Incidence of Taxation in Ancient India
INCIDENCE OF TAXATION IN ANCIENT INDIA
By
Dr. B. Prasad*
(Retired Dy. Gene. Manager- Circle Credit Officer, State Bank of India- Delhi LHO),
Add: C-203, 55, UNESCO Apartments, Pataparganj, Delhi (India) -110092)
Modern Indian scholars on ancient Indian fiscal thoughts are divided into two categories on ‘Incidence of Taxation in Ancient India'. While some hold that "the able bodied males engaged in the production of wealth or in private and state services, were liable to be taxed". Almost all producing sections were taxed but some classes were exempted from taxes. Most of the exempted classes were non-productive1". The other section of scholars is of the opinion that ‘ancient India was guided in fiscal matters by class discrimination. An attempt is made in the following columns to discern the theories of incidence of taxation, if any, known to ancient India and find out the truth in the above two varying theses.
While analyzing the inferences and references that appear in tit-bits and not in consistency in ancient Indian literature and sacred texts, it is observed that ancient Indian thinkers hardly looked for any theory as such. Instances of bestowing considerations and favours on a person or a group of persons by the state or its agencies are not in wanting. The truth is that the state and its agencies followed what suited them most considering the purpose, time and place. The Hindu sacred texts, by and large exempt the Brahmans community from taxes. The antiquity of such a claim first appears in later Vedic texts - Shatapatha Brahmana. There the king is described as the lord of all and everything on earth an object of food to him but Brahmans alone are said to be exception to this. The text further declares God Soma as the king of Brahmans and not the king2. The Aitareya Brahmana, another text of this period shows that it were mostly the people of Vaishya class who bore the brunt of incidence of taxes. These people were like cowering birds before the hawk. The belongings and properties of Vaishyas remained to them as long as the state so desired. "Hello Vaishya, just bring to me what thou hath stored away3".
Is it that the entire Brahman class enjoyed total immunity from taxes and only Vaishyas were required to pay taxes as revealed from the above texts of Shatapatha Brahmana and Aitareya Brahmana? These sacred texts, however, offers no excuse as to why the state extended such a patronage to Brahmans excepting that the king's jurisdiction covered all sections of society but the Brahmans for it was not the king but god Soma who ruled over them. This simply shows the growing religious importance of the Brahman clan during that period of history. Their growing importance was possibly because it were only Brahmans who alone were engaged in imparting education / knowledge and performing religious rituals which were considered non-productive works. But it also looks improbable that all Brahmans were engaged in learning and imparting knowledge and performing rituals, a section of them were certainly engaged in agriculture, trading and other profitable vocations. What happened to such Brahmans who had opted for the profitable vocations; were such people also exempted from taxes like the ones who were doing unproductive works? Unfortunately, the texts are silent over the issue and do not throw any light. However, it seems that as a change in profession did not necessarily mean a change in Varna during the early Vedic society, even those Brahmans who took up the profession of other Varnas were also let free of paying taxes. Moreover, the texts of this period unlike later literature on polity and laws nowhere refer to any prescribed qualifications for a Brahman to claim immunity from taxes. As the people of Vaishya class alone are depicted in these literatures as paying taxes to the state it may be concluded that all other people belonging to other Varnas went untaxed even if they had taken up productive enterprises. According to modern principles of taxation this would appear to be an unsound practice.
There appears a little shift in approach of state in the time of Mahabharata. The collective importance and sanctity attached to entire Brahman community had started fading away and values were attached to individual's morality and piousness as prerequisite for exemption from taxes. The great epic describes the fallen category of Brahmans, viz: Chandalas, the kshatriyas, and Vaishyas types. The king is advised that if his treasury was depleted he might realise tributes from these fallen Brahmans. "The king is the lord of the wealth belonging to all orders except Brahmans. He can, however, take the wealth of those Brahmans who have fallen away from their legitimate duties4". A virtuous king should realise tribute from those Brahmans who do not possess Vedic lore and do not have their own fire to worship and instead are engaged in other type of work like those who are employed in courts of justice for summoning people or perform worship for others for a fee, perform religious rituals for Vaishyas and Shudras or undertake voyages on sea. Such Brahmans are Chandalas. Those who become Ritvijas, Purohitas, councillors, envoys and messengers become equal to Kshatriyas. Similarly, those that ride horses or elephants or cars or become foot-solders are equal to Vaishyas5.This leads to think that the whole of Brahman community enjoyed exemption from taxes except in times of financial crises when the king could tax all those (Brahmans) who had taken up other professions of people belonging to other Varnas.
The canonical law books, however, give a new impetus to the subject but they hardly offer a uniformity of opinion. Some of these texts speak of exemption from taxes to the whole of Brahman community while others restrict to a section only. The Vishnu Smriti advocates that the king should not levy any tax on Brahmans for they pay taxes in the shape of their pious acts6. Another law giver, Vashishtha echoes the same thing when he says that the state should take the sixth part of all the wealth except from Brahmans7. Similarly Narada Smriti grants Brahmans the right to cross river without paying any fare and to be taken to the other shore before others even if they were engaged in trade and commerce8.
