Guest guest Posted January 1, 1999 Report Share Posted January 1, 1999 > It my understanding all military forces (ksatriyas) were in hands of a > king. And it was a duty of king to protect his vaisyas, so he was > appointing his soldiers for that job. And king paid them, not the vaisyas. > (Because soldiers should be loyal to the king first of all, not to the > vaisyas). And was he doing that for free then? Not exactly. The king has a > right to collect taxes from his citizens: > > 118. A Kshatriya (king) who, in times of distress, takes even the fourth > part (of the crops), is free from guilt, if he protects his subjects to > the best of his ability. > 119. His peculiar duty is conquest, and he must not turn back in danger; > having protected the Vaisyas by his weapons, he may cause the legal tax to > be collected; > 120. (Viz.) from Vaisyas one-eighth as the tax on grain, > one-twentieth (on the profits on gold and cattle), which amount at least > to one Karshapana; Sudras, artisans, and mechanics (shall) > benefit (the king) by (doing) work (for him). > > What is your opinion about it? Makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.