Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c12.s3: Sec. iii. Other Types of Rural Institutions

Hindu Administrative Institutions c12.s3

Language
English

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.)

c12.s3.26

The *Mahābhārata* mentions the term in different senses. In the course of a colloquy between Karṇa and Duryodhana the latter shame-faced at his recent defeat, expresses to Karṇa his disinclination to return to the city in that plight. Among others to whom he would have to explain, he mentions the *śreṇi-mukhyas*.¹ In towns and cities these *śreṇis* formed an important political link in the chain of the state. The *śreṇi-mukhyas* exercised important powers of state. They took part in the coronation and consecration of kings. They gave countenance to the proposal of Bharata's coronation.²

c12.s3.27

¹ *Vana Parvan*, ccl. 16.

c12.s3.28

² प्रतिक्षते त्वां स्वजनः श्रेणयश्च नृपात्मज । (*Ayodhya kāṇḍa*, lxxix. 4.) Here Govindarāja comments ‘श्रेणयः नैगमाः’

c12.s3.29

Again in the *Yuddha kāṇḍa*³ it was *śreṇi-mukhyas* with the ministers that go out to welcome Rāma back home after his period of exile. The Epics then represent the *śreṇis* as the representative assemblies of the state and hence political in character. They were an important force in the administration of the state and the king was obliged to respect their feelings and views; or rather these assemblies were a constitutional check on the arbitrary character of kings. Thus with Govindarāja we can say that these corporations were functioning like the *naigama* or the *paura-jānapada* assemblies.

c12.s3.30

³ cxxvii, 4.

c12.s3.31

That the *śreṇis* were organizations for purposes of trade and commerce is evident from Buddhist literature. Dr. R. Fick who has made a special study of the *Jātakas* observes in his *Sociale Gliederung im Nordöstlichen Indien zu Buddha's Zeit*¹ three facts, namely, the institution of Jeṭṭhaka (alderman), a common leader honoured at the royal court, localization of industries and hereditary occupations, and concludes rightly that such institutions presuppose some sort of organization and the inference is clear that such organizations must have existed in pre-Buddhistic days also.²

c12.s3.32

¹ Translated into English by Mr. Maitra of the Calcutta University.

c12.s3.33

² pp. 283-4.

c12.s3.34

Some of the following references will clear this point. There was a village of 500 carpenters all doing woodwork.³ There was again a village of smiths with 1,000 houses engaged in the manufacture of razors, axes, ploughshares, goads, needles and other iron work and superintended by a head smith.⁴ Mention is also made of a town of carpenters containing 1,000 families.⁵ There was overseas trade as well as internal trade by caravans. The hereditary professions were those of the smith, potter and stone-grinder. There were fixed streets for fixed professions. Dr. Fick mentions these as also other casteless professions such as contractors, dancers, musicians, huntsmen, fishermen, slaves, etc. Still the learned writer doubts an organized guild life and speaks of traders without organization.⁶ There might have been traders without organization perhaps answering to our modern retail dealers. But still that there were organized business firms, understood by the people as such can be stated beyond doubt. Dr. Fick himself admits that the commercial communities were represented in the administration¹ and the *śreṣṭin* who was the acknowledged head of the Guild² was ranked as an aristocrat and entitled to royal audience. How could there be a leader without an organized following, and how could the community be represented without any organization? The answer to these questions affirms the fact further that there was real organized life among the commercial and industrial classes of those days who had also political functions to perform.

c12.s3.35

³ *Jātakas*, vol. ii, No. 156.

c12.s3.36

⁴ *Ibid.*, vol. iii, No. 387.

c12.s3.37

⁵ *Ibid.*, vol. iv, No. 466.

c12.s3.38

⁶ *Social Organization in North-east India*, pp. 275-6.

c12.s3.39

¹ *Jātakas*, p. 259.

c12.s3.40

² *Ibid.*, p. 257.

c12.s3.41

From Kauṭalya it can be gathered how the *śreṇis* had advanced themselves in power and extent. Kauṭalya mentions guilds of artisans, of weavers, of washermen, of copper-smiths, blacksmiths, sweepers, scavengers, medical practitioners, musicians, dancers, besides other co-operative and corporate bodies in towns and villages.³ Various regulations are also set forth which are quite in agreement with those of the law-giver Manu. It is pretty evident that there were established bankers, if not regular banks, with which these guilds deposited their savings and drew on them whenever necessary. And the guilds of artisans generally entered into contracts when undertaking any work for time or piece wages.⁴

c12.s3.42

³ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, Sec. 1.

