Technical Terms in the Hindu Revenue System
Summary
The Hindu Revenue System discusses key technical terms like *uparikara* and *sparikara*, which represent distinct revenue types in ancient Indian land grants. The author initially interpreted *uparikara* as a tax on permanent tenants and *sparikara* on temporary ones, but Dr. Barnett challenged this, associating *uparikara* with the "Crown’s share of the produce." However, the author counters that terms like *dhigbhogakara* (king’s share in kind) and *hiranya* (cash) already serve this purpose, and historical records link *uparikara* to oppressive practices rather than regular revenue. For instance, Assamese grants list *uparikara* alongside other burdens like *utkhelana*, suggesting it was an irregular, harsh tax on cultivators. The term *setu* (reservoirs) was interpreted by the author as royal-owned gardens and fields, per Kautilya’s *Arthashastra*, but Barnett proposed a "water-rate" meaning. The author refutes this, noting *sdatadhdga* already denotes such rates, and Kautilya’s definition explicitly ties *setu* to royal land ownership. Regarding *bhūmicchidranya*, Yadavaprakasa’s definition implies full ownership rights for grantees, but Barnett argues it allows the Crown to eject tenants at will. The author disputes this, citing Smriti texts and grants emphasizing the permanence of endowments, often invoking divine curses to deter revocation. For example, the Chammak grant ties land retention to the donees’ conduct but still prohibits arbitrary resumption. The author also addresses the
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This analysis of technical terms in the Hindu revenue system clarifies contentious interpretations, emphasizing the distinction between regular and irregular revenue components. By demonstrating that *uparikara* and *sparikara* represent specific, non-standard taxes rather than generic shares of produce, the study challenges prior assumptions and highlights the nuanced fiscal structure of ancient Indian land grants. The critique of alternative explanations, such as reinterpreting *setu* as a water-rate, underscores the importance of adhering to classical definitions and contextual evidence. These findings refine our understanding of revenue terminology, offering a more precise framework for analyzing historical land-grant inscriptions and administrative practices. The systematic examination of terms like *bhumicchidranya* further solidifies the legal and economic implications of these terms, reinforcing the need for rigorous scholarly scrutiny in deciphering historical fiscal systems.