Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Local Government in Ancient India c12: Chapter VI. Public Works

Local Government in Ancient India c12

Language
English

Chapter VI. Public Works

c12.2

LOCAL bodies in ancient India had also their 'Public works' departments. They are termed *samūhas* for the purpose in some of the Smṛtis. For the proper discharge of civic functions and the administration of the various interests of municipal life, an agreement was drawn up in writing forming the Memorandum or Articles of the Association, the members of which were bound to fulfil their legitimate part in promoting the manifold public works necessary for communal welfare. Deliberate violations of the agreement were severely punished either by banishment or confiscation of property. An attitude of either passive indifference to the agreement, or of opposition to it, was also punished by a heavy fine. Those who created disunion in the association were similarly dealt with. According to the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra*, 'Whoever stays away from any kind of co-operative undertaking shall send his servants and bullocks to carry on the work, and shall have a share in the expenditure but none in the profits' (II. i.).¹ The purposes for the promotion of which these municipal bodies were constituted embraced a wide area of useful activity which could not be left to the efforts of individuals, but was proper only for communal enterprise. They are thus enumerated by Bṛhaspati²: preservation and maintenance of public halls, temples, tanks, resthouses, wells for supply of drinking water to travellers, construction of water-courses and places of worship, protection against incursions of wicked people, and relief of the distressed. We thus find that these municipalities addressed themselves, not only to the ordinary material interests of communal life, such as sanitation and water-supply, but also to the interests of public and spiritual life by the provision of halls for public meetings and temples for public worship. They also organized the communal charities which embraced not merely the secular relief of the poor in times of famine and other calamities (*kulāyana-nirodhaś ca*) but also their religious or spiritual ministrations, which included the performance of purifying rites for the destitute and poor, viz. arrangements for the cremation of dead paupers, distribution of gifts among people desirous of performing religious acts, &c. Thus the sphere of the administration of Poor Law was widened so as to bring within its compass provision for the spiritual necessities in the life of the destitute as fixed by their Śāstras. In another passage Bṛhaspati includes financial support in aid of the idiot, the infirm, the blind, the orphan, the distressed, as also diseased persons and women among the legitimate purposes to which an association could apply its public fund. We should also note that the interests of strangers were not ignored.

c12.3

¹ संभूय सेतुबन्धादपक्रामतः कर्मकरबलीवर्दाः कर्म कुर्युः । व्ययकर्मणि च भागी स्यात् । न चांशं लभेत ॥

c12.4

² सभाप्रपादेवगृहंतडागारामसंस्कृतिः । तथानाथदरिद्राणां संस्कारो यजनक्रिया ॥ कुलायननिरोधश्च कार्यमस्माभिरंशतः । यचैतल्लिखितं सम्यक् धर्म्या सा समयक्रिया ॥ The *Vīramitrodaya* thus explains the passage: सभा मण्डपः । प्रपा पानीयशालिका । आराम उपवनम् । संस्कृतिर्जीर्णोद्धारः । संस्कार उपनयनादिकः प्रेतदहनादिकश्च । यजनक्रिया सोमयागादिकर्तृभ्यो दानम् । कुलायननिरोधः कुलायनदुर्भिक्षादि अपगमपर्यन्तस्य धारणम् । There is another reading कुल्यायनविरोधः of which the meaning is कुल्यायाः प्रवर्तनप्रतिबन्धौ.

c12.5

Finally, it should be observed that the legitimate activities and functions of the municipalities were not rigidly and strictly restricted within the limits of the agreement aforesaid, but that those bodies were allowed freedom of action against emergencies, provided such action was not contrary to their constitution (see *Yājñavalkya*, II. 186).¹

c12.6

¹ > **निजधर्माविरोधेन यस्तु सामयिको भवेत् ।**

c12.7

The duty of the village, with reference to construction and maintenance of the village public works is

c12.8

**सोऽपि यत्नेन संरक्ष्यो धर्मो राजकृतश्च यः ॥**

c12.9

clearly indicated in the following extract from a Jātaka (I. 199):

c12.10

‘In a village there were just thirty families, and one day the men were standing in the middle of the village transacting the affairs of the village. They, doing good works, always in the Bodhisatta’s company, used to get up early and sally forth, with razors and axes and clubs in their hands. With their clubs they used to roll out of the way all stones that lay on the four highways and other roads of the village; the trees that would strike against the axles of chariots, they cut down; rough places they made smooth; causeways they built, dug water tanks, and built the hall; they showed charity and kept the commandments. In this wise did the body of the villagers generally abide by the Bodhisatta’s teaching and keep the Commandments.’

