Local Government in Ancient India c13.128

Language: English

c13.128.1

The South Indian evidence with its undoubted superiority to the northern evidence in point of copiousness and variety does not, indeed, seem to furnish any definite information on this point. There are, however, numerous inscriptions (noticed later) which tell of the ‘village Hampdens’ who, with ‘dauntless breast’ braved the attacks of enemies against the person and property of the villagers and sometimes died in their defence. The heroism of these patriots is duly commemorated in the laudatory inscriptions put up by a grateful public who very often reward it also by generous grants of land. It would appear that cattle raids were the most frequent form taken by these aggressions. The defect of the southern evidence is, however, in some degree supplied by the northern. Assemblies possessed of military force and functions are referred to in the *Kauṭilīya*, in the *Mahābhārata*, and even in some of the later law books. We may also recall the yet earlier evidence of Pāṇini who mentions *āyudhajīvi-saṅghas* (including even Brāhmans) or the special associations called the *vrātas* which follow violent pursuits. Kauṭilya refers in several places to *śreṇīs* or guilds known for their military strength. He singles out (XI. i.) those of the Kāmboja, Surāṣṭra and Kṣatriya (?) peoples as living by their economic and military pursuits. On account of their military power, these *śreṇīs* were of very great importance to the state.

c13.128.2

In the discussion of the comparative gravity of the various sources of trouble to the king, that created by a refractory assembly is considered along with that created by rebellious chiefs. Kauṭilya cites the opinion of the previous Ācāryas that the *śreṇī* on account of its numerical strength (*bāhulyāt*) is more difficult to be subdued than individual recalcitrant chiefs. Kauṭilya, however, dissents from this view, for he holds that the fortunes of the assembly are vitally bound up with those of the king, and hence they cannot stand out long against him, while they may also be subdued by arresting either their leaders (*gaṇamukhyas*) or a section of the assembly (VIII. iv). In another place (IX. ii) Kauṭilya mentions the *śreṇī* as a source of recruitment for the army, and the army thus formed is called *śreṇī-bala*. The soldiers supplied by the *śreṇī* are even spoken of as worthy of being trusted both for offensive and defensive purposes. They are led by their special commander called *śreṇīmukhya* who is paid a salary equal to that of the commanders of the elephant force, the cavalry, the chariots and the *pradeṣṭāraḥ* (the Divisional Commissioners), and sufficient to command a good following (V. iii). The military strength of the guild is also referred to in the *Mahābhārata* in some of the passages already cited. The power of the corporations is regarded as being equal to that of the king's standing or mercenary army.

c13.128.3

It is not, however, quite clear from the evidence of either the *Kauṭilīya* or the *Mahābhārata* whether this military strength is referred to as belonging to the local assemblies or to the republican communities possessing absolute independence. There is, however, no such doubt in regard to the evidence supplied by some of the Smṛtis. Bṛhaspati (XVII. 5-6) defines protection against a common danger as one of the main objects of the village association. The danger is defined to be that apprehended from robbers, rogues, or a disbanded soldiery, as has been already explained. Such a 'danger must be repelled *by all*, not by *one* man alone, whoever he may be'. (Does this imply conscription, or universal military service imposed by the assembly upon the village?) That the assembly was possessed of military resources is clearly evident from Nārada (X. 5) where one of the grounds of royal interference with the assembly is their unlawful wearing of arms (*ahetau śastradhāraṇam*). The bearing of arms in the time of peace, when there was no apprehension of any danger of the kind mentioned above, was regarded as an offence against the king and a menace to peace itself, but the passage indirectly shows that the assembly was normally able to organize an adequate police or military force to repel attacks against the village either from within or from without. Further, we have already seen how Nārada (III.

c13.128.4

4) mentions among the expenses to be incurred by a guild for carrying on its business those connected with the care of its treasury. Sometimes it would be difficult to guard the treasures against the invasions of raiders (Kātyāyana already cited) or of the unscrupulous king (Bṛhaspati, XIV. 8). But the heroism that would successfully repel such invasions is to be specially rewarded (ibid. 10). This shows that these corporations, besides governing themselves, had also to find the means of protecting themselves and ensuring their own safety. Some of them developed their military strength so far as to find it profitable to pursue offensive purposes or engage in plundering expeditions. They are mentioned as successfully battling even against kings (ibid. 31. 32, and other references already cited which thus confirm the evidence of the *Kauṭilīya* and the *Mahābhārata* regarding the *śreṇī-bala*, or the *āyudhajīvi-saṅghas* or the *śastropajīvi-śreṇīs*). It may be noted too that violence in the village or enmity against its interests was visited with the extreme penalty of banishment (Kātyāyana quoting Bhṛgu, and Bṛhaspati, as cited in Colebrooke's *Digest of Hindu Law*, vol. II, p. 59).