History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.222.4

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