Local Government in Ancient India c11.16

c11.16

The same principle of neighbourhood and local knowledge is also recognized by Manu when he holds ‘the indigenous (inhabitants of the country, be they) Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, or Śūdras’ as being alone competent to give evidence (VIII. 62).² The principle was held to be essential in settling disputes regarding boundaries, on which the following rules are laid down: ‘If there be no witnesses let four men who dwell on all the four sides (of the two villages) make a decision concerning the boundary’ (VIII. 258).³ ‘The decision concerning the boundary-marks of fields, wells, tanks, of gardens and houses, depends upon (the evidence of) the neighbours’ (VIII. 262). On failure of the above kinds of witnesses ‘the evidence even of the following inhabitants of the forest’ was admissible on account of their local knowledge, viz., ‘hunters, fowlers, herdsmen, fishermen, root-diggers, snake-catchers, gleaners, and other foresters’ (ibid., 259. 260).¹ Yājñavalkya (II. 150-2)² has also the same regulation: ‘In disputes relating to boundaries of land under cultivation persons residing in surrounding villages, aged men and other (competent persons), cow-herds, persons cultivating boundary lands and all persons who frequent the forest should determine the boundary.’ Again: ‘Or persons from neighbouring villages even in number—four, eight, or ten—should settle the boundary lines.’ Finally, the *Kauṭilīya* (III. ix) will have all disputes regarding the boundary between any two villages settled by neighbours or elders of five or ten villages, and disputes arising in the same village by the elders of the neighbourhood or of the village (*grāma-vṛddhāḥ*). It is also stated that all kinds of disputes shall depend for their settlement on the evidence to be furnished by neighbours.