Villages in ancient Indian town-planning

With this very brief dissertation on the antiquity of town-planning in India and the origin and growth of Indian towns, we are now better equipped to treat this topic of the different and manifold types of towns including villages and forts. But before we do so, we may point out the discrepency and the non-correspondence of the section in this part with its companion in the Vāstulakṣaṇas These first two chapters being introductory to start with canons, have been taken up, first though their counter-parts i.e. ‘Grāma-lakṣaṇa’, ‘Nagara-lakṣaṇa’ and ‘Durga-lakṣaṇa’ are introduced in the middle. Now let us begin with villages first.

Village is a town in miniature and hence in India from the standpoint of planning there is no difference between a village and a town. A group of villages gives rise to a big town. Pataliputra is already cited as the most illustrious example.

There is however a great gulf between the canons of village-planning as given in the ancient texts of architecture and town-planning like Mayamata, Mānasāra etc. and the universal practice in India in regard to the most fundamental of the canons of town-planning namely the fortification. All the Śilpa texts unanimously suggest the fortification of villages as well. This is a bit over-doing. Some of the most selected villages may have some kind of fortification around them, otherwise the general practice, as the history also bears to the testimony, is that the villages never had fortification. When M. M. Dr. Ganga Nath Jha wrote—“The points of difference between a town and a village were that the town was protected by a ditch and a wall while the village was not so protected, the town was inhabited mostly by trades-people, in addition to the king and his appertenances, while the village was inhabited by agricultural people”—House-building and Sanitation in Ancient India, J. B. O. R. S. Volume I—he was not only simply echoing the practical and historical truth; but also Bharata’s definition of a village which is an abode of many people such as Brāhmaṇas and others without any wall or ditch.

Now the question is: How to reconcile the precepts of the ancient masters with the practice of the ages. These ancient masters do not take any vital difference between the planning of villages or towns. Naturally what holds good of a town just holds good of a village so far as the scientific and systematic planning goes, otherwise the law-givers have nothing to do with the haphazard growth when there is no body to guide the growth, supervise the plan or control the mal-planning.

Secondly though we maintain that the village is a natural unit and had a natural growth; but we have a tradition—vide Kauṭilya’s Artha-Śāstra, that as per the administrative efficiency and the control thereof, he (Kauṭilya) advises the establishment of villages throughout the kingdom:

“Either by inducing foreigners to immigrate (paradeśāpavāhanena) or by causing the thickly populated centres of his own kingdom to send forth the excessive population (svadeśābhiṣyandavamanena vā) the kingdom may construct villages either on new sites or on old ruins (bhūtapūrvam abhūtapūrvam vā)”.

“Villages consisting each of not less than a hundred families and not more than five hundred families of agricultural people or Śūdra caste, with boundaries extending as far as a krośa (2250 yds.) or two and capable of protecting each other shall be formed. Boundaries shall be denoted by a river, a mountain, forests, bulbous plants (gṛṣṭi), caves, artificial buildings (setubandha) or by trees such as Śālmalī (silk cotton tree), Śamī (acacia suma) and Kṣīra vṛkṣa (milky trees)”

Thirdly the villages were also sometimes founded for military purposes—vide Ummagga Jataka translated by Yatawara p, 187, where we find that the Raja, previous to his starting on a military expedition gave orders to his ministers to build villages perhaps for the convenience of the routes of the expedition constituting the great highways of the country and also for trade and communication as well as for resting places of caravans.

Fourthly, we see, Bhoja, the celebrated author of the Samarāṅgaṇa-Sūtradhāra, though, silent about the grāma-lakṣaṇa in any details, does give us a great canon of national town-planning policy which echoes to some extent the ancient tradition of the Imperial Mauryas When Kauṭilya, the renowned Prime-minister was also doing the same thing. Bhoja from the stand point of National Planning in particular context to the laying out of the villages, towns etc. divides as we presently see, the whole country into Nagara and Janapada and takes the village as the Unit of National-planning.

