Local Government in Ancient India c13.126

c13.126

It has been already apparent that the assembly made itself mainly responsible for the moral and material welfare of the people committed to its administration. One of the primary duties of all government is to ensure the security of the life and property of its people. The people must be protected against the invasions of external enemies or from internal disorders. How far these ancient local bodies were mindful of their duties in this regard will be apparent from a few typical illustrations. No. 359 of 1914 relates how the peace of the village was disturbed by the internal quarrels of a turbulent community, whereupon the assembly bound it down to keep the peace on a penalty of 100 and 500 *paṇams* for injuries done to an individual or the village.] No. 273 of 1914 records how the larger Valla-nāḍu assembly guaranteed the safety and protection of the villages in its charge and made themselves financially liable for it. Sedition within the village was ruthlessly stamped out. We have a very definite record on this subject. No. 332 of 1910 registers the following resolution adopted by the Nalūr assembly:—'that the residents should not do anything against the interests of the village, temple, and similar institutions; that, if they do so, they must suffer as *grāmadrohins* (traitors against the village) do and not be allowed the privilege of touching Śiva' i. e. offering worship at the temple. It is to be understood that those who are declared *grāmadrohins*, i. e. enemies of the village and outlaws, are punished by confiscation of their property. No. 112 of 1911, for instance, refers to such a case of confiscation, already alluded to. When the assembly failed to protect the people against enemies too powerful for them, they invoked the aid of the king. Such a case is recorded in no. 315 of 1909 which relates that a number of Brāhmans turned outlaws, 'murdered the other Brāhmans, cut off their ears, insulted their ladies, committed robbery, destroyed cattle or sold them'. On the matter being reported by the people to the chiefs in charge of the country, they 'got the offenders together, beat them, fined them, pulled down their houses, and kept them under surveillance’. But this treatment was too lenient to make them change their character and career, whereupon the people again invoked the aid of the authorities in punishing the rebels. The king ‘issued stringent orders that they be captured wherever found and punished according to the rules applicable to the lower classes, that their houses and other hereditary property be sold to temples and other charitable institutions, that the money thus realized be credited to the treasury in payment of the fine imposed on them, and that the balance, if any, be presented to the temples as a permanent charity in the name of the criminals’. The following reflections of the learned Epigraphist may be quoted: ‘This event which happened about the middle of the thirteenth century A. D. is enough to show that the orthodox system of administration in India, while it did everything for the comfort and peace of its subjects, put down with a stern hand the misdoings of individuals who strayed away from their legitimate duties and thus held the balance of justice even between class and class. The religious instinct, too, so prominent among Indian kings, which in the present case prompted Sundara-Pāṇḍya (the king) to order a portion of the money realized by the sale of the criminals’ property to be set apart for charities on their behalf in order that these misguided people may, as a consequence, improve in their character and become at least in the future useful and loyal citizens, is indeed noteworthy.’