Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c12: Chapter VII. Local Administration

Hindu Administrative Institutions c12

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII. Local Administration

Sec. i. Village and Village Officials

c12.s1.1

India of to-day is in a state of transition to Responsible Government. The first instalments of Reforms have been inaugurated by the Act of 1919, and it would not be long before Provincial autonomy becomes an accomplished fact. Under these circumstances a detailed examination of what Local Government was in ancient India, would be not only interesting but also informing. The subject has received already considerable attention but has not had the fullness of treatment warranted by the material available and its actual importance deserved.

c12.s1.2

It is generally taken that in India the village or a grāma formed the unit of administration. But it is very difficult to lay down what then constituted a village. Baudhāyana and Gautama speak of a village as a place where righteous men throng. Baudhāyana says a righteous man shall seek to dwell in a village where fuel, water, fodder, sacred fuel, kuśa grass, and garlands are plentiful; access to this must be easy, and many rich people should dwell in it, it ought to abound in industrious people, and where Aryans (honest and honourable men) must form the majority. It should have a strong defence against robbers and other disturbers of peace.¹ Every village was as Baudhāyana conceived it should be, and it continued to thrive and prosper undisturbed by the political or other vicissitudes. A village is reckoned by Kauṭalya as constituting 100 to 500 families. Each of them has well-defined boundaries and affords common defence against dangers, internal or external. The state could, if necessary, erect more villages in sites suited for the purpose. It should again undertake the repairs of old, decayed and dilapidated villages.¹ House sites of various measurements according to social position and the number of members in the family are to be provided for all classes both in towns and in villages.²

c12.s1.3

¹ S.B.E., vol. xiv, pp. 243-44; ii, 3. 6. 31; S.B.E., vol ii, p. 223; ix. 65.

c12.s1.4

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, Sec. 1.

c12.s1.5

² *Śukra*, v, ll. 87-89.

c12.s1.6

Before we proceed to examine the actual administration that obtained in a village it may be pointed out that local administration in general was carried on by dividing the local area into various political, or administrative, divisions so as to facilitate the smooth working of the administration of the state as a whole. The smallest administrative unit then was a village with a number of families pursuing hereditary professions and sometimes constituting guilds of their own. The next administrative division is a *sangrahaṇa* or a grouping of ten such villages. *Kharvāṭika* is the other division which comprised two hundred villages; whilst *droṇa-mukha* consisted of 400 villages and the *sthānīya* 800 villages.³ The administrative divisions according to the *Mānava-Dharma-śāstra* slightly vary from the *Kauṭalīya*. Manu speaks of both smaller and larger groups. His divisions are a village, ten villages, twenty villages, one hundred villages and a thousand villages.⁴ Between the unit of one hundred villages and that of a thousand there were three groups of two hundred, three hundred and five hundred villages respectively. Manu¹ calls these groups gulmas.

c12.s1.7

³ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i, Sec. 1.

c12.s1.8

⁴ Cf. *Śānti Parvan*, cxxxvii. 3-7.

c12.s1.9

¹ > द्वयोस्त्रयाणां पंचानां मध्ये गुल्ममधिष्ठितम् ।

c12.s1.10

The Viṣṇu saṃhita throws some new light on the question of administrative divisions of the rural establishment. Like Kauṭalya and Manu, the author of this saṃhita mentions a village, ten villages, one hundred villages and lastly adds deśa as an administrative unit.² This deśa may either refer to the group of a thousand villages, or a separate group called deśa may have been brought into existence for convenience of rural administration with a view to making it more efficient. According to Sukrācārya a grāma or a village is in area a krośa, and its yield is reckoned to be a thousand silver karṣa. Two territorial subdivisions to a grāma are mentioned—the palli and the kumbha.³ The area of the former is half what constitutes a grāma, whilst that of the kumbha is half of the palli, or one-fourth of the grāma. Thus it is obvious that the grāma in ancient India had to conform to definite measurements. Its area roughly comprised two square miles. These grāmas have different mārgas or roads and streets—padya, vīthi, mārga and rājamārga.⁴ The precision of character of these streets and roads is something striking. The width of these is three, five, ten and fifteen cubits respectively. The width of the rāja-

c12.s1.11

² > तत्र स्वग्रामाधिपान् कुर्यात् । दशाध्यक्षान् । शताध्यक्षान् ।

c12.s1.12

³ Sukra, i. 193.

c12.s1.13

⁴ Ibid., i. 251 ff.

c12.s1.14

तथाग्रामशतानां च कुर्याद्राष्ट्रस्य संग्रहम् ॥
ग्रामस्याधिपतिं कुर्यात्दशग्रामपतिं तथा ।
विंशतौशं शतेशं च सहस्रपतिमेव च ॥ (vii. 114-15.)

c12.s1.15

देशाध्यक्षांश्च । (Chap. iii. 5.)

c12.s1.16

mārga however ranged from fifteen to thirty cubits. There were resthouses (śālās) between these villages (grāmas), each under an official śalādhipa whose duty it was to afford protection to travellers during nights. Sukrāchārya also mentions the traditional territorial divisions of the rural area, the grāma, ten grāmas, one hundred grāmas, a thousand grāmas and ten thousand grāmas. In texts examined so far no mention was made of a territorial unit larger than that of one thousand grāmas. Sukrāchārya makes a special mention of a group of ten thousand grāmas.¹ These various divisions point to one fact clearly, namely, the existence of an organized local administration. The chief official in charge of these administrative divisions is invariably appointed by the Imperial Department under the samāharta, whose office answers to that of the modern member of finance.² These officials were graded in power, and were responsible to their immediate superiors. Thus the gopa was answerable to the official at the sangrahaṇa, the latter to the official at the kharvāṭika, and so on to the sthānīya who was answerable to the samāharta who was an imperial officer.³

c12.s1.17

¹ Śukra, i. 192.

c12.s1.18

² Supra, p. 201.

c12.s1.19

³ Arthaśāstra, Bk. ii, Sec. 1.

