The Colas c26.5

c26.5

Government by means of primary assemblies comprising the adult males of each village was the central feature of rural organisation. Besides these assemblies, there were in existence many other groups and corporations of a social, religious or economic character, each interested in looking after some definite local institution or function. The relation between these groups which are found in almost every village and the village assembly itself is not easily expressed in terms of modern political thought. The village assemblies and the groups alike derived their authority from ancient custom and ideal right (Dharma); the moral support of public approval of their conduct in particular instances was in either case the primary sanction underlying their daily activity; in the last resort they could both appeal to the king's government for support in so far as their behaviour conformed to the accepted code of moral conduct. What was right in each case depended on the circumstances, and on the application to them of enlightened reason informed by the principles of the law-codes (Smṛti) and precedents, if any. Precisely in the determination of such casuistical points did the learned Bhaṭṭas of the time render the highest service to society. For to the extent to which their findings were impartial and convincing, and not warped by prejudice or corruption, to that extent was social harmony promoted and the foundations of orderly and peaceful development strengthened. That the system survived intact till the beginning of the last century must lead us to infer that this delicate and onerous work was on the whole well done by those to whom it was entrusted. The village assemblies and the groups were then more or less legally on the same footing in their relations to government and society. But they, in fact or even in theory, were not of equal importance to the life of the nation. The village assembly had the widest range of functions in relation to its locality, whereas the groups were each limited in the range of their operation to some specific purpose or other, such as the maintenance of a single temple, or the regulation of a single craft or trade. The village assembly had a general interest in everything that these groups did, and in many things besides that none of them attempted. Even in matters that fell specifically within the competence of a particular group, the assembly had a concurrent jurisdiction to which any one could appeal, if the group concerned was in default. The groups, as long as they did their work well, relieved the assembly of that work; the ultimate responsibility for local welfare, however, lay on the assembly. The members of the groups were also members of the assembly, and this fact must have considerably influenced their relations *inter se*. While the groups represented particular interests that might occasionally clash, the assembly looked after the general interest and, as a dispenser of justice, helped in adjusting rival claims to the satisfaction of all parties. Perhaps the nearest analogy to this complex of relations may be found in the pluralist view of the relation between the State and the groups, with this difference, that the relation here was among local bodies and groups functioning in limited areas and not over the entire national field. The national state, represented by the King’s government, enveloped and sustained the villages and the groups together.