Local Government in Ancient India c10.2

c10.2

We have considered the industrial and commercial functions of the ancient Indian local bodies and shall now consider their legislative independence and activities. We have already seen that in our early literature, Vedic, Epic, and Pāli, these local bodies (for convenience termed guilds) already appear as developed institutions, possessed of a distinct organization of their own, claiming and commanding a recognized position of importance and influence in the state. That position, accordingly, we find well-defined in our later legal literature,¹ which recognizes their distinct, and practically independent, political status and also indicates their constitutional relations with the state. If the power of independent legislation is one of the criteria of an independent political status, it is amply fulfilled in the case of these local associations. They developed a distinct body of laws or by-laws to regulate their work and activities, the existence and authority of which are clearly affirmed and admitted by our law-books. Thus Gautama¹ [about 500 B.C.] states (XI. 20): ‘Laws of countries, castes and families which are not opposed to the (sacred) texts have also authority’, to which he adds: ‘Cultivators, traders, herdsmen, money-lenders, and artisans (have authority to lay down laws) for their respective classes’ (XI. 21). He further states (XI. 22): ‘Having learned the (state of) affairs from those who (in each class) have authority (to speak he shall give) the legal decision’.² This means, as Haradatta explains, that the king’s legal decision must be given in accordance with that which is declared to be the established law in each community by its authorized and accredited spokesmen and representatives, who are entitled to define it on their behalf. Manu also is quite explicit on the point: ‘A king who knows the sacred law must inquire into the laws of castes (*jāti*), and districts or peoples (*jānapada*), guild-laws, and family-laws’³ (VIII. 41). Again, ‘What may have been practised by the virtuous, and by such twice-born men as are devoted to the law, that he shall establish as law, if it be not opposed to the laws of countries, families, and castes'¹ (VIII. 46). This shows that the king was bound to respect the laws of these various local bodies or groups and could not enforce his own law without reference to them—provided such local laws did not run counter to the sacred law. As 'laws of districts' the commentators instance those of the Kuru, Kāpiśa or Kāśmīra countries or of the natives of different countries.² In the case of a conquered country the victorious king must also, according to Manu, make authoritative the lawful customs of the conquered just as they are stated to be³ (VII. 203). The authority of local laws is also affirmed by Āpastamba⁴ (II. 15, 1) and Baudhāyana⁵ (I. 1, 2, 6). The opinion of Manu is reiterated by Vasiṣṭha⁶ (I. 17): 'Manu has declared that the laws of countries, castes, and families (may be followed) in the absence of (rules of) the revealed texts.’ Again (XIX. 7)¹: ‘Let the king, paying attention to all the laws of countries, castes, and families make the four castes (*varṇa*) fulfil their particular duties.’ In this passage the word *jāti* is explained by one commentator as a tribe, to distinguish it from *varṇa*, meaning class or caste. The *Mahābhārata* (XII. 36, 19) has the utmost contempt for those who violate the laws of their caste or ‘*śreṇī*’, country, or family. According to Kauṭilya (II. vii) the king’s accountant must enter in his books the laws, the manners, and customs of castes, families, guilds, and localities.