Besides, some Greek writers also give a similar account of exemption of taxes. Bardesanes writes that ‘the Brahmans pay no taxes like other citizens. Another writer, Porphyrious also states on the authority of Bardesanes that the Brahmans are not subject to the authority of the king and pay no tribute to the state. Megasthenes, Diodorus and Strabo also endorse the same thing9.
Other thinkers on ancient Indian fiscal thoughts, however, hold entirely different view. They add a qualifying clause to Brahmans' claim of exemption from taxes. Apastamba restricts immunity from taxes to those Brahmans who were in hermitage and learned10. Likewise Manu advises the king not to levy tax on "shrotriyas" even if he is in distress11. Kautilya, in his Arthashastra recommends that "those who perform sacrifices (ritvikas), spiritual guides, priests and those learned in Vedas shall be granted ‘Brahmadeya' lands yielding sufficient produce and exempt from taxes and fines12. Almost a similar sentiment is echoed in late Sanskrit literary works. The ‘Devibhagavata and Harivamsa' prescribes that the king ought to consider that a Brahman in his kingdom who is devoid of Vedic knowledge and is not learned (not merely educated) is fit to be taxed like people of other castes13.
In the above versions of canonical writers we find for the first time a qualifying clause attached to Brahmans' claim to exemption from taxes. It is indeed hard to reconcile with the statements of those canonical authors who advocate total exemption from taxes for the whole of Brahman community. As our ancient thinkers themselves differ on the subject, Dr. Altekar, a renowned scholar of ancient Indian polity, holds that all states might not have regarded such vague recommendations as binding14. It seems that the state government of the canonical period and onward was strong enough to choose their own way according to their needs. It is possible that the entire Brahman class was exempt from taxes in the earlier period when the distinction of a class and not of an individual was in vogue. But in course of time this practice appears to have started fading away and the governments of later period restricted the privilege only to a section of Brahmans which is echoed in the writings of some canonical authors mentioned above. This too was not true of all times for instance, Kautilya in his Arthashastra advocates that it is only the ‘Brahmdeya' lands on which no tax was to be levied. This suggests that in Kautilya's administrative system everyone learned or unlearned alike who was engaged in gainful vocations had to pay taxes to the state. All that the text recommends was that the ‘Brahmadeya' lands were granted to Ritvikas, spiritual guides, priests and those learned in Vedas. Even these persons had to pay taxes on earnings other than that of the ‘Brahmadeya lands'.
The difference of opinions among the canonical authors on exemption from taxes to Brahmans has led some modern scholars on ancient Indian fiscal thoughts to jump upon the theory of ‘quid pro quo'. J.N.C. Ganguli holds that the Brahmans' gift of religious merits, teaching and writing and other cultural activities were supposed to be in lieu of taxes15. Similarly, P.N. Banerji states that they (Brahmans) paid taxes to the state in the shape of their religious services16. Another scholar, P.V. Kane justifies the exemption of taxes to Brahmans on the plea that Brahmans "ministered to the religious wants of the people and were to conserve the religious literature and spiritual inheritance of the country and teach without the liberty to make a contract for fees17".The idea of ‘quid pro quo' is found in some of the canonical writings discussed above as well. Vishnu Smriti says that Brahmans "pay taxes to him (the king) in the shape of their pious acts"18. Another law giver, Manu also advocates that the religious merits which a ‘shrotriya' accumulates, increases the king's life, wealth and kingdom19. Vashishtha also thinks likewise and states that the king secures sixth part of the merit due sacrifices and performing charitable works of public utility (ishtahpurta) 20.
The whole theory seems to be more canonical than political and economic. The Mitakshara, in his commentary on Yajnavalkya Samhita explains that these words of canonical writings are only to glorify the greatness of Brahmans and should not be taken literally and that the king punishes them in appropriate cases20a. This is very aptly vindicated in the Arthashastra of Kautilya which prescribes a fine of 12 panas (currency of the period) on a Brahman who evades the payment due while passing military stations or crossing rivers and bawls out or invites others to fight against his neighbour21. Thus the claim of Brahmans that they are administered by no other than the God Soma is only a figment of imagination; similarly no justification is offered in any of sacred texts for granting special favour by way of exemption from taxes. Further, it also does not appear logically sound that even learned and poor Brahmans went untaxed all the time. The ancient Indian epigraphic evidences show that most of land grants by the kings in ancient India were issued in names of learned and pious Brahmans. Such grants sometimes comprises of a number of plots, sometimes of an entire village and sometimes of a number of villages22. It looks quite improbable that even after enjoying such huge state patronages which must have brought to them not only an end to their poverty but also an easy and luxurious life, prosperity and wealth, they still remained poor. P.V. Kane, contradicting his own earlier theory remarks that the claim to exemption were probably exaggerated and not respected in practice23. A corollary to this is vindicated in Narada Smriti which advocates that a wise king should always abstain from levying a toll or customs duties on articles required by a Shrotriya for his personal use but if he is engaged in trade the king should realise taxes on merchandise24.