c12.s1.20

The chief officer of a village unit was called the gopa, gāmabhojaka of the Jātakas.⁴ Sāthavāhana Hala, the author of Gāthā Saptaśatī call him grāmaṇi.⁵ His jurisdiction extended to as many as five villages, and sometimes even ten villages. He seems to have been an official of the state. His position was something more than the village munsif (maṇiyam)

c12.s1.21

⁴ For details see Kulāvaka Jātaka, vol. i, No. 31 and Kharassara Jātaka, vol. i, No. 71.

c12.s1.22

⁵ Kāvyamālā series 2, Saptaśatī i. 30. 31, etc.

c12.s1.23

of the modern village in South India. Perhaps the functions combined both those of the *karaṇam* (accountant) and the munsif of the modern village. He was responsible to the government of the land rather than to the village assembly. He had onerous duties to perform. He was to set up and define the limits of villages. Trees, bushes, bridges, pools, streamlets, stones, rocks, and even anthills marked the limits of various fields and gardens.¹ Again it was his duty to fix up the boundaries of forests adjoining the village, roads, and other public and private lands and fields. It was further his earnest task to survey the land and classify it under various heads, such as the cultivated and the cultivable, waste and pasturage, wet and dry lands, etc. Yet another duty was the management of gardens, forests, altars, temples, irrigation works, cremation grounds, rest-houses, watersheds, pasturage, roads and streets connected with the village or villages under his supervision. It was also his duty to maintain separate records of the lands granted free, sold, and remitted of taxes. In addition to these, the census of the village was periodically taken and record was probably submitted to the head of the Department, in registers containing information of the number of houses occupied or vacant, the number of inhabitants in each with their name, caste, age, occupation and income, besides the number of domestic animals kept in each house. It would appear that most of these were taxable, and different kinds of taxes such as the house-tax and profession tax were levied and collected. The *gopa* or headman of the village further maintained the register of accounts wherein was noted the amount realized in the shape of actual revenue, the amount of free labour utilized and other particulars concerning the toll-dues, road-cess and such other minor taxes. It was for him also to prevent troubles, internal or external arising in his territorial area. If he found himself unable to check it he could appeal to his immediate superiors.¹

c12.s1.24

¹ Yājñavalkya, ii. 153; Manu, viii. 245-50.

c12.s1.25

¹ ग्रामदोषाणां ग्रामाध्यक्षः परिहारं कुर्यात् । अशक्तो दशग्रामाध्यक्षाय निवेदयेत् । सोऽप्यशक्तः शताध्यक्षाय । सोऽप्यशक्तो देशाध्यक्षाय । देशाध्यक्षोऽपि सर्वात्मना दोषमुच्छिन्द्यात् । *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. iii, Sec. 10 ; Bk. iv, Sec. 13 ; cf. Viṣṇu, iii. 6-8.

c12.s1.26

According to the *Śukranī-sāra*² the head of the village was invariably a member of the Brahman community. That he was not necessarily a Brahman is seen from a comparatively earlier work *Gāthā Saptaśatī*.³ There is inscriptional evidence to show that this office of the village headman became generally hereditary, whatever it might have been in earlier times.⁴ He had a clerk. The lord of punishment (*sāhasa*) was a Kṣatriya. Two tax-collectors are mentioned, one of them a Kṣatriya, and the other a Vaiśya. The sentinel was of the Śūdra caste. There is then a description of rural policing. The *śaladhipati* already mentioned was responsible for the safety, and for any loss that occurred within his limits to travellers and strangers from neighbouring villages. He was to note down their respective names, caste, village, and the destination to which they were bound. It was a peculiar custom that these travellers were sent the next morning with safety up to the boundary limits of the *śaladhipati*. If once the traveller was off the boundary line he came into the custody of that village through which he next travelled. This policing was effective in two respects. It ensured safety of life and property to any way-farer, and facilitated the method of detecting the suspicious, the criminal and other like pests of the high-way. There were again *dvāras* or outposts where sentinels were stationed, perhaps to raise a hue and cry in the face of an impending danger. Another feature of the village administration was the system of night watchmen in each and every village. The establishment charges for these watchmen were to be met locally, taxes being raised from the villagers for these set purposes.¹

c12.s1.27

² Śukra, ii. 121-2.

c12.s1.28

³ vi. 100. This work is generally attributed to first century A.D.

c12.s1.29

⁴ See Mathura Inscriptions No. xi ; *Ep. Ind.*, vol. i, pp. 387-8.

c12.s1.30

¹ Śukra, i. 405 ff.

c12.s1.31

The next important officials in the rural areas were those in charge of *sangrahaṇas*, *kharvāṭikas*, *droṇamukhas* and *sthānikas*.² Each of these was responsible for that portion of the country entrusted to him. The functions and rights of these officials excepting that of *sthānīya* have not been given, and it is reasonable to suppose that they had supervising control on officers lower in rank to them. Apparently the *sangrahaṇa*-officer was to keep the *gopa* in discipline, and look after villages which were under his control. The *sthānīya* was the officer in charge of the *sthānika* or a group of eight hundred villages. He was answerable to the finance minister or the *samāharta*. He figures as the greatest official of the rural administration. He exercised his sway over the whole range of the rural area. Besides directly dealing with his subordinates he sent out special Intelligence officers who were to go on circuit round the country in disguise especially those of householders,—so that no one could easily identify them,—and thus secretly learn the causes of emigration from and immigration into the several villages, the names of various undesirables and the ill-reputed, and the conduct of the minor government officials established in villages. In the guise of merchants again these commissioners could make themselves acquainted with the output of minerals, produce from forests and gardens, the amount of dues collected at the toll-gate, roads, ferry-places, stores, and warehouses. Further commissioners in the guise of thieves were let loose to hunt after the band of robbers and marauders in ruined and desolate places as well as in thickly crowded ones. It was further their duty to detect theft and take the culprit before the proper authorities for the award of punishment.¹

c12.s1.32

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. ii, Sec. 1; Bk. iii, Sec. 1.

c12.s1.33

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. iv, Sec. 13; also Bk. ii, Sec. 35.

