Revenue:
The ancient Indian land revenue system was similar to the ryotwari system that is now common. Peasants cultivated their land independently under this scheme, making use of the village’s craftsmen as required, and paying land tax to the state through the village.
Bhagadhuk (collector of royal share) and Samaharta were the two prominent revenue officials listed (bringer of tributes). The former was in charge of collecting taxes and tributes, most of which were in kind, and the latter was in charge of storing them in the royal granary and treasury.
The state claimed a certain percentage of the crop’s production, with the total varying over time. Tax rates ranged from eight to thirty-three percent. This variance was due not only to differences in land quality but also to the prices paid by rulers at various periods based on their changing needs.
The standard procedure was to charge a land tax of one-sixth of the produce. The trend was higher in states that pursued a colonial strategy and embarked on lengthy military expeditions. The Mauryan rulers, for example, imposed a 25% tax on agricultural wages, according to Arthasastra and Greek authors.
It’s impossible to say if the percentage of land tax levied in various periods was determined based on gross or net output. It was paid on the gross produce, according to the Jataka literature.
However, it is impossible to imagine that the government did not account for the expense of agriculture while demanding such a large share of the pie. In most cases, the tax was received in kind. The state’s revenue was collected and deposited in granaries across the region, where it was eventually disposed of.
However, in later periods, the process of raising money in cash began, though on a small scale. The amount of state or property tax revenue was not set in stone, and it fluctuated depending on the state’s financial needs. It could be improved if the king needed more funds to conduct the battle.
When crops died if there was another natural disaster, it was also limited. If a landowner refused to pay the land tax, his property could be sold after a certain amount of time, which varied from place to place and time to time. The state also owed interest on unpaid taxes.
It should be noted that, although documents show instances of state confiscation of land for nonpayment of land tax, the Smritis does not refer to the state’s power to seize the lands of defaulting owners. It can also be remembered that the citizens paid all of these taxes to the monarch in exchange for the king’s safety from all future threats.
Another interesting aspect of ancient India’s tax administration is that, at least during the later period, a detailed assessment of all land was carried out before deciding the revenue. This is verified by both Arthasastra and Strabo.
The tax collectors divided the villages into three categories: best (Jyeshta), medium (Madhama), and poor (madhama) (kanistha). This type of land classification was carried out, as shown by the fact that the same authorities listed separate revenue rates. The disparity in soil quality was the cause of this heterogeneity.
Mines, forestry, and other sources of revenue provided a significant portion of the rulers’ income. Regarding the king’s share of the metals, there is substantial disagreement among the authorities of the time.
While Manu states that the king shall receive one-half of the metals produced in his kingdom, Vishnu declares that the royal due is the entire production of mines. According to Arthasastra, the state had complete jurisdiction over mines.
The king even received a lot of help from the forests. Forest dwellers were forced to contribute a share of their earnings to the king. According to Manu and Vishnu, the king was given a sixth of all forest products such as honey, wood, medicinal herbs, leaves, grass, flowers, and fruits.
In addition to the above taxes, which the king collected daily, the king also levied kara and pratibhaga taxes. Since various jurisdictions have viewed these taxes differently, the exact existence of these taxes is unclear.
Kara was most likely a recurring tax on agricultural land in addition to the usual grain share. Pratibha was a regular gift to the king consisting of vegetables, flowers, and roots.
In a nutshell, rulers in ancient India extorted money from people under a variety of pretexts. However, the king was required to ensure that the people were not cheated out of their rightful compensation when levying these taxes.
We don’t get a detailed breakdown of the machines used to collect these taxes. The most we hear is that there was once a hierarchical order of tax officers. Different officials were in charge of different groups of villages, each one reporting to the next. These officials were in charge of the tax administration of the region they were in charge of, and they were paid a set salary for it.
Revenue officials were paid as follows, according to Prof. G. L Adhya:
The king’s regular dues of fruit, drink, and fuel were paid by the Lord of 1 village.
1 Kula is the lord of ten villages.
5 Kulas are the Lords of 20 villages.
Lord of 100 villages, 1 village’s income
Lord of 1000 villages, 1 town’s income
The officials were paid according to their responsibilities, as shown by the aforementioned account. As a result, the lord of 20 villages received five times as much as the lord of ten villages. However, the concept of kula is unclear. It was most likely a large enough plot of land to support a family.