|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
ADMINISTRATION
a Committee was called Mahattama. In Kananḍa inscriptions he is called Prabhu (Mayor[1]). Local religious institutions were also represented on such Committees. One record mentions Pañcha-maṭha-mahāsthāna,[2] which was probably so called because the five maṭhas comprised in it were dedicated to five Hindu deities (viz. Brahmā, Vishṇu, Śiva, Sūrya and Dēvī) or to five prominent religious sects such as those of Brahmā, Vishṇu, Śiva, Buddha and Jina. These Town and Village Committees could make grants of land with the consent of the local gāvuṇḍas or officers and the administrative heads.
.. Sources of Revenue− There were various sources of revenue to meet the expenditure
of the State. The main source was, of course, the land-tax, called siddhāya in many Śilāhāra inscriptions.[3] In some records it is called bhūmi-dēṇaka.[4] It was usually one sixth of the produce. According to the Bṛihaspati-smṛiti cited by Aparārka,[5] a Brāhmaṇa who himself tills his
field should pay one sixth of the produce to the king, one twentieth to (the temples of ) gods in
the locality, and thirtieth to the Brāhmaṇas; but whether this rule was observed in practice
is not known. The land-revenue was paid partly in cash (in drammas) and partly in grains
(especially in the case of rice-fields), as appears from Śilāhāra inscriptions.[6] Another source
was the house-tax (called gṛiha-dēṇaka[7] in some inscriptions). Income was also derived from
levies on commodities displayed for sale in the markets. Fines levied for various offences were
another fruitful source of income. In some records the fines levied for ten offences[8] are
mentioned as transferred to the donees of land-grants. These are probably identical with the
ten sins enumerated in the Śukranītisāra,[9] viz., murder, theft, adultery, slander, harsh
language, lying, divulgence of secrets, evil design, atheism and perverseness. Some Śilāhāra
inscriptions specially mention kumārīsāhasa (crime against an unmarried girl) as an instance of
it.[10] These fines for offences were determined by a committee of sixteen members. It was
known as Smārikā,[11] probably because it called attention to the relevant rules in the Smṛitis. Some other sources of income were treasure-troves[12] and escheat to the crown of the property
of a person who dies without leaving a son behind.[13] The Yājñavalkya-Smṛiti[14]allows the widow
of a person who dies without leaving a son, to succeed to his property. There are also other
persons named as heirs such as his daughter, parents and other relatives who were regarded
as heirs to the property in such cases.[15] So it does not appear that the property of all persons
dying sonless escheated to the king. The term aputra used in such contexts must, therefore,
be taken to mean ‘an heirless person’[16] . Some other sources of revenue were the tributes
from feudatory princes, income derived from mines, forests etc.
[1] No. 52, line 45. (Continued on next page)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|