c12.s3.43

⁴ > गृहीतवेतनः कर्म त्यजन्द्विगुणावहेत् ।

c12.s3.44

अग्रहीते समं दाप्यो मूल्यै रक्षय उपस्करः ॥
दाप्यस्तु दशमं भागं वाणिज्यपशूसस्यतः ।
अनिश्चित्य भृतिं यस्तु कारयेत्स महीक्षिता ॥

c12.s3.45

Under the category of weavers' guilds,¹ we get a glimpse of the method of manufacture of cotton and woollen goods. Articles of good finish were a speciality and the economic laws of substitution and imitation were not unknown. As regards the washermen associations² it is mentioned that every cloth must be marked so as to avoid substitution, and must be retained from one to seven days according to the variety of colours. There was both rough and nice washing. Washermen tampering with these clothes, either by sale, mortgage or hire, were liable to punishment. It is evident that even these tiny organizations had a leader whose advice was often sought and taken. Such leaders were held in esteem and even honoured by the Government. A striking instance of this recognition of the voluntary service to the state is seen from the drama, *Mudrārākṣasa*. Here mention is made of a guild of lapidaries as well as other corporations in all the townships of the empire. Through the orders of king Chandragupta, Chandanadāsa, the headman of the guild of lapidaries is appointed as the paramount head of all guilds throughout the

c12.s3.46

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. iv, Sec. 1.

c12.s3.47

² *Ibid.*

c12.s3.48

देशं कालं च योऽतोल्यालाभं कुर्याच्च योऽन्यथा ।
ततस्यास्वामिनश्छन्दोऽधिकं देयं कृतेऽधिके ॥
यो यावत्कुरुते कर्म तावतस्तस्य तु वेतनम् ।
उभयोरप्यसाध्यं चेत्साध्ये कुर्याद्यथाश्रुतम् ॥
अराजदैविकं नष्टं भाण्डं दाप्यस्तु वाहकः ।
प्रस्थानविघ्नकृच्चैव प्रदाप्यो द्विगुणां भृतिम् ॥
प्रकान्ते सप्तमं भागं चतुर्थं पथिसंयजन् ।
भृतिमध्ये सर्वां दाप्यस्याजकोऽपि च ॥ (Yājñavalkya, ii. 193-8.)

c12.s3.49

kingdom.¹ But here the term for a guild is not śreṇi but śreṣṭi which more or less corresponds to the Jātaka term, śreṣṭin.

c12.s3.50

¹ Act vii.

c12.s3.51

It has been already mentioned that Kauṭalya makes the śreṇi also a military organization. That such organized military associations were in existence in the days prior to the Kauṭalīya can be illustrated from the Kauṭalīya itself. Kauṭalya gives it as the opinion of the āchāryas that a śreṇi could not be easily subdued like the recalcitrant individuals. In this respect Kauṭalya differs and says that the śreṇi-dharma is intimately bound up with that of the king, and hence the śreṇis could not stand long with the king. Their risings could be overcome by the arrest of their chief leaders, or a section of the assembly.² In Kauṭalya’s opinion however the śreṇi-bala or the soldiers recruited from the śreṇi, were the best warriors and would prove equal to any situation. The śreṇi mukhya was the leader of the śreṇi-bala and was paid a handsome salary equal to that of the head of an elephant-corps.

c12.s3.52

² Arthaśāstra. Bk. viii. 4 and Bk. ix. 2.

c12.s3.53

That the śreṇi organizations became more and more decentralized is evident from Śukrāchārya. Sukra speaks of three kinds of local courts like the previous writers on the subject.:³ kula, śreṇi and gaṇa. Each of them has independent powers to act and settle differences among themselves. They enjoyed in addition powers of adjudication. All civil wrongs were righted by them while criminal causes were decided perhaps by the headman of the village in his panchayat court. Śukra definitely says that cases of theft by robbers do not fall within their purview. Persons who were inimical to these local associations were deemed internal enemies, and hence unfit to appear as witnesses. Sukra mentions with Kauṭalya a number of occupational associations each having its own organization. Cases involving foresters were to be dicided by corporations of foresters, soldiers by the corporation of soldiers. This has made B. K. Sarkar draw a parallel from modern English History where a peer was not subject to the ordinary common-law court; and his case has to be decided by a body of peers. Manu and Gautama agree in the main that the state generally respected these organized bodies and their usages. According to them again the decisions of these village assemblies were binding upon all, and violations of compacts or agreements entered into with caste-guilds or assemblies, were liable to punishment.

