might have referred to the sitting in judgment over those accused of committing the ten kinds of crimes138,139 and to the appropriation of the fines imposed and collected from those convicted of the ten types of crimes. In olden days most of the offenses were compounded by the levy of a fine from those convicted of those offenses. It is not possible to say whether the donees themselves or others designated for that purpose sat in judgments.[24]
Nidhi and Upanidhi:
Some grants include rights over nidhi and upanidhi. It is not clear from those charters what was precisely meant by these two terms. Some scholars have taken nidhi to mean treasure troves and upanidhi as deposits or accumulation on the soil. This may be taken to mean hidden treasures and deposits as well.[141], [25]
Vis峁璱ka and 碍耻艣颈诲补
The term 惫颈蝉峁璱办腻 denotes free labor as fell due in proportion to the size of the holding. An inscription of Eastern 颁腻濒耻办测补 Vi峁ａ箛uvardhana from Maharashtra[26] states that a village which was granted to two 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 brothers was out of bounds to 颁腻峁璦, 产丑补迟峁璦, and 办耻艣颈诲补诲颈苍补尘. 碍耻艣颈诲补 is known to have been money lendees (kusida). Thus it is known that moneylenders were busy in that village even as early as the 7th Century CE. This gives inkling to the fact how liquid cash or capital was hard to come by during those times.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Ibid., vol. III, p. 340.
[2]:
USVAE, vol. III, p. 19.
[3]:
Loc. cit.
[4]:
Most of the charters say that the grant was made with sa-耻诲谤补峁単补. As per inspirational evidence, 耻诲谤补峁単补 is understood as the land-tax. As per an inscription of Bharatbala of the Pandavas of Mekala (USVAE, vol. III, no. 113 A) the 耻诲谤腻苍驳补 is stated to have been one of the exemptions granted in respect of two villages granted to a buddhist 惫颈丑腻谤补 and the villagers were asked to hand over those taxes exempted to the 惫颈丑腻谤补 and be obedient to the administrators of the vihara (ibid., no. 188, Copper-plate Inscription of 惭补丑腻谤腻箩补 Bhuta, c. 506 CE) sa-uparikara (with extra levies) sarvv-adanasangrahya (with the right to receive all gifts) sarvva-ditya-vishti-parihino (with exemption from gifts, obligation to render, free labour -here the charter of the Gurjaras and Ka峁錭curis and pratibhedika of which the meaning is not clear), sa-bhutavatapratyaya (obligation to make over treasures brought in by ghosts or wind), sa hiranyadeya (the obligation to in remit taxes), sa-das-aparadha, (the right over rendering free labour) freedom from interference from all royal officials.
It may appear that the grantee was eligible to be paid the taxes by the residents. But actually, it seems that he was only freed from the obligation the taxes mentioned or to render free labour as these to pay charters say that while the grantee tilled the land or hand the Jand tilled on the strength of the granted land being given to him as brahmadeya;he should not be hindered. [USVAE, vol. IV, part I, Bandora Plates of Maurya Anirjitavarman (no. 30); Palit腻n腻
Plates of S墨l腻ditya I (no. 37), Naval腻khi Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补 (no. 38), Wala Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补-I (no. 39), Vala Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补-I (no. 40), Vala Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补 (no. 42), Dhank Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补 I (no. 44), Kheda (Kaira) Plates of Dhar腻sena IV (no.119), etc.]
[5]:
USVAE, vol. IV, part I, no.98 [Bedirur Grant of Bhuvikrama].
[6]:
Ibid., vol. IV, part I, Dadhimati-Mata Inscription of the time of Dhruhlana (no. 41), Dhank Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补-I (痴补濒补产丑墨) (no. 44), Sirpur Stone Inscription of 艢iv腻gupta (Somava峁僺i) (no. 48), Senakapat Inscription of the time of 艢iv腻gupta-B腻l腻rjuna (Somava峁僺i) (no. 84), Sirpur Stone Inscription of the time of Mah腻艣iv腻guptaB腻l腻rjuna (Somava峁僺i) (no. 85), Bhamodra Mohota Plates of Dhruvasena II (Valabhi) (no. 101), Dabok Inscription of Dhavalappadeva (Guhilot) (no. 111), Samoli Inscription of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补 (Guhilot) (no. 115), Mallar plates of 艢iv腻gupta (Guhilot) (no. 137), Lakshmesvar Inscription (颁腻濒耻办测补-Sendraka) (no. 49) and Buddhist establishments Hiregutti Plates of Bhoja Asankita (Bhoja) (no. 9), Vala Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补 (痴补濒补产丑墨) (no. 36), Wala-Palit腻n腻 Plates of S墨l腻ditya I (痴补濒补产丑墨) (no. 37), Wala Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补-I (痴补濒补产丑墨) (no. 39), Vala Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补 also (痴补濒补产丑墨) (no. 42) the Maitrakas of 痴补濒补产丑墨 claimed to have extended equal patronage to Hindu Jain and Buddhist establishments also.
