Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c14: Chapter VII: Central Assembly

State and Government in Ancient India c14

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII: Central Assembly

c14.2

In the modern state, the Central Government consists of the Head of the Executive,—King or President—, his Council or Cabinet, and a Legislature or Central Assembly, largely if not entirely popular in composition, to control the executive and enact the laws of the state. The problems connected with the Chief Executive Head have been already discussed in the course of the last two chapters. We shall now consider those connected with the Central Assembly. Did a Central Assembly, more or less similar to a modern democratic Parliament, function in the different states of Ancient India? Was it existing in all the periods of her history or was it confined to particular ages or to particular types of states? How were the members of the Assembly elected? Could they control the Executive? If so, to what extent? Were they the custodians of the legislative powers of the state or could the Executive pass laws independently of their sanction? These are the questions that will be engaging our attention in this chapter.

c14.3

We have shown already in the last chapter that Central Assemblies, more or less similar to modern Parliament, did exist in republics. The nature of the interests they represented and the control they exercised over the Executive have also been discussed. In this chapter we have now to see whether similar bodies existed in monarchical states.

c14.4

A perusal of the Vedic literature makes it quite evident that Popular Assemblies controlling the kings of the numerous small states with which Afghanistan and the Punjab were then studded, were a prominent feature of the Vedic polity. The average state of the Ṛigvedic period consisted of only a few square miles like the city state of ancient Greece. It had a capital, not much larger than the few dozen villages comprised in it. Villages had their own popular asemblies known as *sabhās* and the capital had the Central Assembly for the whole state, which was called a *samiti*.

c14.5

*Sabhās* and *samitis* enjoyed a high prestige in the Vedic age. They are in one place¹ described as the twin daughters of Prajāpati, the Creator. This suggests that the people regarded both the assemblies almost as divine institutions of hoary antiquity, and almost coeval with the political life of the community, if not with the community itself. The India of the Vedic age was studded with scores of such assemblies and the hope of the rising scholar and politician was to distinguish himself in their meetings.² Nay, the hope was also expressed on behalf of every bride at the time of her marriage that she would in due course be able to command the attention of the Assembly by her powers of speech and persuasion.³

c14.6

¹ सभा च मां समितिश्चावतां प्रजापतेर्दुहितरौ संविदाने । *A.V.* VII. 12. 1

c14.7

² ये ग्रामा यदरण्यं याः सभा अधि भूम्याम् । ये संग्रामाः समितयस्तेषु चारु वदाम्यहम् ॥ *A. V.*, XII. 1. 56

c14.8

³ वशिनी त्वं विदथमावदासि । *R. V.*, X. 85. 26

c14.9

The Vedic literature refers to the popular assemblies of the age by three different terms, *vidatha*, *sabhā* and *samiti*. The precise meaning of these terms is difficult to determine and it seems not improbable that it may have differed from age to age and locality to locality. Modern scholars also have not been able to agree on the point. Ludwig, for instance, holds that the *sabhā* was something like the Upper House, where the priests and rich men were represented, while the *samiti* was something like the Lower House, where ordinary commoners had their proper place. Zimmer on the other hand thought that *sabhā* was the village assembly and *samiti* the Central Assembly of the whole tribe. Hillebrandt thought that *sabhā* and *samiti* were much the same, *samiti* being the assembly and *sabhā* its meeting place. Jayaswal's view was that *samiti* was probably the national assembly and *sabhā* was its standing body; he however candidly admits that the exact relation between these two bodies cannot be deduced from the available evidence.

c14.10

It is not possible to discuss here the various arguments in favour of the above divergent views. It is quite possible that these terms were used in different senses in the different parts of Vedic India or in different decades or centuries. Council, Assembly and Chamber have been used to denote different types of bodies during the last fifty years in modern India.

c14.11

*Vidatha*¹ seems to be derived from the root *vid* to know and probably indicated a religious or sacrificial gathering, rituals at which required the highest knowledge. Apparently it was a big assembly, probably representing the entire tribe, because there are references to people being arranged there by groups, and singing and dancing. Women took an active part in the Vedic sacrifices in early time and they are seen to be prominent in the *vidatha*. Though in some rare passages kings are represented as attending the *vidatha*, the latter body is rarely seen taking any active part in the administration. We need not therefore further discuss its nature.

c14.12

¹ See *J. B. R. S.* 1952 pp. 429 ff for a learned article on the nature of the *Vidatha*, by Dr. R. S. Sharma. His view that *Vidatha* also transacted military business is however untenable, nor did it do every distributive work.

c14.13

The view of Hillebrandt that *sabhā* did not denote a different body, but only the place of meeting of the *samiti* is also unacceptable ; a passage in the *Artharvaveda* (VII. 12. 1), already quoted, clearly states that the *sabhā* and the *samiti* were two different bodies and compares them to two daughters of the Creator. Another passage states how *vrātya* was followed by the members of the *sabhā*, *samiti* and the army.²

c14.14

² तं च सभा च समितिश्च सेना चानुव्यचलन् । *A. V.* XV. 9

c14.15

It is, therefore, clear that *sabhā* was not the meeting place of the *samiti*, but was a separate body. An early Vedic passage describes how the talk in the *sabhā* often veered round the cows and the wonderful nourishment which they supplied to humanity ;³ and another describes how the gamblers assembled at the hall of the *sabhā*, challenged one another and played to the last penny, often staking the freedom of themsleves and their wives.⁴ The connection of *sabhā* with gambling is referred to

c14.16

³ यूयं गावो मेदयथा कृशं चिदश्रीरं चित्कृणुथाः सुप्रतीकम् ।

c14.17

⁴ सभामेति कितवः पृच्छमानः जेष्यामीति तन्वा शूशुभानः ।

c14.18

भद्रं गृहं कृणुथा भद्रवाचो बृहद्वो वयं उच्यते सभासु ॥ *R. V.*, VII. 28. 6

c14.19

also in the Brāhmaṇa literature.¹ It would thus appear that the *sabhā* was primarily the village social club, but the few items of the simple village government of the age were also transacted there by its members, when it was necessary to dispose of them. These probably included steps for the communal safety and decisions in the matters of the village disputes. For, the member of a *sabhā* is associated with the sacred law in the Purushamedha sacrifice.

