Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/628

?10 P?AP?IULLA UNANDRA BABU condemn any intruder who comes in by the same right to squat and appropriate as the original man. This possession would ?hus develop into and confinn ownership. This is too much for s community which is ?us? emerging .ou? of s nomadic state end Which, in the beginning, finds ample land for appropriation wi?hou? any occasion for dispute. The elements of religious beliefs with which ?he Aryans separated from the original Asiatic home were worship of ?hs dead ancestors gods of physical nature. The and worship of ?he infiusnee of ?hs new environment wrought its work and brought about, in the earliest stages, the predominance of the former in Graces and Borne, and of the letter in Indi? Indra and Agni, Vsruns, the Maruts, U shas, the Ashwins and all the Vishwadsvas were deities presiding over some natural phenomena. It is not within our scope to trace this changed environment. in the Big religion seems to have been complete. development in the But we recognise the fact as established Veda. The bifurcstion of the original Most of the illustrations drawn by Fustel do Ooulanges x from India in his cornparians of Graeco-Boman and Indian institutions are drawn from the Laws of Manu, a much later work than the Vedas. Latter day India did develop her religion of ancestor worship; that was in the Pauranic age, but in the Eig Veda Angirasas and the pitris are not gods of the first rank. Thus it is clear that the peculiar religious beliefs of the Aryans were not the eauso of private property in India. Nor can we say that anything like the Norman invasion and the Christiau Church seedersted the growth of individual ownership of land in India as they did in Teutonic Britain. To what then is this early growth of private property due? The