History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.341
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.341
- Language
- English
v4.c62.341.1
A few words must be said about local administration. The word *grāma* occurs even in the Ṛgveda. In Ṛg. I. 114. 1 the poet offers his praise and prayer to Rudra so that he hopes that ‘all bipeds and quadrupeds may fare well and all beings in this village may be free from disease and may enjoy prosperity’.¹⁹² In Ṛg. V. 54. 8 ‘heroes (or men) conquering grāmas’ are mentioned (grāmajito yathā naraḥ). In Ṛg. X. 62. 11 Manu is styled ‘grāmaṇī’ and the bestower of a thousand (cows?) and in Ṛg. X. 107. 5 it is said that the ‘grāmaṇī who is endowed with (or dispenses) dakṣiṇā (cows or wealth) walks in front (of the village people)’. In the Tai. S. II. 5.4.4 it is said ‘the prosperous are three indeed, viz. the learned brāhmaṇa, the village headman (grāmaṇī) and the rājanya (warrior)’.192a In the Tai. Br. I. 1.4.8, the consecration of fire for a vaiśya sacrificer is made with the mantra ‘manostvā grāmaṇyo vratapate vratenādadāmi’ (where Manu is styled grāmaṇī). In the Śat. Br. V. 4. 4. 19 the grāmaṇī is said to be stronger than his co-sharer (sajāta). Vide S. B. E. vol. 41 p. 111. We saw above (p. 111) that among the *ratnins*, grāmaṇī (the village headman) was one. Grāma did not necessarily mean a village but may have been applied to a town (though not a capital). The headman of a village was called grāmaṇī, grāmika or grāmādhipati (in Manu VII. 115-116, Kauṭ. III. 10), grāmakūṭa (in inscriptions e. g. E. I. vol. VII. p. 39 of śake 852, E. I. vol. VII. p.
v4.c62.341.2
183, 188) and Paṭṭakila, modern Patil (in Ujjain plates of 975 and 1023 A. D. in I. A. vol. 6 p. 51, 53, vol. 18 p. 322 grant of Bhoja in *saṁvat* 1076, I. A. 16 p. 254, E. I. vol. XI. p. 304, 310 of *saṁvat* 1176). In an inscription of the 13th century from the Poona District we have the form 'paṭṭela' (E. I. vol. VII. at p. 183). The word 'gāvuṇḍa' for a village headman in the Canarese Districts is derived from grāmakūṭa (E. I. vol. VII p. 183). Paiṭhīnasi¹⁹³ quoted by Aparārka p. 239 states that the food of a grāmakūṭa could not be partaken by a brāhmaṇa. The Gāthāsaptaśatī frequently refers to the great influence of the grāmaṇī and the love adventures of his son in the village (I. 30-31, VII. 24). The Kāmasūtra states (V. 5.5) that the young son of a grāmādhipati had certain women of the village at his beck and call.¹⁹⁴ According to the Śukranītisāra I. 193 a grāma (village) is one krośa in extent and yields a revenue of one thousand silver karṣas, while half a village is called *palli* and half of palli was *kumbha*. Hemādri in Dānakhaṇḍa (p. 288) quotes from the Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa definitions of pura, kheṭa, kharvaṭa and grāma. Yāj. II. 167 makes a distinction between grāma, kharvaṭa and nagara (town) as regards the extent of the pasture lands to be preserved round them. Baudhāyana Dh. S. II. 3.
v4.c62.341.3
58 and 60 condemns residence in a city for a religious brāhmaṇa where the body is covered with dust which enters one's mouth and eyes and recommends for residence a grāma abounding in water, fuel, fodder, fuel-sticks, kuśa grass, flowers, which is full of well-to-do people, endowed with industrious people, where the majority are āryas and which cannot be entered by robbers. In the Sabhāparva 5.84 five officers of a village are referred to. It appears that from being a very high officer (a ratnin) in Vedic times the grāmaṇī was reduced in his influence, came to be appointed by the king alone and the office became hereditary and could be given permanently. Vide E.I. vol. VII. p. 177, 188, 189¹⁹⁵. The Śukranītisāra (II. 120-21) states that there were to be six officers in a village and (II. 428-29) prescribes their caste, viz. sāhasādhipati (i.e. a magistrate to deal with wrongs involving force) was to be a kṣatriya, grāmanetṛ (the headman) a brāhmaṇa, bhāgahāra (the person collecting the state land revenue) a kṣatriya, lekhaka (a scribe, corresponding to the modern *kulkarnī* in the Deccan) should be a kāyastha, śulkagrāha (the toll-gate keeper) a vaiśya, pratīhāra (the guard at the gate of the village wall) a śūdra. Śukra (in II. 170-175) sets out their duties. The headman was to be alert in protecting the villagers like their parents from thieves, robbers and from the State officers, the bhāgahāra was to devote special care to the tending of trees;
v4.c62.341.4
the lekhaka was to be skilled in accounting and proficient in several spoken languages; the pratīhāra was to be of strong body, proficient in arms, humble and to call the villagers with the respect due to each; and the toll-gate keeper was to levy tolls in such a way that sellers did not incur loss of capital spent by them. From Kauṭ. III. 10 it appears that the village headman had the authority to inflict fines in certain cases e. g. when the headman (grāmika) had to travel on some business of the whole village the villagers were to accompany him by turns, but if they failed to do so they had to pay a fine of one paṇa or a half paṇa. Similarly, if a villager does not co-operate in the getting up of a show (prekṣā) in the village, he or his people would not be allowed to see the show and he was to be fined if he clandestinely saw it. In villages, particularly in Karṇāṭaka and South India and in brahmadeya grants (to learned brāhmaṇas) the village assemblies (sabhā) carried on local administration. From the Koṭavumachgi Inscription of Cālukya Vikramāditya V dated śake 934 (1012 A. D.) it appears that Ummachige was a great educational centre in the 11th century and 104 Mahājanas of the village were entrusted with the proper conduct of worship in the temple, the imparting of education, the feeding of ascetics, the supply of water to the village and the punishment of criminals (E. I. vol. 20 p. 59). Vide Gopalan's 'History of the Pallavas of Kāñcī' pp.