c12.s1.34

The following is the categorical list of crimes and criminals which these commissioners were expected to detect. These include corruption, extortion, false witness, counterfeiting coins, violation of women's chastity, practice of witchcraft, quack medical practitioners, making of poisonous drugs, dishonest blacksmiths, illconducted coppersmiths, and profligate goldsmiths.² To this list of Kauṭalya, Manu adds cheats, false astrologers, palmists, inefficient elephant trainers, experts in traffic in women, non-āryans passing themselves as āryans.³ These Manu characterizes as open

c12.s1.35

² *Ibid.*, Bk. iii, Sec. 10.

c12.s1.36

³ > उत्कोचकाश्चोपधिका वञ्चकाः कितवास्तथा ।

c12.s1.37

मङ्गलादेशवृत्ताश्च भद्राश्वक्षणकैः सह ॥
असम्यकारिणश्चैव महामात्राश्चिकित्सकाः ।
शिल्पोषचारयुक्ताश्च निपुणाः पण्ययोषितः ॥
एवमादीन् विजानीयात्प्रकाशान् लोककण्टकान् ।
निगूढचारिणश्चान्याननार्यानार्यलिङ्गिनः ॥

c12.s1.38

thieves, and recommends special Intelligence officers to effect their arrest.

c12.s1.39

Robbers caught in the act are to be exhibited in the public so as to bring shame and censure on them. Corrupt officials are excommunicated and their goods confiscated.¹ This humiliation in public had its own effect. It tended to lessen the number of men of criminal tendencies and thus ensure the safety of life and property in the village. By such necessary precautions the Central Government assured the uninterrupted development of the villages.

c12.s1.40

¹ ये कार्यिभ्योऽर्थमेव गृह्णीयुः पापचेतसः । तेषां सर्वस्वमादाय राजा कुर्यात्प्रवासनम् ॥ (Manu, vii, 124.)

c12.s1.41

तान् विदित्वा सुचरितैः गूढैस्तत्कर्मकारिभिः ।
चारैश्चानेकसंस्थानैः प्रोत्साद्य वशमानयेत् ॥ Manu, ix. 258-61.

c12.s1.42

*Vide* Kullūkabhaṭṭa's commentary on the above.

c12.s1.43

उत्कोचका ये कार्यिभ्यो धनं गृहीत्वा कार्यं अयुक्तं कुर्वन्ति । औपधिकाः भयदर्शनाये धनमुपजीवन्ति । वञ्चकाः ये सुवर्णादिद्रव्यं गृहीत्वा परद्रव्यप्रक्षेपेण वञ्चयन्ति । कितवा द्यूतसमाह्वयदेविनः । मङ्गलादेशवृत्ताः धनपुत्रलाभादिमङ्गलादिश्य ये वर्तन्ते ते । भद्राः कल्याणाकारप्रच्छन्नपापा ये धनग्राहिणः ईक्षणिका हस्तरेखाद्यवलोकनेन शुभाशुभफलकथनजीविनः ।

c12.s1.44

असम्यकारिणः महामात्राः हस्तशिक्षाजीविनः । असम्यकारिणः चिकित्सकः चिकित्सकजीविनः । शिल्पोपचारयुक्ताः चित्रलेखाद्युपायजीविनः तेप्यनुपजीवमानशिल्पोपाय प्रोत्साहनेन धनं गृह्णन्ति । निपुणाः पण्ययोषितः पण्यस्त्रियश्च परवशीकरण कुशलाः ।

c12.s1.45

The *Sukranīti* gives a new designation for the rural officials.¹ The officer of ten *grāmas* is called the *nāyaka*. The officer of above ten *grāmas* and below one hundred is called *hīnasāmanta*. The officer of one hundred *grāmas* is a *sāmanta*. The officer of above one hundred and below a thousand is *nirsāmanta*, and the officer of a thousand *grāmas* is known as *aśvapālasvarāṭ*. These officers were paid for their services to the state. The *grāmika* was provided with his daily means of subsistence by the villagers. The headman of ten villages is entitled to a *kula* measure of land, whilst that of twenty villages five *kulas*. The officer-in-charge of one hundred villages enjoyed a whole village and of a thousand villages a whole city.²

c12.s1.46

¹ *Śukra*, i. 190 ff.

c12.s1.47

² *Manu*, vii, 118-19.

c12.s1.48

As the highest official in the rural area the latter had the privilege of living in the capital city and his pay was in cash or kind, according as he desired.³

c12.s1.49

³ *Śānti Parvan*, lxxxvii. 10.

c12.s1.50

It would thus appear that the services were highly remunerative. In addition to this, these offices carried dignity with them. Even the master of the village was a horseman and the master of ten villages held a position equal to that of the commander of one hundred troops. He also travelled on horseback followed by some attendants. The lord of hundred villages occupied a position only equal to that of a commander of a thousand soldiers, and had the privilege of travelling in a chariot drawn by a horse with ten armed attendants. Vehicles drawn by two horses were used by the head of a thousand villages, while the lord of ten thousand rode in a carriage-and-four.⁴

c12.s1.51

⁴ *Śukra*, v. 81-84.

c12.s1.52

There are some other regulations which may be mentioned in passing. The first is that if a theft could not be found out it is for the officer to make good the loss. The officials themselves along with their servants lived on the outskirts of the village. Again it is ordained that no soldiers were to enter the villages, nor any of the villagers to enter into any kind of transaction with them.¹ These regulations show that the state did not want to disturb in the least the simple and peaceful life of the villagers. Yet another regulation was the exemption granted to certain classes of people from paying the taxes (*śulka*) such as the *śrotriya*, women of all castes, minors, students, ascetics, Sūdras in menial service, the blind, the dumb, the deaf and the diseased so long as their infirmities lasted.² Only pure and honest men were employed as officials and their subordinates in service.

c12.s1.53

¹ ग्रामात्बहिवसेयुस्ते येये लधिकृता नृपैः । नृपकार्यंविना कश्चित् न ग्रामं सैनिकोविशेत् ॥ तथान पोडयेत्कुत्र कदापि ग्रामवासिनः । सैनिकैर्नव्यवहरेन्नित्यं ग्राम्यजनोऽपि च ॥ (Śukra, v. 90-91.)

c12.s1.54

² S.B.E., vol ii, pp. 161-62.