c14.20

¹ *T. Br.*, I. 1. 10. 6; *S. Br.*, V. 3. 1. 10

c14.21

It is, however, likely that in some localities or states, *sabhā* was associated wth the king and was more a political than a social gathering. A passage in the *Atharvaveda* describes how the *sabhāsadas* (members of the *sabhā*) of god Yama were royal in status and entitled to share the 16th part of the merit accruing to that deity.² It is possible to argue that the status of the members of the terrestrial *sabhā*, like that of the celestial one, was also almost as high as that of the king and that they too were entitled to receive a small share of the tithes and tributes that were paid to the ruler. It is, however, not impossible that the *sabhā* referred to may be the cabinet or ministry of the earthly king also; and the description of a member of the *sabhā* as a person possessing considerable wealth (consisting of kine of course) and going to the *sabhā* in his full paraphernalia, riding on a charger or seated in a carriage, would confirm that hypothesis.³ The balance of available evidence, however, tends to show that the *sabhā* was usually the village assembly, meeting for social as well as political purposes.

c14.22

² 2, यद्राजानो विभजन्त इष्टापूर्तस्य षोडशं यमस्यामी सभादः ।।\ *A. V.*, III. 19. 1

c14.23

³ अश्वो रथी सुरूप इदगोमाँ इदिन्द्र ते सखा । *R. V.*, VIII. 4. 9

c14.24

In the concluding hymn of the *Ṛigveda*, *samiti* no doubt seems to be referring to a social or learned gathering,⁴ but an earlier hymn of the same book refers to the plans of an aspirant for political power, which include the domination of the *samiti*.¹ The *Ṛigveda* refers to a 'true' king paying visit to his *samiti* and the most important significant hope expressed in the *Atharvaveda* on behalf of an exiled king, who has succeeded in his restoration, is that his *samiti* may for ever be in agreement with him.² Conversely the bitterest curse pronounced upon a king guilty of misappropriating a Brāhmaṇa's property is that his *samiti* should never be in agreement with him.³

c14.25

⁴ संगच्छध्वं संवदध्वं सं वो मनांसि जानताम् ।\ समानं मंत्रः समितिः समानी समानं मनः सह चित्तमेषाम् ।।\ X 191.2-3

c14.26

¹ आ वश्चित्तं आ वो व्रतं आ वोऽहं समितिं ददे ॥ X. 166. 4

c14.27

² ध्रुवाय ते समितिः कल्पतामिह । *A. V.*, VI. 88. 3

c14.28

³ नास्मैः समितिः कल्पते न मित्रं नयते वशम् । *A. V.*, V. 19-15

c14.29

The above passages make it clear that while *samiti* sometimes denoted a social gathering, usually it referred to a political assembly at the central government. It was a powerful body wielding what may be conveniently described as sovereign powers, for very often the fate of a king depended upon his ability to carry his *samiti* along with him. If the *samiti* assumed an obstructive attitude, the life of the king became miserable ; the partisans of a restored king felt that their work was likely to be enduring only if his *samiti* was prepared to co-operate with him. It is quite clear that the *samiti* exercised considerable control over the military and executive affairs of the Central Government ; but how exactly it was exercised and how the *samiti's* powers were co-ordinated with that of the king we do not know.

c14.30

We are also completely in the dark as to the constitution of this important body. The modern reader may well ask, was the *samiti* an official or a popular body ? If the latter, was it elective ? If so, who enjoyed the privilege of electing its members, the whole population or a select class ? How long did the members, once elected, function in the *samiti*,—for a certain number of years or for life ? Were their rules of procedure similar to those in the republican Assemblies of later times ? Was quorum insisted upon ? Did the majority carry the day ? We have at present no data to answer these and similar questions in an authoritative manner. Since, however, the Central Assemblies of the republican states were aristocratic bodies, it may be permissible to suggest that the same was probably the case with the *samitis* functioning under the monarchies. The Vedic state was a small one like the city state of ancient Greece ; and the *samitis* probably consisted of the heads of the few military and aristocratic families which occupied a prominent position in the the political and social life of the community. Priests in these days played an important part even on the battle-field and, therefore, it is not unlikely that they also may have been represented in the *samiti* at least by the king's chaplain, if not by others as well.

c14.31

Members of the *samiti* were men of substance and exercised considerable influence over the administration. Their status must have been high in society ; they must have, like the members of the *sabhā*, gone to the meetings in their full grandeur riding their horses or carriages.