In their charters their grants were mostly made to the establishments around the 惫颈丑腻谤补 established by Dadda, the sister's daughter of Dhruvasena I. (c. 216-535 CE) The majority of the charters are of grants made to 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s (Even the 痴补濒补产丑墨 charters granting land to Buddhist establishments said that the establishment could enjoy the property in the same way as a brahmadeya and none should prevent those in charge of the grantee establishment from tilling the land themselves or having it cultivated or having it conveyed)
[7]:
D.C. Sircar, Indian Epigraphical Glossary, pp. 10-11.
[8]:
Loc. cit.
[9]:
USVAE, vol. III, p. 19.
[10]:
It is also stated that it denotes "rent-free land given to 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s; a rent-free village, a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 village" (D.C, Sircar, Indian Epigraphical Glossary, p. 10). However inscriptions indicate that 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 villages granted to 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺/ 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s making them as the lords of villages, with the residents therein (including 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s) who were there already, rendered as the serfs, of the grantee/grantees. The earliest such charters, as available, are the two issued by Samudragupta, one of which has come forth from Nalanda, dated in the year 5 (325 CE) (USVAE. vol. III, no. 10) and the other from Gaya dated in the year 9 (328 CE) (ibid., no. 13). In both, the king addressed his order to the grama-valatkausas (persons attached to the treasury of a village) as headed by the 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s of the villages granted. The villages were granted to a single 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 in each case, as, sa-uparika-oddesena-补驳谤补丑腻谤补 (补驳谤补丑腻谤补 along with the income from taxes).
However, it may be pointed out that uparikara was only one of the several taxes and levies or an extra charge from which exemption was granted or which is stated to have accompanied the grant of villages or land (ibid., no. 113 A, USVAE, vol. IV, nos.5, 38, 44, etc.) It is also referred to as 鈥渁dditional taxes,鈥� 鈥渦nfixed taxes,鈥� 鈥渏uvenile taxes鈥� or 鈥渢ax paid by temporary tenants鈥� (D.C. Sircar, Indian Epigraphical Glossary, p. 352). As such, this may make it appear that the grantees of the 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 had been given entitlement only to uparikara. But subsequently when it is found stated in these charters that the villages or village authorities as addressed by the king were enjoined to remit to the donee of the charter, all pratyaya or revenue (due to the king) both in kind (as measured) or paid in gold and further to obey the commands of the donee, and be subservient to him. The records further go on to say that the donees should not allow the tax-paying farmers (kutumbi) and artisans of other villages to enter (and settle down in) the communities made into an 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 in their favor and if such a thing happened the favor of 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 (tenure) would be forfeited.
Inscriptionally, the next record of the grant of an 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 is the Tekkali Plates of Um腻varman, dated c. 359 CE (USVAE, vol. III, no. 27). This record tells about the order of the king to the kutumbins (husbandmen) of the village, Astihavera intimating to them that he had granted that village to a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺, as an 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 relieving it of all burdens of taxes (sarwakara-bhara-pariharaih parihritya) and thus making it an a-kara-grahika-grama. Therefore having come to know this, they should follow the regulations pertaining to this status of the village and of the donee and remit to the donee all levies (due to the king) both which are measured (grain) and which are paid in gold, [(ibid., no. 37. Additionally, this record says that the village granted as 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 was detached from the enjoyment of Dantayavagu (meaning not clear) and that it was given the same status as the 36 补驳谤补丑腻谤补s )]. (Ibid., no. 41). A record of Salankayana Nandivarman dated c. 391 CE (ibid., no. 43) tells that a village was granted by the king to two brothers, as an everlasting 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 as the villagers (all types) were ordered to pay to the donee the tolls, customary offerings and vata-cayana (demands of manual labor). When in these charters, it is stated that the villages granted were also exempted from the burden of taxes as cited above, the effect of it was only to fulfill an official requirement as it had to be noted in the official revenue registers that the village would no more figure. However, the exemption was not to extend to the husbandmen in the village. They had to remit whatever taxes and levies as was assessed on the village by the king to the donee instead of to the king. Further in some of these grants of 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 the requirement of the villagers to be obedient to the donee is briefly stated that they should act in adherence to the dictates of (pertinent to the) 补驳谤补丑腻谤补s (ibid., no. 27, 231, etc.).
