Indian Antiquary Vol 45

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 38

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[FEBRUARY, 1916
brought an average of Rs. 17,500. And as the Nâik kingdom had 72 palayams, he calculated that the total tribute they paid to the central government amounted to Rs. 72X 17,500 or Rs. 12,60,000. But in 1742 affairs were unsettled, and the revenues in consequence low. Mr. Nelson allowed an addition of 50 per cent. for the more secure government of the Naik age, and so arrived at the figure of Rs. 18,90,000, i. e. £189,000 in English money.c9 His conclusion in other words is that, while the crown lands brought in a revenue of £880,000, the tributes of Polygars contributed only £189,000. With regard to the taxes of non-agricultural nature, Mr. Nelson surmised that the income from them must have been about one-eighth of the total income of the State, and fixed it at £131,000. So his calculations of the Naik's revenue came to the grand total of £1,200,000. And this he, points out, tallied with his supposition that the Naik of Madura should have contributed £100,000 to the imperial treasury at Penukonda or Chandragiri, every year.
His views criticised. The conclusions of Mr. Nelson, however, seem to me to be open to criticism. He has, in the first place, no sound reason to suppose that the Madura province was the richest of the imperial provinces and contributed more than every other province to the imperial treasury. It is true that it was the most extensive province; but it does not follow from this that it was the richest province. The chronicles clearly tell us that there were more forests, waste lands, and uncultivated lands there, than perhaps in any other province It would be therefore more correct to fix the amount of the tribute of Madura at about £250.000 than at £400,000. A most interesting and corroborative proof of the correctness of this more moderate estimation is afforded by the statement of the Portuguese traveller Barradoss in 1616, that the Madura Naik's tribute was 600,000 pagodas, i. e. £225,000. Even supposing, for argument's sake, that Barrados's statement is too moderate, we can have no justification whatever for pushing the amount higher up than by £50,000, that is to say, for fixing it at about £275,000. And if this is accepted, it will naturally have also to be accepted that the total revenue of Madura should be thrice £275,000 or £825,000, And that was exactly what the Mirtanjiya MSS. say, as I have already pointed out. If, however, Mr. Nelson's equation of values is taken it will be £880,000. Now the point to be remembered is this sum of £825,000 (or £880,000, according to Nelson) is the whole revenue of Madura and not the land revenue from crown lands alone. The MS. chronicle does not say that it was a section of land revenue alone. On the contrary it distinotly says that it was the total revenue of the State. Mr. Neleon is not justified in swelling the revenues by attributing the whole to a part. The sum of £880,000 in short-I shall just for argument's sake take the sum as given by Mr. Nelson-included the rent from the crown lands, the tribute from Polygars and feudatories, and nonagricultural taxes.
The real total revenue and its three divisions. The total revenue of Madura, then, was £880,000, to take the most exaggerated view, and not £1,200,000 as Nelson thought. This sum of £880,000 should have been derived from the three sources, from the land directly under the crown, from the tributes of vassal chiefs, and from various taxes. Now, what proportion did the land revenue bring? Here I agree with Nelson in thinking that the crown lands brought far more to the treesury than the palayam8.66 I agree with him in his statements that, though less extensive, the crown lands were more fertile, better situated, and better cultivated, and that the revenues from them were more than four times the tributes collected from the Polygars. 63 Madura Manual, p. 153.
64 Ibid.
65 See Forgotten Enupire, p. 230. 66 As Nelson says that the income from crown lands was £880,000 and that from tributes £189,000, he evidently thought that the former was 4-6 times the latter. His theory seems to be a sound one.