c14.32

Debates and discussions naturally loomed large in the proceedings of the Assemblies. The ambition of a new careerist was to shine as a debator in these bodies.¹ One could succeed in the *samiti* only if one could capture the mind and sway the feelings of its members. When there were parties in the *samiti*, the proceedings became enlivened and often bitter. Hot words were exchanged often leading to violent party quarrels. One can well understand the sincerity of the prayer offered in the *Ṛigveda* that the deliberations of a *samiti* should be cordial, its members well disposed towards one another, and their minds in perfect harmony.²

c14.33

¹ ये संग्रामाः समितयस्तेषु चारु वदाम्यहम् । *A. V.*, XII. 1. 56

c14.34

² *Ante*, p. 142, Note 4

c14.35

It is rather sad and surprising to find that the *samiti*, which exercised so much influence over the king and administration in the days of the *Ṛigveda* and the *Atharvaveda*, should completely disappear from view in the period of the later Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas. *Sabhā*, however, figures in this literature, but in a new sense. It is no longer a popular village assembly, but comes to stand for the king's court or Privy Council, a sense in which the word was destined to be used for several centuries. The *sabhā* met frequently and had its own president ;³ the status of its members was as high as that of the high priest or chamerlain.¹ Dependent kings are often mentioned as attending the *sabhā*,² making it quite clear that it was being transformed from a popular body into king’s court. The word also began to be used to denote the highest judicial court. The historian of the Central Assembly or the Parliament need no longer follow its history. The *samiti* once more makes its appearance in the Upanishadic age ; we find Śvetaketu visiting the *samiti* of the Pāñchālas after his educational course. The king is present in this assembly on the occasion and puts him some questions to test his scholarship. The passage thus shows that *samiti* in the Upanishadic period denoted a learned body rather than a popular assembly ; it was sometimes presided over by the king, especially when it was going to test the knowledge of new graduates. The king was perhaps only the ceremonial head of the gathering, as the Governors are of the modern convocations. There can be no doubt that *samitis* and *sabhās* both ceased to function as political bodies much earlier than the days of the Dharmasūtras (*c.* 500 B. C.) ; for the latter never mention them while describing the duties of the king or the machinery of the administration. The term *samiti* is altogether unknown to them ; the word *sabhāsada* is used, but it denotes a member either of the Privy Council or of judicial assembly, but never of a Popular Assembly.

c14.36

³ *V. S.*, XVI. 24

c14.37

¹ *A. Br.* VIII. 21

c14.38

² *S. Br.* III. 3. 4. 14

c14.39

Central Popular Assemblies, however, continued to function in the republican states, as shown already in Chap. VI. Why they disappeared from the monarchical states it is difficult to state. Republics as a rule continued to be small states even in later times ; monarchies, on the other hand, developed into big states in the Brāhmaṇa period (*c.* 1500-1000 B. C.) . Emergence of extensive states with large rural areas and dispersed population rendered the meeting and functioning of a central popular assembly difficult. Representative system was unknown, and so an assembly could meet only when it was a small body with members living not far from the capital. This was no longer possible in a large state. While members found it difficult to meet and work in the new circumstances, the kings of the ever-growing kingdoms were always eager and anxious to grab all power in their own hands. It was but natural that under such circumstances *sabhās* and *samitis* should have gradually died down.

The Paura-Jānapada Theory

c14.s1.1

K. P. Jayaswal has, however, argued at great length¹ that the *sabhā* and *samitis* of the Vedic age did not disappear without leaving their successors in the body politic of the later period. They were known as Paura-Jānapadas and figure frequently in literature and sometimes in inscriptions. The true significance of this expression was, however, altogether missed by modern writers. While it is true that Paura-Jānapadas often denote the inhabitants of towns and villages that comprised a kingdom, it should be remembered that the expression, when especially used in the neuter singular as Paura-Jānapadam, denotes a constitutional body consisting of the representatives of the capital and the country. Such a body is known to the *Rāmāyaṇa* and functioned under the administration of king Khārvela of Orissa in the 2nd century B. C. It is presupposed by the laws of *jānapadas* referred to by Manu and other Smṛiti-writers, who also refer to their presidents. The prestige of this popular body was so great that the state would often refuse to grant any relief to a person who was working against its interest.²

c14.s1.2

¹ *Hindu Polity*, Part II, Chaps. XXVII-XXVIII. (1st. Ed.)

c14.s1.3

² *Ibid*, Part II, pp. 66 ff

c14.s1.4

The above theory of the Paura-Jānapada body has been put forth brilliantly, but a careful analysis of the evidence advanced by Jayaswal and an impartial consideration of other data available on the point, make it fairly clear that there were no popular twin-assemblies known as Paura-Jānapadas in ancient India. It is worth noting that the expression Paura-Jānapada is generally used in the plural, sometimes in the singular, but never in the dual. If Paura and Jānapada really constituted two houses of Parliament, one fails to understand why the dual number should never have been used in referring to them. The grammatical argument relied upon to show that the term Paura-Jānapada should really have been in the singular in the *Rāmāyaṇa* II. 14. 54 and would then denote a representative body of the citizens is weak and untenable.¹ The epic generally uses the term *paura-jānapadāḥ* in the plural and it denotes the citizens in general and not any constitutional or representative body of theirs. Thus the *Rāmāyaṇa* II. 14. 40 refers to the notables among the *paura-jānapadas*,² and the *paura-jānapada* people to whom Bharata refers in II. 111. 19 are obviously the ordinary citizens who accompanied Bharata to see whether Rāma could be persuaded to return to Ayodhyā.³ Even if we assume that *paura-jānapadas* here denote a constitutional body of citizens, it is clear that it wielded no effective powers; it could neither veto Daśaratha's plan to banish Rāma nor induce the latter to return home as desired by them. It is significant to note that when making the final appeal to Rāma to return to Ayodhyā, Bharata refers to the prayer of himself and his ministers and not to that of any Paura-Jānapada body.⁴ Rāma also, bidding adieu to his brother, urges him to carry on the administration in consultation with friends, officers and ministers; here again the Paura-Jānapadas are conspicuous by their absence.⁵ This omission is difficult to explain if we assume that the Paura- Jānapadas constituted a regular constitutional popular assembly, wielding considerable power over the administration.

