Hindu Administrative Institutions c8.s4.43

c8.s4.43

But Dr. Law has taken objection to the use of *Paura* and *Janapada* as corporate bodies at all. He examines both directly and indirectly all the evidence adduced by Jayaswal and comes to the conclusion that there is no ground whatsoever to understand these two terms as technical terms signifying any corporate associations. In every place whether in the texts or in the inscriptions they simply mean people of the town and the country.⁴ We are afraid that Dr. Law is rather dogmatic in his statements. In some places they may mean what he says. But still to totally deny the existence of such oraganized bodies of citizens is to miss the mark altogether. The audience of His Majesty by the people must not be and could not be so cheap and easy as Law would imagine. It is to deprive the office of kingship of all dignity whatsoever. The king may do justice and judgment to a very poor and insignificant citizen; but it does not mean that the king allowed any indiscriminate interview of any of his subjects aggrieved or no. It would not, on the face of it, be a working principle. The fact is that there were what were known as group organizations in towns, and the country parts and their representatives on behalf of the public of the city or the commonality of the realm, pleaded before the king for redress of this or that grievance. Hence it is far more reasonable to take them to be corporate associations which were highly respected as popular bodies both by the king and his ministry. They were often consulted so that there might not be any room for dissatisfaction among the public at large. This is borne out by the certain evidence of the inscriptions. Most of the interpretations which Law proposes are highly doubtful. The term *Paura-Janapada* which so often occurs in the political and historical literature of the Hindus also occurs in the various inscriptions.⁵