129
Chapter-IV
Economic Life of Peasantry
The increased agrarian character and the development of almost
feudal economy along with regionalism may be seen of the most important
features of early medieval India. Further, the growth of the hierarchy of
ruling aristocracy involved to a considerable extent in a sort of lord-vassal
nexus, the emergence of the phenomenon of political authority becoming
closely connected with landed property, which became to a certain degree
the actual basis of social and political status, and the rise of large class of
rural aristocracy connected with land. Land was commonly assigned by the
rulers, with right of varying degrees, to Brāhmaṇ as and religious
institutions, to vassals for military service, to member of the clan or family,
and even to officers.1 Some inscriptions describe that the regular rights of
the local officers, as the talāras and the local dignitaries, as the paṭ ṭ akilas,
and the occasional rights of petty officers, such as cāṭ as and bhaṭ as to a
portion of the produce of the soil were also recognized by the rulers.2 Thus,
this developed a great variety of interests in land rights over land, claimed
by the various grades of intermediaries. From the supreme overlord, his
sāmanta, the latter‟s sāmanta and the lesser landed intermediary, down to the
peasant who worked on the soil, there would emerge many parties in the
feudal pattern, claiming right of varying degrees over the land and its
produce. But the layers of landed intermediaries were not the same
everywhere and the peasants were also of many categories as widely
discussed in the foregoing chapter.3
The circumstances characterized by the emergence of so many parties
claiming and enjoying land rights of various grades, we notice certain
130
marked tendencies about the possession of land during the early medieval
period. One of them was represented by the growing royal claim of the right
of ownership over land, a tendency which may be noticed to some extent
even during the Gupta period. Two verses of Kātyayana, as quoted in the
Rājadharmakāṇ ḍ a4 of Laksmīdhara and explained by Mitramiśra
5 later on,
have led K.P. Jayaswal6 to plead for private ownership of land, Ghoshal
7 to
enter kings ownership of land, and Kane8 to think that the state was deemed
to be the owner of all lands as a general proposition but individuals or
groups that had cultivated lands in their possession were regarded practically
as owners there of subjects to the liability to pay land tax and the right of the
state to sell land for non-payment of tax. In fact, what we find in the verse is
neither the absolute ownership of the king nor the fullest individual
ownership of the inhabitants of the kingdom.
Here we discuss the possession of land of the peasants. Generally it
can be said that the peasants had no rights on the land because of feudal
complex. They got land for cultivation from the king‟s sāmantas and other
landlords. The law digests and commentaries refer in a general way of
peasant‟s proprietors in villages.9 The Samarāṅ gaṇ asūtradhāra of Bhoja
(11th
Centaury AD.) suggests the existence of well to do peasant proprietors
in some regions of a kingdom.10
However, the Ādipurāṇ a11
of Jinasenācārya
defines a village in a way which reveals that usually the majority of village
population was composed of Śūdra-karṣ aka who was sharecroppers,
temporary tenants, field labourers etc. It appears that during the early
medieval period the bigger peasant proprietors were making their way into
the ranks of the ruling aristocracy and similar ones were being reduced to
poverty by oppression and over taxation and also owing to the curtailments
or extinguishments of their land rights.
131
In fact, due to the feudal complex, we can see that the peasants
working on the land as serfs, independent peasants, dependents peasants and
hired labourers, etc. During this time, the most of peasants were attached to
the land but were not the owner of land. It was due to the practice of sub-
infeudation. We notice from a copper-plate inscription of early northern
India that an official had granted land out of his possession without the
permission of his overlord Vigrahapala III.12
It shows that some of the
grantees enjoyed not only the power of sub-infeudation but also of eviction.
The feudal lord treated peasants as tool meant for his personal enjoyment,
which reduced them almost equivalent to the position of serfs. Besides, the
independent peasants were also prevalent as producer. The Anjaneri plate of
Jayabhata III of Kalacuri13
describes the family field of householder
(kuṭ umbī) Dīpa and householder of (kuṭ umbī) Revalla. These two family
fields have been separated clearly from the donated piece of land. Such
fields were evidently held by the particular family from generation to
generation and could not, therefore, be taken away from them except for the
nonpayment of land revenue, etc.14
The above reference points to the
existence of a class of independent peasants who owned their fields. But
most of the peasants worked as dependent peasants and hired labourers.
They were mostly sharecroppers.
Most of Gupta and post-Gupta lawgivers stress on the obligation of
the tenants to cultivate the fields leased to them and pay the fixed share to
the owner even when they neglected cultivation.15
It seems that there were
on the one hand, the owners of land and on the other hand the cultivators
who were either temporary tenants or sharecroppers. According to It-sing,16
the Buddhist monasteries which provided the peasants with fields and bulls
got their land cultivated by them and usually received one sixth of the
132
produce. They can be called temporary tenants or sharecroppers who gave
one sixth of the produce to the land owner.
Besides, the temporary peasants, there were different classes of
produce sharing peasants that were cultivated the land of owner during the
early medieval period. The term ardhika used for the sharecropper in Manu
Smṛ ti (IV-253) indicates that they were entitled to one half of the produce.
Bṛ haspati17
quoting in the Vyavahārakāṇ ḍ a of Laksmīdrara has divided
share-croppers into two categories. According to him, if the sharecropper
was provided (by his master) food and clothing he was entitled to one fifth
of the produce. But if he was not given food and clothing, he would get one
third of the produce. It seems that the peasants had no right on land due to
established authority of feudal lord. They mostly worked on land as share
croppers in this period.
As agriculture was the main occupation of Indian people for centuries
the agriculturists have been specifically referred to in various land grants of
this period. A number of such land grants never fail to mention the krsakah
or the kutumbinah i.e. the members of cultivating class. It is significant to
note that in the ancient period, agriculture was viewed as a distinctive
occupation of the Vaiśyas. But, now it was sanctioned unreservedly for the
Bṛ āhmaṇ as and other upper caste also. It was done partly with a view to
provide means of livelihood to the poor upper caste people, and mainly for
the benefit of the land holding priestly aristocracy. Some went to the extent
of regarding agriculture as the Sāmānyadharma of all the varṇ as. Another
most significant development of the period in this respect was that
agriculture was begun to be regarded by many authorities as the distinctive
occupation of the Śūdras.18
In practice also it was the sudras who were
largely engaged in actual agricultural operations. Though, we find literary as
133
well as epigraphic descriptions suggesting that sometimes the common
Bṛ āhmaṇ as were also engaged in the work of village.19
Yet on the whole,
the members of the upper class began to withdraw themselves from the
actual work of agriculture and developed a strong base against it. As regards
to those Vaiśyas families who were ordinary peasants now appeared to have
declined in social and economic status and thus reduced near to the Śūdras.
Gradually, only trade and commerce began to be regarded as the distinctive
occupation of respectable Vaiśyas.20
Although the peasants were the backbone of the society but owing to
feudal economy and the increased claims of king, the sāmants and the landed
aristocracy over the land right, the land right of the common peasants were
bound to be reduced. Then again in many regions the interests of peasants
were further hit due to the oppression by rulers and their officers. At the
same time, the transformation of a large number of the Śūdras into peasants
means the emergence of fairly large section of peasantry who were generally
in a state of dependence and held precarious tenancy right over the land.
Further there developed numerous categories of peasants within Śūdra
varṇ a. The law books reveal that sometimes land was further leased to
temporary tenants who in turn, had the right to get it cultivated by others.
Moreover, there came out plough-drivers and other agricultural labourers as
farmers as well as examined in the foregoing chapter.
Agricultural Implements:-
We cannot think any agricultural development
without any agricultural tools or implements. The utility and culture of land
depends on the first and foremost operation in agricultural production. This
consist in breaking up the lumps of earth and smoothing and leveling prior to
134
sowing of seed so as to bring about improvement in physical condition of the
soil conductive to the healthy growth of the crops. The Kṛ ṣ iparāśara
(c.11th
cent. AD) suggests the need for proper implements and argues that
they must be strong and sound; otherwise agriculturists may face trouble at
each step.21
During the period under study, various implements were in use by the
peasantry for agricultural operation. The plough was the chief implement for
which terms like hala, langala, sira, phala, kusika, godarana have been
given in the lexicon.22
The plough, also called the indigenous plough or the
country plough, which was mainly used for preparing and cultivating the
rice fields was described by Kṛ ṣ iparāśara23
to be comprised of the
following constituents :- Ῑ ṣ ā ( the beam of the plough), Yoke ( the yoke),
Niryola ( the shoe and body of plough), Halasthāṇ u ( the handle of the
plough or the piece of wood fixed to the Niryola), Phālaka ( the ploughshare
), Pāśikās ( the iron angles that fix the ploughshare to the shoe of the
plough), Aḍ ḍ acalla (the pins of the yake where the bull is tied), Śula (
an extra piece of wood that firmly fixes the body to the beam), Paccanī ( a
good for deriving the bulls), Yotra ( a cord for fastening the bull to the yoke
of the plough), Avaddha ( the iron angle between the body of plough and the
beam).