Besides Brahmans, ancient Indian law givers also exempt certain other people from paying taxes. Apastamba while commenting on Yajnavalkya exempts from taxes all women of the four orders (Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra), all boys before they show sign of manhood, those who stay with their teachers for learning even though they may be grown up, those who live in austerity, a Shudra who washes the feet of people belong to three higher Varnas, the blind, the dumb and ascetics25. Vashishtha exempts king's servants, helpless persons, ascetics, minors, and old men over seventy and also those who live by exploiting rivers, forests and hills. To add to this all those persons whose income was less than a karshapana were also exempted from taxes26. Manu and Vishnu also hold identical view and include a blind, an idiot, crippled and old people of seventy years. They forbid a ferryman to charge fare from students, hermits, pregnant women and those going on a pilgrimage27. However, against these eloquent words of Dharmshastras exempting pregnant women from taxes etc a south Indian inscription describes an incident when a woman denied her ability to pay a certain tax demanded by an officer she was made to pass through such sufferings and indignation that finding herself unable to put up with the insult, she committed suicide28".
Besides, the Arthashastra of Kautilya does not levy duty on the "commodities intended for marriages or taken by the bride from her parent's house to husband's (anavarnam) or intended for presentation in consecration ceremony (diksha) and other special ceremonials29". Manu also states that tax (shulka) should not be levied on articles of the value of less than one ‘karshapana', the earnings of craftsmanship, alms and articles required for the performance of sacrifices (yajnas) 30.
On certain occasions and in certain cases taxes were either totally exempted or partially remitted. It was possibly meant to strengthen the cause of new and old enterprises. The Arthashastra lays down such rules regarding the land tax.
The king is, however, advised to realise higher taxes in times of financial difficulties but even in hard times he has been advised by Kautilya not to impose any such burden on those who needed state help32. That,' when there was a famine or draught or flood and harvests were severely damaged or hampered, the entire affected people were let go untaxed', also finds support in the great epic, Mahabharata and Rajanitikalpataru32.
The right to grant exemption from taxes was vested with the king, his high officials and subordinate princes as is evident from the epigraphs of the period. Besides, sometimes even the local bodies granted exemption from taxes in exercise of their own powers with and without any reference to the king. However, in such cases the local bodies undertook to pay all dues to the state which fell due on such piece of land33.
The sacred texts discussed above and very many others which have not been brought out in the discussion for being identical in nature show only a moral code of conduct to the state in formulating and implementing its fiscal policies. It has never been obligatory on kings to adhere to advices of ancient law givers in as much as the sovereign always interpreted the rules suiting the state and its financial soundness. A thorough scrutiny of the activities of the governments in ancient India suggests that the middle class people felt the brunt of taxation most. Even in the Vedic times it were the Vaishya class who paid taxes and the state showered favours to the most influential class of populace that is Brahmans and Kshatriya presumably to keep them happy in favour of the government although most of these people were really affluent with riches granted by the government but enjoyed immunity from taxes. The assumption is based on the fact that all the relevant texts of the period depict only the people belonging to Vaishya class paying taxes and no other. A Vedic text states at one place that whatever a Vaishya had in his possession that belonged to state. "Hello Vaishya, just bring to me what thou hast stored away"34. Of the position during the epics, Hopkins observes that ‘kshatriyas (warriors) are as a matter of fact exempt from taxes; the priests are so by divine law'35. Of the Buddhist period, Fick remarks that " even in eastern lands, the Kshatriyas and Brahmans, in spite of their wealth and in spite of the undisputed fact that greater of the land was in their hands, were free from taxes for in all passages in question the tax payers are mentioned as belonging to the middle class"36. The Kama Jataka narrates a story that a Shethi (a very rich businessman) requested the brother of the reigning prince to write to his brother (the king) for remission of Bali (tax) which the king granted37.