c12.s3.54

³ Śukra, iv. 5. 30.

c12.s3.55

The *Gaṇa*.—A *gaṇa* is a larger form of the *kula*, or rather the corporation of several *kulas* is known as the *gaṇa*.¹ The law books invariably mention this institution.²

c12.s3.56

¹ कुलानां हि समूहस्तु गणः संपरिकीर्तितः ॥ (Kātyāyana quoted in *Viramitrodaya.*)

c12.s3.57

² जातिजानपदान्धर्मान् श्रेणिधर्मांश्च धर्मवित् । समीक्ष्य कुलधर्मांश्च स्वधर्मं प्रतिपादयेत् ॥ (Manu, viii. 41.) तद्देशकुलजातीनां अविरुद्धं प्रकल्पयेत् । (*Ibid.*, 46.) योप्रामदेशसङ्घानां कृत्वा सत्येन संविदम् । (*Ibid.*, 219.) ग्रामजातिसमूहेषु समयव्यभिचारिणाम् । (*Ibid.*, 221.)

c12.s3.58

Mention is made in the *Mānava Dharma Śāstra* of the corporate bodies of *jāti* (castes), country (*janapada*), of merchant guilds (*śreṇi*), of family (*kula*), village (*grāma*) or township. There is further mention of the *deśa* *saṃgha* equivalent to *jānapada saṃgha*. The commentator Kullūkabhaṭṭa takes the word *saṃgha* to mean *samūha* or an association of merchants and others (बणिगादिसमूहः). More or less the same institutions are mentioned in the *Yājñavalkya Smṛti*.¹ In his commentary Vijñāneśvara explains *gaṇa* as the assembly of village people (ग्रामादिजनसमूहः)² and in the second as the body of men pursuing one and the same profession like that of soldiers (गणो व्रातः आयुधोयादीनां एककर्मोपजीविनोः).

c12.s3.59

¹ > कुलानि जातोः श्रेणोश्च गणान्जानपदानऽपि ।

c12.s3.60

² *Vide Arthaśāstra*.

c12.s3.61

It is then evident that there were numerous bodies corporate, each functioning in its respective sphere. K. P. Jayaswal identifies *gaṇa* with a *saṃgha*, and is of opinion that it was the parliament or the assembly of the commons of the republican state. It is clear that this term has stood for different organizations. In the later Vedic period, for example the age of the *Upaniṣads*, there is a distinct reference to *gaṇāsa* in the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*.³

c12.s3.62

³ “गणप्रायाहि विशः । प्रायेन संहताहि वित्तोपार्जतसमर्थाः नैकै- कशः” । Quoted by R. C. Majumdar with the commentary of Śri Śankarāchārya, *Corporate Life in Ancient India*, p. 12.

c12.s3.63

स्वधर्माञ्झलितान् राजा विनिय स्थापयेत्पथि ॥ (i. 361.)
श्रेणिनैगमाखण्डगणानामध्ययं विधिः ।
भेदं चैषां नृपो रक्षेत पूर्ववृत्तिं च पाळयेत् ॥ (ii. 192.)

c12.s3.64

देशजातिकुलसंघानां समयस्यानपाकर्म । (Bk. iii, Sec. 10.)

c12.s3.65

This is explained in the *Śri-mūlam Commentary* as follows :

c12.s3.66

देशीय जनसङ्घस्य, जातीयजनसंघस्य, कुलोयजनसंघस्य.

c12.s3.67

The term seems to have been exclusively confined to the Vaiśya community which was engaged in the acquisition of wealth. This acquisition of wealth was pursued in different ways by different sets of people. Thus the vast community was divided into compartments each plying one trade or the other. It further points out that in those days the principle of co-operation was well understood and realized, and that co-operation was not communistic but communal in character.¹

c12.s3.68

¹ See the whole of chap, x of Bk. iii of the *Arthaśāstra*.

c12.s3.69

It may be shown, however, that the *gaṇa* organization of the *Upaniṣads* was more economic than political in character and it may be remarked that its economic character played itself out in course of time as a political institution. In this latter aspect we see it mentioned in the *Dharmaśāstras* and the *Arthaśāstras*. The expression here is no more confined to a particular community, but refers unmistakably to associations of common people. Thus in the *Nitivākyamṛta* of Somadeva there occurs the phrase गणपुरश्चारिणः and the word *gaṇa* is commented on as the assembly of peoples (जनसमूह) and the leader of the *gaṇa* was known as *purachārin*,—the *purośu* of the Tamil literature.

