Sources of Ancient Indian History:

Que. Evaluate the ownership of land in ancient India on the basis of literary and epigraphic sources. [UPSC CSE-2013]

Introduction:

The debate regarding the ownership of land in ancient India has focused on assessing the evidence for communal/corporate ownership (i.e. ownership in the hands of the village community), royal ownership and private ownership.

Communal/Corporate ownership:

(1) Although the Dharmashastra texts have a great deal to say about property, their opinions on land rights vary considerably, and contradictory statements are sometimes made within the same text.

(2) Certain texts suggest that the village community had an important say in land-related matters, even if this did not amount to full-fledged ownership. 

For instance, the village community was assigned an important role in settling boundary disputes and the sale of land, and the king was supposed to inform it when he made a gift of land. 

According to Vishnu Smriti and earlier Manu Smriti, pasture land was community property and could not be partitioned.

(3) The village community seems to have exercised rights over water resources as well.

(4) A few earlier sources assert the individuality of landed property, i.e., it could not be divided. 

The Gautama Smriti states that what is considered yoga-kshema (livelihood) cannot be divided. Similarly, the 4th/3rd century BCE Mimansa Sutra of Jamini states that the earth is common to all and even an emperor cannot give away all his land. 

This opinion was confirmed several centuries later by Shabarasvamin (4th Century CE) in his commentary on the Mimansa Sutra.

(5) A few inscriptions can also be cited to support the idea that in ancient India, land was considered the property of the village community.

Royal ownership:

(1) Much more evidence can be cited to support royal ownership. For the earlier period, there are the references in Greek texts that quote Megasthenes as saying that all land in India was owned by the King.

(2) While the intimate connection between the king and the earth is frequently invoked in ancient Indian texts, there were several more specific statements in the Dharmasastras that can be used to argue that the king owned the land and this was considered the justification for taxation. 

For instance, according to Many Smriti, the king is entitled to half a share of the ore dug out of mines because he is the land of the earth and gives protection.

(3) The law books of Gupta period reflect the growth of royal power and authority and make a stronger assertion of the king’s ownership of the soil, but also reveals some ambivalence.

The Katyayana Smriti states that the king is the owner of the soil (bhu-swamin) and hence can claim 1/4th of the farmers’ produce. However, the very next verse states that because they dwell on the land, human beings are declared to be its owners.

The Narada Smriti gives the king the right to divest the peasants of his field and house, but at the same time, advises him not to resort to such a drastic measure as these are the householders’ means of subsistence.

(4) An unequivocal assetion of the royal ownership of land is found in certain later sources such as a commentary on the Narsimha Puranam, which states that land belong to the king and not to the cultivators, and in Bhattaswamin’s 12th century commentary on the Arthasastra, which seems to justify taxation on the ground of the roal ownership of the land.

(5) On the other hand, from early times there was school of thoughts that rejected the idea of king’s ownership of land and declared taxation to be king’s wages for the protection he provided to his subjects. Jamini and Shabara were the strongest proponents of this view.

(6) Inscriptions, specially land grants, have also been cited as proof of the royal ownership of land. However, although land grants indicate that the state or the king owned some land, they do not necessarily indicate that this applied to all land. That the king was not the absolute owner of all land is also indicated by inscriptions recording the purchage of land by kings for thre purpose of pious donation.

Private property:

(1) In north India the institution of private property in land emerged in about the 6th century BCE. This institution was well entrenched by 300 to 600 СЕ. The law books of this period discuss and distinguish between the issues of possession, ownership and legal title to property in general and land in particular. Laws regarding the partition, sell and mortgage of land are laid down.

(2) Literary references to various types of private land transactions are matched by those from inscriptions. Numerous inscriptions record the purchase of land by individuals for the purpose of donation to Brahmanas or religious institutions.

How can all this evidence be reconciled?