Although the sacred texts of ancient India unequivocally advocate for exemption of taxes to Brahmans and Kshatriyas, there are instances when the state ignored the scriptural statutes. A record of 1229 A.D. shows that even the Brahmans as donees of Agrahara village had to pay interest on the land tax remaining in arrears. The state however did not wait for more than three months at the end of which it sold away the share of defaulters38. The period of waiting was often extended to two years at the end of which the sale could not be stopped except by paying the entire dues39. However, there is no such case in northern India but still it may be surmised that the position was not different in other parts of India. The Rajatarangini, which describes the political and financial condition of the state and its people of ancient Kashmir, is full of such instances when Brahmans were not only forced to pay taxes but were also too much harassed with taxation and extra taxation. The Brahmans of Avantipur during the time of Jaisingh were opposed to increasing taxes and held fast and often burned themselves but all these proved ineffective to the king 40. The Arthashastra of Kautilya spares none except those who were of value to the state. The king is advised to please the leaders of provinces, villages, castes and corporations by giving them gifts and remitting taxes. Learned men, orators, brave persons were also favoured with gifts of land and money and with remission of taxes. Even the high officials of the government were endowed with lands and occasional remission of taxes in addition to their salary41. These inferences of Arthashastra show that the state was pleased to spare persons who were of value to state. This shows that the state often ignored the ‘principle of faculty to pay' and took measures that suited the state exchequer.
It may be concluded on the basis of above evidences that the state in ancient India most of the time acted independently in matters relating to fiscal policies. Advice of sacred texts seldom worked as base in the theories of incidence of taxation. The incidence probably did not fall equally on all and influential people tried to get as much of remission in taxes as possible. Although favours in the form of tax free lands and other exemptions were primarily meant for providing succour to needy ones but it were usually the people of favoured class who were benefitted most which was likely to bring much more burden on the common people by means of additional taxes. There appears much truth in what Sir Thomas Munro remarks of taxation in ancient period of south India:
"However, light Indian revenue may be in the books of their sages as sixth or fifth, in practice it has always been heavy…….. No person who knows anything of Indian revenue can believe that the ryot, if his fixed assessment were only a fifth or a fourth of the gross produce, would not every year, whether good or bad, pay it without difficulty"42.
His observation is also true for the rest of India as well. The writing of our great sages is merely codification of moral laws and values which the governments in ancient India modified suiting the purpose, place and time.
` ………………………………………………………….
References:
1. N.C. Banerjee. ‘Economic Life and Progress in Ancient India'. Vol. I. p.308
2. Shatapatha Brahmana. V. 3. 3. 12
3. Ibid. (Shat. Brah.). V. 29.
4/5. Mahabharata. XII. 76. 5-11
6. Vishnu Smriti. III. 26.
7. Vashishtha. I. 42 – 46.
8. Narada. XVIII. 38.
9. ‘Ancient India as described in classical literature'. pp. 167, 170, 47-48; Strabo. XV. I. 39.
10. Apastamba. II. 10.26,10.
11. Manu Smriti. VII. 133.
12. Arthashastra of Kautilya. Bk. II. Ch. I. P. 52.
13. Devibhagavata quoted Indian Historical Journal (IHQ). Vol. I. P. 145; Harivamsa. p. 29.
14. State and Government in Ancient India. P. 268.
15. J.N.C. Ganguli. IHQ. Vol. I. P.144.
16. Public Administration in Ancient India. P. 178.
17. HOD. (History of Dharmashastra). Vol. III. P.145.
18. Vishnu Smriti. III. 27.
19. Manu Smriti. VII. 136, VIII> 305.
20. Vashishtha. I. 42 - 46.
20a. Mitakshara on Yajnavalkya Samhita. IX. 40.
21. Arthashastra. Bk. III. Ch. XX.
22. C.I.I. (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum). Vol. III. No. 5. P. 33 &38.
23. HOD. Vol. III. P.195.
24. Narada Smriti. VI. 14.
25. Apastamba. II. 10. 26. 10 – 17.
26. Vashishtha. XIX. 23.
27. Ibid. XIX. 26 & 37.
28. South Indian Inscription quoted by T.V. Mahalingam.
29. Arthashastra. Bk. II. Ch. XXI.
30. Manu Smriti. VII. 137.
31. Arthashastra. Bk. III. Ch. IX.
32. Arthashastra. Bk. V. Ch. II., Bk. II. Ch. 28., Mahabharata. XII. 87, Rajanitikalpataru. P53-55
33. The Chola. pp. 319 – 20, 303 – 04; C.I.I. Vol. III. No. 5. p. 33.
34. Shatapatha Brahmana. VII. 29.
35. Hokins. Quoted in Fick's ‘Social Organisation' p.119.
36. Fick. Social Organisation. p. 119.
37. Jataka. IV. 169.
38. E.C.V. Arsikera. No. 128.
39. Epigraphia Indica. VIII. P. 208, Inscriptions from Madras Presidency. III. Nos. 768, 946.
40. Rajatarangini. VIII. 2224 – 2225.
41. Arthashastra. Bk. II. Ch. I., Bk. II. Ch. VII., Bk. III. Ch. IX.
42. Minutes of Sir Thomas Munro. I. Pp.237 -238.
___________________
By
Dr. B. Prasad*
(Retired Dy. Gene. Manager- Circle Credit Officer, State Bank of India- Delhi LHO),
Add: C-203, 55, UNESCO Apartments, Pataparganj, Delhi (India) -110092)
Modern Indian scholars on ancient Indian fiscal thoughts are divided into two categories on ‘Incidence of Taxation in Ancient India'. While some hold that "the able bodied males engaged in the production of wealth or in private and state services, were liable to be taxed". Almost all producing sections were taxed but some classes were exempted from taxes. Most of the exempted classes were non-productive1". The other section of scholars is of the opinion that ‘ancient India was guided in fiscal matters by class discrimination. An attempt is made in the following columns to discern the theories of incidence of taxation, if any, known to ancient India and find out the truth in the above two varying theses.