v4.c62.341.5
93, 153-157 for the working of the village assemblies (sabhās) from the 9th century onwards, but as he observes (p. 154), 'we do not know the nature of the rules that regulated their working, their exact sphere of action and their relation to the central government.' An inscription of king Parāntaka I (907-947 A. D.) at Uttaramerur deals with several classes of village committees that were appointed by vote (Annual Report of Archæological Survey of India, 1904-5 pp. 131 ff). Five committees, viz. annual committee, garden committee, tank committee, gold committee (for currency or for collecting taxes in cash), *pañcavāra* committee, are described and reference is made to a sixth called 'justice committee' and the mode of election and the qualifications and disqualifications of members are described in detail (pp. 142-145). Prof. Nilkanth Sastri in 'Studies in Cola History' (pp. 131-175) publishes the text of two Parāntaka Inscriptions with English translation and exhaustive notes. Vide also E. I. vol. 22 p. 5 for resolutions of the sabhā at Manur to be followed in future meetings, the qualifications in property, education and character of the members &c., E. 1. vol. 24 p. 28 about the regulations of sabhā from two Uttaramallūr Inscriptions and E. I. vol. 23 p. 22 for a note on the pañcavāra committee. For village communities as described in Buddhist works in the 7th century B.C., vide Rhys Davids in 'Buddhist India' pp. 45-51.
v4.c62.341.6
It appears from Pāṇini and the commentary Kāśikā thereon that certain craftsmen were attached hereditarily to the village, were probably paid a certain part of the crop produce yearly for their services and corresponded to the modern village servants (called the twelve *balutedārs*) in the Deccan. For an account of these *balutedārs*, vide Grant Duff's 'History of the Marathas' (Bombay ed. of 1863, vol. I. pp. 23-27). For example, Pāṇini (VI. 2. 62) teaches the accent of a compound word formed from 'grāma' with another word denoting 'śilpin' (craftsman), such as grāmanāpita (village barber) or grāmakulāla (village potter), which are two examples given by the Kāśikā on this *sūtra*. From Pāṇini V. 4. 95 ('grāmakauṭābhyāṃ ca takṣṇaḥ') it may be inferred that a carpenter also was a village servant as in modern times in the Deccan. Bṛhaspati¹⁹⁶ contains very important information about local administration in villages. A compact formed among villages, guilds and corporations ( *gaṇa* ) is called a *samaya* (agreement); such an agreement must be observed in times of distress and for acts of dharma. Two, three or five persons shall be appointed as advisers of groups; their advice shall be followed by the villagers, the guilds, the corporations and others.
v4.c62.341.7
Examples of agreement as to times of distress are: When there is drought, there may be a compact that for the performance of a sacrifice to the planets or the like each field or house should contribute so much money or when there is trouble from robbers, each house should send one able-bodied and armed man. Then examples are given by Bṛhaspati himself about acts of dharma. The village people should put down in writing what work they are going to do, such as the repair of a house for their assembly, a shed for distributing water to travellers, a temple, a tank or a garden, the performance of the necessary saṁskāras (upanayana or funeral rites) of the poor and helpless, gifts for the performance of sacrifices, prevention of famine-stricken groups of families from coming. Such conventions would be proper and should be respected by all the villagers. Whoever being able to carry out such agreements violates them should be punished with loss of all wealth and banishment. Bṛhaspati further says ¹⁹⁷ that the heads of families, guilds and gaṇas and the inhabitants of towns and forts may pronounce the two punishments of reprimand and condemnation against wrong-doers and may also excommunicate them and the punishments and favours declared by them according to rules should be approved of by the king, since such power is regarded by the sages as delegated to them.
v4.c62.341.8
For ejecting out of the village one who is not guilty of theft or adultery with another's wife the village headman or the village was liable to pay, according to Kauṭilya III. 10, a fine of 24 paṇas. It will be seen from what has preceded that village administration was self-contained and would function whatever Government might happen to be at the centre. The central Government did not very much interfere with local administration, except in the matter of land revenue, protection against invasion and exercised only general control and supervision. The village communities were miniature states.