Besides, the other agricultural tools and implements that which were
used by the agriculturists and hence encountered by Kṛ ṣ iparāśara 24
as
fellow: - Madikā (also called Mayikā. A ladder shaped contrivance used for
leveling rice field both before and after the sowing of seed), Viddhaka (A-21
spiked hoeing implements for making furrows and loosening the soil),
Kodāla (A spade, mentioned in the text, as being used in lifting and
throwing cattle manure. This hand tool was mainly used for pulverizing and
135
breaking clods and removing weeds), Khanitra (A harrow used for opening
furrows and removing weeds, pebbles etc.), Medhi (A threshing post, made
of Nyagrodha, Saptaparana, Gambhari, Salmali, Udumbara or any other
milk exuding tree), Sṛ ṇ i (Sickles of various shapes), Cālanī (A vassal for
sifting), Dhānyakṛ t (A winnowing fan for separating the chaff from grain),
Sūrpa (A winnowing basket). The other agricultural implements included
such as spades (godannam), goads (pratodah, lunam etc.), sickle, hols,
khanitram, avadāranam25
etc. The old Bengali literature also reveals that
plough, cleaver, sickle, frame, ladder, stick, husking pedal etc. were the
common agricultural implements which were made by the village
blacksmiths and carpenters.26
Cattle Wealth:-
The cattle‟s rearing was another important occupation of the
peasants after agriculture. The cattle power was used in the agricultural
operation by the farmers. In those days, when tractor and other modern
machines were not invented, the animals were the principal tillage power
sources. Kṛ ṣ iparāśara recommends the use of cattle in rice culture and is
silent about the buffalo and other animals which were also employed
sometimes. Cattle as being of such paramount importance for cultivation,
every effort was made for their proper maintenance which would ensure the
smooth sailing of the agricultural operation and boost the prospect of a rich
harvest. Kṛ ṣ iparāśara27
, in the same context, advises the farmers not to
subject the drought animals to pain or oppression. Needless to emphasize,
too much hardship adversely affects the health and longevity of the animals
and proves to be detrimental in the long run to the interest of the farmers
136
who are forced to look for new animals in order to keep the agricultural
operation going.
The basic livestock of the peasants were cattle that were used for
ploughing, transport and food by the common men during early medieval
period. The peasant employed a communal cowherd, who drove the cattle,
branded with their owner‟s marks, to the grazing fields beyond the ploughed
field every morning and returned with them to dusk.28
The inviolability of
the cow was of slow growth. Besides, the cattle owned by cultivating
peasants there were large herds belonging to professional herdsmen, who led
a semi nomadic life in the wilder part of the country. Other domestic animals
included the buffalo second only to the ox as a beast of burden and the
favourite victim of the sacrifice made to the goddess Durgā, whose cult was
very popular in those days.29
The goats, sheeps, horses, elephants, dog, etc.
were other animals that were domesticated by the peasants. The peasants
reared animals not only for agricultural operation, but for manure, milk,
curd, etc. also. The cattle, infact, were most important for agriculture as the
technology was not so much developed as today.
Soil and use of manure:-
The peasants had the knowledge of almost all the
activities related to the agriculture during the early medieval period. They
had the sufficient knowledge of soil. It is needless to emphasis that the first
thing of agriculture is the soil. It was realized that the fields near the river
were more fertile which might have led people to develop them keeping
such factor in mind. The knowledge of the qualities of the soil was well
implied as testified by Medhātithi30
(9th
cent. AD) who explains ūṣ ara as
that part of the land where on account of the defects of the soil, seed do not
137
sprout. The advance in the technical knowledge about the properties of soil
is best indicated by the use in the dictionaries of different terms for an
ordinary field, a fertile field suitable for every crops, desert, firm ground,
clay, excellent soil, an area green with young grass and one abounding in
reds.31
In the land grants, we come across the references to different type of
land such as sāra and ūṣ ara, kṣ etra,32
khila33
and urvara,34
in which
urvara was extremely fertile. Northern India during the period under study
had a large area of such fertile land. These terms coined to indicate the
fertility and other features of the soil and not merely academic but were
actually used in connection with cultivation.
After soil the manure comes. The peasants of this period possessed a
fair knowledge of different kind of manures and process of manuring that
was used in the agricultural fields. It seems that the cultivators were aware
of the fact that however rich in chemical contents land may be in due of
course of time it becomes unproductive because every crop takes away from
it certain elements.
The beginning of manuring the soil, a necessity for the nourishment of
plants, can be traced as early as to verse in Atharvaveda.35
From the
reference regarding to the use of manure in agriculture can also be traced in
the Arthaśāstra36
and Bṛ hatsaṁhitā.37
And by the time of our study period
the knowledge and use of manure not only continued by developed to a
greater extent as testified in the works like the Agnipurāṇ a, the
Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, the Upavana-vinoda and the Vṛ kṣ āyur-veda of Surapala.
The Uktivyaktiprakaraṇ a38
also testifies that Indian agriculturists enhanced
the fertility of their fields with manure.
The extensive using cow-dung as manure in this period is verified in
the Harṣ acarita39
which talks about numerous lines of wagons bearing
138
heaps of cow-dung carried by cultivators in carts drawn by oxen to fields
that become weak in their fertility properties. According to the
Kṛ ṣ iparāśara,40
cow-dung was the common form of manure about the
preparation of which it gives the following instruction, “the heap of cow-
dung should be loosened with spades in the month of māgha and turned into
powder and dried up in the sun and then the fertilizer should be deposited in
holes dug for the purpose in the fields in the month of phālguna and after
words scattered in the field at the times of sowing for without manure the
paddy plants grow but does not yield fruit”. The Mānsollāsa41
also contains
interesting account of the preparation of manure.
About the method and use of manure Agni-purāṇ a states that „a tree
becomes laden with flowers and fruits by manuring the soil with powdered
barley, sesame and the offal matter of a good mixed together and soaked in
washing of leaf for seven consecutive night. A good growth of trees is
secured by sprinkling them with the washing of fish.42
It is undoubted that cow-dung was also used as a fuel. But we are not
to suppose that cow-dung was also used as fuel to such an extent as to render
it unavailable for use as manure. In those days, huge forests surrounded the
villages and there was no shortage of fuel as it is there today. Thus the
farmers must have founded it advisable and profitable to use cow-dung for
manuring the fields. Some of the manures that were used by farmers in this
period are referred to in the sayings of Khanā,43
“those things (e.g., rotten
cow- dung) which injure man cure the plants”, “if some water, in which a
fish has been washed, is poured at the root of a gourd plant then the plant
will surely be benefited from it”, “the land which contains rotten paddy as
manure is fit for the rearing of chilis”, “betel-nut plants require cow-dung as
manure for their growth”, “pieces of rotten straw of chip of wood should be
139
used as manure at the root of arums”. It is thus clear that various kinds of
manures were used by the cultivators and they had the full knowledge of
manure and every aspect of manuring their fields.
Seeds and Sowing:-
The agriculturist people of the period understudy also
had the knowledge of seeds which were sown in the fields as well as the
methods of their sowing in the fields. It is testified in the Kṛ ṣ iparāśara
which sheds interesting light upon the system of the selection, collection and
preservation of seeds. It is added that if the seed are unproductive the efforts
for other factors in cultivation become futile; the seeds are at root of the
crops; hence one should pay attention to the seeds.44
It advises that all kinds
of seed should be collected in the month of magha or phālguna. They are
then to be well dried in the sun and exposed to dew at night. The seeds are to
be kept in small bundles. Mixed seeds result in bad crops and seeds of the
same class yield a rich harvest. Seeds should be kept in a tight packet. It also
suggests that the seeds should be kept away from impure associations. Thus
it seems that the peasants would have been well acquainted with the
knowledge about the selection and preservation of seeds during the period
under study.
The peasants also obtained the sufficient knowledge of methods of
sowing as gleaned from the references of literary sources of this period.
Sowing, infact, had grown to be a technical procedure by this time. In order
to bring home the importance of the process of sowing Kṛ ṣ iparāśara
converts it into a veritable ritual.45
The cultivators mediating upon Indra on
an auspicious day sowed three handful of seeds moistened or sprinkled with
cold water. Then with a pitcher in hand facing the east he prayed to the earth
140
for the sprouting up all crops, for timely rain and for the grant of wealth
paddy and prosperity after the sowing of the seeds in the field was over
farmers were offered a sumptuous feast of ghee (clarified butter). This was
also supported by the Deśīnāmamālā46
as it uses the term maṅ galasajjhaṃ
for a field ready for sowing seeds. It was made to ensure agriculture free
from troubles. We are not sure, whether this ceremony was observed by all
cultivators but it does indicate the ritualizing of agriculture in early medieval
time.
The process of sowing was to be completed within scheduled time by
the peasants as testified by Medhātithi who implies that untimely sowing
adversely affects the yield of the crops.47
Similarly the author of
Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, thinking in terms of paddy cultivation, observes that for
sowing of seed month Vaiśākha is the best, Jyaiṣ ṭ ḥ a middling, Āṣ āḍ ha
bad, and Śṛ āvaṇ a worst. It also mentions those nakṣ atra which were
spacious for sowing and those which were less so. Saturdays and Sundays
were to be avoided and certain tithis and special periods were not considered
auspicious for sowing.48
We can never say how much of this advice was
mere superstition and how much was the result of actual experience in the
climate conditions of the period and region of the text concerned. The
Vaijayanti49
describes the terms for naming the fields which required droṇ a,
āḍ haka, khāri, etc. measures of seeds to be sown in them. This knowledge
would appear to have been quite prevalent in this period. The cultivator also
required knowing how seed of particular types were to be sown thickly or
sparsely.50
Generally, the seeds were scattered in the field by the hand. It
was after the fields had been ploughed that seeds were generally sown but
sometimes the reveres was done. Medhātithi,51
however, refers to seeds
being sown with the help of the plough, etc. What is worth mentioning is
141
that the cultivators had sufficient knowledge about the seeds and sowing
method including selection and preservation of seeds, rituals, times,
nakṣ atras related to sowing, methods of sowing, etc.