While analyzing the inferences and references that appear in tit-bits and not in consistency in ancient Indian literature and sacred texts, it is observed that ancient Indian thinkers hardly looked for any theory as such. Instances of bestowing considerations and favours on a person or a group of persons by the state or its agencies are not in wanting. The truth is that the state and its agencies followed what suited them most considering the purpose, time and place. The Hindu sacred texts, by and large exempt the Brahmans community from taxes. The antiquity of such a claim first appears in later Vedic texts - Shatapatha Brahmana. There the king is described as the lord of all and everything on earth an object of food to him but Brahmans alone are said to be exception to this. The text further declares God Soma as the king of Brahmans and not the king2. The Aitareya Brahmana, another text of this period shows that it were mostly the people of Vaishya class who bore the brunt of incidence of taxes. These people were like cowering birds before the hawk. The belongings and properties of Vaishyas remained to them as long as the state so desired. "Hello Vaishya, just bring to me what thou hath stored away3".
Is it that the entire Brahman class enjoyed total immunity from taxes and only Vaishyas were required to pay taxes as revealed from the above texts of Shatapatha Brahmana and Aitareya Brahmana? These sacred texts, however, offers no excuse as to why the state extended such a patronage to Brahmans excepting that the king's jurisdiction covered all sections of society but the Brahmans for it was not the king but god Soma who ruled over them. This simply shows the growing religious importance of the Brahman clan during that period of history. Their growing importance was possibly because it were only Brahmans who alone were engaged in imparting education / knowledge and performing religious rituals which were considered non-productive works. But it also looks improbable that all Brahmans were engaged in learning and imparting knowledge and performing rituals, a section of them were certainly engaged in agriculture, trading and other profitable vocations. What happened to such Brahmans who had opted for the profitable vocations; were such people also exempted from taxes like the ones who were doing unproductive works? Unfortunately, the texts are silent over the issue and do not throw any light. However, it seems that as a change in profession did not necessarily mean a change in Varna during the early Vedic society, even those Brahmans who took up the profession of other Varnas were also let free of paying taxes. Moreover, the texts of this period unlike later literature on polity and laws nowhere refer to any prescribed qualifications for a Brahman to claim immunity from taxes. As the people of Vaishya class alone are depicted in these literatures as paying taxes to the state it may be concluded that all other people belonging to other Varnas went untaxed even if they had taken up productive enterprises. According to modern principles of taxation this would appear to be an unsound practice.
There appears a little shift in approach of state in the time of Mahabharata. The collective importance and sanctity attached to entire Brahman community had started fading away and values were attached to individual's morality and piousness as prerequisite for exemption from taxes. The great epic describes the fallen category of Brahmans, viz: Chandalas, the kshatriyas, and Vaishyas types. The king is advised that if his treasury was depleted he might realise tributes from these fallen Brahmans. "The king is the lord of the wealth belonging to all orders except Brahmans. He can, however, take the wealth of those Brahmans who have fallen away from their legitimate duties4". A virtuous king should realise tribute from those Brahmans who do not possess Vedic lore and do not have their own fire to worship and instead are engaged in other type of work like those who are employed in courts of justice for summoning people or perform worship for others for a fee, perform religious rituals for Vaishyas and Shudras or undertake voyages on sea. Such Brahmans are Chandalas. Those who become Ritvijas, Purohitas, councillors, envoys and messengers become equal to Kshatriyas. Similarly, those that ride horses or elephants or cars or become foot-solders are equal to Vaishyas5.This leads to think that the whole of Brahman community enjoyed exemption from taxes except in times of financial crises when the king could tax all those (Brahmans) who had taken up other professions of people belonging to other Varnas.
The canonical law books, however, give a new impetus to the subject but they hardly offer a uniformity of opinion. Some of these texts speak of exemption from taxes to the whole of Brahman community while others restrict to a section only. The Vishnu Smriti advocates that the king should not levy any tax on Brahmans for they pay taxes in the shape of their pious acts6. Another law giver, Vashishtha echoes the same thing when he says that the state should take the sixth part of all the wealth except from Brahmans7. Similarly Narada Smriti grants Brahmans the right to cross river without paying any fare and to be taken to the other shore before others even if they were engaged in trade and commerce8.