Coming to the inscription issued during c. 600-650 CE (ibid., vol. IV, part I), the Bonda and the Boloda plates of 惭补丑腻艣颈惫补-Tivara (of the Panduvamsa dynasty of South 碍辞艣补濒补) around c. 600 CE, (ibid., no. 11 and no. 12 respectively) record that a village in each case was granted to several 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s as listed. It is not stated to have been an 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 grant However, after addressing his order to all the residents of the concerned villages and after stating that this grant was made along with all taxes (sarvva-kara-sametah).The king enjoined on the residents of those villages concerned to remit to the donees all the bhoga and bhaga (such as can be enjoyed by the king and extra taxes and other levies as were due to the king) and lived happily.
The two charters recording the grant of 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 by 贬补谤峁惫补谤诲丑补苍补 of the Pu峁abh奴ti family clearly spelled out the characteristics of the 补驳谤补丑腻谤补. As per the Banskhera Plate of 贬补谤峁 dated c. 628-29 CE (ibid., no.77) and the Madhuban Plates of 贬补谤峁 dated c. 631-32 CE (ibid., no.92), the king addressed his order granting the charters to 惭补丑腻蝉腻尘补苍迟补, 惭补丑腻谤腻箩补, Daussadha-sadhanika, Pramatara, 碍耻尘补谤腻尘腻迟测补, Uparika, 痴颈峁测补辫补迟颈, 叠丑补峁璦-颁腻峁璦-sevaka etc. and (the residents of the janapada assembled in the villages, Markkatasagara in Ahichchhatra (as in the earlier one) and Somakundaka (as in the later one) as king them to note that the above-cited communities granted along with 耻诲谤补峁単补 and all the levies as also such levies payable to the members of the royal family, and with every sort of exemption survaparihrita-pariharo, after severing their connection with the 惫颈峁测补 concerned and (vishayadupdhrita-pinda) with the right to pass the villages granted an inheritance to sons and grandsons, and thus guaranteeing that the grants made would last forever and in adherence to the rule, 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补-苍测腻测补 and in accordance with the provision of receiving gifts, with the status of an 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 had been granted to two 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s (named in each case) respectively specializing in Bahvricha (峁欢惫别诲补) and 颁丑腻苍诲艒驳测补 (厂腻尘补惫别诲补). The addressees were asked to approve it. The residents of the janapada (territorial division) were asked to be attentive to (take the commands of) the donees and remit to them (donees) (all taxes), those (taxes) that were weighed or and such within were measured and such 产丑腻驳补 (a portion of the product), and 产丑艒驳补 (such things that the king was entitled to enjoy from the village and each item best in the village) and serve him.
In Madhuban Plates of 贬补谤峁, (ibid., no. 92), it is stated (further) that the village Somakundaka that was granted was being enjoyed on the strength of a forged charter till then. Hence, it was taken away from Vamarathya (obviously a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 already in the enjoyment of the village) and granted to two different 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s (one of 峁欢惫别诲补 and the other of 厂腻尘补惫别诲补). Many more such grants of 补驳谤腻丑腻谤补 with the same stipulations were made. (Ibid., nos. 11. Bonda Plates of Mahasiva Tivara, 12. Baloda Plates of Tivaradeva, 14. Adhabhara Plates of Maha-Nannaraja, 16. Thiruvananthapuram Plates of Mahasiva Tivararaja, 34. Arang Plate of Bhimasena II, 47. Bardal's Plates of Mahnaivagupta, Year 9, 56. Mallar Plates of Maha-Sivagupta, 63. Balasore Plates of Sri-Bhanu, 70. Srikakulam Plates of Indravarman, 71. Chezarla Inscription of Prithiviyuvaraja, 80. Lodhia Plates of Mahasivagupta Year 57, 82. Andhavaram Plates of Indravarman, 108. Srikakulam Plates of Indravarman-Year 146,132.Tekkali Plates of Maharaja Indravarman, 134. Baradipada Plates of Nandaraja Deva, 135. Malaga Plates of Samanta Indraraja, 136. Pulibumra Grant of Jayasimha I, 137. Mallar plates of Sivagupta, etc.).