c12.s3.70

*Gaṇa* seems at the best to refer to a tribe and its organization in early times, if judged in the light of the principle of kinship underlying the bond of the tribe. It generally represents the organized group of a tribe, or the sub-division of a tribe spread out over an area larger than that of a village. This tribal area enjoyed a republican form of constitution and administration. Bhīṣma speaks of these corporations with military powers both for defensive and offensive purposes.² Thus the *gaṇa* legitimately finds a place under kinship associations.¹ The institution of *kula* may perhaps refer to a sub-division of a tribe occupying a small region but still enjoying independence. This is in keeping with what *Viramitrodaya* says that a *kula* or a *kula* court was the deciding judicial authority in self-governing organizations of the *gaṇa* type.² The ruling of Kātyāyana that the *kula* was also the body of the unit is attested by Rhys Davids who speaks of *aṣṭakulaka* which Jayaswal interprets as ‘a judicial council of eight members’ as against the original interpretation, ‘representative of eight clans.’³ To us both seem to be right, for it must have been a judicial council of eight members each representing one *kula*. For, according to Kātyāyana himself elsewhere, a *gaṇa* is a group of several *kulas* and it is but natural to suppose that in deciding the case of a *gaṇa* the representatives of the several *kulas* composing that *gaṇa* must have been present. Further it is interesting to note that the principle of equality by birth and equality by family was recognized by the *gaṇa* group.⁴

c12.s3.71

² *Śānti Parvan*, cvii 1.

c12.s3.72

¹ See also *Vinayapiṭakam*, vol. v, *parivāra*, pp. 167, 177, etc.; *Aṅgutt. Nik.*, part. ii, *Cakkavagga*, p. 34.

c12.s3.73

² p. 11.

c12.s3.74

³ *Buddhist India*, p. 22.

c12.s3.75

⁴ जात्याच सदृशाः सर्वे कुलेन सदृशास्तथा । (*Śānti, Parvan*, cvii. 30.)

c12.s3.76

The later inscriptions speak of *Mālava gaṇa* which means the corporation of the *Mālava* tribe.⁵

c12.s3.77

⁵ श्रोमालवगणान्नाते । Mandasor Inscription of Kumāra Gupta, *Ind. Ant.*, 1913, p. 161.

c12.s3.78

Other tribes or *gaṇas* mentioned in the inscriptions and quoted by Majumdar are *arjunagaṇas* in the Allahabad Pillar inscription of Samudragupta, the *audumbaras* from numismatic sources, as also the *kuṇindas* and the *vṛṣṇis*. The latter seems to have been a powerful tribe which continued to exist for a long time. The *Kauṭalīya*, the *Mahābhārata* and the *Harṣacarita*¹ refer to this tribe.

c12.s3.79

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i. Sec. 6 ; *Harṣa*, p. 224.

c12.s3.80

The *gaṇas* have further changed their role during the period of the later law-givers, Nārada, Bṛhaspati, and Kātyāyana. They were no more independent republics but were subordinate to the king. The various officers of these groups or institutions were appointed by the king as representing the state.²

c12.s3.81

² > कुलिकास्स्वार्थमुख्याश्च पुरग्रामनिवासिनः ॥

c12.s3.82

Thus the king had the right of control and supervision. If these institutions broke away from the recognized path of *dharma* the king could punish and bring them back into order. Again Manu³ ordains that a king should act in such a way as not to prejudice the laws of self-governing corporations which were carrying on work by a process of devolution in their relation with the central state. This subordinate position to the ruling chief held by these institutions is again manifest in *Bṛhaspati*.⁴

c12.s3.83

³ *Manu*, viii. 41.

c12.s3.84

⁴ > कुलश्रेणिगणाध्यक्षाः प्रोक्तनिर्णयकारिणः ।

c12.s3.85

ग्रामपौरगणश्रेण्यश्चातुर्विद्याश्च वर्गिणः ।
कुलानि कुलिकाश्चैव नियुक्ता नृपतस्तथा ॥
(*Viramitrodaya*, p. 11; cf. Yāj., i. 360.)

c12.s3.86

येषामग्रे निश्चितस्य प्रतिष्ठात्तरोत्तरा ॥
विचार्य श्रेणिभिः कार्य्यं कुलैर्यन्न विचारितम् ।
गणैश्च श्रेणिभिर्यातं गणाज्ञातनियुक्तकैः ॥

c12.s3.87

Here is shown that the local courts in order of succession or in the ascending scale were *kula*, *śreṇi*, and *gaṇa*. An appeal lay from the *kula* court to the *śreṇi* and from the *śreṇi* to the *gaṇa*. Above these was the king who ruled according to the laws of dharma. *Samaya* was the technical term applied to the decision or resolution of these local bodies.