c12.11

We have here in this short paragraph a most graphic and complete account of the evolution through all its stages of a village built up by the communal labour of its inhabitants. We may notice how the assembly hall of the village figures prominently in its public works as being the indispensable material requisite for the growth and sustenance of that larger public spirit or civic consciousness, which builds up the village itself.

c12.12

Much interesting evidence is supplied by South Indian inscriptions as regards one branch of public works, viz. the irrigation works. For this purpose compulsory labour seems to have been employed by the assemblies in the interests of the community.¹ The indigenous irrigation system comprised generally tanks and channels, which were built partly by individual benefactions and partly by communal enterprise. In any case, the duty of maintaining and keeping them in repair came to be recognized by custom as falling upon the village community. Accordingly most of the inscriptions deal with the means employed for repairing them and keeping them in proper condition after they were constructed. The commonest kind of repair which we find mentioned as being necessary was the removal of accumulated silt. Towards this provision was made for the supply of boats, of baskets in which to lift the earth, of labourers, of skilled workmen to take care of the boats, and of fishermen to provide certain kinds of necessaries. As regards actual examples of such works of olden times, we find two tanks in the Chingleput district of the Madras Presidency mentioned in inscriptions of the eighth and ninth centuries A. D. There is other epigraphic and literary evidence which carries back the existence of irrigation works to still more remote times. An interesting summary of the facts set out in the inscriptions is given by Mr. Venkayya in the *Arch. Surv. Report* for 1903–4. The most famous tank seems to have been Vayiramega-taṭāka at Uttaramallūr in the Chingleput district. An inscription (ibid., p. 204) records the provision in the form of an endowment made by a private individual for removing silt in the tank, which was accepted by the village assembly. Another states that, certain ryots having failed to pay the dues on their holdings, the village assembly paid the amount for them and took over their land for the benefit of the tank for three years. If at the end of that period the defaulters should return and pay up all their dues, they were to get back the land; otherwise it would be sold for the benefit of the tank. If any man of Uttaramallūr objected to this course, his land was to be sold similarly and the sale proceeds credited to the tank, while the man himself was to be dealt with as an enemy of the village (*grāma-kaṇṭaka*). If an arbitrator objected he should be banished from the village. There are seven more records which relate to the same tank and express the care of the community for it and the widespread appreciation of its value. The earliest of them registers a transaction relating apparently to another tank, and imposes on those who violate it a fine to be credited to the funds of the Variyamega tank. The next records a gift of land, and the third a gift of gold accepted by the assembly for the removal of silt during three months of the year. The fourth registers a gift of gold and paddy by a private donor, from the interest of which the assembly had to meet the cost of removing silt for two months. The next two refer to a gift of 200 *kalañju* of gold, the interest from which, amounting to 30 *kalañju* per year, was to be spent annually in removing silt from the tank and depositing it on the bund by the village assembly, who expressed their gratification at this charitable act of the donor, and exempted him from payment of certain taxes. It is interesting to note that the rate of the interest is definitely stated in this record, viz. 15 per cent. per annum, which is higher than the rate usually stated in the inscriptions mentioned above. The last, but not the least interesting, record registers a permanent deposit of 100 *kalañju* of gold with the assembly, from the interest of which they had to provide for the up-keep of a ‘second boat’ on the tank to be employed in removing silt. Every day a certain specified extent of the tank was to be cleared and the mud deposited on the bund.

c12.13

¹ Even the central government sometimes exploited compulsory labour for its own purpose. The great temple of Tanjore, for instance, was built largely by forced labour.

c12.14

A tank with a sluice is mentioned in an inscription in North Arcot district which records a gift of land, the income from which was to be spent in removing silt from a second tank in the same village. Those who look after the gift are assured of acquiring the merit of performing a horse sacrifice! One of the Ukkal inscriptions (Hultzsch, *S. I. Ins.*, vol. III, Part I, p. 9) has the following: 'We, the assembly, shall close (the sluice of) the tank (to collect water for irrigation) and shall cause 500 *kāḍi* of paddy to be supplied as interest every year on these 1000 *kāḍi* of paddy. The great men elected for the year shall cause (the paddy) to be supplied.' The rate of interest in this record is 50 per cent. per annum. Nos. 82 and 84 of 1887 mention gifts of sluices for tanks. No. 295 of 1909 (a Cola epigraph) relates how the assembly and the temples jointly excavate a tank with a sluice, the former giving land and the latter money.