Besides, some Greek writers also give a similar account of exemption of taxes. Bardesanes writes that ‘the Brahmans pay no taxes like other citizens. Another writer, Porphyrious also states on the authority of Bardesanes that the Brahmans are not subject to the authority of the king and pay no tribute to the state. Megasthenes, Diodorus and Strabo also endorse the same thing9.
Other thinkers on ancient Indian fiscal thoughts, however, hold entirely different view. They add a qualifying clause to Brahmans' claim of exemption from taxes. Apastamba restricts immunity from taxes to those Brahmans who were in hermitage and learned10. Likewise Manu advises the king not to levy tax on "shrotriyas" even if he is in distress11. Kautilya, in his Arthashastra recommends that "those who perform sacrifices (ritvikas), spiritual guides, priests and those learned in Vedas shall be granted ‘Brahmadeya' lands yielding sufficient produce and exempt from taxes and fines12. Almost a similar sentiment is echoed in late Sanskrit literary works. The ‘Devibhagavata and Harivamsa' prescribes that the king ought to consider that a Brahman in his kingdom who is devoid of Vedic knowledge and is not learned (not merely educated) is fit to be taxed like people of other castes13.
In the above versions of canonical writers we find for the first time a qualifying clause attached to Brahmans' claim to exemption from taxes. It is indeed hard to reconcile with the statements of those canonical authors who advocate total exemption from taxes for the whole of Brahman community. As our ancient thinkers themselves differ on the subject, Dr. Altekar, a renowned scholar of ancient Indian polity, holds that all states might not have regarded such vague recommendations as binding14. It seems that the state government of the canonical period and onward was strong enough to choose their own way according to their needs. It is possible that the entire Brahman class was exempt from taxes in the earlier period when the distinction of a class and not of an individual was in vogue. But in course of time this practice appears to have started fading away and the governments of later period restricted the privilege only to a section of Brahmans which is echoed in the writings of some canonical authors mentioned above. This too was not true of all times for instance, Kautilya in his Arthashastra advocates that it is only the ‘Brahmdeya' lands on which no tax was to be levied. This suggests that in Kautilya's administrative system everyone learned or unlearned alike who was engaged in gainful vocations had to pay taxes to the state. All that the text recommends was that the ‘Brahmadeya' lands were granted to Ritvikas, spiritual guides, priests and those learned in Vedas. Even these persons had to pay taxes on earnings other than that of the ‘Brahmadeya lands'.
The difference of opinions among the canonical authors on exemption from taxes to Brahmans has led some modern scholars on ancient Indian fiscal thoughts to jump upon the theory of ‘quid pro quo'. J.N.C. Ganguli holds that the Brahmans' gift of religious merits, teaching and writing and other cultural activities were supposed to be in lieu of taxes15. Similarly, P.N. Banerji states that they (Brahmans) paid taxes to the state in the shape of their religious services16. Another scholar, P.V. Kane justifies the exemption of taxes to Brahmans on the plea that Brahmans "ministered to the religious wants of the people and were to conserve the religious literature and spiritual inheritance of the country and teach without the liberty to make a contract for fees17".The idea of ‘quid pro quo' is found in some of the canonical writings discussed above as well. Vishnu Smriti says that Brahmans "pay taxes to him (the king) in the shape of their pious acts"18. Another law giver, Manu also advocates that the religious merits which a ‘shrotriya' accumulates, increases the king's life, wealth and kingdom19. Vashishtha also thinks likewise and states that the king secures sixth part of the merit due sacrifices and performing charitable works of public utility (ishtahpurta) 20.
The whole theory seems to be more canonical than political and economic. The Mitakshara, in his commentary on Yajnavalkya Samhita explains that these words of canonical writings are only to glorify the greatness of Brahmans and should not be taken literally and that the king punishes them in appropriate cases20a. This is very aptly vindicated in the Arthashastra of Kautilya which prescribes a fine of 12 panas (currency of the period) on a Brahman who evades the payment due while passing military stations or crossing rivers and bawls out or invites others to fight against his neighbour21. Thus the claim of Brahmans that they are administered by no other than the God Soma is only a figment of imagination; similarly no justification is offered in any of sacred texts for granting special favour by way of exemption from taxes. Further, it also does not appear logically sound that even learned and poor Brahmans went untaxed all the time. The ancient Indian epigraphic evidences show that most of land grants by the kings in ancient India were issued in names of learned and pious Brahmans. Such grants sometimes comprises of a number of plots, sometimes of an entire village and sometimes of a number of villages22. It looks quite improbable that even after enjoying such huge state patronages which must have brought to them not only an end to their poverty but also an easy and luxurious life, prosperity and wealth, they still remained poor. P.V. Kane, contradicting his own earlier theory remarks that the claim to exemption were probably exaggerated and not respected in practice23. A corollary to this is vindicated in Narada Smriti which advocates that a wise king should always abstain from levying a toll or customs duties on articles required by a Shrotriya for his personal use but if he is engaged in trade the king should realise taxes on merchandise24.
