Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Public Administration in Ancient India c23: Chapter XX

Public Administration in Ancient India c23

Language
English

Chapter XX

c23.1

WE know practically nothing of the system of village government which existed in India in pre-Aryan times. A distinguished scholar has, however, tried to establish the following points :

c23.2

The Dravidians, when they assumed the government of countries originally peopled by Kolarian tribes, retained the village communities established by their predecessors, but reformed the village system. They made each separate village and each province formed by a union of villages more dependent on the central authority than they were under the Kolarian form of government. Under the Dravidian rule, all public offices beginning with the headships of villages were filled by nominees appointed by the State instead of being elective as among the Kolarians. The Dravidians set apart lands appropriated to the public service in every village, required the tenants to cultivate these public lands, and stored their produce in the royal and provincial granaries, this being the form in which the earliest taxes were paid.

c23.3

They also in the Dravidian villages made every man and woman bear his or her share in contributing to the efficiency of the government, but this system was not followed in the same completeness in the Kolarian villages, where the people were not so ready as the Dravidian races to submit to strict discipline, to which the Dravidians had been accustomed long before they entered India.¹

c23.4

¹ F. J. Hewitt's article in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol XXI.

c23.5

A discussion of these points would take us beyond the scope of the present work, and we shall therefore confine our attention to the Āryan system of village administration. In the early Vedic times, the villagers themselves managed the simple affairs of the village;² but the States being small, there was hardly any distinction between the Central and the Local Government. In course of time, however, it was found necessary to have a separate organisation for the management of local affairs; and as the States grew larger and larger in size, the distinction between the two kinds of governmental activity became more and more marked.

c23.6

² Prof. Macdonell says: "The village does not appear to have been a unit for legal purposes in early days, and it can hardly be said to have been a political unit." Vedic Index, I. p. 246.

c23.7

Originally, it seems, the villages were completely self-governing. They were practically free from central control. The grāmanī³ (headman) and other village officials were appointed by the community and were accountable to them.¹ But gradually they were brought under the control of the King.² By the time of Manu, the village officials had become government servants, and the Local Government system had become subordinate to the Central Administration. Manu describes this organisation in these words: “Let him appoint a lord over (each) village, as well as lords of ten villages, lords of twenty, lords of a hundred, and lords of a thousand. The lord of one village himself shall inform the lord of ten villages of the crimes committed in his village, and the ruler of ten (shall make his report) to the ruler of twenty. But the ruler of twenty shall report all such (matters) to the lord of a hundred, and the lord of a hundred shall himself give information to the lord of a thousand.”³ Vishnu also speaks of the appointment of a headman for each village, and of heads of ten villages and of hundred villages, and lords of provinces (deśādhyakṣāḥ).⁴

c23.8

³ The word 'grāmanī,' leader of the village, occurs in the Rig-Veda.

c23.9

¹ Prof. Rhys Davids says: “From the fact that the appointment of this officer (i.e. the headman) is not claimed by the King until the later law-books it is almost certain that in earlier times the appointment was either hereditary or was conferred by the village council itself.” Buddhist India, p. 48.

c23.10

² In Prof. Macdonell’s opinion, “the grāmanī’s connexion with the royal person seems to point to his having been a nominee of the King rather than a popularly elected officer. But the post may have been sometimes hereditary, and sometimes nominated or elective; there is no decisive evidence available.” Vedic Index, I. p. 247.

c23.11

³ Manu, VII. 115-117.

c23.12

⁴ Vishnu-Smriti (Jolly’s Sanskrit text), Bk. III.

c23.13

During the rule of the Maurya Emperors, the process of centralisation was carried much further.

c23.14

Under Chānakya’s system, villages were classified as of the first, second, or third rank.¹ Each village had a headman (grāmika, grāmādhipa, or grāmakūṭa) whose duty it was (1) to delimit the boundaries of the village and of the different plots of land within the village; (ii) to divide the village lands into cultivated lands, uncultivated lands, plains, wet lands, (flower) gardens, vegetable gardens, fenced lands, dwelling-houses, assembly halls, temples, irrigation works, cremation grounds, charitable houses, places of pilgrimage, and pasture lands; (iii) to enter in his books all sales, gifts, charities, and remissions of taxes which take place within the village; (iv) to divide houses in the village into revenue-paying and non-revenue-paying, mentioning the amount of taxes, rates, etc., payable by each; (v) register the number of inhabitants distributed by castes, and following different occupations, such as agriculture, pasturage, trade, arts, manufactures, manual labour, and menial service, together with an account of the conduct and character, income and expenditure, of each inhabitant.²

c23.15

¹ The Sukranīti says that a piece of land which is one kros (two miles) in area, and which has an income of 1,000 silver karshas, is called a ‘grāma.’ A pallī is half of a grāma, and a half of a pallī is a kumbha. I. 193.