c12.s1.55

Inference then is obvious that these various political divisions were self-contained groups answerable to the Central Government so far as the finance side was concerned. Towards this end there were a number of officials appointed by the state to collect taxes and revenues due to the Central Government, which in return offered a general protection against common dangers. These state officials did not interfere in any way with the internal affairs of the land save the collection of revenues. And it is also to be noticed that both towns and villages enjoyed local self-government to the full.

c12.s1.56

ग्रामात्बहिवसेयुस्ते येये लधिकृता नृपैः ।
नृपकार्यंविना कश्चित् न ग्रामं सैनिकोविशेत् ॥
तथान पोडयेत्कुत्र कदापि ग्रामवासिनः ।
सैनिकैर्नव्यवहरेन्नित्यं ग्राम्यजनोऽपि च ॥
(Śukra, v. 90-91.)

c12.s1.57

From Āpastamba¹ it is obvious that this levy of the central state was not on individuals but on the whole village.

c12.s1.58

¹ Praśna xi, Paṭala 10, Kāṇḍa 26.

c12.s1.59

The Department of Local Self-government also took keen interest in the administration of justice, the development of arts and commerce and other like things. These were carried on locally by individuals or committees appointed by the village, or more appropriately by the village assembly. Generally it is the committee of the elders of the village or of the neighbourhood that administered justice in rural parts. According to Yājñavalkya the committee was to consist of at least forty persons. The sale of sites for house-building, the settlement of disputes arising from similar transactions, were to be effected as follows:—

c12.s1.60

The members of the committee for administration meet together and decide first the accuracy of measurements. The sales are effected publicly and if possible by auction, the highest bidder getting it. Though the gopa fixes the boundary limits, disputes arising from them are settled by this committee on the strength of evidence furnished especially by cultivators and cowherds. Any undue encroachment was severely dealt with.² Again if this committee could not arrive at a unanimous decision, and opinion became divided, the whole question was referred to what is now called an Arbitration Board, constituted by men of sterling character and worth, whose words were final. In the meantime the disputants themselves might strike at some compromise and withdraw the case. Otherwise what the Board ruled should be accepted. If the Board found on sufficient grounds that both parties unjustly claimed a piece of land, then that strip of land was declared ‘public property’. The same was applicable for disputes concerning forests, pasture grounds, roads, cremation grounds, temples, and other charitable institutions.¹ According to the Kauṭalīya this committee of the elders of the village was to look after the property of orphans, minors, and temples.²

c12.s1.61

² सीम्नो विवादे क्षेत्रस्य सामन्ताः स्थविरादयः । गोपाः सोमाकृषाणा ये सर्व्वे च वनगोचराः ॥ नयेयुरेते सीमानं स्थलाङ्गारस्तृषद्रुमैः । सेतुवल्मोकनिम्नास्थिचैत्याद्यै रूपलक्षितम् ॥ सामन्ता वा समाग्रामा श्वारोऽष्टौ दशापि वा । रक्तस्रग्वसनाः सीमां नयेयुः क्षितिधारिणः ॥ (Yājñavalkya, ii. 150-2 ; Manu, viii. 258 ; Nārada. ii. 2.)

c12.s1.62

¹ Nārada. xi. 12.

c12.s1.63

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. ii, Sec. 1.

c12.s1.64

The committee of justice could be identified with the pariṣad of Parāśara. Parāśara defines³ a true pariṣad as an assembly of the learned. It is to consist of three to five members generally. Even heinous and atrocious crimes like that of killing a cow were punished by it. But this does not warrant a conclusion that this committee exercised unlimited powers. For there is evidence to show that it had its own limitations. The committee could order, for example, the performance of expiatory ceremonies only after the sanction of the king has been previously obtained.⁴

c12.s1.65

³ > अनाहिताग्नयो येऽन्ये वेदवेदाङ्गपारगाः ।

c12.s1.66

⁴ > राजास्थानुमते चैव प्रायश्चित्तं द्विजो वदेत् ।

c12.s1.67

पञ्चतयोवा धर्म्मज्ञाः परिषत्सा प्रकीर्तिता ॥ (viii. 19 ff.)

c12.s1.68

स्वयमेव न वक्तव्यो प्रायश्चित्तस्य निष्कृतिः ॥ (Ibid., 35.)

c12.s1.69

There were also separate committees to look after the general affairs of the village as well as its particular affairs like the excavation of tanks and wells and watching them from being abused. There were committees in charge of gardens, forests, bridges, irrigation, drainage, roads, etc. These were then the smaller group organizations, the members of which were actuated by commonness of ideals. Their decision was often unanimous. And if it were not arrived at, it was left to the more matured and more experienced heads to decide. These were the elders of the village who frequently formed themselves into an arbitration board. These various committees were animated by a healthy spirit of co-operation and worked in unison. Co-operative enterprises and co-operative efforts in various fields of activity are mentioned in the several pages of *Arthaśāstra*. It is the principle of common-will for common good that underlies these various institutions. Kauṭalya recommends co-operation even for theatrical entertainments, public shows and exhibitions, not to speak of sacred sacrifices. Everybody was expected to contribute his mite towards the common object, and he who failed to do so, but at the same time enjoyed the benefit of the function, was entitled to the penalty of a fine.¹ Manu applies the same principles to caste, family and assembly.² To-day the failure of democracy as an ideal and as a form of government is writ large. Viscount Bryce has proved by facts and figures the shortcomings of modern democracies. This discontent with the existing methods of democratic government has given rise to a volume of political literature among which may be mentioned the *New State* by the talented writer and thinker M. P. Follett with an illuminating introduction by the late much lamented Lord Haldane. This book¹ examines the weak spots in modern democratic organizations, and suggests group associations and voluntary neighbourhood associations as the remedy. In Great Britain, United States of America and even other countries a beginning has been made in this direction, by a process of devolution and wider distribution of powers by the state. To-day local government unlike in ancient India is practically and wholly a creature of the Central Government. This is one reason why modern local government is such a poor effort.

c12.s1.70

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. iii, Sec. 10.

c12.s1.71

² अथ ऊर्ध्वं प्रवक्ष्यामि धर्मं समयभेदिनाम् । यो ग्रामदेशसङ्घानां कृत्वा सत्येन संविदम् । विसंवेन्नरलोभात्तं राष्ट्राद्विप्रवासयेत् । निगृह्य दापयेच्चैनं समयव्यभिचारिणम् । चतुःसुवर्णान्निष्कांश्च शतमर्धं च राजतम् ।

c12.s1.72

¹ *The New State*, by M. P. Follett (third impression), 1920 (Longmans Green & Co., Ltd.)

