Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c41.154

c41.154

magistrates or the Executive bodies of the Paura of Pātaliputra read in the light of the working system of corporate assemblies of the country, shows that the Paura was divided into several sub-assemblies representing different interests of the Capital. The Paura was a sort of mother association of different bodies. Patañjali, who uses the word Saṃgha in the general sense of a corporate assembly, not limited, as by Pāṇini and also probably by Kātyāyana, to the political Saṃgha, mentions as we have seen, Saṃghas of 5, of 10, and of 20 men.¹ It may be remembered that Kauṭilya also employs the word Saṃgha in the general sense² like Patañjali, although the technical sense of Pāṇini is not unknown to either. The significance becomes clear when we refer to the Mahāvagga (IX. 4. 1.) which lays down that a Saṃgha may have a quorum of 5, 10, 20 or upwards. The Pañchika Saṃgha, therefore, of Patañjali, is the quorum of 5. The boards of 5 members each of Megasthenes were these Pañchika Saṃghas. If the boards of 5 each were the Saṃghas of 5, then they would represent independent bodies, and their joint meeting would be a meeting of the mother association. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Paura is regarded to have more than one Mukhya or Śreshṭha, chief or president,³ and Megasthenes mentions more than one “City Magistrate.”¹ In the Mudrārākshasa² when Chandanadāsa is called by the Chancellor Chāṇakya (Kautilya), he is shown great respect and asked whether the people were loyal to the new king. Chandanadāsa thereupon speaks for the whole country; but he is only the president of the Jewellers’ Association (Māṇikāra-śreshṭhī). In the Daśakumāracharita, out of the two Paura-Mukhyas one is the president of merchants dealing with foreign trade only.³ In the Artha-Śāstra where spies are sent to the Paura-Jānapadas to sound their political mind, they go to the “associations” or samavāyas (in the plural) of the Tīrthas, of the Sabhā-Śālas, of the Pūga and of the People.⁴ These Samavāyas except the last one are evidently identical with the Boards of Megasthenes (as pointed out above) which looked after public buildings and temples, after manufactured articles, after trade and commerce. We have noticed the datum of Gautama which proves that there were Sūdra members also.⁵ They were probably returned by the Jāti-Saṅghas or the caste assemblies or they might be representing some guild of artisans. The Pūga committee must have been mainly composed of the representatives of trade and commerce, apparently middle-class substantial men. The Paura was thus composed on the basis of different interests in the capital.