Irrigation:-
Agriculture has been the main occupation of Indian people from
later vedic period. It is important to note that early Indian agriculture rested
on irrigation and natural rain. It had already occupied a prominent position
and played an important role in the economy of early India. Over a large part
of the country, rain has always been unequally and irregularly distributed
and that is why Indian peasants or cultivators sought to supplement the
rainfall by digging well and censer it by tanks and storage reservoirs
wideners. Though, the author of Kṛ ṣ iparāśara52
considers agriculture as
depending m ainly on rainfall. The artificial system of irrigation seems to
have been developed in fairly extensive use during the early medieval
period. The responsibilities of the king to provide irrigational facilities in his
kingdom has been traditional and very old in origin and the failure of
monsoon was often ascribed (by the classical thinkers) to the sins and faults
of rulers. This notion obliged them to undertake excavation of wells, tanks
and canals. The most remarkable irrigational project implying ingenious
engineering skill came from Kashmir and belonged to the reign of king
Avantivarman. Under his reign, the minister Suyya got constructed the dam
over the river Vitasta to save Kashmir from devastating floods of the
Mahāpadma Lake. Kalhāṇ a notices the prosperity resulting from the work
and showers unstinted praises at the great engineer.53
In the same context,
Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhāṇ a54
mentions that Lalitaditya, a king of Kashmir,
got manufactured a large number of water-wheels and distributed them to
142
various villages. We also find description of king Kalhāṇ a of the Naḍ ḍ ula
branch of the Cāmanas and Ajayasimha, a son of his feudatory who
constructed wells for irrigation purpose. Raja Bhoja also appears to have
been energetic in building reservoirs.55
Beside the above references, we have other references also related to
irrigation. The Cālukya of Gujarat and many feudatories and ministers under
the Kalachuris excavated tanks and wells. Malayasimha, a feudatory, is
reported to have dug a tank in AD 1192.56
A number of tanks existing even
to this day bear eloquent testimony to the concern of the Cāndella kings for
irrigation facilities. Rahilya sagar, Kirat sagar, Madanavarman, Vijaypāla
and Kalyānadevi, a tank in Ajayapgadh is again have been excavated by
Paramardi.57
Paṇ ḍ it Dāmodara, associated with the Gāhaḍ avāla court,
refers to his Uktivyaktiprakaraṇ a, not only to the clearing of wells58
and
digging of a tanks59
but also to a state official named Surapāla who was
deputed to supervise the digging of a tank.60
Apart from these irrigational works which owed their construction to
the state, there were several functional water channels and rivulets in rural
areas. These are mentioned in the land grants as Sarota,61
Sout,62
Jotī,63
Jala,64
Jaloka65
and Jāṇ a.66
There must have been many records testifying
to the actual hold of this precept on the Indian masses. The presence of tanks
and wells in the villages follows also from the land grants of the period
which in enumerating the boundaries of fields or villages granted often
mention canals, tanks, wells and embankments.67
From the reference of Aparājitapṛ cchā,68
we know that rivers,
streams, wells, vapis, tanks, river dams, machine well and canals were the
usual means of irrigation during the period under study. The Mānasollāsa
gives an account of the reservoirs classifying them into kūpa, vāpikā,
143
puṣ kariṇ i, dīrghikā and toḍ āga.69
The Aparājitapṛ cchā70
(12th cent.AD)
also tells about strong machines, wells and Abhidhānaratnamālā71
and
describes the term araghaṭ ṭ aka as a wheel of machine for lifting of water
from wells. Some of the land grants refer the term arghaṭ a or arhaṭ a as an
object of gift and sometime its connection with the enumeration of
boundaries.72
It shows that the arghaṭ a was not within the reach of
common peasants as also verified in the Paratabgarh inscription which
describes that these might have been owned by the kings, feudal lords,
ministers and opulent merchant.73
From the commentary of Medhātithi, we learn about the way in which
cultivators used irrigational works. In this connection, it is explained in term
of Yantra to mean the building of embankments for regulating the flow of
water. It also refers to water being drawn from the well or the tank and
preserved in a cistern and similar small reservoirs.74
Further, the
Samarāṇ gaṇ asūtradhāra, (11th
cent. AD) describes four water machines to
bring water down to raise it first and then to raise it and to raise it.75
Though we notice significant trend in regard to the growth of claims
and power of state to establish its ownership over irrigational water but the
donee‟s ownership of water also sustained.76
Thus all the wells, tanks and
pounds etc. in the village was not owned by the State only. And the man
who dug a well on his own land was to be considered its natural owner77
which shows that all the irrigational activities in early Indian history might
affect the ultimate dependence of early Indian agriculture on the rain.78
It
can be fairly said that the cultivators were used to various means of
irrigation but generally they depended on the rain. And the state also
shouldered the responsibility in construction of irrigational means and
charged in from of taxes in lieu of it.
144
Process of cultivation:-
The process of cultivation was well acquainted by
the peasants as testified in various literary sources. The Kṛ ṣ iparāśara79
lays down in the same context to performance of the ceremony called
halaprasāraṇ a before the commencement of ploughing and also observes
that he who starts cultivation without performing halaprasāraṇ a does it in
vain. The ceremony consisted of invoking native deities and worshipping
them with offerings and also in whetting the ploughshares and besmearing
them with honey and the faces of the oxen with butter. And the Agnipurāṇ a
(600AD-900AD) gives details for worshipping the sun and the gods of
natural elements at this occasion.80
The Kṛ ṣ iparāśara refers to the nature
of soil and its suitability for ploughing at different periods of the year.81
It
also indicates the commencement of ritual ploughing on an auspicious
occasion. It even gives a long list of nakṣ atras, days, tithis and rāśis
auspicious for the purpose82
and goes on to add another list of days, tithis
and rāśis which were considered inauspicious, nothing their evil effects on
the farmer and his bulls and crops and even on other people.83
Such
superstitious ideas appear to have had quite a hold on the minds of the
farmers. Khanā likewise asks the cultivators to begin the ploughing from the
east and to avoid the days of the full moon and the new moon for the
commencement of ploughing.84
The utility of a good plough depends upon
the oxen who draw it. Bṛ hatparāśara repeatedly emphasizes the role of
oxen in ploughing. It is elaborated that the world lives on the crops produced
by the oxen; they produce the grains, crush them and carry them.85
Where as
the Kṛ ṣ iparāśara (11th
cent. AD) asks the cultivation to be carried without
145
cruelty to the oxen. It was warned that if one earns fourfold crop by
oppressing the oxen, he will be reduced to the conditions of a pauper by their
right.86
The Kṛ ṣ iparāśara recommends that field needs to be ploughed
once, thrice and five times.87
From the Kṛ ṣ iparāśara and other texts of the period we learn about
the details of the different processes of cultivation completed by the
cultivators. Among them after sowing the seed, the field was to be levelled
with a harrow so as to ensure even growth of plants. It is said that if a sown
field is not hoed properly, the crops cannot grow in abundance, nor yield a
good harvest. It further adds that hoeing is done in the month of Śrāvaṇ a or
Bhādra, the harvest is doubled even if grass grows again and that if another
hoeing is done is the month of Āśvina corn grows plentifully.88
Animals, birds and insects must be prevented from destroying the
crops. Fencing must be done to prevent animals from crossing the sown
field. Bṛ hatparāśara advises the peasants in the same context that fences
which animals cannot cross upon should be erected.89
Sometimes a
scarecrow of grass was set up for protecting the field and a watch man had
often to live in the field.90
A verse in the Subhāṣ itaratnakośa refers to the
platform raised on the boundaries of the field from which the watchman
scared away wild boars.91
The noise made by watchman to scare away
animals and birds was called hiṃḍ olayaṃ, hilloḍ aṇ aṃ and hiṃḍ olaṇ aṃ
in the Deśināmamālā.92
According to Hemacandra the expression
hiṃḍ olaṃ is also used to signify a contrivance to scare away birds etc. from
fields93
. Even in modern time, Indian cultivators strike a horizontal hollow
bamboo pole with a vertical one by pulling it with a rope while lying in their
hut or in the midst of their work in other parts of the field.
146
The Agnipurāṇ a94
mentions auspicious occasions for harvesting.
Khanā gives many practical tips in connection with reaping.95
“Corn ripens
within 20 days after the first appearance of the ear and one should cut and
thresh the corn in 10 days more”. “The corn ripens 30 days after the first
appearance of the spike, 20 days after the first appearance of flowers and 12
days after the ears bend like a horse‟s head…….”. Before the actual
commencement of reaping, the Kṛ ṣ iparāśara96
asks the performance of the
ceremony called muṣ ṭ igrahaṇ a to be performed when the cultivator after
worshipping the plants cuts off two and a half handfuls of plants in the north
east corner of the field and return home with the plants on his head. Non-
observance of the rite is said to create difficulties for the cultivators for of
every step and lead to the loss of crop.
And finally the expressions used in the Kṛ ṣ iparāśara for threshing
refer to the process of separating grain from straw by making oxen traced on
the corn. In the dictionaries of this period we have, besides terms for a
threshing floor, the word methi which stands for the post of the threshing
floor round which cattle turn to thresh out of the grains.97
The same text also
mentioned that after all this has been done the grains are to be measured and
kept in the grainary.98
Type of Cultivation:-
The sources of the period under review throw light on
the method of cultivation that was used by the peasants in Northern India.