c12.s3.88

The *Pūga*.—The institution of *pūga* is another form of corporate organization. The term does not occur in Vedic texts.

c12.s3.89

It seems to have been a later institution. Dr. Majumdar takes the view that both the technical terms *pūga* and *gaṇa* seem to denote one and the same corporation.¹ But there is strong evidence to show that they were distinctly separate bodies, each existing at the same time and functioning in its respective sphere. This institution is also known to Pāṇini.²

c12.s3.90

¹ *Corporate Life in Ancient India*, p. 142.

c12.s3.91

² नानाजातीयाः अनियतवृत्तयः अर्थकामप्रधानाः संघाः पूगाः । (v. 3. 112.)

c12.s3.92

It is an association of different communities and professions whose chief object is the amassing of wealth. The same interpretation is further supported by Miṭramiśra.³

c12.s3.93

³ पूगसमूह भिन्नजातीनां भिन्नवृत्तीनां एकस्थानवासिनां ग्रामनगरादि स्थानाम् ।

c12.s3.94

कुलादिभ्योऽधिकाः सम्यास्तेभ्योऽध्यक्षोऽधिकः कृतः ।
सर्वेषां अधिकोराजा धर्मयज्ञेन निश्चितम् ॥
(Quoted in *Viramitrodaya*, p. 40.)

c12.s3.95

The Mitakṣara commentary on Yājñavalkya ii. 30 interprets the term in these very words and quotes Nārada :

c12.s3.96

‘कुलानि श्रेणयश्चैव गणाश्चधिकृताः नृपः ।
प्रतिष्ठा व्यवहाराणां गुर्वेषामुत्तरोत्तरम्’ ॥

c12.s3.97

From these it would appear that a *pūga* is a local assembly either of a village or town, composed of individuals of all castes and professions, who are of that village or town. It is a community of interests, not of blood or occupation, and so a mixed assembly. It is then a body of men unconnected otherwise than by common interests, the main interest being acquisition and enjoyment of wealth. This body attended to the material welfare of the community as a whole. The texts and commentaries bearing on the subject indicate that the interests of such organizations went far beyond material considerations alone.

c12.s3.98

This institution of *pūga* is well known to the Buddhist literature¹ wherein there are abundant references to it in the very sense in which it was understood by *Kāśika* or *Mitramiśra*. The *Kāśika* mentions a number of *pūgas* such as *lauhadhvajiya*—standard of red colour, *śaibya* identified with Sibioi subdued by Alexander,² *śatakīya* and *devadattaka*. Both *Vīramitrodaya* and *Vivāda-ratnākara* agree that the institution of *pūga* also meant an association of merchants and others. The former uses the term in two other senses also: (1) A group of people of different castes with no fixed calling and (2) those who ride on elephants, horses, etc. Dr. Mookerji remarks, ‘The *pūga* is based on citizenship—the territorial principle. It was thus the federation of all sectional or communal assemblies.’ This institution has for its basis the local community, its area covering something more than a village or a township.³ It is further corroborated by the *Vyavahāramayūkha* which explains the *pūga* as a form of *śreṇi* but consisting of a body composed of various castes and of various professions.¹

c12.s3.99

¹ *Vinaya Piṭakam, Cullavagga*, vol. ii, pp. 108-9 and 212; cf. Yājñavalkya, ii. 30; Manu, iii. 151.

c12.s3.100

² Mookerji, *Local Government in Ancient India*, p. 33.

c12.s3.101

³ *Ibid.*, p. 314.

c12.s3.102

¹ तेषामेव (श्रेणीनां) भिन्नजातीयं कर्म कुर्वतां समूहः ।

c12.s3.103

One thing is certain from the nature of the constitution as given by the various authorities, namely, the *pūga* was not a kinship or social organization. Neither was it an occupational group of one and the same caste, or one and the same profession. But it was an out and out territorial organization based absolutely on the local community.

c12.s3.104

From Yājñavalkya² we can form a correct estimate of the position held by this corporate body. It is a court superior to the *śreṇi* and the *kula*.

c12.s3.105

² नृपेणाऽधिकृताः पूगाः श्रेणयोऽथकुलानिच । पूर्व पूर्वं गुरुज्ञेयं व्यवहारविधौ नृणाम् ॥ (ii. 30.)