c14.s1.5

¹ The verse in question is:—उपत्तिष्ठति रामस्य समग्रमभिषेचनम् । पौरजानपदश्चापि नैगमश्च कृताञ्जलिः ॥ Jayaswal's argument is that because the verb उपतिष्ठति is in the singular, therefore each of the subjects joined by the particle *cha* should also be in the singular; hence it follows that the first word in the next line should be read as *jānapadaḥ* and not *jānapadāḥ*; it would then denote the Jānapadaḥ Assembly and not merely citizens. Grammar, however, lays down no such rule; on the contrary it states that even if each of the words joined by the particle *cha* is in the singular, the verb will be in the combined number, dual or plural.

c14.s1.6

² पौरजानपदश्रेष्ठा नैगमाश्च गणैः सह । अभिषकाय रामस्य तिष्ठं ति ब्राह्मणैः सह ॥ II. 14. 40

c14.s1.7

³ आसीनस्त्वेव भरतः पौरजानपदं जनम् । उवाच सर्वतः प्रेक्ष्य किमार्यमनुशासथ ॥ II. 111. 19

c14.s1.8

⁴ एभिश्च सचिवैः सार्ध शिरसा याचितो मया । भ्रातुः शिष्यस्य दासस्य प्रसादं कर्तुमर्हसि ॥ II. 104. 16

c14.s1.9

⁵ अमात्यैश्च सुहृद्भिश्च बुद्धिमद्भिश्च मंत्रिभिः । सर्वकार्याणि संमंत्र्य सुमहन्त्यपि कारय ॥ II. 112.17

c14.s1.10

The Hathigumpha inscription of Khāravela also does not refer to any Central Popular Assembly. Line 7 of the record states that the king conferred many favours (*anugraha*) amounting to or numbering hundreds of thousands on the Paura and Jānapada.¹ Jayaswal contends that *anugrahas* here are constitutional privileges conferred upon the City-Corporation and the Realm-Corporation.² Constitutional privileges conferred upon a legislature by the king can never be described as amounting to hundreds and thousands. It is clear that the sentence rather refers to numerous favours conferred upon the city and country population, the monetary value of which amounted to hundreds and thousands of rupees or contemporary coins. If a king orders several wells, roads, hospitals, and rest-houses to be constructed out of the central revenues, or abolishes a number of taxes payable by the villagers and citizens to the exchequer, he can well be described as conferring several favours, amounting in value to hundreds of thousands. An analysis of the Hathigumpha inscription further makes it quite clear that Khāravela's administration and policy were not in the least controlled by any City or Realm Corporation. The record refers to his organising several military expeditions to the distant parts of India, and not in a single case is it stated that the City and Realm Corporations were consulted by the king on any occasion. The king could decalare war and make peace without the consent of the *Paura-Jānapadas*, supposing such a body did exist.

c14.s1.11

¹ अनुग्रहानेकानि सतसहसानि विसजति पोरं जानपदम्। *E. I.* XX. 79

c14.s1.12

² *Hindu Polity*, II. p. 64.

c14.s1.13

Nor do the *Jānapada-dharmas* referred to by the Smṛitis prove the existence of a Jānapada as a central law-making popular parliament. The *jānapadadharmas* referred to by Manu in VIII. 14 are the customs of the country and not the enactments of its legislature. A comparison of this verse with Manu. I. 118³ would show that *janapadadharmas* are identical with *deśa-* *dharma*. Kātyāyana defines the latter as those customs of a country which are generally accepted and which do not go counter to the rules of Śruti and Smṛiti.¹ It is such provincial customs that are referred to as *deśadharma* in the *Arthaśāstra* or Kauṭilya also.² The laws of inheritance, marriage, food and professions differed in different parts of the country; widows were heirs in some places but not in others; marriage with maternal uncle's daughter was approved in the south, but not in the north; wine drinking was tolerated in the north but condemned in the south. While deciding cases in the court, Manu and other Smṛiti-writers point out that *deśadharmas* or *jānapadadharmas* *i.e.* the customs of the province concerned should be taken into consideration by the court. They were, however, mere customs and not any laws passed by the legislature like a Jānapada body.

c14.s1.14

³ Both verses refer to the sources of Dharma and the comparison shows that *jānapadadharma* of VIII. 41 is equal to *deśadharma* of I-118. cf. (Contd. from the last page)

c14.s1.15

¹ यस्य देशस्य यो धर्मः प्रवृत्तः सार्वलौकिकः । श्रुतिस्मृत्यनुरोधेन देशदृष्टः स उच्यते ॥ *quoted in VMS.*, p. 13

c14.s1.16

² देशस्य जात्या संघस्य धर्मो ग्रामस्य वापि यः । उचितस्तस्य तेनैव दायधर्मं प्रकल्पयेत् ॥ Bk. III. Chap. 7

c14.s1.17

Nor can we accept the contention of Jayaswal that the breakers of the *samayas* of *grāma* and *deśa*, referred to by Manu, were the persons who violated the laws or resolutions of the corporate assemblies of the villages or the country. Manu VIII. 19, quoted below, expressly shows that *samayas* or *saṁvids* do not refer to resolutions or laws, but to agreements arrived at in good faith with the village or country authorities.³ If out of pure

