The Pattern of Landholding

The pattern of landholding is an extremely important feature of the economy in the expansion of agriculture. The continuation of the problem of ownership of land is still one of the unresolved controversies of ancient India. During the course of our study, certain observations have struck us, but in making them we shall restrict ourselves to the question of landholding.^[1] Most of the land was being farmed in the manner of individual holdings which made its appearance by the time of the Buddha, at least in the monarchical kingdoms, kingship originates with the emergence of separate fields, as is evident from the Agganna sutta. The need for a king arises in case rights to ownership of the fields is violated in its view. The idea of separate fields is reiterated in a parable which derides the fully of a man who neglects his own fields but thinks of weeding his neighbours.^[2] At least one method was given by the Milindapanha concerning the origination of the rights over land.

It says that, when a man clears the land of its forest and prepares it for cultivation he establishes rights over it:

‘yathaMkoci puriso vanam sodherva bhumim niharati tassa sa bhumi ti jano voharati na cesa bhumi tena pavatit tam bhumim karanam˙katva bhumi samiko nama hoti’^[3]

(It is as when a man clears away the jungle and sets free a piece of land and the people say ‘that is his land. Not that the land is made by him. It is because he has brought the land into use that he is called the owner of the land).^[4]

This statement signifies a very significant doctrine in relation to private property and connects it with the labour. It signifies that the entitlement of a person to the land is achievable primarily because he has put labour into it.^[5] Peasant proprietors possessed a reasonable amount of land, which in the opinion of Mrs. Rhys David signified the bulk of the holding^[6], the king also appears to have been in direct control of some of it. It has been presumed that this comprised of all the wastelands, forests and mines.^[7] The kings of Kosala and Magadha initiated to allot brahmadeya lands to the bramanas^[8] from this category of land which has been figured in the Pali canon. Radhakrishna Choudhary aided such a view and argues that brahma daya lands were allotted out of the royal domain or the crown lands, and these had no associations with the lands held by cultivators.^[9] It is noticeable that Pasenadi and Bimbisara allotted all the brahmadeya lands that were enumerated in the Pali texts. The fact that these lands were a distint category carrying a special connotation is evident from a stock passage in the Pali texts.

The fact that these land were a distinct category carrying a special connotation is evident from a stock passage in the Pali canon describing brahamadeya lands as follows:

‘tena kho pana samayena brahmano pakaresadi ukk[??]ang ajjhavasati sattussadang, satinakatthodakang, sadhannang, rajabhogang, ranna pasendina kosalena dinnang rajadayag brahmadeyyang.^[10]

(‘At that time there dwelt at Ukkattha the brahmana Pokharasadi, a spot teeming with life, with much grassland and woodland and corn, on a royal domain, allotted him by King Pasenadi of Kosala as a royal gift, with power over it as if he were king.’).^[11]

The commentary to the Majjhima Nikaya explains brahmadeya as setthadeya, the best gift; and adds that once given the gift could not be taken back again.^[12]

The complete clarity of the insinuation of the statement raja bhogang is not seen. It has been recommended that the lands were rent free and that the grantee was entitled to full usefructuary rights on it, rather than carrying administrative and political rights with the grant.^[13] It has been suggested by Rhys Davids that the lands were tax free, being a grant of the king’s half share as tax, although he believes that the brahmadeya carried with it judicial and executive rights too. He further recommends that only the king’s rights would come under the grant, and that the right of the peasants to the other half and to the use of the common wasteland would remain with them.^[14] It is noticeable that the location of the brahmadeya lands in the Pali canon are always in a brahmana gama. In addition to the single brahmadeya holder, such as the brahmanas Pokharasadi, sonadanda, or Canki, there are a large number of brahmana-gahapatis who also comprise the brahmana gama.

Transfer, sale and gift of land are other controversial points related to the question of landholding and land ownership. The buying of Jetavana by Anathapindika’s from the prince Jeta Kumara is very familiar but it is not completely free of controversy. It is to be noticed that the transfer of Jetavana denotes orchard land or woodland, and not agricultural land, and any single example of such type of transfer is not mentioned in early Pali literature. In the similar way, although many gifts of land were made to the sangha, each comprised of the gift of a vana or orchard land.^[15] It has been presumed that although this may partially cleared or even uncleared land on the outskirts of urban centres^[16] like savatthi, Rajagaha, saketa, Kosambi^[17] and other smaller settlements, the purpose of these units of settlements was to provide residence to the bhikkhu-sangha. It has been believed that this hints that the appearance of the sale or gift of agricultural land had not yet been visualized in society.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

J. Jolly has pointed to the distinction between ownership and possession in the law of property (J. Jolly, Hindu Law and Custom, p. 196).

[2]:

A.N. Bose, Social and Rural Economy of North India, Vol. I, p. 17.

[3]:

Milinda panha ed. by Trenckner, p. 219.

[4]:

A.N. Bose, The Social and Rural Economy of North East India, Vol. I, p. 15.

[5]:

Jayamal Rai, The Rural-Urban Economy and Social Changes in Ancient India, p.15.

[6]:

C.A.F. Rhys Davids, ‘Economic Conditions according to Early Buddhist Literature’ in E.J. Rapson (ed.), Cambridge History of India, Vol.I, p.176.

[7]:

A.S. Altekar, State and Government in Ancient India, p.275.

[8]:

D.N., I, p. 109; D.N., I, p. 96; M.N., I, p. 427; D.N., I, p. 76.

[9]:

Radhakrishna Choudhary, ‘Ownership of Land in Ancient India’, J.B.R.S., Vol. LIII, p.32.

[10]:

D.N., I, p.76.

[11]:

D.B., Vol. I, p. 108.

[12]:

M.L.S., I, p.354n.

[13]:

D.B., I, p. 108n.

[14]:

Ibid.

[15]:

The Vinaya defines an arana, the usual term for the gift of land to the sangha, as a flower garden (puppharamo). See Horner (B.O.D., II, p. 2n; parajika, p. 61). The Anguttara Nikaya bans the sangha from the possession of agricultural land (A.N., IV, p. 266).

[16]:

S. Dutt, Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India, p. 59.

[17]:

For instance, Jetavana, Veluvana, Anjanavana and Ambavana. The natural or virgin nature of these lands is suggested by the names themselves. For example, Veluvana is a bomboo grove.