The Harṣ acarita of Bāṇ a furnishes references to two types of cultivation -
(i) spade cultivation and (ii) plough cultivation. And Bāṇ a talks about the
spade cultivation prevalent in the settlement near the Vindhya forest.99
The
plough seems to be the chief implement of cultivation in the Śrīkaṇ ṭ ha
147
Janapada where owing to the number of its land lotuses, the plough, whose
shares uproot the fibres as they scar the acres, excite a tumult of bees singing
as at were the excellencies of the good soil.100
The Kṛ ṣ iparāśara101
describes that the plough cultivation was practiced in Bengal. The hala or
plough is prominently mentioned as an instrument of cultivation in the
inscription of our period. In the Belwa102
and Āmagāchi103
plates of
Vigrahapāla, we find the expression adhunāhala kulita which points to the
plough cultivation in Bengal. The importance and popularity of plough
cultivation was obvious from the fact that the cultivable land was measured
by hala plough measure i.e. that much land which could be tilled by one
plough.104
The Harṣ acarita also informs us that one hundred villages with
one thousands halas of land were granted to the Brāhmaṇ as by Harṣ a.105
The Jhum of slash and burn methods of cultivation were also used by
the people. According to R.S. Sharma, the reference to the deforestation in
the Vindhya region occurring in the Harṣ acarita106
(7th
cent. AD) might
refer to the fact that probably people in these areas practiced the Modern
Jhum type of cultivation. In this type, the farmer while choosing a patch of
forest, cuts down some of the trees with an axe, leaving only the larger and
economically useful ---- clears the undergrowth with a knife or cutlass and
burns the debris. Crops are sown on the clearing or swidden with a minimum
preparation and receive only cursory attention during growth. No animals
manure is used and generally the only fertilizer the crops receives the ash
from the initial burning which provides potash.107
A.K. Chaudhary108
has also noticed some sort of forest burning
methods of cultivation in the Harṣ acarita. According to him, the expression
dagdhasthalī rūḍ asthūlabhīrukāndalaśataḥ 109, dāvadagdhasthali
110 and
davadahana111
point to some sort of slash and burn cultivation in the forest
148
regions of South-Western Bihar. Forest burning is done till today and it is
mentioned in several places of Harṣ acarita but there is no mention of
cultivation in Harṣ acarita in connection with the forests burning. Of
course, donation of land in the forest region is mentioned in the
inscriptions112
of our period, where cultivators might have followed these
methods of cultivation but there is no clear mention of slash and burn
method in the sources of our period.
Crops and Cropping Pattern:-
The literary and inscriptional sources of this
period give a complete list of agricultural products of Northern India that
was produced by the peasants in fields. Early medieval authorities mention
different types of food grains. Both Medhātithi on manu113
and
Triṣ aṣ ṭ iśalākāpuruṣ acarita114
refer to seventeen kind of grain. In the
commentary on Abhidhānacintāmani,115
Hemacanadra (12th
cent. AD)
enumerates the seventeen kinds of dhānyas such as Vrīhi, Yava, Masūra,
Godhūma, Māṣ a, etc. The Abhidhānaratnamālā116
of Halāyudha
(10th
cent. AD) also mentions variety of cereals and food grains that was
cultivated by the peasants. References to wheat, barley, maize, same oil
seeds, pulses, fruits, flowers etc. are also found in the inscriptions of the
period under study. But the inscriptional data in this respect are not
comprehensive.
Rice was the chief agricultural crop of Northern India cultivated by
the peasants. The Rāmacharita117
(c. 11th
cent. AD) and Rājataraṅ giṇ ī118
(12th
cent. AD) use the term Dhānya for rice or paddy crops and same in the
case with term Vṛ hi. Kalhana mentions that during the time of famine khāri
of dhānya was sold at very high prices.119
As enumerated by the lexicons,
149
rice had several varieties i.e. śalih, rabtaśalih, mahāśalih and kalamāh.120
We notice twenty one varieties of rice in the work of Muslim writers
121 and
the Mānasollāsa122
refers eight varieties and five by Medhātithi.123
The
Abhidhānachintamaṇ i124
of Hemachandra also refers seventeen varieties of
rice. Some of the Inscriptions belonging to the period before our period
provide Information regarding the cultivation of rice on large scale.125
Thus,
the rice was the chief crop grown by peasants of Northern India.
The next important crop cultivated by the peasants was wheat.126
The
sources of this period indicate that the regions of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh,
Rajasthan and Sindh were great wheat producing areas127
and continuing
from the time of the white Yajurveda.128
Barley (Yava) was also an important food crop that was cultivated by
the cultivators. Its identification as black hairs corn was described in the
śiśira season.129
Halāyudha also talks about the cultivation of barley.130
And
same was the case with Medhātithi who speaks of Yava.131
Some inscriptions
belonging to Cahamanas of Marawar and Paramaras of Rajputana glean on
the grants consisting barley corn also measuring one haraka.132
The
statement of It-sing also testifies that barley was produced in the north-
west.133
Amongst pulses, mudge (both black and yellow varieties), katāya
(pea), kulatha (horse grain), masūra, valla, maṣ a, etc. also have been
mentioned in the lexicons.134
Rājataraṅ giṇ ī 135
and Mānasollāsa of
Somesvara speak of seven varieties of beans.136
Besides the various varieties
of pulses were also cultivated by the peasants of Northern India.137
Amongst oilseeds, mustered, tile, jartila and atasi are met within the
lexicon.138
The Prabandhacintāmaṇ i refers to the oil pressing of kaṅ guni
seeds.139
And the sesame also included in such varieties as mentioned in the
150
reference of Rāmacarita,140
the Kṛ ṣ iparāśara141
etc. Costar was another
important oilseed that was produced by the cultivators.
Sugarcane (Ikṣ u) has always been an important product of peasants
of Northern India. Bāṅ a142
speaks of the prevalence of sugarcane cultivation
in some forest villages and Kalhana refers to its cultivation in Kashmir.143
Similarly Kavyaṃimāsā refers the kāsakāra and the puṇ ḍ ra varieties of
sugarcane.144
Poṇ ḍ a variety of sugarcane as described by the Al-beruni and
other Muslim writers were grown in the area of Sindh.145
The peasants of
Kashmir also produced sugarcane.146
Some epigraphical sources also testify
that it was an important produce of Northern India.147
Thus, Northern India
was the most important region that contributed in the production of
sugarcane.
Cotton being another commercial crop was cultivated by peasants in
some parts of North India such as U.P. and Bihar. Hiuen-Tsang discloses
that Mathura “produced---fine striped cotton”.148
Gujrat and Bengal were
also two main cotton growing centres. Morcopolo also verifies with his
statement that in Gujrat area cotton of height and duration were grown.149
It
is further stated that the people of Bengal grew cotton in which they drive a
great trade. Harṣ acarita also testifies the same with the word “Picavya” for
cotton plant.150
And further, the Deopara Inscription of Vijayasena alludes
to the villagers noted for the knowledge of cotton.151
Another important crop that was grown by the people of North India
was the Hemp (śaṇ ama) as testified with the occurrence of the term
Pattasutraprasevaka for jute in Harṣ acarita152
The Kalikāpurāṇ a also
refers to clothes made of jute (patavasa).153
Like the Modern time; it was
generally grown in Assam, Bengal and part of north Bihar.
151
Beside these crops, various types of vegetables and fruits, etc, were
also grown by the peasants. For the cultivation of vegetables, Kaśyapa
indicates that farmers cultivated delicious vegetables like jatika, rasijatika,
valhika, vana-vallika, patolika, sanaka, pumpkin, gowd, kalata, kustumburn,
surana, sakata, haldi and ginger, etc.154
Various kind of „sāga‟ mentioned
by Muslim writers155
were also grown and even inscriptions also disclose
that lotus, roots were eaten by the saina-saint as well as certain vegitables
i.e. alābh, kusmāṇ ḍ a-vallarin and śākapatra.156
A large variety of edible
fruits such as mango, pomegranate, jack, banana, date, rose-apple, coconut,
palm-vines, etc. were specially grown in Punjab and the North-West
Frontiers by the peasants.157
Further the Rāmacarita158
describes the
plantation of various trees such as aśoka, amalaka, karuna, pariyola, etc.
that were grown by the people. Hiuen-Tsang (7th
cent.AD) also verifies that
many fruit trees were grown in north-eastern India. And the mango groove
were imminent in the states of Mathura,159
Matipure,160
Ayodhya161
,
Vaisali162
to the planting of Vaisali,163
to the jackfruits of Pundravardhana164
and Kamarupa165
and to the coconuts of Kamarupa.166
From the above
references, it can easily be said that various type of crops, fruits, vegetables
etc. were grown by the peasants in Northern India.
The peasants of this period had a full knowledge of cropping pattern
that was prevalent in Northern India. Like earlier time, we come across to
two seasonal crops167
alongwith the possibility of a third which were grown
during the period under study. The classical writers unanimously affirmed
that the Indian farmers grew two harvest annually- one in the winter season
and the other in the summer.168
The Bṛ ahatsaṃhitā of Varahamihira169
points to the fact that in some part of India during the Gupta period, there
were three harvest seasons. The Kṛ ṣ iparāśara170
also refers to three crops
152
grown in Bengal. In this regard the Yuktikalpataru171
informs that land
exhausts its fertility due to over cultivation year after year. However, to
evade such situation for recover of their fertility land was left as fallow. Al-
beruni making the same tone in regard to one crop i.e. summer crop in
Gujrat and further add that grapes were produced twice during the year.172
L.Gopal also apprises that as in Modern times also, the cultivators follow the
system of rotation or keeping their land as fallow according to wealth of
properties that their fields possessed, as per their own resources, and their
needs.173
Similarly, Abu-I-Fazal in the Ain-i-Akbari mentions that the system
of double harvests- rabi (spring) and kharif (autumn) was prevalent in the
Agra and Delhi provinces during the Mughal period.174
Thus it seems that
generally two crops were taken from land in a year.