(1) Epigraphic references suggesting corporate or communal ownership are very few and belong to an early period. And although the village community- or at least its dominant section- may have had a say in land-related matters, this did not amount to corporate or communal ownership.

(2) On the other hand, from c. 300 CE onward, literary and epigraphic evidence can be marshalled to argue for both royal and private land ownership. 

While variations in texual statement cannot be made with regard to the epigraphic evidence. The answer seems to be that from c. 300 CE onward, the king was considered the lord of all the land, but not the owner in the legal sense.

Private property in land existed under tha umbrella of a somewhat vague or largely theoretical notion opf ultimate royal control, and the king’s claims did not preclude the rights of private individuals. Some tracts of land were under direct royal control. Private ownership prevailed outside these tracts.

(3) It should also be remembered that notions of ownership in ancient India were not necessarily identical to modern Western ones, and the sources sometimes suggest a hierarchy of land rights rather than exclusive or absolute ownership rights. 

For instance, one of the Ashrafpur plates (7th/8th Century CE) from Bangladesh speaks of a plot of land that was enjoyed by a person named Shravantara, cultivates by Shikhara and others, and donated by the king to a Buddhist monk named Sanghamitra.

The Dharmashashtra views on property-related issues:

(1) The Gautama Dharmasastra and Manu Smriti describe ownership rights as consisting of the right to do whatever the owner wanted to do with the property and specifically mention the right to sell, gift, and mortage.

(2) Among the various ways of acquiring property, the Gautama Dharmasastra mentions inheritance, purchase, partition, acceptance, and finding.

(3) The Manu Smriti gives a list of the seven lawful ways of acquiring wealth- inheritance, finding or donation, purchase, conquest, lending at interest, doing sone work for others, and accepting a gift.

(4) The Brihaspati Smriti mentions seven ways of acquiring immovable property- through learning, purchase, mortgage, valor, marriage, inheritance, and succession to the property of an heirless kinsman.

(5) The Narada Smriti lists inheritance, gifts made through love, and gifts brought into the home by the wife as the three sorts of wealth for all but goes on to distinguish between ways in which members of the four varnas acquire wealth through their pursuit of their specific vocation.

(6) On the subject of possession and legal title, the Manu Smriti states that the field belongs to him who first removes the weed and the deer to him who first wounds it. Both the Narada and Brihaspati Smritis state that long and uninterrupted possession is a ground for claiming ownership of property.

The Narad Smriti states that if the owner of a piece of land is unavailable, dead, or unable to cultivate his land, a stranger who tills the land without being opposed by the owner should be allowed to keep the produce.

According to the Brihaspati Smriti, if a person has enjoyed unopposed and uninterrupted possession of land for 30 years, it cannot be taken away from him and the ownership rights of the original owner stand null and void.

(7) However, this does not apply if the person who is enjoying the property is a friend or relative of the original owner. Nor does a king, minister, or learned Brahmana become legal owner of property simply due tolong-term possession.

According to both the Narada Smriti and Brihaspati Smriti, if property has been enjoyed by three generations and has passed into the fourth, legal title becomes unnecessary and it cannot be taken away.

However, these texts contain statements to the effect that long-term possession does not give a person legal rights over property. 

The Yajnavalkya and Brihaspati Smritis distinguish between mere possession of land and legal title. According to the Brihaspati Smritis and Narada Smriti, mere possession does not create proprietary rights; legal title is necessary to validate possession. 

The latter test (Narada Smriti) lays down rules about illegal possession, and states that a person who cannot produce evidence of legal title to property has to be considered as their, even if he enjoyed possession for a hundred years. 

Conclusion:

The evaluation of land ownership in ancient India based on literary and epigraphic sources reveals a dynamic and multifaceted landscape. From communal land management in the Vedic period to the structured land grants of the Mauryan and Gupta empires, and the feudal structures of the post-Gupta period, land ownership evolved alongside changes in socio-political and economic systems. These sources provide valuable insights into the role of land in shaping ancient Indian society.