The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c9.s4.t4.9

c9.s4.t4.9

Last but not least, the administrative *sva-râj* or "self-determination" of *śreṇîs* was practically unconditioned. They could exercise their governmental power as almost sovereign units, as *imperia in imperio*, i. e., without depending on the sanction of the state. The right of the *samûha* to punish even the *mukhya* or president is stated by Kâtyâyana as well as by Mîtra Miśra⁴ who cites him while interpreting Yâjnavalkya's opinion on the question. In Brihaspati's law also the gild-*sabhâ* could normally punish one of the guilty members, ostracize or even banish him, as has been pointed out above. Only, if in boycotting him the gild were "actuated by hatred" might the state "restrain" the corporation.⁵ The ultra-democratic constitution of Chinese gilds was all but outdone by the *samûhas* of India.⁶