State and Government in Ancient India c14.s1.20

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