The Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha's Time c12.46

c12.46

If the circumstances narrated in the Kharas-sara Jātaka can be held typical, the superintendent of the village, the *gāmabhojaka*, was an *amacca* of the king; he collected the taxes for him (*rājabalim labhitvā* I. 354) and was punished by the king appropriately, as he with his own people went to the forest, leaving the villagers at the mercy of robbers.¹ Other narratives make the official character of the village superintendent still less (or not at all) clear. In the Kulāvaka Jātaka (I. 198 sq.), the *gāmabhojaka* spoke ill of the villagers to the king; as, however, their innocence was proved, the king gave them the whole of the possessions of the slanderer, made him their slave and turned him out of the village. Of the appointment of a new superintendent, nothing is mentioned, rather the further course of the story seems to bring out that the villagers henceforth looked after their own affairs. Also when we read in other passages that the *gâmabhojaka* exercises judicial powers in the village, inasmuch as he settles quarrels and makes the guilty pay a fine (I. 483), that he issues prohibitions, for example, against the slaughter of animals (*mâghâtam kârâpesi*, IV. 115) and against the sale of intoxicating liquors (*majjavikkayam vâretvâ*, IV. 115), that when through defective growth or flood, the crops fail and famine appears, he distributes meat to the villagers, whilst they on their part, have to promise him a portion of their next crops (II. 135), all these statements seem, indeed, to point to the position of the *gâmabhojaka* being one of power and honour¹ among the villagers but do not oblige us to see in him a king's officer. They rather seem to indicate an elected chief, to whom the village community itself gave the direction of the common affairs—a kind of self-government in the village communities. That self-government prevailed in India in villages is extremely probable and in particular localities of India it may have continued up to the period described in the Jâtakas.¹ As the royal power grew, this, with the rest of self-government, was more and more reduced; in the Magadha kingdom, the village superintendent remained under the personal supervision of the king, as appears from a passage of the Vinaya Piṭaka (Mahâvagga, V. I. 1 sq.): to the King Bimbisâra, a contemporary of Buddha, the overlordship of 80,000 villages is ascribed (asítiyâ gámasahassesu issarádhipaccam rajjam káreti); he collects together the chiefs (gámikas) of these villages and gives them instruction in worldly things (diṭṭhadhammike atthe anusási-tvá). About two hundred years later, King Asoka arranged a system of inspection tours for supervising the work of the administrative officers. "For this purpose"—so it is said in the first edict ²—"in accordance with the law (dhammate) I shall send every fifth year (an officer) who is neither harsh nor impetuous, but mild in his acts." This arrangement of Asoka agrees, as he probably himself wanted to indicate by the expression dhammate,³ with the prescriptions of the lawbooks: in Manu it is said (VII. 120 sq.), after the gradations of rank among the administrative officers¹ are pointed out: “The business of these (officers), who are concerned with village matters and their special obligations, another officer (saciva) of the king will examine who is mild and extremely industrious. And in every city he should appoint as a supervisor to look after all affairs, a magnanimous, highly esteemed person who is like a planet among the stars. The latter should visit these officers serially; he should examine their work in their districts through spies specially selected (for this purpose).”