The Mallar Plates of 惭补丑腻艣颈惫补gupta (ibid., no.56) witnessed the grant of a village to a Buddhist establishment whereby 惭补丑腻艣颈惫补gupta is stated to have ordered the residents (and probably the householders) of the village named Taradamsaka to pay to that Buddhist establishment the bhoga and 产丑腻驳补 as properly due and live happily. Such grants of villages are said to have been made to the Buddhist 惫颈丑腻谤补 as 诲别惫腻驳谤腻丑腻谤补 (see, ibid., nos. 39. Wala Plates of S墨l腻ditya-I, 78. Botead Plates of Dhruvasena II Baladitya, 114. Bhavnagar Plate of Dhar腻sena IV-B, etc.) when a charter says that the grant was made as sarva-kara-pariharena agrahari-kritva (ibid., nos.10. Tanrivada Grant of Prthivimaharaja. 25. Gollavalli Grant of Prithivi-Maharaja, 108. Srikakulam Plates of Indravarman-Year 146, 116. Purle Plates of Indravarman, 120. Chipurupalle Plates of Vishnuvarddhana, 128. Peddavegi Plates of Jayasimha I, 135. Malaga Plates of Samanta Indraraja, 136. Pulibumra Grant of Jayasimha I, 137. Mallar plates of Sivagupta) or agrahari kritya (ibid., no.63. Balasore Plates of Sri-Bhanu, etc.) it is not known if the grantee could enjoy the granted village as an 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 i.e. if he could expect to get paid all the bhoga and 产丑腻驳补 and to be served by the villagers.
[12]:
USVAE, vol. IV, part I, nos. 30. Bandura Plates of Maurya Anirjitavarman, 37. Wala-Palit腻n腻 Plates of S墨l腻ditya I, 38. Navalakhi Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补, 39. Wala Plates of 艢颈濒腻诲颈迟测补-I, 40. Vala Plates of S墨l腻ditya-I sam 287, 42. Vala Plates of S墨l腻ditya, 44. Dhank Plates of S墨l腻ditya-I, 45. Sarsavni Plates of Buddhar腻j腻, 119. Kheda (Kaira) Plates of Dhar腻sena IV, etc.
[13]:
In the Malavalli (Shimoga District, Karnataka) inscription, dated in c. 235 CE of Vi峁ukada Chutukulananda-Satakarni (of the Chuta-Satakami dynasty) (USVAE. II, no. 172) the king addressed his order to the 尘补丑腻惫补濒濒补产丑补 and rajjuka (possibly the overall administrator of the concerned territorial division and or surveyor of land) to intimate to them that he had entrusted to a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 as brahmadeya the village Malapalli, which had been (earlier) granted as devabhogam (what is granted for the enjoyment of god or temple) along with house-sites for the abode of the 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s and including the cultivated land and forest-land attached to the village (sa-hala-atavi) with all pariharas with a bear to the entry therein of the 叠丑补峁璦 (itinerant troops or Paiks) and with entitlement to all the siddhis (dan-adhamana-vikraya-right of gifting, or mortgaging or selling of the concerned land) (i.e. with all proprietary rights).
Another inscription from the same plate Malavalli dated about one century later than the above inscription dated in the reign of Kadamba Mayuravarman (ibid., vol. III, 4) seems to record that several villages which were granted to god Malapallideva (god of Malavalli) with all pariharas (sarwa-pariharena) earlier had been entrusted as brahmadeya to a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 with the stipulation that the increase in production (riddhi) alone (increase in production as a result of their bringing fresh land under the plough) need be contributed to the temple. These two records of the 3rd and 4th century CE evidence the linking of the grant of brahmadeya with the temple of the locality even in early times. (It can be interpreted that in these two cases the village Malapalli which had been granted for the enjoyment of some temple was entrusted to the 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺, possibly on the understanding that he would contribute a share of the yield of grain in that village or probably the tax-income from the village for the temple. It is also possible that the concerned community had been attached to the temple but was gifted to a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 (or to a group of 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s) just to boost the Brahmanical color to the temple complex) as seen in the Kuram grant of Paramesvaravarman I. These would seem to be the precursors of the devadana-brahmadeya as are found mentioned in the Tamilnadu records of the 10th 11th centuries CE). As the brahmadeya was apparently enjoined to contribute to the expenses in the temple, it can be surmised that the contribution was what would have ordinarily gone to the king. As such, these inscriptions make it appear that these brahmadeyas were not exempt from the payment of taxes to the king, but they had to pay the fees to the temple.