Protection of crops:-
The standing crops were sometimes damaged by
diseases, pests, animals and birds. The Kṛ ṣ iparāśara testifies it by naming
various pests and insects. And various instructions dealing with horticulture
and botany regarding the protection of crops were also given. Sometimes
reliance was also put on the divine power of the incantation of mantras.
Kṛ ṣ iparāśara175
gives the following incantation for the cure of diseases of
paddy:-
“(Let there be) success, salutation to the preceptor, (let
there be) welfare, the paramount king, lord Rāma, the venerable and
victorious one, from his shrine like the Nandana-vana on the slope of the
hills, as while as conch, Kunda flower and moon, commands Hanumat, the
son of wind, speedy like wind, the destroyer of hosts of enemies, remaining
153
on the sea-shore, with sharp nails and uplifted tails, among many hundred,
thousands of monkeys, as follows and directs the welfare of others:-
If in the field, belonging to such and such person of such and such
gotra, the destroyer of crops like insects, pests such as Rata, etc. beasts like
goat, bear both domesticated and wild deer, buffalo and birds like sparrow
and parrot etc. do not leave, then disperse them with your adamantive tail-
Om am, gham, ghuh”.
The peasants also believed in the incantation for the protection of
crops as mentioned in the Sāraṅ gadharapadhati176
regarding the incantation
of Mantra for averting the danger of damage, to the plants from locusts, rats,
birds, etc. The Kṛ ṣ iparāśara also refers to an interesting mantra which if
written on the leaf of Ketakī and fastened in the north east corner of the field
is said to protect the crop from diseases, insects and animals.177
But side by
side the texts also prescribe the use of the both of flash and fat, dusting of
the ashes of cow-dung dressing the roots with oilcake etc. watering with the
decoction of several articles for the protection of plants from different
diseases. Surapāla in his well known book Vṛ kṣ aāyurveda, a text on
horticulture and botany, also gives an interesting account of treating the
plant disease.178
Another reference in regard to the harm usually done by the birds and
animals is found in Harṣ acarita wherein Bāṇ a suggests the construction of
scaffolds near the tillage to prevent the incursions of wild beasts in a Sylvn
village in U.P. It is also mentioned that buffalo skeletons were sometimes
fixed on stakes by the cultivators to scare away the rabbits and antelopes
with their sharp points.179
A verse in the Subhāṣ itaratnakośa of the field
from which the watchmen were to scare away animals and birds was called
hiṃdolayamṃ and hiḍ olaṇ ayaṃ in the Deśīnāmamālā.180
Even in Modern
154
times, Indian cultivators strike a horizontal hollow bamboo pole with a
vertical one by pulling it with a rope while lying in their hut or in the midst
of their work in other parts of the field. It can therefore be said that the
peasants had the sufficient knowledge of the methods how to protect their
crops. They also applied the beliefs of the various incantations of mantras
for the protection of crops.
Responsibilities of the Peasantry:-
Though all land in principle was
considered to be the property of the state. But in practice the individual right
of land was getting increased due to the feudalization in polity and economy.
As land grants were now given to the Brāhmaṇ as, religious institutions and
bureaucrats by the kings and their vassals. It was the responsible factor for
the rise of landed intermediary‟s class between the state and the peasants
was on the way. The land alongwith the facilities such as irrigation, seeds,
implements, protection, etc. were now provided to the peasants by the kings
and feudal lords. And in their lieu the peasants paid various kinds of taxes to
the state and his donees. Land revenue, infact, was the chief source of state
income. Sometimes the peasants had to pay in emergency (during wartime)
by physical work for the state that was called visti. We come across various
references of literary sources which describe that the peasants had to pay
numerous kinds of taxes to the donees.
Bhāgabhogakārā, a term constantly occurred in the inscriptions fall in
the period of our study period which has been interpreted by the scholars as
a single tax181
or as bhāgakara182
and bhogakārā or as three different taxes
bhāga, bhoga and kārā.183
It does not seem feassible to impose a common
meaning to this compound word. And out of the two terms bhāga may be
155
taken as the king‟s share of the crops where as bhoga as the object of
enjoyment such as the periodical supplies of fruits, fire, wood, flowers, etc.
by the rural people (the peasantry) to the king. The word hiraṇ ya is
generally used along with bhāgabhogakārā184
in the land grants of the
period under study. It has been interpreted by scholars as a tax in case,185
payment in money,186
tax in cash,187
lump assessment188
in cash as
distinguished from the king‟s grain share assessed upon individual
cultivators. The Mānasollāsa also refers to king‟s share of 1/50 in part of the
hoard of gold capital and cattle wealth.189
It seems that it was also paid to the
king by the peasants.
The term daśāparādha is also very commonly found in the grants of
the early medieval period which meant ten offences.190
Jolly191
also explains
it in regard to the ten crimes after Nārada192
who enumerate them as
disobedience to the king‟s order, murder of a woman, intermixture of castes,
adultery, theft, conceiving from other then the husband, abuse and
defamation, obscenity, assault and abortion. The terms like udraṇ ga and
uparikara also noticed in the land grants of our period.193
It also have been
described by D.C. Sircar as a tax to be charged from permanent tenants and
a fixed tax to be paid in grains in some areas of the north India.194
P. Niyogi
also suggests that the term may mean an agricultural tax on land.195
Uparikara is also described as an item of revenue in land grants of early
medieval period.196
The oppressive nature of this tax is testified by the now-
gong plate of Balavarman III of Pragjyotisa197
wherein an officer tell that
Uparikara causes the oppression of the rural people. The term piṇ ḍ akara
mentioned only in Khalimpur198
Plates of Dharmapāla indicats that it was a
collective tax charged from the village as one unit. Further the Pratihara land
156
grants cite a tax called khalabhikṣ ā199
which seemed to mean as a tax on the
threshing floor. According to L.Gopal, most probably the threshing floor
was a state monopoly and a portion of it might have been taken out of the
corn brought over these.200
Besides, we come across another list of taxes charged on land and
allied sources. One may quote the Gahadavala land grants which present a
long list of regular and irregular levies, knows as gokara, jalakara, kūtara,
pravaṇ ikara, turuspadondana, kumaragadinka, valadi, lavanakara,
parnahāra, daśabandha, ākara, etc.201
And some references also talk about
the tax charged on plough and pasture land. The earliest such reference to
plough tax (halikākara) is found in the grant of Maharajas of Uccakalpa.202
It
seemed to be a levy on each plough that the cultivators kept or it might have
been a tax in kind or cash, most probably in kind, on each hala measure of
land. Another tax know with the term paśu203
was meant a tax on cattle. It is
added that pasture land also continued to be a source of revenue in the
period under study. The Lekhapaddati, in the same context, apprises us that
in Gujrat, villagers had to pay an annual tax on grazing land (gocara).204
From the above references, it can fairly be said that the various types of
taxes and levis were collected by the states machinery. The peasants, infact,
had to pay all such taxes to the state in lieu to the protection and facilities
that were provided by the state to them.
The rates of land revenue were not fixed during early medieval period.
The Dharmśāstras sanction the rate of 12
1
8
1,
6
1and of the produce as land
revenue.205
The Mānasollāsa also expressed the same view that the king
should take 6
1
12
1,
8
1or of the produce as per the nature of soil and its yield. It
157
seems that in practice the rate of land revenue differed at a variation under
the influence of the feudal system.206
As a speciman document the
Lekhapaddhati reveals in this regard that some petty rulers even collected
upto 3
2of the produce.
207 The Mānasāra released a list of various categories
of rulers and the various rates of revenue collected by them.208
It is stated
that the Cakravarti, Maharājā Narendra, Pārshnika and Paṭ ṭ adhara type of
rulers, got 3
1
4
1,
6
1,
6
1,
10
1and of the produce respectively as revenue.
209 Beyond
them no mention of the rates collected by other categories of petty rulers
included in the list.
Adverse Conditions and Relief to peasantry:-
The life style of peasants was
usually a tough one and they had to face many problems in their day-to-day
life. The burden of various taxes, natural calamities like famine due to
draught, flood, diseases, and damage made to crops by beasts, pests and
birds, march of army, etc. worked as responsible factor for the adverse
economic condition of the peasantry. Agricultural production still depended
to great extent on a number of natural resources phenomena their fortunes
were linked with the vagaries of weather. In those days of slow
communication and under the condition of local economy famines usually
visited either by draughts or floods and brought much suffering to the
people. Famines became especially unbearable, if the king was not
supportive and oppressive and did not care forego the taxes.210
The fact
regarding over taxation may easily be supplemented by the Gahadavala211
grants which mention a long list of taxes which were realized by the state.
158
The Cāndell inscriptions also mention ucita and unucita demands.212
And
above famines one may add the reference of the
Triṣ aṣ ṭ iśalākāpuruṣ acarita which refers to famines as terrible with
universal destruction.213
The Aparājitapṛ cchā also testifies that in famine
stricken regions dharma declined and the kings and their subjects were
destroyed.214
The Rājataraṅ giṇ ī215
also refers to two dreadful famines in
this period. Frishta refers to a famine A.D. 1033 which raged in Hindustan
and as a consequent many countries were entirely depopulated.216
The
Bṛ hannāradīya Purāṇ a217
also reveals that sometimes famines caused
displacement of population. Standing crops were sometimes damaged by
diseases, pests, animals and birds as informed by Harṣ acarita that the
rabbits and antelopes sometimes destroyed the rising buds of the
sugarcane.218
Yogesvara while quoting Subhāṣ itaratnakośa says that
pigeons swallowed standing Kodrava corns.219
The Mitākṣ ara on
Yājñavalkya220
further indirectly points out that the crops were sometimes
damaged by the animals like goats, sheeps, cows and buffaloes, etc. It seems
that the visit of famines caused the suffering of people during early medieval
period.