c12.15

Coming to the times of the Colas we find stated in an inscription of the twelfth year of the reign of King Parāntaka I (= a. d. 919) that a donation of gold made by one of the king's officers for feeding Brāhmaṇas was utilized by the 'tank supervision committee' to pay the wages of the workmen employed to remove silt in the 'big tank of our village' (named Kāveripāk). The tank must have been built long before a. d. 919.

c12.16

Most interesting details are given by two inscriptions at Naṅguvaram, assigned roughly to the time of Prince Ariñjaya, son of Parāntaka I, i. e. about the middle of the tenth century a. d. One of them records a sale of land during the reign of the Cola king Rājakesarivarman by the village assembly to a private person on account of the boat plying in the tank. The second furnishes details as to how the income from this land was to be spent.

c12.17

The boat was to be employed for clearing the tank of silt. The operation is fully described—140 baskets of earth, each with capacity to hold 6 *marakkāl* (i. e. about 200 cubic feet) of earth, were to be taken out of the tank and deposited on the bund daily. The establishment comprised a supervisor who received the wages of 1½ *kuruṇi* of paddy *per diem*, and under him 6 labourers who were full-time workmen, and therefore paid higher wages, viz. 1 *padakku* of paddy per head *per diem* for both food and clothing;

c12.18

a carpenter and a blacksmith for repairing the boat, each of whom got annually 2½ *kalam* of paddy; and the fishermen (number not mentioned) who supplied wood for repairs to the boat and got 2 *kalam* of paddy annually. The village assembly had to have the land cultivated and to pay for the whole process out of the income. If they failed to do it, the then reigning king could fine them and get it done (compare other grounds of state-interference with the local bodies given above). Altogether the total annual expenditure for the operation amounted to 412 *kalam* of paddy.¹

c12.19

¹ *kalam* = 12 *marakkāl* or *kuruṇi*; 1 *padakku* = 2 *kuruṇi*. Thus the supervisor, carpenter, and blacksmith received less wages than the labourers. Inscriptions of the Cola king Rājarāja I (A.D. 985–1018) give the rates of wages paid to the various kinds of labourers employed on the temples at Tanjore. ‘50 *kalam* of paddy was given annually to each drummer and barber; 75 to each under-carpenter and under-accountant; 100 to each of the following, viz. watchmen, dancing girls, washermen, tailors, braziers, and superintending goldsmiths; 150 to a master carpenter; 175 to a lute-player, 200 to the accountant and dancing master. Brāhmaṇa servants got 1 *padakku* of paddy per day, and a *kāśu* annually, while vocalists who had to sing hymns were paid 3 *kuruṇi* per day. Paddy seems to have been sold at the rate of 2 *kalam* per *kāśu*, while the rate of interest was, as we have seen above, 12½ per cent. For 1 *kāśu* 3 sheep could be bought, while 1 she-buffalo was exchanged for 3 cows or 6 ewes; 1200 plantains could be had for 1 *kāśu*.’ In another inscription (*S. I. Ins.*, vol. II, pt. III, p. 259) the wages are indicated in shares of land: thus, a jewel-stitcher got 1½ share, brazier 1 share, master-carpenter 1½ share, superintending goldsmith 1 share, and so forth, and the comparison of these rates with the above will show that 1 share of land probably yielded 100 *kalam* of paddy annually.

c12.20

An inscription of Rājarāja I mentions a ‘big tank’ at Bāhūr, near Pondicherry, where the villagers agreed to contribute towards the maintenance of the tank. The tank committee of the assembly levied the contributions and undertook annual removal of the silt. Any villager refusing to pay had to pay a fine to be credited to the tank-fund under king’s orders. An Ukkal inscription [see p. 150 above] refers to the sale of some land to a private person by the village assembly, who were to provide out of its income for the up-keep of two boats assigned to a tank. The boats were probably meant not only for crossing purposes, as explained by Dr. Hultzsch (*S. I. Ins.*, vol. III, p. 15), but also for the usual work of removing the silt. No. 23 of 1893 mentions the imposition by the tank committee of an impost on betel-leaf sellers in order to construct a tank-bund.