That the grant of pariharas was not at first restricted to brahmadeyas is illustrated by the Nasik inscription of Gautamiputra Satakarni as per which in his year 8 (c.124 CE) the king is stated to have granted to the ascetics who had assembled or were to assemble on a hill called Trirasmi (ibid., vol. II, no. 119) plots of land with pariharas as detailed therein as a-pravesyam, anavamasrsyam, a-lavana-khadakam, a-rashtrasam-vinayikam and all such kinds of pariharas. Again Pulimavi (c. 152 CE) granted a village in exchange to 产丑颈办峁蝉 (Buddhist) living on Trirasmi hill with the pariharas detailed as above but there termed as 产丑颈办峁-丑补濒补-parihara (ibid., no. 137). For the first time the Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela of Kalinga associated parihara with brahmadeya and it stated that the king had granted to 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s many villages with jayaparahara. (Ibid., no. 67). Next to him, as per inscriptional records, Jayavarman of Brihatphalayanasagotra around 300 CE (ibid., no. 204) made a grant of a village in twenty-four shares to seven 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s as brahmadeya and endowed the grant with pariharas which are detailed here-as a-pravesyam an-avamarsyam. a-lavana-khadakam, a rashtra-samvinayikam and all kinds of pariharas.
The Mayidavolu c.p. Inscription of Pallava 驰耻惫补尘补丑腻谤腻箩补 Sivaskandavarman (around 330 CE, USVAE, vol. III, no.6) recorded the grant of a village to two 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s. Here the pariharas were illustrated with five beginning with a-lavana-khatakam, which are here said to be brahmadeya-pariharas, which accompanied the donation. Following this Pallava Kumaravishnu II (c. 400 CE) also granted 432 pattika of land to a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 following brahmadeya-maryyada and the hala-nyaya excluding devabhoga with all pariharas. (Ibid., vol. II, no. 49). Following this, another Pallava, Skandavarman (c. 434 CE) granted the village Omgodu excluding such land that was in the enjoyment of temples (deva bhoga-hala-varjjam) as brahmadeya and as a satvika-诲腻苍补 along with the eighteen kinds of parihara (ibid., no.75).
When 驰耻惫补尘补丑腻谤腻箩补 痴颈峁ａ箛耻驳辞辫补, another Pallava granted (c. 448 CE), the village Nedungaraye in shares to several individuals it was stated to have been given as saranikagrama. When Pallava Sirnhavarman II granted (c. 455 CE) a village to a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 as brahmadeya then also the grant was accompanied with all kinds of pariharas (In all the above safeguarding clause was there, "excluding such land granted for the enjoyment of temples). Another Sirnhavarman gave a village to eight 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s as brahmadeya (c. 456-57 CE), no doubt excluding what was devabhogahala (land under the plough for the benefit of the temple. But he added the clause vasat-bhogya-maryyadoaya obliging the grantees to live in the granted village to reap the benefit of the grant, to read the benefit of the award (ibid., no.112). This grant is also stated to have been made with the accompaniment of the 18 kinds (loc. cit.). This grant is also stated to have been made with the accompaniment of the 18 kinds of pariharas (which are nowhere fully listed). Possibly the charter of Pallava Sirnhavarman for the first time gave the most extended list of taxes which the 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 Vishnusarman, the grantee of the village Vilavetti as brarimaaeya (ibid., no. 119) he could enjoy, the list is given here has to relate with the pariharas as given in earlier charters. The list of taxes to which the grantee of the brahmadeya was exempted given here as follows: [fees (karani) on metal and leather workers (Lohacharmmakara). Shop-keepers cloth-declared (apana - pattakaral spies were moving about with different garments (pravaranchara) rope-jugglers or dancers (rajjupratihara), shop keepers (Apanajivika);levies (deyadini) on barbarians and outcastes (nahala), mask-actors (mukha-charakas) water-diviners (kupadarsakas). Weavers (tantravaya for tantuvayas), gamblers (dyuta), marriage (vivaha). And barbers (napita) contributions from artisans).