The insane craze for glory actuated the princes to undertake frequent
expeditions which also added adverse to the economic condition of the
peasants. Moreover, the frequent feudal wars had also become a common
phenomenon during period under review. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī221
informs us that
in Kashmir, the Brāhmaṇ as registered their grievance against the king by
hunger strike because the king was not taking effective measures to check
the advance of the enemy forces that were expected to plunder their fields. It
is supplemented by a reference of Mānasollāsa which states that an invading
king could confiscate all the grains and hence causing famine in the invaded
159
country.222
In the Rājataraṅ giṇ ī, also we come across many instances of
cities and villages which were burnt and destroyed by rebels.223
Further, the
Tilakamañjarī224
vividly describes the destruction of a village caused by a
marching army. The successive invasion of Sultan Mahmud must have
struck a heavy blow to the agriculture of Northern India. It is worth noting
that the Muslim historians, being biased, have recorded only the plunder of
Jewels, gold and silver, but they are almost silent about the forcible seizure
of the crops standing in the fields or lying in the granaries of the peasants.
Sultan Mahmud used to undertake his long marches in Northern India in
early winter and in the spring season when the autumn and Rabi crops had
been harvested.
But the cessation of his invasion did not offer the peasants much
opportunity for pursuing their avocations peacefully. War and conquering
raid by ambitious monarchs were the normal features during the early
medieval period. The kings used to start their conquering march on the
Vijaya Dasami day or the tenth day of the bright half of the month of Asvina
mainly because the harvesting of the autumn paddy used to take place in the
bright half of this month. Numerous inscriptions refer to the immunity of the
village granted from chata and bhata which have been explained as freedom
from supplying shelter, provisions and forced labour to the regular and
irregular army. This shows that normally the villagers consisting mostly of
cultivators had to bear these heavy burdens during the movements of army.
Oppression by rulers and petty officers as discuss above also enhanced the
adverse conditions of the peasantry.225
The Rājataraṅ giṇ ī 226
informs us
that in persistent greed, king Jayapida took the whole harvest for three years
including the cultivators share. The Kathāsaritsāgara227
and the
Bṛ hatkathāmañjarī228
also informs us that the condition of the people
160
worsened in the estates of Brāhmaṇ as and petty feudal lords owing to their
exactions. It can thus be said that over-taxation, famines, feudal wars and
march of armies, etc. were responsible for the adverse condition of the
peasantry.
In such condition, the state usually provided the facilities to the
peasants in order to compensate. The literary text of this period, however
advise the kings to provide relief in such occasions. In the Aparājitapṛ cchā
the king is advised to improve the means of irrigation in order to avoid the
dreadful consequences of famines resulting from draughts.229
Medhātithi
also asks the king to give protection to his people by distributing corn from
his granary during the famine.230
Sometimes the kings took some measures
for famine relief. We come across to evidence in the Rājataraṅ giṇ ī wherein
the people of Kashmir suffered from chronic famine visited due to the
devastating floods caused by the river Vitasta and the Mahapadma Lake.
The prosperous people, kings, like Lalitadity and Avantivarman took
effective measures in regard to the distribution of water to avert the natural
calamities by constructing a series of water wheels, canals and dams which
helped the country to attain prosperity.231
Sometimes the state distributed the
seeds and other helping material to the peasants. The Ādipurāna of Jinasena
(9th
Cent. AD.)232
described that just as herdsman grazes his cows on a rich
pasture land and then milks them for his own purpose, the ruler should carry
on cultivation in the bhaktagrāmas233
through the karamantikas by
providing them with seeds and by making other efforts. Some type of
attitude is reflected in the Yuktikalpataru of king Boja (11th
cent. AD), in
which it has been said that the peasant should be protected by the rulers in
every village because, agriculture, the source of all wealth, depends upon
their labour.234
161
Generally, agriculture depended on irrigation. It was the duty of king
to provide necessary facilities for the supply of water to cultivated land by
excavating tanks, well, canals, etc. The literary and epigraphical sources
bear ample proof of the fact that the ruler took interest in making provisions
for irrigation. However, there are some instances that the state provided
facilities for the supply of water to the cultivated land by undertaking
irrigational projects. Instances, though rare are also found of the relief
measures provided by the state in the time of famine. But the state did not
think in terms of strengthening the financial resources hence the
consequences of the failure of the crops.
The Reaction and Response of the Peasantry:-
The economic exploitation
of the peasantry by the rulers and landed aristocracy was bound to result in
protest, rebellion, revolt and other forms of agrarian struggle by the
peasantry. Land grants are usually silent on this point but some literary texts
throw light on the peasant‟s reaction to the process of impoverishment.
Some literary sources glean that sometimes peasants distressed by famine
and over taxation took to mass desertion. A verse in the Subhāṣ itaratnakośa
of Vidyakara235
(12th
Cent. A.D) indicates that owing to unwarranted
oppression of the bhogapati, the peasants left the villages. According to R.S.
Sharma,236
peasants however, could not leave the villages which were
granted along with their inhabitants for the donees had the legal authority to
restrain them.
The instances of protest by the organised peasants are also available in
the literary texts of this period. According to Bṛ hannāradīya Purāṇ a,237
a
chief of the kīnāśas is said to have killed people and their cattle, plundered
162
their property, as well as, that of temples without any higher purpose. This is
also corroborated by epigraphical evidence. The Amauna plate of the
Maharaja Nandana238
(a grant of 6th
century AD.) from the district of Gaya
lays down that the grant should be protected from the hands of the Śūdras.
The sources of this period describes to some historical instances of
peasant uprisings. The revolt of the Kaivarttas, in eastern Bengal, described
by Sandhyakara Nandi in his Rāmacarita (12th
cent. AD) is a typical
instance of peasant‟s insurrection. The copper plate inscription239
of
Mahipala I points to this fact that the Kaivarttas were deprived of their plots
of land given as service tenures. The revolt directed against the Palas was
led by Bhīma against Rāmpāla and the latter had to mobilize not only his
own sources but also those of all his feudal lords to put down their revolt.240
According to Sandhyakara Nandi241
the rebellions were ordinary peasants
and naked soldiers riding buffalos and fighting with bows and arrows. One
reference of Rājataraṅ giṇ ī also highlights on the revolt of the dāmaras in
Kashmir was also a type of peasant movement. Kalhana records that they
were cultivators who carried arms.242
A prosperous cultivator by acquiring
wealth seemed to have been able to enter into the rank of the dāmaras. That
is why Lalitaditya243
on his deathbed warned his successors against allowing
villagers to accumulate property because “if they should keep more wealth,
they would become in a single year formidable Dāmaras and stronge enough
to neglect the commands of the king.” In spite of such warnings the dāmara
revolt became quite frequent in Kashmir. A South Indian inscription244
reveals that the farmers refused to obey the royal order for converting their
village into a freehold but were later on punished severely by the king. It
seems that because of their limited sources and military experience peasants
have been ill-fitted to organize and carry through successful revolts.
163
Daily life of Peasantry:-
The daily life of the common mass of the peasantry
was spent in the midst of protracted hardships. It is shown in our reference
of Saduktikarnāmṛ ta245
that the peasants worked in the field from morning
to the sunset. They had to remain satisfy with a very low standard of living.
The Subhāṣ itaratnakośa246
also records that the family of householder or a
cultivator consisted of many members but a single ox, the only possession of
the family. The family got terrified when the descript beast was too
exhausted to get up. The entire family lived in just one room which
combined all the functions of kitchen and dining room, living room, nursery,
bedroom and lying in chamber too. These references sufficiently indicate
that the standard of the economic life of the peasantry was not upto the mark
and most of a peasant families did not live happy like though they had to
work hard from the sunrise to the sunset. The farmers generally wore simple
cotton clothes. However, the life of the prosperous farmer families was full
of luxuries. In Yaśastilkacampū247
farmers wives making their way to their
corn fields have been described as wearing precious jewelry on their person.
Some of the ladies had become so delicate that the cold season impaired the
delicacy of their lotus like feet when they came to the field to assist their
husbands.248
But it seems that such prosperous farmers were few in number.
The husbandman ploughing the field with concentration has been compared
to saints lost in dhyāna by the author of the Yaśastilakacampū249
which
points to the fact that the peasants carried on their work with much devotion.
A complete attention was paid to the preparation of the field for cultivation,
sowing of seeds, protection of crops and storing the crops after the harvest.
164
The peasant wives also helped them in their agricultural activities.
Some ladies assisted their husbands in the field while others guarded the
ripening crops. Hemacandra250
testifies that when the harvest time
approached the cultivator‟s wives guarded the rice crops and sang songs
during their vigil. Bilhaṇ a251
also refers to farmer‟s wives who kept busy
chasing parrots away from the ripening corn. Some of the ladies who could
not go to the farm did essential work at home such paddy pounding, milk
churning etc. Besides, paddy pounding, the ladies also carried on the duties
of milk and curd churning and drawing of water from wells. The
Bhaṭ ṭ ikāvya252
speaks of the churning of milk or curd by the cowherd
ladies living in the village settlements of eastern U.P. Besides, making of
ghee (clarified butter), the making of cow-dung cakes for fuel was another
important work at home for the women of cowherds. Some of the ladies
carried the corn to the market in order to sell it and took this opportunity to
buy stores and provisions.253
Still their standard of living was not so high.