c14.s1.18

³ अत ऊर्ध्वं प्रवक्ष्यामि धर्मं समयभेदिनाम् । यो ग्रामदेशसंघानां कृत्वा सत्येन संविदम् । विसंवदेन्नरो लोभात्तं राष्ट्राद्विप्रवासयेत् ॥ निगृह्य दापयेच्चैनं समयव्यभिचारिणम् । चतुःसुवर्णान् षण् निष्कान् शतमानं च राजतम् ॥ *Manu.*, VIII. 18. 20

c14.s1.19

जातिजानपदान्धर्मान्श्रेणीधर्मांश्च धर्मवित्।
समीक्ष्य कुलधर्मांश्च स्वधर्मं प्रतिपालयेत्॥ VIII. 41
देशधर्माञ्जातिधर्माञ्छ्रेणीधर्मांश्च शाश्वतान्।
पाषण्डगणधर्मां श्च शास्त्रेऽस्मिन्नुक्तवान्मनुः ॥ I. 118
See also the following passages throwing light on the point :—
देशजातिकुलधर्मा आम्नायैरविरुद्धाः प्रमाणम् । *Gautama D. S.*, XI. 20
पंचधा विप्रतिपत्तिः दक्षिणतस्तथोत्तरतः । तत्र तत्र देशप्रामाण्यमेव स्यात् ।
*B. D. S.*, I. . 17-22

c14.s1.20

selfishness, a person resiles from such agreements Manu says that he should be fined. The *Arthaśāstra*, Book. III chap. 10, which deals with the violations of the *samayas* or agreements made with the village, country, caste, or family, makes the point still clearer; for the agreements are actually illustrated by Kauṭilya. If a farm labourer does not carry out the work undertaken for the village, or if a person refuses to pay subscription for a show and still sees it stealthily, if a villager declines to carry out the instructions of a leader who is acting on behalf of the village and in its interest, there is a violation of *grāma-samayas i.e.* agreements, explicit or implicit, made wth a village, and the person guilty becomes liable for punishment. The *Arthaśāstra* adds at the end that the violation of *deśasamayas* is also to be similarly understood.¹ It is thus clear that the violations of *deśasamayas* were not non-compliance with the resolutions of a Central Parliament, but non-fulfilment of agreements made with the chief executive of the province or the country, who was called *Deśādhyaksha*. *Deśādhyaksha* or *Deśādhipa* did not denote the President of the Parliament of the country, as Jayaswal contends (p. 67); the passages from the *Vishṇu-smṛiti* and *Śukra-nīti* quoted below make it quite clear that they denoted the executive heads of districts.²

c14.s1.21

¹ कर्षकस्य ग्राम पभ्युपेत्याकुर्वतो ग्राम एवात्ययं हरेत् । प्रेक्षायामनंशदः सस्वजनो न प्रेक्षेत । प्रच्छन्नश्रवणेक्षणे च सर्वहिते च कर्मणि निग्रहेण द्विगुणमंशं दद्यात् । सर्वहितमेकस्य ब्रुवतः कुर्युराज्ञाम् । अकरण द्वादशपणो दंडः । तेन देशजातिकुलसंघाना समयस्यानपाकर्म व्याख्यानम् ॥ Book III. Chap. 10

c14.s1.22

² तत्र स्वस्वग्रामाधिपान्कुर्यात् । दशाध्यक्षान् शताध्यक्षान् देशाध्यक्षांश्च । *Vishṇu*, III. 7-10 चतुर्दिक्ष्वथवा सदा देशाधिपान् कुर्यात् नृपः । *Śukra*, I. 347

c14.s1.23

There is nothing whatsoever in the Smṛiti literature to show, as contended by Jayaswal (p. 68), that a suitor who was hostile to Paura or the City Assembly could get no relief in a law-court. The passage quoted in the footnote below, upon which Jayaswal relied, simply states that if the claim in a suit ran counter to a custom or convention regarded as universally valid in a town or a country, it cannot be decreed by the local courts.¹ The passage enunciates a sound legal principle, and has no reference whatsoever to the denial of any relief to a person who was hostile to the City-Assembly.

c14.s1.24

¹ The passage in the *Vīramitrodaya* is as follows :—

c14.s1.25

The theory that an ex-member of the Paura-Assembly, though belonging to the Śūdra caste, was entitled to respect even from a Brāhmaṇa, is based upon a misunderstanding of the original texts, which simply refer to the courtesy to be shown to one another by the different citizens of the same city. Gautama says that one must get up as a mark of respect when one meets a priest or maternal uncle, though junior in age. The same courtesy is to be shown to an aged Śūdra citizen above 80 by a junior person.² Paura denotes the resident of a city and not the member of any City-Assembly.³

c14.s1.26

² ऋत्विक्श्वशुरपितृव्यमातुलानां तु यवीयसां प्रत्युत्थानमभिवादनाद्याः। तथाऽन्यः पूर्वः पौरः अशीतिकावरः शूद्रोऽप्यपत्यसमेन। *G.D.S*, VI. 9-10

c14.s1.27

³ Cf. *V. M. Saṁskāra-prakāśa*, p. 466, while explaining Manu, II, 134, दशाब्दाख्यं पौरसख्यं पंचाब्दाख्यं कलाभृताम्। expressly says एकपुरवासिनां अधिकतरविद्यादिगुणरहितानां दशाब्दपर्यंतं ज्येष्ठे सत्यपि सख्यत्वमभिसंख्यायते न तु अभिवाद्यः। पुरग्रहणं प्रदर्शनार्थं तेन एकग्रामवासेऽपि एवं भवति ।

