Economics of Kautiliya Shukra and Brihaspati.pmd

supervision were clearly to be supposed to belong to private owners.
There are clear indications in Arthashastra about private ownership of
land. The owner of the field is distinguished from the tenant.(Kautiliya
Arthashastra-2, 2003, 2.1.17 and 3.1.10) In connection with the
disputes regarding boundaries between two fields it is stated that if
neither party can prove its claim, the disputed portion goes to the king;
similarly land, the owner of which cannot traced, is also to go to the
state. (Chamola, 2009: 25-26)
According to Boesche, Kautilya sometimes gives the
impression that the crown owned all lands in the country. But the
distinction that is made between a tenant and a landlord and references
of farm land sell and purchase given in the Kautiliya Arthashastra makes
it clear that there was private land ownership system in ancient times.
Therefore following conclusions may be drawn about land ownership
in Kautilya economy (Boesche, 2002: 68)-
1. There was a considerable amount of crown land or at least
controlled land.
2. Most farmers have the taxpaying lands.
3. Crown land was not owned by individual farmers because
the state could seize the land if farmers were not productive.
4. Kautilya clearly thought in terms of incentives, therefore to
encourage production he thought it fair to vary tax rate
according to the fertility of land.
An important state activity frequently referred in Arthashastra
is about settlement of unoccupied land. This is not transformation of
pasture land into agricultural fields, but the occupation and settlement
for the first tie of new virgin territory. Mention has also been made of
the relative merits of different types of land that may be selected for
33
reclamation and settlement. The king was considered owner of all land
and water in the country. Farmers were to pay for irrigating the fields.
Those having own wells were supposed to pay higher than those
bringing water from a distance. (Chamola, ibid, 25)
When new settlements were planned, people from crowded
villages and outside were allotted these lands. A village should normally
had 500 people, majority of whom should be lower varna farmers.
The distance between two villages should not be more than 3-6
kilometers so that people can protect themselves from outside invasions
by coming together. The village boundaries were demarcated by rivers,
hills, forests, thorny buses, bridges and banyan trees etc. A city in the
midst of 800 villages a town for 400 and a sub town for 200 villages
were built. Ten villages used to constitute a big village (mahagram)
fort were built for protection of janapadas. Saints, teachers, priests
were allotted land free of cost so were the people employed for security,
record keeping, looking after cows, physicians and trainers of horses
etc. the land so allotted could not be sold to others. Fertile land was
allotted for farming to the family. According to Kautilya, the state …
should grant lands to priests, preceptors, chaplains, and Brahmins
learned in the Vedas as gifts to Brahmins, exempt from fines and taxes
with inheritance passing on to corresponding heirs, and to heads of
department, accountants and others, and to gopas, sthanikas, elephant
trainers, physicians, horse trainers and courtiers, land without the right
of sale or mortgage. (Kautiliya Arthashastra-2, 2003, 2.1.7)
Wages for Farm-workers
Farmers and farm workers were paid 25 percent to 50 percent
of the farm products. In case of crops destroyed due to natural
calamities, no share in crop was asked by the state.The minimum
34