Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c14.s1: The Paura-Jānapada Theory

State and Government in Ancient India c14.s1

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (13)