c23.16

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. II. ch. 35.

c23.17

During the centralised administration of the Maurya Emperors, the village assembly lost much of its power and prestige. Some local matters, however, continued to be decided by this assembly.

c23.18

It was a popular body consisting of the elders of the village (grāma-vṛddhāḥ). There was no fixed number of members, and the attendance varied according to the nature of the business that was to be transacted. The members were not elected, but chosen by a sort of natural selection. They were usually men who, by their age, character, and attainments acquired the confidence of the villagers, and their opinions were supposed to represent the collective wisdom of the village. These village elders not only decided administrative matters, but formed a court of justice for the decision of small civil suits, such as the boundaries of lands, and for the trial of petty criminal cases like larceny and assault. They also looked after public property, e.g. that of temples, and the interests of infants, and attended to the question of poor-relief.¹ Decisions of the village assembly were, as a rule, unanimous; but when any difference of opinion arose, the matter was decided in accordance with the view of the majority, provided the majority consisted of honest persons.² Disputes about the boundaries of two villages were decided by the elders of the neighbouring villages.

c23.19

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. II. ch. 1.

c23.20

² Ibid. Bk. III. ch. 9.

c23.21

The headman was the president of the village assembly as well as its executive official. Presumably, he was the leader of the village both for civil purposes and for military operations.³ He was also the connecting link between the village administration and the central government of the country. The headman possessed extensive powers, among them being the power to send out of the village thieves and adulterers. He was usually a hereditary officer, and he either remunerated himself out of the land-revenue and other taxes collected from the village, or had the use of a plot of land free of rent. It was the duty of the villagers to help the headman in the discharge of his duties and to pay his expenses.

c23.22

³ Vedic Index, I. p. 247.

c23.23

The Sukranīti mentions, besides the headman, five other officers of a village, namely, the superintendent of police (sāhasādhipati), the collector of the land-revenue, the clerk, the collector of tolls, and the watchman (prātihāra). The village officials were held responsible for the internal security of the villagers. If, for instance, a theft occurred in the village, and the officers failed to catch the thief, they had to compensate the owner for the property stolen.¹

c23.24

¹ Āpastamba, II. 10, 26, 6-8.

c23.25

In their corporate capacity the villagers constructed and maintained works of public utility, and undertook measures tending to the improvement of the village; and those who took the lead in such matters received honours and rewards from the King.²

c23.26

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. III. ch. 10. Prof. Rhys Davids, alluding to the accounts given of village administration in the Buddhist books, says: "Villagers are described as uniting of their own accord to build Mote-halls and Rest-houses and reservoirs, to mend the roads between their own and adjacent villages and even to lay out parks." Prof. Rhys Davids draws a beautiful picture of the simple life of the villagers of ancient times. He says: "None

c23.27

So far as their domestic affairs were concerned, the villagers, it seems, were not subject to vexatious interference from the central authorities. But every village formed an integral part of the general administrative system of the country. Above the village headman was the Circle Officer (Gopa) who was in charge of a number of villages, usually from five to ten in number, and whose duty it was to supervise the work of the headmen. A number of Circles formed a Division or District which, according to Chānakya, was to comprise one-fourth of the province (janapada).¹ The ruler of a Division or District (Sthānika) was subordinate to the Governor of the Province, who himself was subject to the Central Administration. In the Central Government, all matters relating to local administration were under the immediate control of one of the Ministers. Manu says: “The affairs of these (officials), which are connected with (their) villages, as well as their other affairs, shall be inspected by one Minister of the King (who must be) of a cheerful disposition and never remiss.”² Under Chānakya’s system, the Collector-general was to be in charge of this department.³

c23.28

¹ Arthasāstra, Bk. II. ch. 35.

c23.29

² Manu, VII. 120.

c23.30

³ Arthasāstra, Bk. II. ch. 35.