c12.s1.73

In ancient India, however, the Central Government was raised on the bed-rock of local institutions, self-governing in every respect, and forming ready adjuncts or even organs of government. The relation of the Central Government to these small states was guidance by supervision and not by direct effective control. Local institutions were, in other words, treated as efficient auxiliaries to the Central Government, and rarely was any opposition raised to it. These organized local institutions constituted by the community for furthering

c12.s1.74

एतद्दण्डविधिं कुर्याद्धार्मिकः पृथिवीपतिः ।
ग्रामजातिसमूहेषु समयव्यभिचारिणाम् ॥ (Manu, viii. 218-21.)

c12.s1.75

the various interests touching the village or the city were of the nature of a working democracy wherein there was an equitable and complete representation of various interests. These organizations were largely socialistic in character and thus embodied pure democratic ideals. Not only was this true of the domain of politics but also in the province of industry and commerce. Dr. A. Coomaraswami says:¹ Each caste or trade possessed an organization largely socialistic in character embodying democratic and communistic ideas. It may well be doubted whether the true hope for Indian industry does not lie in some such developments of the caste system itself, in the village and home industries of the caste, aided by such improvements as are needed (e.g., the fly-shuttle or the distribution of electric power).' This is largely true of development in other fields of public activity also. If progress were to be real, India must advance on lines congenial to her culture and environment.

c12.s1.76

¹ *Essays in National Idealism*, p. 169 (G. A. Natesan & Co., Madras).

Sec. ii. Communal Institutions

c12.s2.1

It would be interesting to examine in detail some aspects of such group organizations. In our political advancement no effort should be spared to revive and revivify ancient village communities. The opening of *panchayat* courts in several villages is a step in the right direction. Villages were and are still the real centres of local autonomy. Mr. Anderson quotes Mountstuart Elphinstone thus: ‘In whatever point of view we examine the native government in the Deccan, the first and most important feature is the division into villages and townships. These communities contain in miniature all the materials of a state within themselves, and are almost sufficient to protect their members, if all other governments were withdrawn.'¹

c12.s2.2

¹ G. Anderson, *British Administration in India*, p. 48 (Macmillans, 1917).

c12.s2.3

This feature of local self-government representing a distinct type in itself was a noteworthy feature of ancient Indian administration. There were multifarious institutions and types of government among which we can strike upon two common types. One is communal and the other is territorial. In modern parlance the first is what we call occupational groups and the second the neighbourhood groups. The basis on which these two types of political institutions proceed seems to be through a bond of kinship or ties of blood. This kind of political grouping has been a natural outcome of the conditions then existing. The principle of association was a bond of mutual help and mutual defence. This in course of time became the unit on which political democracy began to rest.² Under this group of kinship we are led into two peculiar institutions at once economic and communal in character. The first is the joint-family and the second various caste *panchayats* which are in substance professional groups. Though an examination of the institution of the joint-family does not directly lie in the province of our survey, still a mention may be made. The word occurs in our extant texts and is explained as *kuṭumbi* or a joint family³ constituting the mother, father, two sons and two daughters-in-law, daughter, wife, guest, and the master of the household. These constitutent members form a joint-family.¹ Professor Jolly takes the view that the position of a son under the Indian law was that of an unemancipated son under the earliest Roman law, while the position of a mother or a father was that of the Roman mother or father under the *patria potestas*. From the verse it is reasonable to believe that the institution was in existence in the days of the *Rāmāyaṇa* as later under the epoch of the *Mahābhārata*. In the *Rāmāyaṇa* there are no texts that go to prove the existence of single families. The sons of Daśaratha lived in a joint-family. Vāli and his brother Sugrīva lived together. Rāvaṇa and his brothers lived together. The same ideal pervades the epic heroes of the *Mahābhārata*. The Pāṇḍavās lived together while Duryodhana and with his one hundred brothers constituted a single family none the less. The *Mahābhārata* which is reckoned a later work than the *Rāmāyaṇa*, which is according to tradition the *ādi kāvya*, there are passages where signs of revolt among the several members of a family are not wanting. Though sons have not divided with their fathers, still a younger brother demands a partition of the joint-property of the family when the elder admonishes the younger, and it is remarked, ‘it is through folly men desire partition; but this creates a loop-hole, and weakens one before his enemies.’ Thus the institution was a safeguard for men of weaker temperaments against many adverse forces in a society not fully settled. The outstanding features of the institution have been and are—there are still survivals found scattered here and there despite the growing spirit of freedom of thought and assertion of individual right—the sharing of the common resources of the family either in its adversity or prosperity.¹

c12.s2.4

² The bond of a caste is occupation, of a tribe kinship, and of a village locality. (John Matthai, *Village Government in British India*, p. 196.)

c12.s2.5

³ मातापित्राश्रुषे पुत्रौ पुत्रौ पन्ययतिथिः स्वयं । दशसङ्ख्यः कुटुम्बोति विष्णुनोक्तं द्विजोत्तम ॥ This is quoted by Govindarāja in commenting on verse 7, chap. vi. 1 of the *Rāmāyaṇa*.

c12.s2.6

¹ For more particulars *vide* Jolly, *Tagore Law Lectures*, 1883; Lecture iv, and especially pp. 81-87.

c12.s2.7

¹ This raises the question of the institution of property. The joint-family becoming the basis on which Hindu society rested, it follows that corporate property is the rule and absolute unrestricted ownership the exception. In the words of P. N. Banerjea every member of the family was entitled, in principle, to the use of the family property held in common. But it was not a right equally shared by all. The head alone had the control of it and all the others were in a position of subordination to him in point of right. This practice still holds good among the Numbudris of Malabar. Latterly a transformation has come over the whole system. The Hindu law has been modified according to the changing conditions of the time. There are two schools of law—the Mitakshara School, A.D. 1060 and the Dāyabhāga, A.D. 1400. The first prevails outside Bengal and the latter within. Under the first the head of the family continues to be the sole authority to dispose of the property though limitations are placed upon his rights. He could utilize it only in the interests of the family, or in the face of any legal necessity incidental to the property. But regular partition of the property is permissible at any time. It is an equitable and elastic system in the sense that the sons get an equal share with the father in the case of hereditary immovable property; and a son or any legal heir could claim partition against the will of the head of the family. Thus the institution of private property is clearly recognized under the Mitakshara law.

