IN THE FINAL LEG of this series examining the Hindu civilisational history through institutions, we can consider taxation. Every treatise related to Rajyasastra has dwelt extensively upon taxation in all its dimensions: the philosophical, ethical, moral, economic and human.
The well-known prescription in the Mahabharata avers that the king should collect taxes from his subjects just like how the bee collects nectar without injuring the flower. Then we have a brilliant analogy in Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsha which says that Dilipa Maharaja collected one-sixth of his citizens’ revenue as income tax akin to the sun drawing moisture from the earth only to give it back as rain.
The prolonged history of Bharatavarsha’s Hindu empires shows that the one-sixth rate of tax was pretty much followed in both letter and spirit. The right of the king to levy taxes was subject to his discharge of a fundamental duty: guaranteeing internal and external protection. This is what the much-reviled Manusmriti says:
A king who duly protects his subjects receives from each the sixth part of their spiritual merit; if he does not protect them, the sixth part of their demerit also will fall on him. Whatever merit a man gains by reading the Veda, by Yajna, by charitable gifts, or by worshipping gurus and gods, the king obtains a sixth part of that in consequence of his duty of protecting his kingdom.
The converse was also true: “A king who does not afford protection, yet takes his share in kind, his taxes, his tolls and duties, daily presents and fines, will after death soon sink into hell.”
Manusmriti also offers a vividly profound metaphor delineating the philosophy of taxation: “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.”
Overall, the theory and practice of taxation under Hindu regimes was tempered, just and humane. We see only rare instances of Hindu kings resorting to extortionate taxation and such regimes didn’t last long; they were either deposed or killed by popular uprising. The historian B.A. Saletore makes a notable observation in this regard:
…the people could not only depose a king but even kill him together with his relatives, if he swerved from his duty as laid down in the Dharmasastras… That this rare privilege was, indeed, an acknowledged one is apparent from the Mahabharata, wherein it is stated that the people should gird themselves up and kill a cruel king, who does not protect his subjects, who extracts taxes and simply robs them of their wealth, and who gives no lead to his subjects. Such a king is an incarnation of Evil and Strife (Kali). If a king after declaring “I shall protect you" does not protect his subjects, he should be killed (by the people) after forming themselves into a confederacy, like a dog that is afflicted with madness.
Exemption or remission of taxes was another facet that reflects the compassion underlying the philosophy of taxation. What really sets our philosophy of taxation apart from say, ancient Greece, Rome or Babylon is the total exemption of certain classes of people from paying taxes. In no particular order, these were as follows: blind people, idiots, cripples, people over seventy years of age, people who made gifts and donations to temples, rest houses and charitable institutions, pregnant women, ascetics, hermits living in the forest, Brahmacharis (students), Vedic teachers, Shudras, artisans, mechanics and common people who nursed animals.
All treatises relating to Rajyasastra declare that if a king had imposed a heavy tax and people complained, he had to give them a remission. Or, in exigent cases, even a just rate of taxation was to be suspended for a specific duration. We have literally thousands of examples in our history that show the application of this principle in practice.
Here, we can look at just a few examples drawn from inscriptions.
In the reign of Devaraya I, tax remission was granted to all the weavers in Chandragiri when the governor found that excess tax was being collected for a number of years.
In 1473, in the Gandikota Province, all the Kurubas or shepherds were completely exempted from the tax they were paying so far.
In 1086, Kulothunga Chola I conducted an extensive land survey throughout his kingdom and after analysing the findings, he ordered the remission of all customs duties. His delighted citizenry gave him the title, Sungam Thavirtha Cholan: i.e., the Chola who exempted Sunkas (tax).
Let’s take another Kautilyan prescription to illustrate this more clearly. The Second Adhikarana of the Arthasastra says that the king should show Anugraha (favour) to farmers by supplying them seed, cattle, and cash money for farming, and that they should return it in instalments after obtaining the harvest. The king should also give them tax breaks in such a way that it “swells the treasury eventually.”
We see an exact replica of this policy in the Vijayangara Empire. In 1379, Harihara II passed the following order: “by this order, the State has exempted from tax this village land which has since been brought under cultivation. Further, by making provision for irrigation and by digging canals, this village has made many improvements. Rice fields and gardens have been irrigated. In order to continue these improvements, the Emperor gave the people lands which are irrigated by this water tax-free for nine years so that the revenue amounts to 20,000 Pagodas.”
We also see hundreds of examples in Hindu history which show the magnanimous and charitable side of taxation policy. These are the voluntary concessions offered by the King excluding certain items from Shulkas or tolls. Here’s a partial list drawn from different periods and different empires:
Items taken by a new bride from her parents’ house to her husband’s house.
Items taken by anyone for facilitating the delivery of a woman.
Items taken for Puja, Yatra, Yagna, Vrata, Homa, etc
Items taken for ceremonies like Chaula (tonsuring), Namakarana (naming ceremony), Upanayana (Sacred Thread Ceremony), Godaana (Donating Cows), etc.