c14.s1.28

Let us now examine Jayaswal’s views about the constitutional powers of the so-called Paura-Jānapada Assembly. His contention that it had the power to nominate the heir-apparent is based upon the casual reference to the citizens in the *Rāmāyaṇa* in connection with Rāma’s selection as heir-apparent. But the epic expressly states that the selection was made by the king in consultation only with his ministers.⁴ The view that Pauras were consulted is based upon the wrong translation of the word *āmantra*, which means ‘to bid farewell’

c14.s1.29

⁴ निश्चित्य सचिवैः सार्धं युवराजममन्यत। II. 1. 41

c14.s1.30

यत्र नगरे राष्ट्रे च व्यवस्था पुरातनी तद्विरोधापादको व्यवहारो नादेयः।

c14.s1.31

पौरजानपदक्षोभापादकत्वात् । *Vyavahāra-prakāśa* p. 44 Aparārka, while commenting upon *Yāj*. II. 6, expressly explains पौरराष्ट्रविरुद्धः पौरराष्ट्राचारविरुद्धः। and not ‘to offer advice’. The verse in question, quoted below,¹ states that the citizens went home after bidding farewell to the king, not after offering him advice. Any body acquainted with the *Rāmāyaṇa* episode knows full well that it was the palace intrigue, and not the wishes of the citizens, which determined the fate of Rāma.

c14.s1.32

¹ ते चापि पौरा नृपतेर्वचस्तच्छ्रुत्वा तदा लाभमिवेष्टमाशु । नरेन्द्रमामन्त्र्य गृहाणि गत्वा देवान्समानर्चुरतिप्रहृष्टाः। II. 3. 48

c14.s1.33

The view that the Paura-Jānapadas could depose the king is also based upon a queer misunderstanding of the 10th Act of the *Mṛichhchakaṭika*. The wicked king Pālaka is killed by Śarvalika, who offers the crown to Āryaka, a friend of his. Paura-Jānapadas have nothing to do with the transaction. Śarvalika carries the news of this revolution not to the *Corporate Association of the Jānapadas* but to the *concourse of the people*, who had assembled to witness the public execution of Chārudatta. For a time he wonders where possibly this place can be. After thinking a while, he concludes that it should be at a certain street, because there was a concourse of people there, which he presumes must have assembled to witness the execution.² The *Mṛichhchakaṭika* does not at all refer to any Realm or Citizen Assembly in any of its Acts.

c14.s1.34

² भवतु अत्र तेन भवितव्यं यत्रायं जनपदसमुदायः । Act. X (after v. 47)

c14.s1.35

Another important function of the Paura-Jānapada Assembly, according to Jayaswal, was to sanction extra-taxes at the time of a state crisis. He quotes a passage from the *Mahābhārata*, which he contends is an address from the throne begging extra taxes from the Paura-Jānapada Assembly. The last verse of the passage however states, “A king who knows how to act properly, should send his *messengers* among the people with a sweet, attractive but cunning message of the above type”.³ The passage is not at all a speech from the throne, but contains the argument with which king’s messengers were to try to convince the people in general of the dire necessity which was compelling the state to demand extra taxation.

c14.s1.36

³ इति वाचा मधुरया श्लक्ष्णया सोपचारया । स्वरश्मीनभ्यवसृज्योगमाधाय कालवित् ॥ *Mbh.*, XII. 87. 24

c14.s1.37

The view that the Paura-Jānapada Assembly had the power to present bills to the king for the losses sustained in the kingdom by theft and dacoities is also incorrect.¹ In ancient Indian polity, the state was held responsible for such losses if the stolen property could not be recovered, and Yājñavalkya calls upon the authorities to recompensate the aggrieved citizen (*jānapada*).² That Jānapada here does not refer to the Realm Assembly would become quite clear if we compare the verse in Yājñavalkya to the corresponding verse in Manu, where it is expressly stated that the compensation was to be given to members of all the castes.³ It is thus clear that *Jānapada* in Manu denotes the citizen in general, irrespective of his caste, and not to any Jānapada-Assembly.

c14.s1.38

¹ *Hindu Polity*, II. 98.

c14.s1.39

² देयं चौरहृतं राज्ञा द्रव्यं जानपदाय तु । II. 36

c14.s1.40

³ दातव्यं सर्ववर्णेभ्यो राज्ञा चौरैर्हृतं धनम्। VIII. 40

c14.s1.41

It will be shown in Chap. X how the towns and cities had their own non-official councils exercising considerable powers. But Jayaswal is wrong when he suggests that capitals as such had their own Paura-Assemblies, which were distinct from those of the Realm-Assemblies (Jānapada bodies). As far as the latter are concerned, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that they existed and functioned in the post-Buddhist period. All the evidence of Jayaswal about their existence is literary in nature and we have shown above how it does not at all prove the existence of a twin torganisation, the Paura-Jānapada Assembly, which could depose the king, nominate his successor, give or withhold sanction for new taxes and demand and obtain industrial, commercial and financial privileges for the country (*Hindu Polity*, II, p. 108). It is contended that this organisation flourished from 600 B. C. to 600 the A.D., but it is very strange indeed that it should be referred to nowhere in the contemporary inscriptions. We can get a fairly detailed picture of the Mauryan administration from the account of Megasthenes and the inscriptions of Aśoka, but neither source refers to any Central Parliament like the Paura-Jānapada Assembly of Jayaswal.¹ Nor is such a body known to the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya.² It is strange that it should not have been included among the *sapta-aṅgas* of the state by a *single* work on polity. Gupta inscriptions and seals refer to scores of officers, but the Paura-Jānapada body is conspicuous by its absence. Jānapada seals have been discovered in large numbers at Nālandā, but they are the seals of the Panchāyats of the respective villages whose names they bear, and not of any Central Popular Assembly.³ We have discovered hundreds of copper plate grants belonging to the different dynasties ruling in northern and southern India from *c.* 500 to 1300 A. D. While assuring a peaceful possession of the villages granted in them, kings refer to all possible officers and authorities from the crown-prince to the village headman, who were likely to disturb the peaceful possession of the donees and charge them to refrain from doing so. But the Paura-Jānapada Assembly of Jayaswal does not figure *even in one single record*. If such an assembly