c12.s2.8

On the other hand the Dāyabhāga treatises rule that the head of the family is the absolute owner of all common property which he could use or enjoy according to his will and pleasure. Under this law the son is not entitled to enforce the right of partition in the life-time of the head of the family; but the brothers and other members could utilize their shares as they pleased even though the property remains undivided. These rules are fast on the plane of decline. We have only remnants of this institution which served several important purposes centuries before efficiently. In a growing state of society in a comparatively early stage, there was no risk of unemployment nor of pressure on the means of subsistence; poor relief, insurance against risks, old age pensions, and other like questions are incidental only to the modern state. The Kauṭalīya also advocates this institution. It ordains that it is the duty of every member of the family to maintain his children, wife, parents, minor brothers, unmarried or widowed sisters. Every gṛhasta could not take up the robes of asceticism before adequately providing for all the members of his family. If not, he was liable to punishment by the state. Thus the state in ancient India saved itself from many new responsibilities by enforcing the responsibilities of its citizens. Kauṭalya, a statesman of moral ideas, is not for maintaining those fallen away from the path of dharma (patitās) : but he would make an exception in the case of the mother. Though a patita she must be protected. (Artha- The next important feature of the Hindu village economy was the caste *panchayat*. The expression *panchayat* is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with the numerical connotation of five. It may be that this council sometimes consisted of only five members. But it was by no means a rigidly fixed number. Dr. Matthai is right when he says¹ that it refers either to the general meeting of all the members of the caste or community, or a select body of men chosen by that caste or community. By a caste *panchayat* is meant nothing more or nothing less than the association of men of one and the same profession or occupation. Here questions affecting the particular castes or professions are discussed, and solutions are found to remedy the defects or errors that have crept into their organizations. Besides the four-fold division which is regarded as an economic division of labour, there

c12.s2.9

¹ Village Government in British India, p. 18.

c12.s2.10

*śāstra*, Bk. ii, 1.) Kauṭalya is an originator presumably of the Dāyabhāga school. He says when parents are alive the sons are not entitled to a partition. Self-acquired property is not divisible and what is divisible is the ancestral property. If a man has no son his brothers and other collaterals are the heirs, and in their absence the property goes to the daughters. The division of property can only be done when all the sons come of age. If it were done otherwise, the minors are not liable to the discharge of the family debts. If it be the opinion of any, that proper justice had not been done in the partition, there is the right of re-division. These points agree quite well with the rulings of Yājñavalkya, ii. 117-76. Outcastes and their sons, eunuchs, lunatics, lepers and the blind are not entitled to any share; but still they must be given sufficient for their food and clothing. (Cf. Yājñavalkya, ii. 140 and Manu, ix. 202.) In the opinion of the author of the *Arthaśāstra* the elder sons should show some consideration towards younger ones though the eldest is entitled to an additional share. Daughters have no claim to the property though women are entitled to possess their own private property which is their dowry and jewellery. A woman could not, however, spend it when her husband was living, under certain exceptions. If she should die leaving no issues her property was returned to her relatives. Treason, transgression of law, elopement and other misbehaviour would deprive a woman of her property. According to Kātyāyana partition is certainly allowed. It was to be effected not by any hard and fast rule but by the laws and usages prevalent in the country, caste or guild.

c12.s2.11

are numerous sub-castes which had evolved in the course of ages according to the changing conditions of the land. When life became more and more complex necessity drove people to organize themselves in groups. Occupation was the outstanding reason for the multiplicity of groups. Those who have adhered to the self-same profession organized themselves upon vital modes of association, and progress in economic sense necessitated more wants which created a wider range and variety in occupational callings. Besides religion was at work. India is the land of various religious faiths, and the followers of a definite faith formed themselves into a group. Geographical conditions aggravated the tendency in this direction. This is particularly seen in ancient Drāviḍa where there were regional groups or divisions.

c12.s2.12

| Region | Tribes |
| 1. Neytal (maritime) | *paravas*, *nuḷayas* and *valaiyas*. |
| 2. Marutam (fertile) | *mallar (pallar)* and *kaḍaiñar*. |
| 3. Mullai (pasture) | *iḍaiyar* and *toḍuvar*. |
| 4. Pālai (desert) | *maravar* and *eiyanar*. |
| 5. Kurinji (hill) | *kuravar*, *iruḷar*, *śavarar*, *veḍar* and *villiyar*. |

c12.s2.13

In these regions the tribes mentioned above predominated, though other classes of people also lived. It may be pointed out that the Tamil grammarians¹ and lexicographers classify the soil as five divisions, *tiṇais*: neytal, marutam, mullai, pālai, and kurinji. This regional classification appears to have been the original basis of division among peoples in South India, but with the spread of Sanskrit culture, these various types became distinct occupational groups or castes, each ministering to the needs of the whole community. It may be that the regional classification added force to the occupational groups which grew with the progress of the society and constituted a separate class of professional men.

c12.s2.14

¹ *Tolkāppiam*, *Poruḷ*, *sūtra* 20 and especially the commentary of *Iḷampūraṇam* thereon.