Let’s look at some examples of the practical application of this rule.
Under the Cholas, an entire village would be exempt from tolls if they went out to attend a marriage, yatra, festival, etc.
We have the exemplary story where an Antyaja (what is today known as Dalit) was returning from a pilgrimage. He was harassed by the toll-keeper of the Araga region (Malnad). Eventually, this crime was found out and the local governor severely punished the toll-keeper.
Next, there was the time-honoured practice of granting entire villages, lands, etc., and exempting them from tax in certain cases. In Karnataka, this practice was called Parihara, which means compensation, exemption, grant, etc. We have definitive inscriptions and grants from the Gupta period up to the Mysore Wodeyars that give detailed records of this practice. To use a contemporary term, these were known as the Inaam or Maanya lands.
Finally, we can look at three examples that show how a ruler considered it as his Dharma to perform several munificent acts for the benefit of the general public by spending his own money.
The Junagarh inscription dated 151-52 CE tells us that the Maha-Kshatrapa Rudradaman spent a “a vast amount of money from his own treasury and constructed not in a long time, a dam three times as strong in breadth and length.”
A 7th Century copperplate inscription tells us that the Valabhi monarch Shiladitya II paid hiranya (gold) for acquiring a tract of wasteland in the Saurashtra region and improved it for public welfare.
The remarkable Porumamilla inscription dated 1369 CE shows that Bhavadura, the son of Bukka I built an enormous reservoir harvesting the water of the river Maldevi. Known as Anantaraja-Sagara, it provides drinking water to 21 villages and irrigates 4031 acres in the Rajampeta Revenue Division of Kadapa District and is considered as one of the marvels of tank-building.
At the heart of such beneficences was the desire of the ruler to be seen as a Praja-Vatsala: one who was affectionate towards his people.
This element of royal charity was a sublime component of Hindu economic institutions. There were several important and subtle dimensions to it. The first thing we need to remember is that all Hindu kings without exception were devout practitioners of Sanatana Dharma. They gave, and gave liberally from their own personal wealth to temples, mathas and other charitable institutions from a deep sense of Dharma and not because it was mandated by an external force. This in turn, kept money in constant circulation — what is known as an optimum and healthy distribution of wealth. It thereby avoided excessive concentration of wealth and prevented societal tensions or what is known in Marxist terms as class conflict. This was what Dharampal meant when he said,
It is true that in the pre-Independence period, there was the ‘tyranny’ of the wealthy landowners in some regions of India. However, we must grasp its underlying reality. Yes, these wealthy people did say, “You must do what I say.” However, none of them said, “You must eat less than I do.” In fact, we find absolutely no evidence for the spurious arguments that say “we always had class conflict in India” in any records of the period.’
I’ll give a couple of examples from our history that testify to this truth.
The Hoysala monarch, Vira Ballala III maintained a second capital at Tiruvannamalai and personally showed great reverence to the pujas, local festivals, and community customs of that region. We have a 14th century inscription discovered in the vicinity which glorifies him as “the great Udaiyar [King] from Kannada-naad who gave many donations and renovated a Shiva temple.”
Even after the fall of Vijayangara, we have a Madurai Nayaka who maintained the property of his subordinate chief whose ancestors had migrated from the Kannada country. His ancestral traditions brought down from Karnataka, were respected in the court of this Nayaka.
Finally, we have the ennobling example of a wealthy merchant named Hatia who lived in Vidisha in the 9th century. Hatia wielded considerable political power and purchased three lucrative Vithis or marketplaces in Vidisha. In contemporary terms, this is akin to a person buying say the whole of Nariman Point, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Connaught Place or the Cantonment Area in Bangalore. After buying these Vithis, Hatia donated their entire annual revenue to facilitate the Puja of three deities: Narayana and two Matru Devatas. But he didn’t stop at that. His grant reads as follows: “the income from the three Vīthis could also be used to meet sandhi-pāta or emergencies; even if that was not enough, the Vīthis could be mortgaged or sold during emergencies such war, famine, etc.”
As is evident, this essay series is simply an example-based survey of various institutions that the Hindu civilisation evolved from the ancient times and their solid endurance for more than two millennia. Their vestiges remain till date but they are largely unrecognisable thanks to the irreversible disruption caused by British colonialism. This institutional history I hope, serves a twofold purpose: to underake a comprehensive study and repurpose the most humane, virtuous and noble elements found therein.
Series concluded
If you liked this article, please consider making a contribution of your choice to The Dharma Dispatch Digest so we can offer you more such informative and insightful content on a range of topics related to Indian history, civilisation and culture.
Essays like the one you just read are works of devotion and piety. We offer them to our readership out of a profound sense of duty.
Your support helps us keep our content free.
To support our sacred work, click the button below.
The Dharma Dispatch is now available on Telegram! For original and insightful narratives on Indian Culture and History, subscribe to us on Telegram.
