State and Government in Ancient India c16.134

c16.134

The officers of the police department are usually referred to in inscriptions as *choroddharaṇikas* ‘the exterminators of thieves’ or *daṇḍapāśikas* ‘the carriers of nooses to catch (thieves)’. The latter designation occurs in Pāla, Paramāra and Pratīhāra records.³ Higher officers of this department do not figure in epigraphs. It is not unlikely that their duties might have been entrusted to the officers of the milittary department, who were stationed at different centres of the kingdom to preserve law and order. We should not forget that ordinary thefts were very unusual ; only desperadoes attemped to commit dacoities and carrry away cattle and property. They could be effectively dealt with only with the help of the militia or military forces. The village headman was the chief police officer of the village and had the village militia under his control. When, however, dacoits could not be effectively dealt with by the local force, police and military soldiers were sent by higher authorities to apprehend them. When they came for this work, the townsmen and villagers had to meet their boarding and lodging expenses. Donees of *agrahāra* villages were usually exempted from this liability. The state was ultimately responsible for making up all losses due to thefts. It fastened this liability upon the village community, if it could not prove that the thieves had escaped out of the village. If they could be proved to have taken shelter in another village, the responsibility was shifted to it. If it appeared that the thieves had taken shelter in forests or waste lands, their superintendents were called upon either to apprehend them or to make up the loss. If the responsibility could not thus be shifted, the state had to compensate itself.