The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c9.s4.t2.13

c9.s4.t2.13

According to Kâtyâyana, an authority later than Brihaspati, cited in Mitra Miśra's *Vîra-mitrodaya*⁷ and Chaṇḍeśvara's *Vivâda-ratnâkara*,⁸ two commentaries on Yâjnavalkya and on other jurists new members were entitled to share equally with the old the properties of the established gild. Debts of the *samûha* were likewise to be shared by them as a matter of course. Nay, the spiritual merit, as says Mitra Miśra, accruing from charities and religious services that the gild may have undertaken in the past was believed to be beneficial to persons who were elected to membership long after the deeds had been performed. The usual mode of cooption was *sarva-sammati* i. e. unanimous approval.