c12.s2.15

The occupational groups afford an interesting study not only for the antiquarian but also for the politician. If economic democracy were to be realized as a factor, we must endeavour to revive and revivify the old but stable methods and institutions. That a number of occupational guilds existed in ancient South India is evident from Tamil literature and from numerous inscriptions.¹ A categorical list of these groups would not be out of place here: oilmen (*vāṇiyan*), washerman (*vaṇṇān*), barber (*ambaṭṭan*), potter (*kuśavan*), weavers, carpenters, copper-smiths, gold-smiths, cultivators (*uḷavan*). These find a distinct place in the social economy of the village. Further the inscriptions of Rājarāja Chola (A.D. 985 to 1013) throw more light on the existence of these groups: astrologer (*kaṇi*), accountant (*kāvidi*), temple musician (*mārāyan*), temple official to recite *tēvaram* (*piḍāran*), temple actor (*śakki*), dyer (*vaṇṇattān*), temple overseer (*vāriyan*), temple dancer (*veḷān*), barber (*ambaṭṭan*), bard (*pāṇan*), workmen (*paṇikkan*), toddy-drawers (*īzhavan*) or the modern *shāṇān* of the Tamil country. Most of these occupational groups are still found in Malabar though in the Tamil districts new names have been given for some of these occupations. Other occupational castes mentioned are *nāvidan*, *śekkan*, *śakkai*, *uvaichan*, (village school master), *vaḷḷuvan*, etc.

c12.s2.16

¹ S.I.I., vol. ii, part iii, Inscription No. 606 of Rājarāja and others.

c12.s2.17

Of these various professional groups the five represented by the five principal artisans, potters, weavers, carpenters and goldsmiths always enjoyed a high social position; for their services were always requisitioned by the higher castes for ceremonial or communal purposes. To the above-mentioned the *Perumpāṇārruppaḍai*, a Tamil work roughly of the third century A.D., adds fishermen (*valaiyar*), traders and merchants (*vāṇikar*), cultivating labourers (*uḷavar*). To these Māṅguḍi Kiḻār adds¹ four more occupational castes-*tuḍiyan* (a player on *tuḍi* (a variety of the drum); *pāṇan* or bard; *paraiyan* or drummer; *kaḍamban* or an agriculturist. These are identified with the aboriginal tribes of ancient Drāviḍa. The *paraiyan* caste seems to have been later on sub-divided into a number of occupational groups. The census report of 1891 mentions that there are in the schedules 348 sub-divisions of paraiyans pursuing different callings such as priests, field labourers, cattlebreeders, traders, weavers, teachers, archers, etc.² Thus the so-called depressed classes of to-day have had their important position in the village economy of ancient India. They had functions of importance and supplied the village with all its primary and secondary needs.

c12.s2.18

¹ "துடியன் பாணன் பறையன் கடம்பனென் றின்னான்கல்லது குடியுமில்லை." (*Puram* 335.)

c12.s2.19

² *Census of India*, 1891, vol. xiii, Madras; *The Report on the Census*, by H. A. Stuart, pp. 244 ff.

c12.s2.20

That the division of the people into occupational, functional, or professional castes is not peculiar to Drāviḍa seems capable of proof. It is seen from the *Rig Veda Saṃhita* that a number of such castes are mentioned. The four-fold division of the people in itself is one according to profession. The Brahmans are essentially teachers, and their advice was often sought on account of their learning. Kṣatriyas were to do all the fighting for the country and protect the land. The Vaiśyas were engaged in agriculture, trade and commerce, while the Sūdras rendered communal service by cattle rearing and similar professions of communal benefit. Each caste was in its turn sub-divided into a number of sub-castes, each following one distinct occupation. The Rig Veda speaks of the hunters as pāśins or nidhāpatis. For his occupation was by the pāśa or nidha which simply means a trap. The weaver is called vaya. The other terms that occur are the weaver of wool (puṣan), tanner (charmana), wicker-worker (akshuka), blacksmith (dhamatr), cow-herd (paśupa) or (gopa), ploughman (kinasa), etc. These and more occur in the Dharmaśāstras and the Arthaśāstra with their respective functions in the body-politic. In the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭalya mention is made of guilds of artisans, of weavers, of washermen, of coppersmiths, of blacksmiths, of medical practioners, of musicians and dancers, of sweepers, and scavengers. Gautama refers to guilds of various artisans, besides the groups of potters, boatmen, cowherds, traders, and money-lenders. Yājñavalkya mentions expressions śreṇi, naigama, and pāṣaṇḍi, as corporate bodies with their respective functions.¹

c12.s2.21

¹ श्रेणिनैगमापाषण्डगणानामप्ययंविधिः । भेदज्ञेषां नृपो रक्षेत पूर्ववृत्तिञ्च पालयेत् ॥ (ii. 195.)

c12.s2.22

Śukrāchārya speaks of these and also of the corporations of ascetics, thieves, foresters and soldiers.² In Buddhist literature there is mention of co-operative producers organizing themselves in a guild, as well as corporations of butchers, leatherworkers, fishermen, sailors, dyers, ivory-workers, metallurgists, etc., in the fifth and the sixth centuries B.C.¹

c12.s2.23

² iv. 5, 18-22.

c12.s2.24

¹ Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, chap. vi.

c12.s2.25

From these it could be easily inferred that people in ancient India were grouped together in different communities according to their habits and notions of right and wrong, and became located in different centres according to their professional, social, and domestic convenience, in contrast with the present class division in the West by colour, wealth, or power. In India profession and caste system have been insuperably linked together, and it was therefore natural to believe a man belonging to a caste invariably following the profession of that caste. This went a long way to avoid party feelings, conflict of labour and capital, cut-throat competition, and tended to promote peace and good-will among the community at large.

Sec. iii. Other Types of Rural Institutions

c12.s3.1

The *Kula*.—That *kula* is a technical term of political significance is clearly indicated by Mr. Jayaswal in his *Hindu Polity*. *Kula samgha* in Hindu literature means ‘a constitution where *kula* or family rules’, that is, an aristocratic or oligarchic state.² Jayaswal again interprets the *rājakulas* of the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Mahābhārata* as aristocratic constitutions. He would even include the hereditary kings of *patāla* under this description. Though it must be admitted that there was a political association inferior in power to the *gaṇa* form of corporate bodies, still Jayaswal’s interpretation in bringing the *patāla* kings and *rājakulas* of the *Mahābhārata* and the *Arthaśāstra* under this category, appears to be far-fetched. Mitramiśra draws a clear line of distinction between a kula form of association and a gaṇa form.¹ Sukrāchārya distinguishes three kinds of organizations, kula, śreṇi and gaṇa.²

c12.s3.2

² See Nārada, i, 7.

