Hindu Administrative Institutions c12.s3.53

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.