Local Government in Ancient India c13.128.3

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.