c23.31

of the householders could have been what would now be called rich. On the other hand, there was sufficiency for their simple needs, there was security, there was independence. There were no landlords and no paupers. There was little if any crime.” Buddhist India, p. 49.

c23.32

Some of the South Indian and Ceylon inscriptions throw much light on the system of village government in those parts of the country. The Vevalakatiya Slab-inscription of Mahinda IV., King of Ceylon (1026-1042 A.D.), although comparatively recent, is particularly interesting in this respect. From this inscription we learn that within the village (of Dasa-gama) justice was administered by means of a Communal Court composed of headmen and responsible householders, and the village assembly was empowered to carry into effect the laws enacted by the King-in-Council and promulgated by his Ministers. It investigated all crimes committed within the village, exacted the prescribed fines from the law-breakers, and inflicted other kinds of punishment. But the most interesting points in the inscription are those which relate to the collective responsibility of the inhabitants of Dasa-gama for producing offenders within a limited time, and the fines imposed on the whole community in case of failure.¹ We give a few extracts from this inscription :

c23.33

¹ Vide Epigraphia Zeylanica, Vol. I. No. 21, Editor's Note.

c23.34

“. . . Touching the dasa-gama . . . , each headman (of these villages), as well as those headmen and householders who have given security for Kibi-gama, shall ascertain (the facts) when in any spot within this (district) murder or robbery with violence has been committed. Thereafter they shall sit in session

c23.35

and enquire of the inhabitants of the dasa-gama (in regard to these crimes) . . .

c23.36

“ If the (offenders) are not detected, the inhabitants of the dasa-gama shall find them and have them punished within forty-five days. Should they not find them, then the dasa-gama shall be made to pay (a fine of) 125 Kalandas (weight) of gold to the State.

c23.37

“. . . Holders of villages and of paman lands shall divide among themselves in accordance with former usage the proceeds of (the . . .) fines and other minor (?) fines . . .”¹

c23.38

¹ Epigraphia Zeylanica, Vol. I. No. 21.

c23.39

The capital city and the larger towns had separate organisations of their own for purposes of local government. In the Rig-Veda we find mention of the Purapati, or lord of the city. Manu says: “ And in each town let him appoint one superintendent of all affairs (sarvārtha-cintaka) elevated in rank, formidable, (resembling) a planet among the stars.”²

c23.40

² Manu, III. 121.

c23.41

This Superintendent was perhaps the President of the City Board. From Megasthenes we know that the government of the capital city was conducted by a Municipal Board consisting of thirty members, divided into six Committees of five members each. The members of the first Committee looked after everything relating to the industrial arts. Those of the second attended to the affairs of foreigners. The third Committee enquired into births and deaths, with the view not only of levying taxes, but also in order that births and deaths might not escape the cognizance of Government. The fourth Committee superintended trade and commerce. Its members had charge of weights and measures, and it was their duty to see that the products in their season were sold by public notice. They also issued trade licenses, no one being allowed to deal in more than one commodity unless he paid a double tax. The fifth body supervised manufactured articles, which were to be sold only in public. What was new was to be sold separately from what was old, and there was a fine for mixing the two together. The sixth Committee consisted of members who collected the tenths of the prices of the articles sold. Such were the functions which these Committees separately discharged. In their collective capacity they had charge of the general affairs of the city, and looked after such things as the keeping of public buildings in proper repair, the regulation of prices, the care of markets, harbours, and temples.¹

c23.42

¹ Megasthenes (McCrindle), Fragment XXXIV.

c23.43

It is worthy of notice that Chānakya makes no mention of the Municipal Board or its Committees. Perhaps under his regime the old municipal method of administration was superseded by a system in which government officials controlled all the affairs of the cities. In Chānakya’s system, the chief official of the city was the Nāgaraka. Under him were four Sthānikas or Divisional officers, each of whom was in charge of a quarter of the city. Under the Sthānikas were the Gopas, each of whom attended to the affairs of ten, twenty, or forty families. The chief duty of the city officials was to see that the householders and traders were not in any way disturbed in their respective avocations. It was also their business to provide medical aid to the sick, to take note of persons entering or leaving the city, to take precautions against the outbreak of fires, to look to the cleanliness of the city, to watch the movements of suspicious characters, and to prevent the commission of crimes.¹

c23.44

¹ Bk. II. ch. 36.

Linked texts (7)