Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/637

- A' GBIO UL T UB? L OBGANISATION 619 to his separate ownership. Further, ?he son o! Svi? is said to have been pro?ee?ed by Indra, when ?he former was figh?ing for his land, k?hz?ra? (i, $$, 1), or, i? may be, for ?he seqnisi?ion of land for himself. Trsssdssyu, ?hrough ?he grace of Heaven and Esr?h, gained land, k?h?ra?am (iv, $8, 1). As s eorrobors?ive evidence we may seoep? ?hs? ?he ex- pression, k?h?ra?//s ?all, used in many passages' meaning lord of ?he field, ?. ?., ?he presiding god of, the field, indicates ?hs? ?here was s separate dei?y for ?he separate fields. Bu? ?his is more or -less uncertain and i? may be so interpreted only in ?he ligh? of ?he o?her passages cited above, establish- ing ?he fset of individual ownership of. ?he k?hz?rs. Meazurement oJ Kshetra One important fact in connection with the kshetra is that it was very the lauds of each carefully migh? be measured easily off, so ?hs? distinguished. This looks like the modern Cadastral Survey. We do not exactly know what .was the principle or what was the immediate object of it, but reference to it in an early passage (i, 110, 5) in the Big Veda may be safely taken as .conclusive evidence of the exis- tence of such measurement. Here it must be remem. bered that there is no such reference with regard to the older and the more important division of land, the ?r?tr?t. The reasons may be various. Urwtr?t and ksh?tr?t may have been used for the same field, so that what applied in the case of one applied as well for the other, or, it may have been that the ksl?tra was supposed to be more important than the ?rwtra which may have been the relic of an abe when agriculture was not sufficiently developed. But the more probable explanation seems to be that the iv, 67, 1-?1; vii, B?, 10 ? z, 6?, 18.