On the basis of the above literary and epigraphically sources of the
period under study it can be summed up that various degree of land rights
emerged due to the land grants which were provided by the kings to the
Brāhmaṇ as, religious institutions and other officers. The charters of this
period reveal that feudatories enjoyed varying rights over donated pieces of
land. The religious endowments generally given by rulers to ensure the
spiritual merit for their family, in it turn created a sizeable class of landed
aristocracy. The religious donees gained complete control over land, water
etc. and had the rights to collect the various taxes from the common masses.
It seems that the peasants usually had no right over the land. They got
the land from the landowners for the agriculture purpose. They were mostly
165
dependent peasants and working as agricultural labourers got their share
from the donees as share croppers.
The agrarian character of economy was growing during this period.
The peasants had acquired almost all the knowledge of agricultural activities
by this time. Besides, the other aspects which they were at home were
agricultural implements, soil manure and mannuring, seeds and its collection
and preservation and methods of sowing, crops and cropping pattern, rain,
and protection of crops, agricultural process and other required technical
knowledge as well. It seems that the knowledge of agriculture and its allied
profession was increased during this time. The state also looked after the
peasants by providing the facilities to them at the time of famine which
included seeds irrigational facilities and other compensations. But the state
did not think in terms of strengthening the financial resources of the peasants
in particular to enable them to escape the evil consequences of the failure of
crops.
Though the agrarian economy of the country was generally good but
prosperity was not shared among individuals. In the feudal system, various
legal and economic oppression imposed by the king and his feudal lords,
hampered the economic development of the peasants. The condition of the
peasants in the areas under the state control was not very much different
from the former one. The peasants were harassed by the officers like cāṭ as
and bhaṭ as and also by other petty royal officers. They had to pay a large
number of taxes. Bhāgabhogakārā, hiraṅ ya, and daśāparādha seem to be
the taxes of regular nature. Besides, a long list of agricultural taxes also
existed namely comprising of (i) tax on plough (ii) tax on cattle (iii) tax on
water (iv) tax on pasture. Thus it seems that the economic condition of
peasantry was not good because of numerous taxes imposed on them.
166
The life of the cultivator or peasant was almost miserable. The family
of a peasant comprising many members to feed, but with usually a single ox,
the only possession of the family. An entire family lived in one common
room and even the housewife had to spend her labour time in that very room.
The poor peasant had to bear the sight of his children looking like corpses
with bodies emaciated with hunger. The living standard of peasantry thus
was low and they lived a life of poverty and misery during early medieval
period.
References
1. Yadava, B.N.S., Society and Culture in Northern India, p. 250.
2. Ibid.
3. Sircar, D.C., (ed.) Land System and Feudalism in Ancient India,
p. 90.
4. Yadava, B.N.S., op. cit., p. 251.
5. Vīramitrodaya (Rajaniti), Banaras Edn., p. 271. Quoted by B.N.S.
Yadava in op. cit., fn.18, p. 302.
6. Jayaswal, K.P., Hindu Polity, p. 173.
7. Ghoshal, U.N., Indian Historiography and Other Essays, p. 164.
8. Kane, P.V., History of Dharmaśāstra, Vol.III, p. 495.
9. Yadava, B.N.S., op. cit., p. 255.
10. Samarāṅ gaṇ asūtradhāra of Bhoja, p. 29.
11. Ādi Purāṇ a of Jinasena, XVII, 164.
12. I.A., XII, p. 258, and R.S. Sharma, Indian Feudalism, p. 96.
13. Kar, S., Agrarian System in Northern Indian from the Seventh to the
Twelfth Century, p. 73.
14. Ibid.
167
15. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 79.
16. Takakusu, J. (tr.) A Record of the Buddhist Religion, p. 65.
17. Bṛ ahspati, quoted in V.K., pp. 401-402. Cited in Kar, S., op. cit.,
p. 76.
18. Sharma, R.S., Sudras in Ancient India, p. 241.
19. Yājñavalkya smṛ ti, I, 128.
20. Brahma Khanda, II, 39, 291-92, quoted by Shobha in The History of
Rural Life in Northern India, p. 80, fn. 82.
21. Gopal, L., The Economic Life of Northern India: A.D. 700-1200,
p. 302.
22. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 33.
23. Chattopadhyaya, D.P. (ed.), History of Science, Philosophy and
Culture in Indian Civilization, Vol. V, Part-I, p. 516.
24. Ibid, p. 518.
25. Chauhan, G. C., Economic History of Early Medieval Northern India,
p. 89.
26. Dasgupta, T.C., Aspect of Bengali Society, pp. 229-30, cited by
Yadava, B.N.S. in op. cit. p. 257.
27. Chattopadhyaya, D.P. (ed.), op. cit., p. 514.
28. Shobha, op. cit., p. 60.
29. Ibid, p. 61.
30. Medhātithi on Manu II, 112.
31. Gopal, L., op. cit., p. 298.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Abhidhānaratnamālā, 2.3, cited by Shobha in op. cit., p. 81.
168
35. Atharvaveda, II.8.3, cited in Agriculture in Ancient Indiap, p. 42,
“Cultivation in Ancient India”, by R.Ganguly, I.H.Q.1930, p. 737ff.
36. Arthaśāstra of Kauṭ ilya, II. 24.24, II. 24.25.
37. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 36.
38. Ibid.
39. Harṣ acarita of Bāṇ a, Cowell and Thomas, p. 228; Cf. Kane, p. 69.
40. Chaudhary, A.K., Early Medieval Village in North-Eastern India
(c. 600-1200 A.D.), p. 153.
41. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 39.
42. Ibid, p. 137.
43. Dasgupta, T.C., op. cit., pp. 236-39.
44. Chattopadhyaya, D.P. (ed.), op. cit., p. 865.
45. Ibid, p. 866.
46. Ibid.
47. Medhātithi on Manu., VIII, 243
48. Gopal, L., op. cit., p. 302.
49. Ibid, p. 303.
50. Medhātithi on Manu, IX, 330.
51. Ibid, II.112.
52. Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, V.10.
53. Gupta, Devender Kumar, Prāchin Bhārtiya Sāmāj avam
Arthvyayastha, p. 479.
54. Upadhayaya, A. K., Purav Madhyakālin Ārthīk Chintan, p. 46.
55. Chattopadhyaya, D.P. (ed.), op. cit., p. 857.
56. Mazumdar, B.P., The Socio-Economic History of Northern India
(11th
and 12th
cent. A.D.), p. 174.
57. Chattopadhyaya, D.P. (ed.), op. cit., p. 857.
169
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.
61. Shobha, op. cit., p. 50.
62. Ibid.
63. E.I.XXI, no. 37, II.31-32; Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, pp. 168, ft.48, 50.
64. Ibid, XXX, no.35, II.50, 55, 57.
65. Ibid, IV, no. 34, I.43.
66. Gopal, L., op. cit., p. 287.
67. Mitra, Early Rulers of Khajuraho, p. 180; Barua, Cultural History of
Assam, p. 70.
68. Aparājitapṛ cchā of Bhuvanadeva, p. 188, cited by B.N.S. Yadava in
op. cit. p. 258.
69. Upadhayaya, A. K., op. cit., p. 47.
70. Gopal, L., op. cit., p. 290.
71. Abhidhānaratnamālā of Halāyudha, VI, 685, L. Gopal, Aspect of
History of Agriculture in Ancient India, pp. 144-68.
72. Gopal, L., op. cit., p. 290.
73. Ibid.
74. Medhātithi on Manu, XI, 162.
75. Shobha, op. cit., p. 50.
76. E.I., XIV, p. 182.
77. Ibid, XIV, p. 186, I.24, XV, 295, XXVIII, 327-28, C.I.I., IV, 324-31.
78. Dutt, M.N., (tr.), Agnipurāṇ a, CCLVII, L. Gopal, op. cit., pp. 291-
92.
79. Chattopadhyaya, D.P. (ed.), op. cit., p. 868.
80. Ibid.
170
81. Ibid, p. 869.
82. Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, VV.121-30, Agnipurāṇ a, CXXXI, 46-48.
83. Ibid.
84. Gopal, L., op. cit., p. 308.
85. Ibid.
86. Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, V. 80.
87. Ibid, V. 142.
88. Ibid, VV. 189-92.
89. Gopal, L., op. cit., p. 310.
90. Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, V. 264.
91. Subhāṣ itaratnakośa of Vidyākara, V. 285.
92. Deśīnāmamālā of Hemchander, VIII, 69, 76.
93. Ibid.
94. Agnipurāṇ a, CXXI, 50. Cf. Medhātithi on Manu, VIII, 243.
95. Gopal, L., op. cit., p. 312.
96. Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, VV. 206-13.
97. Abhidhānaratnamālā of Halāyudha, V. 578, Vaijayantī of
Vādavaprakāśa, 1.61., p. 125.
98. Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, V. 237.
99. Harṣ acarita of Bāṇ a, ed. Kane, p. 68.
100. Harṣ acarita of Bāṇ a, trans., Cowell and Thomas, p. 79.
101. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 31.
