Local Government in Ancient India c3.6

c3.6

There are a few minor points to which I may also advert in this connexion. In the introduction I have put forward, as a tentative suggestion, the hypothesis about the peculiar relations between the state and society in ancient India which has, to my mind, the merit of explaining some of the paradoxes in its history and throwing light on some of its obscure aspects or chapters. The introduction, I trust, will thus be found to be a contribution to the study of Indian political evolution. Another point requiring mention is that in citing South Indian evidence I have had reasons to depart from the chronological limits of the ancient period of Indian history, and to bring within its purview certain passages of what is generally regarded as the mediaeval period of that history. For it has to be recognized that there are certain fundamental factors which do not always permit the ancient and mediaeval periods of North and South Indian history to agree closely in chronological limits. There are wide divergences in the dates of our evidence in the North and the South, and, consequently, in the dates of the corresponding historical developments, so that to apply under such dissimilar circumstances a common chronological criterion would be an attempt at a forced and artificial uniformity. The ancient period is longer in the South than in the North, while the mediaeval period may be regarded as dating practically from the battle of Talikota (A. D. 1565), the date of the downfall of the great Hindu Empire of Vijayanagara, the last of the independent political states of ancient Hindu India.¹ Accordingly, there are numerous references in the work to South Indian evidence, ranging in dates from the ninth to the twelfth and even thirteenth and fourteenth centuries A. D., while the evidence for the North closes at a much earlier period. The third point requiring notice is that, while the evidence of the South Indian inscriptions is copious in its details respecting the constitution of the local bodies, that of the North is practically devoid of such details, which can only be but partially gathered from the literary texts. As regards the terms used for such local bodies, the South Indian inscriptions invariably use two terms, viz. *Mahāsabhā* and *Sabhā*, indicating respectively the general or the greater assembly and the smaller and subordinate committee of the larger body, while the corresponding terms used in the northern inscriptions are *Śreṇī*, *Nigama*, and *Nigama-Sabhā*. It may be noted in passing that the use of Sanskrit terms for these local bodies in the South is one more indication of the fact that they are parts of a common Indian system with organic affinities. The last point on which I should like to comment is that the present work does not treat of all classes of local bodies in ancient India: the educational and purely religious bodies, like the *pariṣads* and *sanghas* for instance, which require separate monographs by themselves, have been excluded from its purview. I have already announced a monograph on 'Educational Institutions in Ancient India'.