c14.s1.42

¹ The Pauras of Takṣhaśilā, referred to in the *Divyāvadāna*, pp. 407-8, are the citizens of the city and not the members of its Assembly. The work describes them as decorating the roads and beautifying the houses of the city; this is what ordinary citizens do at the visit of a prince, and not the members of their Representative Assembly, Cṛ. श्रुत्वा च तक्षंशिला पौरा अर्धत्रिकानि योजनानि मार्गशोभां नगरशोभां च कृत्वा पूर्णकुम्भैः प्रत्युद्गताः ।

c14.s1.43

² Jayaswal’s view (Part II. p. 84) that the *Arthaśāstra* refers to the Sectional Sub-assemblies of the Paura in charge of the sacred places and public buildings and of trades and manufactures, is also untenable. What the *Arthaśāstra* states is this: the spies should visit the concourse of people (*jana-samavāya*) at *tīrthas* or holy places, public halls (*sabhā-śālās*) and markets (*pūgas*) and cunningly start a discussion there with a view to ascertain the views of the people in general about the king and the administration. Could it ever have been possible for spies to start discussions in the Sub-committees of the City-Assembly, of which they could hardly have been members? The state also could have learnt of their views from their general debates; there was no necessity of spies being sent to induce them to start discussion. The original passage of the *Arthaśāstra* is given below :—

c14.s1.44

³ Cf. पुरिकाग्रामजानपदस्य; वारकीयग्रामजानपदस्य; श्रीनालंदा-प्रतिबद्धर्मनयिकाग्रामजानपदस्य *M. A. S. I. No.* 66. pp. 45-6

c14.s1.45

सत्रणो द्वन्द्विनस्तीर्थसभाशालासमवायेषु विवादं कुर्युः सर्वगुणसंपन्नश्चायं राजा श्रूयते न चास्य कश्चिद् गुणो दृश्यते यः पौरजादपदान् दण्डकराभ्यां पीडयति । Bk. I. Chap. 13

c14.s1.46

existed during all these centuries, and had effective control over taxation and expenditure, as contended by Jayaswal, is it not reasonable to expect that the kings who made the land grants should have formally stated in the preambles of their charters that they had secured the necessary sanction of the Paura-Jānapada Assembly? If all the officers of the realm were charged not to interfere with the future enjoyment of the revenues granted, should not this request have been made to the Paura-Jānapada Assembly also, since it controlled the finances of the state? The fact that the Paura-Jānapada Assembly figures not even in one out of the thousands of copper plate grants, where all possible authorities, who could have disturbed the possession of the donees are exhaustively mentioned wth a meticulous care, is in our opinion the most convincing proof that no such Assemblies existed during the first millennium of the Christian era. The *Rājatarangiṇī*, which gives a detailed picture of the life and administration of Kashmir, is also unaware of the existence of any Popular Assembly in that province. It may further be noted that not a single inscription or work on polity refers to or describes any rules of election to the Paura-Jānapada assemblies.

c14.s1.47

As will be shown in Chaps. X and XI, village Panchāyats, and town and city councils flourished down to the end of the 18th century and possessed considerable administrative powers. But there is no evidence whatsoever to show that a Central Assembly flourished in the post-Buddhist period in monarchical states and exercised powers attributed to it by Jayaswal. The reasons for the disappearance of this body are already explained before (pp. 145-6). Popular will sought to influence the administration through other devices, which are indicated already in Chap. V.

State and the Legislative Power

c14.s2.1

It will be convenient to discuss the legislative powers of the state in ancient India in the present chapter. In modern times, the Central Assembly of the State usually wields these powers ; let us see whether such was the case in ancient India, when *sabhās* and *samitis* were flourishing in the country.

c14.s2.2

The modern reader will be surprised to learn that neither the king nor the *samitis* claimed and exercized legislative powers in the Vedic period. In the modern age, laws as enactments of the sovereign legislature, are becoming all powerful, gradually displacing the customary, the traditional and the case law. Such, however, was not the case in the ancient times. Laws were either sacred or secular; if the former, they were based upon the sacred texts, if the latter upon the customs and traditions. Neither the king nor the *samiti* nor the Central Assembly, it was felt, had any jurisdiction in the matter. If the state had ever proceeded to bring about a forcible change in the customary law, it would have been overthrown in a very short time. Traditional law was as sacred as the divine law. Of course it also did change in the course of time; but the change was gradually and inperceptibly brought about by the silent operation of custom and not by the noisy process of legislation. A deliberate change in the customary law at the dictation of a legislature, it was apprehended, would spell disaster for the community.

