Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c12.s2: Sec. ii. Communal Institutions

Hindu Administrative Institutions c12.s2

Language
English

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of a state within themselves, and are almost sufficient to protect their members, if all other governments were withdrawn.'¹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.

Linked texts (12)