History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.222
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.222
- Language
- English
v4.c62.222.1
Two other words require consideration, viz. *Paura* and *Jānapada*. The word ‘paura’ occurs in Ṛg. V. 74. 4 where it has three applications, viz. to the Aśvins, to the sage Paura (who was an Ātreya) and to the cloud (acc. to Sāyaṇa). K. P. Jayaswal (in ‘Hindu Polity’, part II pp. 60-108) devotes considerable space to ‘Paura’ and ‘Jānapada’ and one may at once admit that he displays great learning, industry and ingenuity in his discourse on this subject. He holds that the Paura and the Jānapada were elective parliamentary bodies or what may be called the Hindu Diet and he sums up (on p. 108) their functions as follows ‘we had an organism or a twin organism, the Paura-Jānapada, which could depose the king, who nominated the successor to the throne ..., whose President was apprised by the king of the policy of state decided upon in the council of ministers, who were approached and begged by the king in all humility for a new tax, whose confidence in a minister was regarded as an essential qualification for his appointment as Chancellor, who demanded and got industrial, commercial and financial privileges for the country, who could enact statutes even hostile to the king, in fine who could make possible or impossible the administration of the king. ' This is a very glowing picture of parliamentary institutions in ancient India. But unfortunately it cannot be accepted as the truth. Many scholars such as Prof. B. K. Sarkar (in 'Political Institutions and theories of the Hindus' p.
v4.c62.222.2
71) and Dr. Beni Prasad (in 'The State in ancient India' pp. 498-500) do not subscribe to this theory. For want of space detailed examination of Jayaswal's theory cannot be entered upon. But a few remarks must be made. The sheet anchor of his theory (in 'Hindu Polity' part II. p. 68) is a passage in the Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khārvela (E. I. vol. XX at p. 79 ll. 6-7) which runs 'Rājasūyaṁ saṁdasayaṁto sava-kara-vaṇaṁ anugaha-anekāni satasahasāni visajati poraṁ jānapadaṁ' and which he himself translates (at p. 78) as 'remits all tithes and cesses, bestows many privileges amounting to hundreds of thousands on the paura and jānapada'. Jayaswal himself has changed his views about the interpretation of this difficult record so many times (e. g. J. B. O. R. S. vol. III pp. 425-507 may be compared with his interpretations in E. I. vol. XX p. 71) that one can never feel sure even of his latest readings and translations. As a matter of fact Dr. Barua differs and reads 'pora-jānapadaṁ' as one word (I. H. Q. vol. 14 p. 464) and does not accept Jayaswal's interpretation (p. 477). If the word is 'pora-jānapadam' it would simply be a *samāhāra-dvandva* compound and mean 'all inhabitants of the capital and the rural inhabitants' and the singular need not necessarily lead to the inference that a parliament of city-dwellers and rural population is meant. Even supposing that the correct reading is 'poraṁ-jānapadaṁ', that would not matter much.
v4.c62.222.3
We shall have to understand the word 'janam' after it, since the word 'jana' is often employed after 'paurajānapada' e. g. in the 8th Rock Edict at Girnar 'janapadasa ca janasa dasanaṁ' C. I. I. vol. I. pp. 14-15, in Rudradāman's inscription in E. I. vol. VIII p. 44 'apīḍayitvā paura-jānapadaṁ janaṁ' and 'paurajānapada-janānugrahārthaṁ' at p. 45 or in the Rāmāyaṇa II. 2. 51, II. 111. 19 'paurajānapadam janam'). Lastly if the paurajānapada organization had (as said by Jayaswal in the quotation cited above) the power to depose kings and pass even hostile statutes, is it not a contradiction in terms to say that, instead of the Parliament or Diet deciding to remit certain taxes, it was the king who remitted taxes and bestowed favours (or privileges) of lakhs of rupees on the supposedly all powerful Paura-Jānapada assembly? In all passages that he quotes from the Rāmāyaṇa and other classical sanskrit works the ordinary meaning of *paura* (residents of the capital) and *jānapada* (inhabitants of the country other than the capital) is quite enough and it is impossible to hold that any elective body is meant. In most passages the plural 'paurajānapadān' is used. If 'Paura-jānapada' stands for one elective body or two bodies, no explanation is offered why the plural should generally be used and not the dual. Kauṭilya (I. 19) states that the king should in the 2nd part of the day (divided into eight parts) look into the causes of the paura-jānapadas.
v4.c62.222.4
Jayaswal (in 'Hindu Polity', part II p. 95) misinterprets this passage by saying that the king had to set apart one period daily for the business of the paura-jānapada assembly. Here again the plural is used and the dictum of Kauṭilya is the same as that of Yāj. I. 327 who says that the king should look into the law-suits (vyavahārān) of the people. The word 'kārya' is employed by Manu VIII. 43, Nārada and other writers on vyavahāra in the sense of 'law-suit'. Yāj. II. 36 says that the king should restore to the jānapada property stolen by thieves. Jayaswal (in 'Hindu Polity', part II. p. 93) presses the singular 'jānapadāya' into his service and holds that it was the popular assembly that demanded the restoration of the things stolen. This, to say the least, is twisting the plain words of Yāj. The Mit. paraphrases the word to mean 'to the person dwelling in his country from whom the property was stolen'. The corresponding passage of Manu VIII. 40 (dātavyaṁ sarva-varṇebhyo rājñā corair-hṛtaṁ dhanam) is quite clear, since it fortunately does not use the word jānapada and Medhātithi explains it as 'it should be restored to those from whom it was stolen'. Jayaswal (in 'Hindu Polity' part II p. 79) holds that a passage in the Arthaśāstra (II. 14) refers to the fact that the Paura-Jānapada assembly got gold coins minted by the royal mint-master.¹²⁴