c14.s2.3

Neither the king nor the *samiti*, therefore, claimed or exercised any legislative functions in the Vedic period; and the same continued to be the case down to the age of the Smṛitis. This need not surprise us. For in the West also early philosophers like Plato did not regard legislation as a function of the ideal government. It was held that no actual man or group of men could ever possess so much of the spirit of true political science as is embodied in written laws and national customs of the people, which therefore must be obeyed unquestionably.¹

c14.s2.4

¹ Dunning, *Political Theories*, I, pp. 35-6

c14.s2.5

The Dharmaśāstra literature is particularly emphatic in pointing out that it is the king's duty to enforce the *dharma*, as determined by the sacred texts and accepted customs,² and not to enunciate it on the authority of himself or any state organisation. The Dharmaśāstra as well as the Nītiśāstra are promulgated by the Creator; it is the king’s duty to enforce the rules laid down in them, and not to introduce any changes on his own authority.¹

c14.s2.6

² देशजातिकुलधर्मान् सर्वानैवैताननुप्रविश्य राजा चतुरो वर्णान्स्वधर्म प्रतिष्ठापयेन् । *V. D. S.* XIX.4 जातिजानपदान्धर्माञ् श्रेणोधमांश्च धर्मवित् । समीक्ष्य कुलधमांश्च स्वधर्मं प्रतिपादयेत् । *Manu*, VIII. 41

c14.s2.7

¹ यश्चापि धर्म इत्युक्तो दंडनीतिव्यपाश्रयः । तमशंकः करिष्यामि स्ववशो न कदाचन ॥ *Mbh.* XII. 59. 116

c14.s2.8

In the course of time, however, as the administration became more and more developed and life more and more complex, it began to be felt that the state should have powers to make its own rules and regulations. The rules in the old Dharmaśāstra and Nītiśāstra works, it was realised, had not provided for all possible contingencies, and changes were necessary both in the interest of the state and the subjects. The *Manusmṛiti* invests the king with the power to pass administrative orders which were to be obeyed by the subjects.² These orders were, however, to be in consonance with the Śāstra and tradition.³ Yājñavalkya also maintains⁴ that king’s orders were to be enforced by the law courts. *Śukranīti* (I. 292-311) shows that these orders mostly related to well-established laws and customs and exhorted the subjects to respect the elders, to cultivate concord in family, not to cause interference in boundaries, not to use false weights or make false accusations, not to commit misappropriation of property, not to give asylum to theives, not to fabricate false evidence or documents, etc. Sometimes they referred to the proper discharge of duty by government servants and often warned the subjects against talking about the king’s vices or divulging his line of policy.

c14.s2.9

² तस्माद्धर्मं यमिष्टेषु स व्यवस्येन्नराधिपः ॥ अनिष्टं चाप्यनिष्टेषु तं धर्मं न विचालयेत् ॥ VII. 13

c14.s2.10

³ Medhātithi on the above :— यतः सर्वतेजोमयः स राजा तस्माद्धेतोरिष्टेषु वल्लभेषु मंत्रिपुरोहितादिषु कार्यगत्या यं धर्मं कार्यव्यवस्थां शास्त्राचाराविरुद्धं व्यवस्येत् न विचालयेत् ।

c14.s2.11

⁴ निजधर्माविरोधेन यस्तु सामयिको भवते । सोपि यत्नेन संरक्ष्यो धर्मो राजकृतश्च यः ॥ II. 186

c14.s2.12

Aśoka's edicts also contain not merely moral exhortations but create new offences like the killing of animals on forbidden day's. They sanction a respite of three days to persons condemned to death and exhort the emperor's successors not to follow a policy of aggression.

c14.s2.13

The works on polity, however, declare that the orders of the state were to be regarded as more authoritative and binding than even the rules of the Dharmaśāstra.¹ The same is the view of Bṛihaspati (II. 27). Nārada decalres that a person, who does not obey the rules enjoined by the king, should be immediately punished for the offence of showing contempt to the royal decrees.² Śukra states that the king should publish his ordinances at important places by pasting them on the wall for the information of the public.³

c14.s2.14

¹ धर्मश्च व्यवहारश्च चरित्रं राजशासनम् । विवादार्थश्चतुष्पादः पश्चिमः पूर्वबाधकः ।। Book III, Chap. I

c14.s2.15

² राज्ञा प्रवर्तितान्धर्मान्यो नरो नानुपालयेत् । दण्ड्यः स पापो वध्यश्च लोपयन्‌राजशासनम् ।। I. 13

c14.s2.16

³ लिखित्वा शासनं राजा धारयीत चतुष्पथे । इति प्रबोधयन्नित्यं प्रजाः शासनडिंडिमैः ।। I. 131

c14.s2.17

It is thus clear that though the state was usually expected to enforce the customs and laws mentioned in Dharmaśāstra, it began to be invested with some powers to make its own regulations from about the 3rd century B. C. At the time when these powers were granted, *samitis* or Popular Assemblies had already disappeared from the scene, and so they came to be exercised by the king in consultation with his ministers.

c14.s2.18

The power of issuing *rājaśāsanas* or royal decrees was however not as extensive as the modern power of legislation. Personal, civil and criminal laws were usually determined by custom and the Smṛiti rules and were hardly affected appreciably by the royal power to issue ordinances. But in the realm of administration and taxation, kings could introduce several changes and reforms by the new powers conceded to them. They could create new offices and departments, promulgate (like Aśoka) their new policies and tap fresh sources of taxation. This resulted in the considerable enlargement of the royal powers and the curtailment of the rights of the people, since they were not effectively represented at the Central Government by a Popular Assembly, when kings came to be invested with these new semi-legislative powers.

Linked texts (22)