Besides Brahmans, ancient Indian law givers also exempt certain other people from paying taxes. Apastamba while commenting on Yajnavalkya exempts from taxes all women of the four orders (Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra), all boys before they show sign of manhood, those who stay with their teachers for learning even though they may be grown up, those who live in austerity, a Shudra who washes the feet of people belong to three higher Varnas, the blind, the dumb and ascetics25. Vashishtha exempts king's servants, helpless persons, ascetics, minors, and old men over seventy and also those who live by exploiting rivers, forests and hills. To add to this all those persons whose income was less than a karshapana were also exempted from taxes26. Manu and Vishnu also hold identical view and include a blind, an idiot, crippled and old people of seventy years. They forbid a ferryman to charge fare from students, hermits, pregnant women and those going on a pilgrimage27. However, against these eloquent words of Dharmshastras exempting pregnant women from taxes etc a south Indian inscription describes an incident when a woman denied her ability to pay a certain tax demanded by an officer she was made to pass through such sufferings and indignation that finding herself unable to put up with the insult, she committed suicide28".
Besides, the Arthashastra of Kautilya does not levy duty on the "commodities intended for marriages or taken by the bride from her parent's house to husband's (anavarnam) or intended for presentation in consecration ceremony (diksha) and other special ceremonials29". Manu also states that tax (shulka) should not be levied on articles of the value of less than one ‘karshapana', the earnings of craftsmanship, alms and articles required for the performance of sacrifices (yajnas) 30.
On certain occasions and in certain cases taxes were either totally exempted or partially remitted. It was possibly meant to strengthen the cause of new and old enterprises. The Arthashastra lays down such rules regarding the land tax.
- "In the case of construction of new work such as tanks, lakes etc. taxes shall be remitted for five years (panchvarshikah pariharah).
- For repairing neglected or ruined works of similar nature taxes shall be remitted for four years.
- For improving or extending water-works taxes shall be remitted for three years
- In the case of acquiring newly started works by mortgage or purchase taxes on the lands below such works shall be remitted for two years.
- If uncultivated tracts are acquired for cultivation by mortgage or purchase or in any other way remission of taxes shall be for two years31.
The king is, however, advised to realise higher taxes in times of financial difficulties but even in hard times he has been advised by Kautilya not to impose any such burden on those who needed state help32. That,' when there was a famine or draught or flood and harvests were severely damaged or hampered, the entire affected people were let go untaxed', also finds support in the great epic, Mahabharata and Rajanitikalpataru32.
The right to grant exemption from taxes was vested with the king, his high officials and subordinate princes as is evident from the epigraphs of the period. Besides, sometimes even the local bodies granted exemption from taxes in exercise of their own powers with and without any reference to the king. However, in such cases the local bodies undertook to pay all dues to the state which fell due on such piece of land33.
The sacred texts discussed above and very many others which have not been brought out in the discussion for being identical in nature show only a moral code of conduct to the state in formulating and implementing its fiscal policies. It has never been obligatory on kings to adhere to advices of ancient law givers in as much as the sovereign always interpreted the rules suiting the state and its financial soundness. A thorough scrutiny of the activities of the governments in ancient India suggests that the middle class people felt the brunt of taxation most. Even in the Vedic times it were the Vaishya class who paid taxes and the state showered favours to the most influential class of populace that is Brahmans and Kshatriya presumably to keep them happy in favour of the government although most of these people were really affluent with riches granted by the government but enjoyed immunity from taxes. The assumption is based on the fact that all the relevant texts of the period depict only the people belonging to Vaishya class paying taxes and no other. A Vedic text states at one place that whatever a Vaishya had in his possession that belonged to state. "Hello Vaishya, just bring to me what thou hast stored away"34. Of the position during the epics, Hopkins observes that ‘kshatriyas (warriors) are as a matter of fact exempt from taxes; the priests are so by divine law'35. Of the Buddhist period, Fick remarks that " even in eastern lands, the Kshatriyas and Brahmans, in spite of their wealth and in spite of the undisputed fact that greater of the land was in their hands, were free from taxes for in all passages in question the tax payers are mentioned as belonging to the middle class"36. The Kama Jataka narrates a story that a Shethi (a very rich businessman) requested the brother of the reigning prince to write to his brother (the king) for remission of Bali (tax) which the king granted37.
