The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c10.s1.t4.4

c10.s1.t4.4

And, as a corollary, the *imperium* or autonomy of the *panchâyats*, was legally subject to the control exercised by the imperial civil service. Not few and far between was the intervention of the supreme authorities in local politics, and hence the curtailment of village liberties. In 1230 the lands belonging to certain *drohins* (enemies of the state) in a South Indian village were sold by public auction. The initiative however was taken not by the village assembly but by the king who had sent eight officers to fix the price and conduct the affair.² In another village a new headman was appointed by the supreme government for the specific purpose of dealing with certain persons who were *râja-drohin* (traitors to the king).³ Sedition and treason appear thus to have been beyond the competency of the rural communes to handle. Even in far simpler matters the *panchâyats* had to feel the limits of their jurisdiction as but the lowest rungs in an administrative hierarchy. It appears that on one occasion some money ear-marked for a temple was misappropriated by the village assembly. The temple authorities appealed to the king for redress. Both parties had to appear at the capital. The king’s court found the assemblymen guilty and fined them. The money was eventually restored to the temple.⁴ Besides, the inspection and auditing of *panchâyat* accounts were normal functions of the Chola bureaucracy.⁵