Coming to the period c. 600-650 CE, brahmadeya grants are stated to have been made (brahamadanda-mana-land measured by the measuring rod of brahmadeya鈥�(ibid., vol. IV, part I, no. 132. Tekkali Plates of Maharaja Indravarman) as sarvva-kara-bharaih parihritya (ibid., no. 132. Tekkali Plates of Maharaja Indravarman), or parihrita-sarwa-parihara (ibid., no. 17. Grant of Bhoja Prithivimalavarman-A) or sarvapidavarjjita (ibid., no. 69. Soro Plate of Bhanudatta) or sarva-vishti-jemaka-kara-bharaparihino or sarva-parihara, sarva-niradeya (ibid., no.58. Kandalgam Plates of Pulakesi II), freed from all pangas (ibid., nos. 20. Kapoli plates of Asankitavarman, 30. Bandura Plates of Maurya Anirjitavarman, 45. Sarsavni Plates of Buddhar腻j腻, these charters are from the Goa region) of simply sa-bhogam (ibid., no. 66. Modlimb Plates of Pulakesi II) or a-kari-kritya (ibid., no.74. Buguda Plates of Madhavavarman) or sarvva-partiharena-brahmadeyi-kritya (ibid., no. 127. Kondanaguru Grant of Indravarman). One charter adds sa-bhrishtikam (ibid., no. 91. Plates of Dhruvasena II Sam 312-Bhrishti is also mentioned here as a type of land) and another charter (ibid., no. 2. Nagardhan Plates of Svamiraja) says that the grant was made sarva-adeya-visuddha and antahsiddhika (right to internal administration or the right to the eight types of siddhis viz., nidhi, nikshepa, jala, pashana, etc.) Another charter (ibid., no. 123)
That the brahmadeya grantees were expected to reclaim land is brought out by the mention that land long lying waste was granted to them (ibid., nos. 63. Semaria Plate of Panduvarman, 64. Kanas Plates of Bhanudatta, 69. Soro Plate of Bhanudatta)
While referring to the taxes from which the grantees were exempted it is interesting to note that the grants made by Pulikesin II, the 颁腻濒耻办测补 ruler and the grants of 贬补谤峁惫补谤诲丑补苍补 reflect that the villagers were being obliged to pay some levies to the members of the royal family (ibid., no. 87. Lohaner Plates of Pulikesi II, 77. Banskhera Plate of 贬补谤峁, 92. Madhuban Plates of 贬补谤峁). The former refers to sarva-raja-kul-adeya-sahitah and the " latter refer to sarvva-raia-kul-abhavva-ratvaya. A charter of Dbhruvasena II of 痴补濒补产丑墨 (ibid., no.93. Goras Plates of Dhruvasena II) refers to Kumara-bhoga-brahmadeyam-办峁迟谤补 (probably granted as brahmadeya by kumara-prince). When Asankitavarman, perhaps a Bhoja granted land (called vamsa-vataka-bamboo forest) to a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 he exempted it from all pangas. (ibid., no. 20. Kapoli plates of Asankitavarman, 30. Bandura Plates of Maurya Anirjitavarman, 43. Goa Plate of Prithivi-Vallabhamaharaja). There are some charters wherein the entitlements of the donee are not specified [(ibid., nos. 6. Nerur Plates of Mangalataja, 10. Tanrivada Grant of Prthivimaharaja, 15. Arga Plates of Kapilavarman, 18. Grant of Bhoja Prithivimallavarman-B, 23. Thalner Plates of Bhanushena-A & B, 30 Bandora Plates of Maurya Anirjitavarman, 33. Undikava葲ika Grant of Abhimanyu, 49. Lakshmesvar Inscription, 64. Kanas Plates of Bhanudatta, 66. Modlimb Plates of Pulakesi II, 74. Buguda Plates of Madhavavarman A & B, 70. Srikakulam Plates of Indravarman, 75. Khurda Plates of Madhavaraja, 81. Timmapuram Plates of Vishnuvarddhana (I), 86. Tumbeyanuru Grant of Pulakesin II, 89. Tiwarkhed Plates of Rashtrakuta Nannaraja, 90. Kopparam Plates of Pulakesi II, 94. Purushottampur Plates of Sainyabhita Madhavava-barman II Srinivasa, 103. Hosur Plates of Satyasraya (Pulakesin II), 104. Chiplun Phates of Pulakesi II, 112. Niduparu Grant of Jayasimha I, 131. Indian Museum Plates of Maharaja Jayavarmadeva,133. Dhanantara Plates of Samantavarman, 138. Kama Nalinakshipur Plates of Jayavarman).
[14]:
D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 58. Also see El, vol. XI, p.177.
[15]:
The interpretation of the term 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补 has been a matter of much discussion among scholars writing on the land system of early medieval India. A literal translation of the term would be the rules of holes in the earth'.