c12.s3.3

It has been generally admitted by all law-givers that every kula group in its political sense had a separate organization and separate regulations. Perhaps the kulikas or the elders of the kulas,³ formed the judicial court to decide disputes arising among the constituents of a kula. Originally a kula seems to have meant a family meeting.⁴ Then it became expanded gradually and in the time of the Mitākṣara it meant ‘a meeting of cognates, relatives and kinsmen.’ The Kauṭalīya however mentions it as a council of regency or of oligarchy.⁵

c12.s3.4

It is significant to note Jayaswal regarding the kula organization as the basis of franchise in aristocratic republics of ancient India, basing his authority on verse 30, chap. 107, of Śāntiparvan where equality of birth and family are recognized. It is also evident from the Pāli canon.⁶

c12.s3.5

The Śreṇi—Kauṭalya uses this expression in more than one sense : a guild of merchants, of artisans, or of military clans. But the term has been used largely to any guild organization. It may be guilds of any people either of workmen, labourers, merchants, or artisans or

c12.s3.6

¹ Viramitrodaya, pp. 11 and 40. ² iv. 5. 30. ³ Viramitrodaya, p. 11. ⁴ Nārada, i. 7. ⁵

c12.s3.7

कुलस्य वा भवेत् राज्यं कुलसंघो हि दुर्जयः ।
अराजव्यसनाबाधः शश्वदावसति क्षितिम ।

c12.s3.8

(Arthaśāstra, Bk. i. 17.) ⁶ Idha bhikkhave ekacco puggalo nīce kule paccājāto hoti caṇḍakule vā nesādakule vā veṇakule vā rathakārakule vā pukkusakule vā dalidde appanapānabhojane kasiravuttike yacha kasirena ghāsacchādo labhati. Aṅguttara Nikāya, iii. 13 (part i, p. 107).

c12.s3.9

of military groups.¹ But the term has a political significance. In the *Mānava Dharma Śāstra*, Manu speaks of the functions of a *śreṇi*.² Medhādithi, the celebrated commentator, interprets it as an ‘association of traders, artisans, or money-lenders, or usurers, and of men proficient in the four sciences of learning.’³ The word again appears in the *Nārada saṃhita* and has been taken to mean guilds of merchants as well as artisans. From Yājñavalkya it would appear that every trade, art and craft, was well organized and was worked in common on co-operative principles.⁴ As many as eighteen guilds are mentioned in the *Jātaka* records.⁵ This was only a conventional number for tradition speaks of a large number of them. Pāṇini uses the term⁶ and this is explained by both Kaiyaṭa and the Tattvabodhini⁷ as an association of adults following a common trade or dealing in a common commodity.⁸ It differs from the corporation *pūga* where people of various castes were members of a common organization and worked at a common trade. The *Vyvahāramayūkha*⁹ defines it as several castes joined together for the purposes of pursuing a common trade. It was not exclusively based on caste but on profession. Thus the *śreṇi* rightly falls under the category of occupational groups.

c12.s3.10

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. vii, 16; Bk. ix, Sec. 2; Bk. ii, Sec. 4.

c12.s3.11

² viii. 41: एककायपन्ना वणिक्कुसोदचातुर्विद्यदयः ॥

c12.s3.12

³ i. 7; x. 2.

c12.s3.13

⁴ Yājñavalkya, i. 361.

c12.s3.14

⁵ *Mūga-pakkha Jātaka*, vol. vi, p. 14.

c12.s3.15

⁶ ii. 1. 59.

c12.s3.16

⁷ एकेन शिल्पेन येपन्न वा ये जोवन्ति तेषां समूहः श्रेणिः ।

c12.s3.17

⁸ Mookerji, *Local Government in Ancient India*, p. 33.

c12.s3.18

⁹ नानाजातोयानामेकजातोयं कर्मकुर्वतां समूहाः श्रेणयः ।

c12.s3.19

These corporations were found both in the towns and villages. They seem to have had their own courts which had power to decide causes concerning their organization in general. According to Nārada¹ the śreṇi courts occupy a middle place between the kula organizations and the gaṇa associations. The Bṛhaspati Saṃhitā mentions the same powers. They seem to have had no criminal jurisdiction.²

c12.s3.20

¹ i. 7.

c12.s3.21

² नृपेणाधिकृताः पूगाः श्रेणयोऽथकुलानि च । पूर्व पूर्व गुरुज्ञेयं व्यवहारविधौ नृणाम् ॥ (Yājñavalkya, ii. 30.) Cp. Br., i. 28; Arthaśāstra, iii. 20; Kulāvaka Jātaka, vol. i, No. 31.

c12.s3.22

It is a patent fact that our smṛtis rule that local affairs ought to be settled by local courts formed by the people and not by the central court. To put it briefly, local administration, whether it was industrial or commercial, political or social, was administered by local courts wherein the principle of neighbourhood was the prevalent factor. It is interesting to find inscriptional evidence in favour of this principle.³

c12.s3.23

³ Vaḷhudalampaṭṭu inscription of Devarāya II. See Madras Epigraphist Report, 1915, pp. 106-8.

c12.s3.24

What the smṛtis have ruled, the Arthaśāstras of Kauṭalya, Kāmandaka and Sukra have recommended. According to Sukra,⁴ such of those who are of good character, and who are appointed by special agreement (nibandha) are alone fit for hearing causes and deciding them on their merits. The passages indicate that there were separate forest-courts, merchant-courts, warrior-courts, and village-courts, constituted by the local citizens themselves. These local courts however seem to have extended their powers of jurisdiction later on while the earlier *smṛtis* like that of *Bṛhaspati* refer only to civil causes. Kauṭalya empowers the village headman to take cognizance of both civil and criminal cases. The later South Indian inscriptions (Chola inscriptions) contain passages which testify to the great extent of the criminal jurisdiction exercised by these local courts.

c12.s3.25

⁴ अभियुक्तश्च ये यत्र यन्निबन्ध्नियोजताः । तत्रत्यगुणदोषाणां त एव हि विचारकाः ॥ आरण्यास्तु स्वकैः कुर्युः सार्थिकाः सार्थिकैः सह । सैनिकाः सैनिकैरेव ग्रामेऽप्युभयवासिभिः ॥ (Śukra, iv. 5, 22-23.)

First 126 of 370 passages. Read on

Linked texts (39)