Did kings in Ancient India own all the land?

Did the king in ancient India own all the land or was there a concept of private property? This question is of great interest to historians who study ancient India and in this video, we will try to answer this question. But before talking about this, it is important to understand that the nature of landed property underwent a significant change over time. So, if we look at the early Vedic period, here what we find is that it is the clan who had control over much of the resources. This included land as well and here what we see is that it was the clan who enjoyed rights over the land. But in the later Vedic period, we see that there is a shift from the clan to the extended family and now it was the extended family who had control over the land. But this does not mean that the clan abandoned its right over the different resources. There was still some type of control which the clan enjoyed but now it is the extended family which had become more dominant. So, this is the shift which we see from the early Vedic period to the later Vedic period. Now, in the later period, we see that there is an emergence of this concept of private property and with the emergence of kingship, we see that the landed property or the nature of landed property also underwent a significant change. Now, in the Dharmasutras and the Dharmasastras that were written during this period, they tried to answer this question that what kind of control did the king had over the land. Now, the conundrum which these ancient Indian theorists who were writing these Dharmasutras and the Dharmasastras, these ancient Indian theorists were facing this conundrum that on the one hand, the king was the highest authority of the state and he was also the protector of the people and on the other hand, they had to answer or they had to formulate what kind of control did this highest authority of the state had over the land. So, this is the conundrum which these ancient Indian theorists were facing. Now, without looking at the evidence, it would appear that the king owned all the land because as we know, the king collected taxes from the cultivator. So, it would appear that the king is collecting taxes from the cultivator because the cultivator is using the land which was originally owned by the king. So, here the tax is a form of rent which the cultivator is paying to the king. So, this is what we can say when we are not looking at the evidence but what we see is that the evidence tells us a different tale. Now, the first important point which nearly all of the ancient Indian texts make is that they draw a distinction between state's entire territory and private field and these texts argue that no individual owned all of the state's territory. The second point which these texts clearly make is that the king has the right to collect taxes not because he owns all the land and the cultivators are using his land. The tax which is paid to the king is in return of the protection which the king provides. So, this is an important point which most of the ancient Indian texts make. If we look at Kautilya's Arthashastra, we see that a similar point is made here. Kautilya tells us that taxes are levied because king protects the property of the subject. In the chapter 13 of the first book of Kautilya's Arthashastra, he tells us and I quote, Hence, hermits too provide the king with one-sixth of the grains gleaned by them, thinking that it is a tax payable to him who protects us. The same point is mentioned in the Dharmasutras and the Dharmasastras. The Bodhayan Dharmasutra mentions, Let the king protect his subjects, receiving one-sixth as remuneration. This one-sixth share or Shadbhag, Shad is sixth and Bhag is share. So, one-sixth share is quite important in the ancient Indian text. If we look at Ramayana and Mahabharata, we see that one of the words that is used for the king is Shadbhagin, which means receiver of one-sixth. So, one-sixth was the share which was traditionally meant as tax that the king had the right to collect from his subjects. Now, this idea, this whole idea that the king is collecting taxes in return for the protection which he provides is not only restricted to the Hindu scriptures, it is also present in the Buddhist scriptures as well. So, for most of the ancient Indian theorists, it was clear why the king had the right to collect taxes. He had the right to collect taxes because he is protecting his subjects and the subjects are paying these taxes in return for the protection. So, this point is clearly mentioned in nearly all of the texts and if we look at, for example, the Manusmriti, in the 8th chapter of the Manusmriti, it is written that a king who does not protect his subjects but receives a share in the form of tax was declared to be one who took upon himself all the uncleanness of the people. In Mahabharata, there is an interesting term that is used for such a king who collects taxes from his subjects but does not protect them. In Mahabharata, this type of king is called balishadbhagataskara, meaning a thief stealing one-sixth. So, from all this, it is quite clear that in ancient India, the king did not own all of the land. There existed private property and there were individuals who owned property. The king too had significant amount of property. Now, if we look at a non-Indian text which is Megasthenes's Indica, here what we find is that there is a different type of statement which Megasthenes makes. Megasthenes writes that all of India is royal property and no private person is allowed to own land. Now, this statement of Megasthenes is clearly wrong. We have ample evidence from ancient Indian text which clearly tells us that the king did not own all the land. So, the question comes, why did Megasthenes make this statement? In my view, there are possibly two reasons behind this. The first reason was because when Megasthenes saw that the subjects of the king are paying him taxes, he argued that this is mainly because the king owned all the land and that is why when these cultivators are using the land of the king, they are paying taxes in return. This was the norm in the ancient world. But as we have seen, in ancient India, the concept of taxes was quite different. Here, the king had the right to collect taxes because he is protecting his subjects and that is why he is collecting, that is why these subjects are paying him taxes. So, this unique concept which was present in ancient India was not understood by Megasthenes. So, this was the first reason. The second reason, according to some historians, is that when Megasthenes wrote that in ancient India or in India, the king owned all the land, he is mainly talking about Pataliputra and in Pataliputra, the situation was quite different because here it was the king who owned most of the land in and around Pataliputra. So, these historians argue that when Megasthenes wrote this, he is only talking about Pataliputra. Megasthenes did not travel extensively in India to see that there was also the concept of private property which was mainly present in the countryside. So, this inexperience of Megasthenes is the reason why he wrote what he wrote. Now, if you want to know more about this topic, do watch this podcast which I have done on my second channel. Thank you for watching.