R.G. Bhandarkar, taking into consideration this literal meaning, thought that 'a grant is to last long as the Sun, the moon, etc., shall endure on the principle of 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补 ie. as holes in the earth are filled up in time and so unchanged forever, G. Buhler elaborating Bhandarkar's interpretation argues that 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补 means 'the reasoning from the familiar instance of the ground and clefts therein or the interference that the hole includes the parts, just as a piece of land includes the various clefts therein If it is stated in grants that a village or the like is given as 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补, it means simply that it is made over with all its appurtenances, produce rights, etc., Both these interpretations are conjectural and are not based on any positive evidence. Besides if Bhandarkar's statement is accepted, one has to understand that this term was not used in the grants to indicate that they were perpetual then it is difficult to understand why these grants also have a phrase mentioning that they shall last as long as the Sun, the moon and the earth endure.
In this connection, it may be noted that the 础谤迟丑补峁ツ錽迟谤补 contains a chapter entitled 产丑奴尘颈肠丑丑颈诲谤补vidh腻nam, which deals mainly with non-agricultural land. The Vaijayant also gives a similar meaning to 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补 when it says that 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补 lands are those unfit for cultivation (产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补-krsi-腻y ogya). D.C. Sircar, also, taking into consideration, the explanation is given in the Artha艣腻stra, and the Vaijayanti translates 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补 as the maxim of the wasteland' and further explains that a person bringing such land under cultivation was entitled to enjoy it without paying taxes. From the foregoing discussion, it would have become clear that all the above-mentioned scholars who attempted to explain the 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补, in one way or another, on the point that 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补 land was wasteland unsuitable for agriculture yet they failed to notice that all the lands granted according to 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补 in the period under consideration were productive.
For instance, the Vajrayogini plates, of Sam腻lvarman (twelfth century) which records the donation of some land (probably a village) according to 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补, also mentions that in addition to various taxes and other revenues (rights over) coconut, areca nut, and panasea trees were transferred to the donee. Thus it is clear that these lands, though they were granted according to 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补, had already been under cultivation by the time of their donation. Hence, the theory that it was uncultivable wasteland is not acceptable.
At this stage, it is worth mentioning that U.N. Ghoshal though not discussing 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补 in detail, thought that it implied the grant of the full right of ownership such as would be acquired by a person making fallow land cultivable for the first time.
Although it is not certain that those who brought the uncultivated land under the plough for th臋 first time, would acquire, full rights of ownership or if not, what particular rights they were entitled to, it may be assumed that the 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补 was made use of when cultivated land was being donated because certain privileges and rights could be made over only under the provision of the rule.
[16]:
It is referred to as avani-randhra-nyaya that same as 产丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补 and pertained to the right and privileges that could be enjoyed by one who brought some land under cultivation anew.
叠丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补苍测腻测补, as understood at present, pertained to the exemptions and privileges attendant on bringing new land under cultivation granted to the entrepreneur to compensate the expenses incurred by him in the course of this effort (he had taken the initiative in this regard) to encourage such extension of cultivation. (As had been understood by the British administrators of the nineteenth century, there was the system in India whereby Jand newly brought under cultivation was entitled to an exemption from the land-tax for a while and to pay a graduated rising scale of the land-tax in the succeeding years). Very frequently, the charters recording grants of villages or plots of land during this period dealt with in this volume include this phrase while detailing the rights and privileges, the donees could enjoy.
In most such cases, where whole villages were granted, it is seen that the records had already specified the exemptions from the payment of taxes and levies the granted land could enjoy. It may be seen that in the Madhuban and sanskhera plates of 贬补谤峁, it is recorded that the village Somakunda was already being experienced by Br腻hmana Vamarathya, on the strength of a forged charter, which fact indicated that Vamarathya had the said village under cultivation. This was also highlighted in the Madhuban and Banskhera plates of 贬补谤峁惫补谤诲丑补苍补 by the direction from the donor-king to the residents (husbands men and others) of the villages granted to be deferential to the donees and to pay them the due taxes (in-kind and gold and other contributions due to the king).