102. E.I., XXIX, No. 1B, 1.27.
103. E.I., XV. No. 18, 1.25.
104. E.I., XVIII, p. 108, Bombay Asiatic Society Copper Plate of
Bhimadeva II, cited by P. Niyogi in Contributions to the Economic
History of Northern India, p. 83.
171
105. Harṣ acarita, trans., Cowell and Thomas, p. 203.
106. Sharma, R.S., Indian Feudalism, p. 42.
107. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 68.
108. Chaudhary, A.K, Early Medieval Village in North-Eastern India,
p. 150.
109. Harṣ acarita of Bāṇ a, p. 26.
110. Ibid, p. 38.
111. Ibid, p. 23.
112. E.I., XV, No. 19.
113. Medhātithi on Manu, VIII. 320.
114. Yadava, B.N.S., op. cit., p. 259.
115. Ibid.
116. Abhidhānaratnamālā of Halāyudha, II, 425.
117. Majumdar, R.C. and Basak, R.G.(eds), Rāmacharita of
Sandhyakaranandi, Rajashahi,1939, III, 17.
118. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, V.71.
119. Ibid, V.71, 271.
120. Devi, S.M., Economic Condition of Ancient India (from A.D. 700-
1200), p. 19.
121. Ibid, p. 20.
122. Chauhan, G.C., op. cit., p. 92.
123. Medhātithi on Manu, VIII. 320.
124. Abhidhānacintāmani, IV. 233, also in Pushpa Niyogi‟s, Contribution
to the Economic History of Northern India, p. 23.
125. E.I., XXI, pp. 42, E.I., I, 287.
126. Niyatakālakānda of Lakhsmīdhara, 396-97, cited by G.C.Chauhan in
op. cit., p. 98, fn. 69.
172
127. Ibid, p. 92.
128. Devi, S.M., op. cit., p. 24.
129. Ibid.
130. Choudhary, A.K., op. cit., p. 120.
131. Manu, VIII, 320.
132. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 57.
133. Itsing, A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practiced in India
and the Malay Archipelago, pp. 43-44.
134. Devi, S.M., op. cit., p. 25.
135. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, VII. 758.
136. Chauhan, G.C., op. cit., p. 93.
137. Ibid.
138. Shobha, op. cit., p. 58.
139. Ibid.
140. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 59.
141. Choudhary, A.K., op. cit., p. 167.
142. Harṣ acarita of Bāṇ a, p. 229.
143. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, II, 60, VII. 1574.
144. C.D. Dalal and R.A. Sastri(ed.) Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rajasekhara, 3rd
,
edition, A Baroda, 1939. XII, Medhātithi on Manu, VIII. 326.
145. Devi, S.M., op. cit., p. 37.
146. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, 11.60, VII, 1574.
147. Chauhan, G.C., op. cit., p. 93.
148. Watters T., On Yuan Chawang’s Travels in India (AD. 629-645), Vol.
I, p. 301.
149. Choudhary, A.K., op. cit., p. 169.
150. Harṣ acarita of Bāṇ a, p. 228.
173
151. Shobha, op. cit., p. 59.
152. Harṣ acarita of Bāṇ a, p. 217.
153. Choudhary, A.K., op. cit., p. 171.
154. Agriculture in Ancient India, published by Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, Delhi, 1964, p. 72, Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of
Kalhaṇ a, VIII.676, V.676, VIII.134, 143.
155. Devi, S.M., op. cit., p. 7.
156. Chauhan, G.C., op. cit., p. 93.
157. Ibid.
158. Ibid.
159. Watters T., op. cit., Vol. I, p. 301.
160. Ibid, I, pp. 325-27.
161. Ibid, I, p. 355.
162. Ibid, II, p. 63.
163. Ibid.
164. Watters T., op. cit., Vol. II, p. 84.
165. Ibid, II, p. 185.
166. Ibid.
167. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 39.
168. Macrindle’s, Magasthenes and Arrian, pp.54-55 cited by S.K. Maity
in Economic Life of Northern India in Gupta Period, p. 160.
169. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 40.
170. Ibid.
171. Shobha, op. cit., p. 54.
172. Elliot, H.M. and Dowson, J., History of India as told by its own
Historians, Vol.1, p. 67.
173. Gopal, L., Aspects of History of Agriculture in Ancient India, p. 52.
174
174. Habib Irfan, “Technology and Barrie‟s to Social Change in Mughal
India”, I.H.R., Vol. V, Nos. 1-2, p. 153.
175. Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, V. 82.
176. Śaraṅ gadharapadhati, sI.2162. Cited by S. Kar in op. cit., p. 52.
177. Kṛ ṣ iparāśara, V.194.
178. Vrksayurveda by Surapala, sls. 185-122, cited in L. Gopal‟s op. cit.,
pp. 95-97.
179. Harṣ acarita of Bāṇ a, Kane, p. 68.
180. Gopal. L., op. cit., p. 311.
181. Ghoshal, U.N., Contribution to the history of the Hindu Revenue
System, p. 290.
182. Altekar, A.S., Rastrakutas and their times, pp. 214-216.
183. E.I., XV, pp. 293ff.
184. Chaudhary, A.K., op. cit., p. 146.
185. Ghoshal, U.N., op. cit., p. 90, fn. 105.
186. Sircar, (ed.) Land System and Feudalism in Ancient India, p. 372,
fn. 7.
187. Yadava, B.N.S., op. cit., p. 289.
188. Ibid.
189. Shobha, op. cit., p. 71.
190. Ghoshal, U.N., op. cit., p. 398.
191. Jolly, Hindu Law and Custom, pp. 268-70.
192. Gopal. L., op. cit., p. 45.
193. Devi, S.M., op. cit., p. 238.
194. Sircar, D.C., Epigraphical Glossary, p. 349.
195. Niyogi, P., op. cit., p. 187.
196. Devi, S.M., op. cit., pp. 240-41.
175
197. J.A.S.B., LXVI, pt. 1. p. 285, p.3, cited by A.K. Chaudhary in op. cit.,
p. 147, fn. 216.
198. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 111.
199. E.I., III, pp. 266-67; E.I., p. 11, p. 176; E.I., XXV, p. 280.
200. Gopal, L., op. cit., p. 66.
201. Niyogi, R., The History of the Gahadavala Dynasty, pp. 165ff. And
L.Gopals, op. cit., p. 66.
202. E.I. XIX, no. 31, U.N. Ghoshal, op. cit., p. 380.
203. Shobha, op. cit., pp. 71-72.
204. Ibid.
205. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 117.
206. Yadava, B.N.S., op. cit., p. 296.
207. Lekhapaddhati, p. 19.4, cited by B.N.S. Yadava in op. cit., p. 291.
208. Acharya, A.K., Architecture of Manasara, p. 440, cited by S. Kar in
op. cit., p. 117.
209. Yadava, B.N.S., op. cit., p. 298.
210. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, VII. 1225.
211. Niyogi, R., op. cit., p. 165.
212. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 83.
213. Ibid, p. 85.
214. Aparājitapṛ cchā of Bhuvanadeva, p. 187, cited by B.N.S. Yadava in
op. cit., p. 258.
215. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, V, vv.270-78; VIII, p. 1206.
216. Briges, History of the Rise of Muhammadan Power, I., p. 103 cited by
L.Gopal in op. cit., p. 247.
217. Bṛ hannāradīya Purāṇ a, p. 38, 87, cited by B.N.S. Yadava in op. cit.,
p. 258
176
218. Harṣ acarita of Bāṇ a, p. 228, Cowell and Thomas.
219. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 53.
220. Ibid.
221. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, VIII.768-70.
222. Mānasollāsa of Someśvara, I, p. 127 and ft. vv.1038-47. Cited in S.
Kar, op. cit., p. 86.
223. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, VII.1325, VIII.734, 1127, 1169-85.
224. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 86.
225. Majumdar, B.P., op. cit., pp. 170-71.
226. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, IV. 628.
227. Kathāsaritsāgara of Somadeva, III.18.
228. Bṛ hatkathāmañjarī, III, 200, 201.
229. Aparājitapṛ cchā of Bhuvanadeva, pp. 187-88.
230. Medhātithi on Manu, V. 94.
231. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, IV.191, V. 69-70, 81-121.
232. Ādipurāṇ a, 42,175, 176, cited by B.N.S. Yadava in op. cit., p. 168.
233. E.I., vol. XV, pp. 8.92; E.I., XVIII, p. 191; D.C. Sircar, op. cit., p. 49.
234. Yuktikalpataru, p. 6.
235. Subhāṣ itaratnakośa of Vidyākara (35.28) cited by B.N.S. Yadava in
op. cit., p. 171.
236. Sharma, R.S., op. cit., p. 268.
237. Bṛ hannāradīya Purāṇ a (38.18ff), cited by B.N.S. Yadava in I.H.R.
Vol.III, no.1, p. 55.
238. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 90.
239. Ibid.
240. Rāmacarita of Sandhyākaranandina, I. 43.
241. Ibid, II.39.42.
177
242. Mazumdar, B.P., op. cit., Introduction.
243. Rājataraṅ giṇ ī of Kalhaṇ a, IV, 347-48.
244. Kar, S., op. cit. p. 91.
245. Ibid, p. 92.
246. Subhāṣ itaratnakośa of Vidyākara, V. 1310, 1317.
247. Kar, S., op. cit., p.93.
248. Ibid.
249. Ibid.
250. Mazumdar, B.P., op.cit. p. 179.
251. Vikramāñkadevcarita of Bilhana, Vol. III, 14.29, p. 18.
252. Bhattlkavya, 2.16, cited by S. Kar in op. cit. p. 94.
253. Ibid, p. 94.