Chapter-IV Economic Life of Peasantry - Shodhganga : a...

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.


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.


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.


56. Mazumdar, B.P., The Socio-Economic History of Northern India

(11th

and 12th

cent. A.D.), p. 174.


169

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


137. Ibid.


139. Ibid.

140. Kar, S., op. cit., p. 59.



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.


148. Watters T., On Yuan Chawang’s Travels in India (AD. 629-645), Vol.

I, p. 301.



173




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.


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.


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.


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.


188. Ibid.


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.


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.


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.

Chapter-IV Economic Life of Peasantry - Shodhganga : a...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter-IV Economic Life of Peasantry - Shodhganga : a...