c12.s3.106

In the exercise of legislative and judicial powers this institution has been reckoned as the greatest among the various bodies. It must naturally have been an assembly comprising an area distinctly larger than a village or a town. From this it would appear that the *pūga* association had important functions to perform. It had to look after the interests vested or otherwise of different crafts, trades, or occupations of that territorial unit; and it acted as a court of justice sitting in judgment in cases of dispute among the members of the locality. This is quite in keeping with the regulations of the *Dharma Śāstras* where it is said that disputes arising among the various local corporations must be settled by themselves according to the established laws, traditions, and usages. This does not necessarily mean that the whole community sat in assembly to decide these various disputes. The elders of the locality and the neighbours as well were invited to decide them.¹

c12.s3.107

¹ Śukra, iv. 5. 24; Bṛhaspati, i. 25-27; Manu, viii. 62. 258-62; Yājñavalkya, ii. 150-52; Vasiṣṭa, xvi. 13; *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. iii, Sec. 9; The remarks of Mr. Havell are apposite, ‘In a small village the Council Tree or Tree of Justice, would give sufficient shelter for the general meeting of the householders who formed the parliament of the Indo-Aryan village. They have the power of nominating all the Ministers—the Council of five—except the headman whose office was hereditary but who could be deposed by the *Rāja*, the head of the clan, in case of any grievous offence against the laws of the Aryan community. In larger villages and towns the meeting place of this general assembly would be in the parks or groves of sacred trees planted near the gates.’ See also the *History of Aryan Rule in India*, p. 23.

c12.s3.108

The importance given to the elders of the village or neighbourhood is a piece of strong evidence to demonstrate the existence in larger numbers of neighbourhood associations. Neighbourhood groups, as realized in ancient India, were not party groups where different party interests predominated, but groups of different shapes and colours, of different experiences and ideas. If the essence of democracy consists according to Miss Follet² in an educated and responsible citizenship, evolving common ideas and willing its own social life, it was well realized in Hindu India as evidenced by numerous territorial groups like the *pūga*. There the citizenship was creative in the sense that while it fostered and developed the plant of common life, it discouraged any tendency to unhealthy party feelings.

c12.s3.109

² See *The New State* and especially the Appendix on *the Training for the New Democracy*.

c12.s3.110

Besides the *pūga* and other organizations Pāṇini speaks of other corporate bodies which must have existed in his time. One such is *vrāta*.³ This is commented by the *kāśika* as the corporate association of different castes with no settled profession.¹ And this is corroborated by a passage of Kātyāyana.²

c12.s3.111

³ v, 3. 113.

c12.s3.112

¹ नानाजातीयाः अनियतवृत्तयः उत्सेधजोविनः संघाः त्राताः ।

c12.s3.113

² नानायुधधरात्राताः समवेतास्तु कोर्तिताः । Quoted by Dr. Majumdar in his *Corporate Life in Ancient India*.

c12.s3.114

From this one may infer that there were organized bands of marauders and highway robbers who led a reckless life by using unlicensed arms and by assault. The *Vyavahāramayūkha* puts entirely a different construction on the term *vrāta*. According to it, it was an institution of cognates, relatives and kinsmen.³ Some of the *vrāta* groups mentioned in ancient literature are *kāpotapākya*, *vraihimatya*, *kañjāyanya*, *bṛadhnāyanya*.⁴

c12.s3.115

³ ‘ज्ञातिसंबन्धिवन्धूनां समूहः’.

c12.s3.116

⁴ See *Local Government in Ancient India*, p. 33.

c12.s3.117

The other institution that occurs in our ancient literature is the *āyudajīvisaṃgha*, a body of professional soldiers.⁵ It cannot be said with any definiteness that this denotes a non-monarchical state, or for the matter of that a military republic. It may be that the *Yaudheyas* might have formed themselves an independent organization, wherein every member was obliged to live by arms. The spirit of common will and solidarity of purpose actuated and guided every local association. Every local body was a deliberative and administrative assembly and was therefore of the nature of a group and not of a crowd. A crowd is a party, or in other words a party government leads on to a crowd organization.⁶ The party organizations in modern democracies are felt to be an evil but a necessary evil. Organizations of the type of *pūga* avoided this and introduced a healthy spirit among the groups.

c12.s3.118

⁵ Pāṇini, v. 3. 114.

c12.s3.119

⁶ See *The New State*, pp. 86-7.

Linked texts (19)