c12.21

We need not refer to the irrigation works mentioned in the later Cola, Pāṇḍya, and Vijayanagara inscriptions, but we may notice some in the Telugu and Kanarese countries. These are 'the great tank, a reservoir for the supply of abundant water' built at Tālagunda in the Shimoga district of Mysore by the Kadamba king Kākusthavarman in the first half of the sixth century A. D. (*Ep. Ind.*, vol. VIII, p. 36); another at Chikballapur in the Kolar district mentioned in a record of A. D. 977–8 (no. 126 of 1892); and another with a sluice constructed at Sindhuvalli in the Mysore district in A. D. 1106–7 during the reign of the Cola king Kulottuṅga I (no. 3 of 1895). Several inscriptions at Bāgali in the Bellary district record gifts made to the 'big tank' for repairs, &c.

c12.22

Some irrigation channels are mentioned in the inscriptions, e. g. the Uyyakkoṇḍān in Trichinopoly district of the time of Rājarāja I, the head-sluice of the Periyavāykkāl in the same district, built of stone during the reign of Rājarāja II, about A. D. 1219.

c12.23

Remedies against breaches in tank-bunds and other similar accidents beyond human control were generally provided by private charity. Thus in A. D. 1189–90, for instance, heavy rains caused breaches in the tank at Somaṅgalam (Chingleput), which were repaired by a chief. There were two breaches next year also repaired by him, but he then made a money endowment, from the interest of which the assembly agreed to carry out the instructions of the donor by depositing a certain specified quantity of earth on the bund annually (no. 183 of 1901). No. 214 of 1911 gives another instance of repairs of damages to irrigation channels caused by the Kāverī floods. No. 417 of 1912 records a private donation by which a bank of stone was constructed and the head of an irrigation channel renovated. No. 404 of 1911 records the meeting of the assembly of a Nāḍu to levy an impost on each village to construct an embankment against the floods.

c12.24

From the evidence adduced above it is clear that tanks, sluices, and irrigation channels were always maintained by local bodies though their construction was often due to private or royal benefactions.¹

c12.25

¹ The motive for such benefactions was sometimes connected with the prevailing belief that the spirit of a dead man is consumed by extraordinary thirst, and that it has to be appeased by charities of a watering-shed, well, or tank. An instance of this is mentioned in a record of the time of Rājarāja I (see *Mad. Ep. Report*, 1914), and another in the twenty-sixth year of his reign recording a gift of land for maintaining a watering-shed in order that the thirsty spirit of his sister, the deceased queen Vīramahādevī (evidently the wife of King Rājendra-Cola I) might be appeased (*Mad. Ep. Report*, 1916, p. 118). No. 422 of 1915, however, quotes the words of the *Mahābhārata*, stating that the person in whose tank the thirsty cows, beasts, birds, and men drink water obtains the fruit of performing the Aśvamedha-sacrifice, thus expressing probably the true motive of these secular charities.

c12.26

The maintenance of tanks chiefly meant the periodical removal of its silt, and the work devolved upon the municipal department—or rather 'the tank committee'—of the village assembly, who were put in charge of endowments of both money and land for the purpose by private donors. We have also seen that preservation of tanks was regarded as a religious work, bringing great spiritual merit to the man providing for it. Tanks themselves, like temples, had endowments of land or money of their own, and the repairs were enacted at the expense of these endowments. In the Kanarese country the term *koḍagi* denotes a grant of land rent-free for the purpose of service in connexion with the restoration or construction of tanks or of their maintenance in good order (*Ep. Ind.*, vol. III, p. 51). In the absence of suitable endowments or private charity the assemblies themselves offered land from the culturable wastes of the village as an inducement to undertake such works, and where such wastes were not available, and private enterprise and charity failed, they themselves undertook them at the joint expense of the villagers, who all benefitted by same. Thus probably arose the custom of *kuḍimarāmat* in Southern India, by which the employment of compulsory labour for repairs to irrigation works is sanctioned.

c12.27

The village public-works also included the public roads, the maintenance of which was one of the duties of the assembly. This is clear from no. 9 of 1898 which reports ‘that a certain road in the village of Uttaramallūr had been submerged under water (probably owing to heavy rain) and became unfit to be used even by cattle. Consequently, the village assembly decided that the road should be widened. Accordingly land had to be acquired by purchase from the ryots of the village. The duty of acquiring the land and making the new road was assigned to the “garden-supervision” committee.’

Linked texts (9)