The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c10.s1.t3: 3. The Content of Rural Democracy
The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c10.s1.t3
- Language
- English
3. The Content of Rural Democracy
c10.s1.t3.1
Not of a trivial order were the functions and powers of the village *sva-râjes* of mediæval India. The responsibility on the shoulders of the rural folk, peasants, shepherds, artisans, craftsmen, and priests, was great indeed. In the eleventh century, the rural communes of Ceylon¹ ascertained the facts of murder and robbery and sat in session thereon. They were entitled to levy fines and inflict punishment on the criminals. And they were responsible for the execution of the statutes and decrees promulgated by "His Majesty the King in Council".
c10.s1.t3.2
¹ ^1 Aiyangar; Matthai; Majumdar; Mookerji's *Local*, 148—164; the long inscription found at Uttaramallur is reproduced by them all.
c10.s1.t3.3
² ^2 Aiyangar, 173; Mookerji's *Local*, 155—156, 160. cf. "*l'amateurisme démocratique*" of Joseph-Barthélemy, Infra, p. 147.
c10.s1.t3.4
³ ^3 Matthai, *loc. cit.* In this connection cf. the ethnographic data bearing on woman's status in Lowie.
c10.s1.t3.5
¹ *Epigraphia Zeylanica*, Vol. I, no. 21.
c10.s1.t3.6
The cultivators of Ceylon used to refer all questions of common interest to the local assembly of notables and elders. Especially in connection with irrigation did they feel the necessity for joint cooperative effort.² The communal administration of tanks was the normal feature of village politics. Repairs of irrigation works had to be done by all landholders each according to his share, or else they were refused water. Nobody was permitted by the *panchâyat* to irrigate fresh lands unless a surplus were available. In seasons of drought the peasants could claim only limited proportions of the diminished stream. The rural authorities determined with strict justice the rotation of watering and the order in which the cultivators would be supplied with water. Breaches of the irrigation regulations and thefts of water met with due punishment from the *sabhâ*.
c10.s1.t3.7
² Deakin's *Irrigated India and Ceylon*, p. 243.
c10.s1.t3.8
It can legitimately be generalized from over a dozen Chola inscriptions bearing on a Tamil village near Conjeeveram that the village *sabhâs* had in their hands full responsibility for the entire administration of the rural areas.³ The South Indian *panchâyats* were absolute proprietors of the village lands, with rights of ownership over newly cleared lands. They had authority to fine, in case of delinquency, the "great men of the year", i. e. the elected officials of the rural commune. They "received deposits of money and grants of land for charitable purposes, and administered the trust by a board of commissioners specially appointed for the purpose from year to year". They received all the taxes and had the right to render villages tax-free, and if necessary could grant to landholders an exemption from customary dues. Sometimes an independent corporation e. g. that of temple authorities was endowed with jurisdiction over certain lands by the ordinances of the village *sabhâs*.
c10.s1.t3.9
³ Aiyangar, 163—164; Majumdar cites several new inscriptions not exploited by other writers, pp. 70—74. Note the twenty references to village assemblies serving (like gilds) as local banks (p. 73).
c10.s1.t3.10
The *panchâyats* were also authorized to take possession of and sell the lands of persons who had failed to pay the Government dues for three years.¹ And of course local justice fell within the jurisdiction of these assemblies. Even in cases of murder they could sit in judgment, and what is remarkable, had the power to exercise discretion in meting out penalties. On several occasions the rural soviets of ancient Madras, finding that the murder was not culpable homicide, sentenced the defendants to simple fine instead of the usual capital punishment. And in order to carry out their decisions the village assemblymen did not have to refer the matter to the central authority represented by the royal officer.²
c10.s1.t3.11
¹ *Ibid*, 161.
c10.s1.t3.12
² *Ibid*, 168.
c10.s1.t3.13
No attempt is being made here to give evidence in regard to the existence of "village communities"³ in ancient India. The discussion as to whether and how far the lands were held in common and to what extent they were held in severalty is primarily of an economic character. This agrarian question of land-tenure is not to be confounded with the political administration of villages as the territorial divisions of a state. Communal proprietorship or no communal proprietorship, it is clear that the legislation of Ceylon and the Tamil Empire conferred immense powers of government on the inhabitants of the rural districts. The *panchâyats* as the "representative" *sabhâs* of the village people were very essential organs of Hindu public life. These were the principal agencies in and through which the masses could participate in the administration of the country.
c10.s1.t3.14
³ Jolly's *Recht*, pp. 93—96 (*Feldgemeinschaft*). For Vedic land tenure *vide grâma* in the *Vedic Index* Vol. 1, 244, 245. The alleged existence of "village communities" in all periods of Hindu history is taken for granted in Havell's *History of Aryan Rule in India*, pp. 31, 52, 69, etc. and in Mookerji's *Local*, 2, 3, 23—25, in fact, in every writing on Hindu institutions, without any evidence. See the chapter on public finance, *infra*. pp. 116, 123. *cf.* the discussions on private property in Lowie.