Bhattoji Diksita On Sphota

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst

Page 33

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
35
Brahmans and 3 percent Muslims, though in the Banaras region the Bhūmihars owned as much as 79 percent of the land." (p. 65-66: "The Bhūmihars were a caste settled mainly in what is today western Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh. They had always tended to claim Brahmanical status, but they did not carry out priestly functions and were essentially landed classes with distinct customs and practices.") See further Cohn, 1969: 346-349: "[The position (of Rajputs] as land controllers and revenue payers was usually based on conquests of semi-aboriginal tribes ... in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries and of other Rajput clans or of Muslim jagirdars from pre-Mughal times. ... In general, Rajputs were replacing Muslim families as zamindars during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." 109 Spear, 1973: 41 draws attention to two measures in particular that were installed: "The first was rotation of office; Mughal officers rarely held high appointments, such as governorships, for more than three or four years at a time. The second was the resumption of their property at death. The assignments of land were for life only; the next generation had to start from the bottom with an official appointment. During life, payments were always in arrears so that they were only able to make ends meet by means of advances from the Treasury. At death, the great man's property was sealed and nothing was released until the advances had been recovered. The process amounted to death-duties of about a 100%. Aware of the fate which hung over them the Mughal lords accentuated the situation by heavy spending. Why not get the glory to be derived from ostentation and public works when you could pass nothing on to your family? Thus the Mughal nobles were notable for their ostentation, their crowds of retainers with even more than the average insolence of office, their works of piety in the shape of mosques, wells, and rest houses, of ease like their gardens and summerhouses, and of remembrances like their great doned tombs." 110 Pietro della Valle says the following about Venkatappa Nāyaka (Grey, 1892: II: 243): “I style him King because the Portugals themselves and the Indians do so; but, in truth, Venk-tapa Naieka, (not only because his Predecessors were a few years ago Vassals and simple Naiekas, that is feudatory Princes, or rather Provincial Gouvernours, under the King of Vidianagher; and at this day he himself reigns absolutely by Usurpation, and is in effect no other then a Rebel; (and God know how long his House will abide in greatness); but also much more by reason of the smallness of his territory, though it be great, in respect of other Indian Gentile-Princes) deserves not the Appellation of King; and the less because he pays Tribute to Idal-Sciàh, who although a greater Prince, is but small for a King and payes Tribute to the Moghol. In short, Venk-tapà Naieka, although now absolute, should in my opinion, be call'd a Royolet rather than a King ..." For some remarks about indigenous banking techniques, esp. the so-called hundi, see Bouchon, 1994: 144, Chatterjee, 1996: 187 ff.; for further remarks concerning the following century, see Kieffer, 1983: 234 ff. (“Les banquiers et les techniques bancaires"). " Smith, 1902: 130 ff.; 1958: 346 f. Richards, 1993: 35 observes: “Father Monserrate gives a vivid picture of a series of bitter disputations with the ulema at the Mughal court. On these occasions, from the Jesuit point of view at least, Akbar was noticeably sympathetic to the Christian point of view and impatient with the inability of the Muslim theologians to argue effectively against them." Richards further points out (p. 37) that from 1578 onward Akbar dispensed pious grants of land to learned and religious men of all religions - not just Islam: “Yogis living in monasteries (maths) received lands. Zoroastrian divines (Parsis) obtained lands. Even Brahmin priests enjoyed Akbar's largess." 112 NCC vol. 5, p. 92, with reference to Adyar D. VI.560, and following dates: 1619– 1631 A.D. for Vidyādhāśayati and 1592-1629 A.D. for Venkatappa. This information is no doubt based on the following verse which occurs at the end of Kaunda Bhatta's BỊhadvaiyakaranabhūsana (p. 331): vidyādhisavaderusanjñakayatim brī