Economics of Kautiliya Shukra and Brihaspati.pmd

economy, the government used to produce grain and other agriculture
products. The agriculture production was considered a major part of
national income. Therefore The Superintendent of Agriculture used to
employ many labourers at the time of cropping and harvesting. (Lallan
Prasad, 2009: 245) If the labour supply was insufficient to crop or
harvest, the prisoners and slaves were also employed. According to
Kautilya, 'He should cause them to be sown in lands suitable for each
which has been ploughed many times, through serfs, labourers and
persons paying off their fines by personal labour
(dandapratikartri)'.(Kautilya’s Arthashastra,1967, 2.24) Kautilya
says further, 'He should cause of delay in (the work of) these on account
of ploughing machines, implements, and bullocks, and on account of
(the work of) artisans, such as smiths, carpenters, basket makers,
rope-makers, snake-catchers, and others’. (Lallan Prasad, ibid)
Thus, The Superintendent of Agriculture was not only
responsible for farming but at the same time he was responsible to
have good connection with blacksmiths, carpenters, rope-makers and
mechanics etc., who are helpful in farming by manufacturing farm
equipments. He was to arrange sowing of different crops in different
seasons. The names of seeds to be sown are listed along with appropriate
seasons. (ibid)
Land Tenure System
It is quite clear that all unoccupied land is supposed to belong
to the king, that is, to the state. It is stated that land which is ready for
agriculture should be given to those who are willing to pay taxes; but
the grants are to be made for life only, implying that the farmers in this
case are not full owners. It is also added that if the grantees fail to till
the fields, these may be taken back from them and given to others or
31
the state may get them tilled by state servants and traders. Land which
is not already arable is to be allowed to be brought under cultivation by
whosoever chooses to do so; in this case the land is not to be taken
away from him. (Kautiliya Arthashastra-2, 2.1.9) This farmer too
must be supposed to be tenant on state land. The state is to help settlers
with seeds, cattle, and even cash so that the land may be reclaimed.
These however, are loans to recovered at the tenants’ conveniences .
Other concessions and remissions in taxes are also recommended at the
time of the first settlement. (Kautiliya Arthsastra-2, 2003, 2.1.13-18)
It may be assumed that though villages in new settlements are
to enjoy certain privileges and concessions in the initial stages, they
would be expected to be treated in course of time in the same way as
the other older villages in the same state. Many of the rules in the latter
part of this chapter sutra 25 onwards appear to be intended for all
villages join the state, not for those in new settlements only.
A question that has exercised the minds of scholars for long is
whether all land belongs to the state or whether there is also private
ownership in land. It seems that opinions were divided on this question
in ancient times. So far as the present work is concerned there be little
doubt that it recognizes private ownership in land, though it presupposes
at the same time the existence of state owned or crown lands. (Kautiliya
Arthashastra-3, 2003: 169)
The view of Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador to
Chandragupta’s court, is different. He says that all lands are owned by
the king. (Boesche, 2006: 678) Modern scholars have struggled and
disagreed over the question of whether Megasthenes was wrong in
contending that the king owned all of the land. The K-M economy was
so large that it is practically difficult to have a state control over the
total arable lands. The other lands which were not under state
32