So when the record said that the villages were granted along with the rule (叠丑奴尘颈肠肠丑颈诲谤补 -苍测腻测补), the reference could not have been to the cutting of the ground (for cultivation) for the first time. So the introduction of this phrase (in the charter) might have also been a meaningless clich茅 in emulation of an original charter, where virgin land had been granted or the phrase could have had a significance different from that has been understood so far). In the same way there are the charters of the 痴补濒补产丑墨 and such families belonging to the Western region (USVAE, vol. IV, part I, nos.38 Navalakhi Plates of S墨l腻ditya, 39. Wala Plates of S墨l腻ditya-I, 40. Vala Plates of S墨l腻ditya-I sam 287, 44. Dhank Plates of S墨l腻ditya-I, 45. Sarsavni Plates of Buddhar腻j腻, 46. Vadner Plates of Buddhar腻j腻) (Katachchuri Buddhar腻j腻), 79. Kaira Plates of Dadda (Prasantaraga)-A (Gurjjara Dadda II), 88. L.D.Institute Copper Plate of Dhruvasena II (痴补濒补产丑墨), 93. Goras Plates of Dhruvasena II (痴补濒补产丑墨), 96. Kaira Plates of Dadda II Prasantaraga-B (Kataccuri Dadda II), 97. Dana Plates of Dhruvasena (II) B腻l腻ditya (痴补濒补产丑墨), 102. Nogawa Plates of Dhruvasena -A (痴补濒补产丑墨), 105. Nogawa Plates of Dhruvasena II-B (痴补濒补产丑墨), 107. Sankheda Plates of Dadda II -A &B (Gurjara Dadda II), etc. where even when plots of definite dimensions had been granted said that what had been granted already to gods (temples) and 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s (it is possible that the reference was to grants made to the temples but which were being administered as brahmadeya by 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s) were excepted from the purview of the grant, (which clause could have had relevance only in cases where whole villages were granted). In this context it may be pointed out, that the charters issued by the Maitrakas of 痴补濒补产丑墨 (USVAE, vol. IV, part I, Nos. 97. Dana Plates of Dhruvasena (II) Baladitya, 102. Nogawa Plates of Dhruvasena -A, 105.Nogawa Plates of Dhruvasena I-B, 118. Alina Plates of Dhar腻sena IV, 119. Kheda (Kaira) Plates of Dhar腻sena IV )
While stating the exception from the purview of the grant, added 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺vimsati (1/20 of the land in the villages allotted to 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺/ 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s). This suggests that (at the time of the Maitrakas of 痴补濒补产丑墨) in the Sourashtra region, there was an ordained rule according to which, 1/20 of the land in the villages was allotted to 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺/ 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s).(for their maintenance and to help them to carry out their specified duties by virtue of their being 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s which are seen specified in other charters as six in number (i.e.) adhyayana (study of the scriptures); adhy腻panam (teaching); yajana (sacrificing), y腻jana (guiding the performance of sacrifices); 诲腻苍补 gifting (i.e.) being munificent), pratigraha (receiving gifts), apart from carrying out the five great sacrifices referred to below. (Vidyaranya, the spiritual guide of the founders of the Vijayanagar empire, had laid down that 1/20 of the produce of land in villages should be set apart for the benefit of 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s (T.V. Mahalingam, South Indian Polity, p. 163).
[17]:
D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 349.
[18]:
Ibid., p. 352.
[20]:
D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 59.
[21]:
Ibid., p. 91.
[22]:
Ibid., pp. 47-48.
[23]:
EI, vol. XXXIV, p.171.
[24]:
D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 85.
[25]:
Hence it may be argued that various kinds of valuable deposits, including salt and metal mines, were meant by nidhi and upanidhi. For example, the two copper plates from Ashrafpur (second half of the seventh century, Bengal), shed valuable light on some aspects of the rights and privileges and of the tenure system relating to the land granted to some 惫颈丑腻谤补s (Grant number one recording an endowment by King Devakhadga of an area totaling nine 辫颈峁璦办补蝉 and ten dronas of land to Buddhist monasteries mentions that the donation was made after the land had been taken away from the enjoyers (bhunjanad-apaniya).
The other grants the copper plate records a similar donation of six 辫补峁璦办补蝉 and ten dronas of land by R腻jar腻ja, the son of King Devakhadga to the same monastery in the same manner).
Bond腻 Plates of Maha艣iv腻 Tivara issued by the King 惭补丑腻艣颈惫补-T墨vara of P腻nduva峁兣沬s of South 碍艒蝉补濒补 dynasty records a grant to some vedic 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺s (who belong severally to Yajurveda, and 厂腻尘补惫别诲补) along with the privileges of nidhi and upanidhi. (USVAE, vol. IV, part I, pp. 47-54).