Although the sacred texts of ancient India unequivocally advocate for exemption of taxes to Brahmans and Kshatriyas, there are instances when the state ignored the scriptural statutes. A record of 1229 A.D. shows that even the Brahmans as donees of Agrahara village had to pay interest on the land tax remaining in arrears. The state however did not wait for more than three months at the end of which it sold away the share of defaulters38. The period of waiting was often extended to two years at the end of which the sale could not be stopped except by paying the entire dues39. However, there is no such case in northern India but still it may be surmised that the position was not different in other parts of India. The Rajatarangini, which describes the political and financial condition of the state and its people of ancient Kashmir, is full of such instances when Brahmans were not only forced to pay taxes but were also too much harassed with taxation and extra taxation. The Brahmans of Avantipur during the time of Jaisingh were opposed to increasing taxes and held fast and often burned themselves but all these proved ineffective to the king 40. The Arthashastra of Kautilya spares none except those who were of value to the state. The king is advised to please the leaders of provinces, villages, castes and corporations by giving them gifts and remitting taxes. Learned men, orators, brave persons were also favoured with gifts of land and money and with remission of taxes. Even the high officials of the government were endowed with lands and occasional remission of taxes in addition to their salary41. These inferences of Arthashastra show that the state was pleased to spare persons who were of value to state. This shows that the state often ignored the ‘principle of faculty to pay' and took measures that suited the state exchequer.
It may be concluded on the basis of above evidences that the state in ancient India most of the time acted independently in matters relating to fiscal policies. Advice of sacred texts seldom worked as base in the theories of incidence of taxation. The incidence probably did not fall equally on all and influential people tried to get as much of remission in taxes as possible. Although favours in the form of tax free lands and other exemptions were primarily meant for providing succour to needy ones but it were usually the people of favoured class who were benefitted most which was likely to bring much more burden on the common people by means of additional taxes. There appears much truth in what Sir Thomas Munro remarks of taxation in ancient period of south India:
"However, light Indian revenue may be in the books of their sages as sixth or fifth, in practice it has always been heavy…….. No person who knows anything of Indian revenue can believe that the ryot, if his fixed assessment were only a fifth or a fourth of the gross produce, would not every year, whether good or bad, pay it without difficulty"42.
His observation is also true for the rest of India as well. The writing of our great sages is merely codification of moral laws and values which the governments in ancient India modified suiting the purpose, place and time.
` ………………………………………………………….
References:
1. N.C. Banerjee. ‘Economic Life and Progress in Ancient India'. Vol. I. p.308
2. Shatapatha Brahmana. V. 3. 3. 12
3. Ibid. (Shat. Brah.). V. 29.
4/5. Mahabharata. XII. 76. 5-11
6. Vishnu Smriti. III. 26.
7. Vashishtha. I. 42 – 46.
8. Narada. XVIII. 38.
9. ‘Ancient India as described in classical literature'. pp. 167, 170, 47-48; Strabo. XV. I. 39.
10. Apastamba. II. 10.26,10.
11. Manu Smriti. VII. 133.
12. Arthashastra of Kautilya. Bk. II. Ch. I. P. 52.
13. Devibhagavata quoted Indian Historical Journal (IHQ). Vol. I. P. 145; Harivamsa. p. 29.
14. State and Government in Ancient India. P. 268.
15. J.N.C. Ganguli. IHQ. Vol. I. P.144.
16. Public Administration in Ancient India. P. 178.
17. HOD. (History of Dharmashastra). Vol. III. P.145.
18. Vishnu Smriti. III. 27.
19. Manu Smriti. VII. 136, VIII> 305.
20. Vashishtha. I. 42 - 46.
20a. Mitakshara on Yajnavalkya Samhita. IX. 40.
21. Arthashastra. Bk. III. Ch. XX.
22. C.I.I. (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum). Vol. III. No. 5. P. 33 &38.
23. HOD. Vol. III. P.195.
24. Narada Smriti. VI. 14.
25. Apastamba. II. 10. 26. 10 – 17.
26. Vashishtha. XIX. 23.
27. Ibid. XIX. 26 & 37.
28. South Indian Inscription quoted by T.V. Mahalingam.
29. Arthashastra. Bk. II. Ch. XXI.
30. Manu Smriti. VII. 137.
31. Arthashastra. Bk. III. Ch. IX.
32. Arthashastra. Bk. V. Ch. II., Bk. II. Ch. 28., Mahabharata. XII. 87, Rajanitikalpataru. P53-55
33. The Chola. pp. 319 – 20, 303 – 04; C.I.I. Vol. III. No. 5. p. 33.
34. Shatapatha Brahmana. VII. 29.
35. Hokins. Quoted in Fick's ‘Social Organisation' p.119.
36. Fick. Social Organisation. p. 119.
37. Jataka. IV. 169.
38. E.C.V. Arsikera. No. 128.
39. Epigraphia Indica. VIII. P. 208, Inscriptions from Madras Presidency. III. Nos. 768, 946.
40. Rajatarangini. VIII. 2224 – 2225.
41. Arthashastra. Bk. II. Ch. I., Bk. II. Ch. VII., Bk. III. Ch. IX.
42. Minutes of Sir Thomas Munro. I. Pp.237 -238.
___________________
Source...