The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c17.182

c17.182

made to Navasevakas or apprentices in guilds.¹ The theory of the status, constitution and working of guilds, as enunciated by Bṛihaspati, indicates that they were a recognised part of the body-politic. From Bṛihaspati as from Nârada it appears that a guild had a general assembly which met from time to time to transact business. There were two, three or five executive officers.² Yâjñavalkya and Nârada lay down elaborate rules for the conduct and training of apprentices and their relations with the masters.³ On the technical side of their affairs, the guilds appear to be self-governing but, according to the theory of the Dharma Śâstras, the state should settle their internal wrangles, regulate and control their relations with the outside world and, in general, should see that they conformed to rules and usages. Yâjñavalkya is perfectly clear on the point. All groups which have strayed from their own laws, whether they be families, guilds, associations, must be subjected to discipline and brought back to the path of duty by the king.⁴ In practice, the amount of state control must have varied with distance from the headquarters of government officials, the vigour of the government, the prestige of particular guilds and the character of their work. But it seems clear from the Dharma Śâstras that guilds acted as courts of justice in civil suits, though an appeal might lie from their decisions to the king.