History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.349
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.349
- Language
- English
v4.c62.349.1
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. I. 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.c62.349.2
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 ('grāmakauṭābhyāṁ 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.c62.349.3
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.c62.349.4
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.