The village as a unit:

[The village as a unit of Town Planning in National Planning in ancient India]:—This simple classification of the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra also hints at a very broad fact of the then outlook on the planning character of the town as a whole. It is in relation to the National Planning of a country and a big country like India—which as a large continent—has so many diversities, but happily so integrated on account of its cultural and religious background that it always was one unit to both the sovereigns like Pṛthu and the Sthapatis, like Viśvakarmā. From the point of view of the national planning of a country like India—a sub-continent, the whole country was divided into three Rāṣṭras—the large, the middle and the small.

The unit of the national planning, according to this text is a village (the smallest category of a town). The territory of a larger unit of the country called the Superior Rāṣṭra consisted of nine thousand one hundred and fifty four villages, while that of the middle Rāṣṭṛa contained in its dominion five thousand three hundred and eighty four villages and lastly, the small type of the Rāṣṭṛa had only one thousand five hundred forty eight villages of its territory. Thus the whole land consisting of these three sizes of Rāṣṭras having been laid out in villages; the town planning starts with the division of only the half the number of the villages into nine equal parts in all these types of the Rāṣṭras. This being done—in every part seven towns should be established (10. 83-87). This, in my opinion, was the selection of some large villages having all the qualifications for the natural development into a town. In this way (as per rough calculation) the superior Rāṣṭra would be having five hundred towns, the middle one having three hundred and the inferior one, eighty six only. This points out to one of the basic origins of towns—the large majority of the Indian towns had their origin in villages.

What is the idea underlying this canon of establishing towns only among half the number of each of the three types of Rāṣṭras? Perhaps it was in order to keep in tact the agricultural life going on and not to disturb the rural character of the country—the main characteristic of this ancient land. The urban civilisation has its Virtues and drawbacks too; perhaps the town-planner of the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra does not want to get those evil characteristic of the city life penetrated among the simple folks of villages. Nothing can be said authoritatively, it is only my surmise. The text is not very specific. It gives only a broad hint.

Here two points emerge which need critical examination. Firstly, has this kind of planning any remnant in modern India? Secondly, is there any other treatise in which such canons of town planning are equally laid down? The first problem is upto the sociologists to work out. We may only point out that bat for the Railway lines intro duced in the modern times, the country was consisted predominantly of villages and it is not difficult to find a parralel to the large number of villages which emerge in these three types of Rāṣṭras. We do find larger number of villages in existence even upto this time.

Now as regards the second problem, in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra, though we can not strictly speaking find a corroboration of the above principle; yet it gives a hint which is important in this respect. For defensive purposes, Arthaśāstra inculcates the necessity of laying out fortresses scattered among the villages, viz, the Sthāniya in the centre of eight hundred villages, a Droṇamukha, in the centre of four hundred villages, a Kharvāṭika in the centre of two hundred villages and a Saṃgrahaṇa in the midst of a group of ten villages. This, in my opinion, is a military planning in contrast to the civic planning as advocated by the Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra Kauṭilya, the powerful Primeminister of Emperor Chandra Gupta Maurya, being more absorbed in his imperialistic views, did propound the germs of the civic planning, because in ancient India in the character of planning, there was not much difference between a village, a town or a fort. All were fortified residences.

With this general introduction to the gramas, it is not difficult to surmize that the villages were really the detached human habitations principally occupied by the agriculturists. The upper class people especially the Brāhmaṇas also used to live in villages—vide Bāṇa’s description of the Prītikūṭa village, the ‘Brahmaṇādhivāsa”. Accordingly in the Mayamata—vide Vāstu-Lakṣaṇa, there is a detailed classification of the Brāhmaṇa villages in accordance with the numerical strength of their population. Similarly villages are classified on so many other bases—a village of learned Brāhmaṇas is called ‘Maṅgala’ while that of noble ones ‘Agrahāram’ etc. There are detailed descriptions of villages of various sorts in the Mayamata and Mānasāra—vide V. Lakṣaṇa. Their planning is the scientific planning of a town, having all the salient features like shape, size, site-planning, street-plannings laying of highways, folk-planning, the planning of the centre, the chalking out the plots for temples, tanks etc. etc. and laying the rules of fortification as well as all other requirements. It is therefore needless to go into their details as the chapters ahead alloted to all these topics, conveniently may be taken to be applicable to the villages also. Let us therefore tabulate the different varieties of the villages as per the different authorities—vide the Vāstu-lakṣaṇa,

Viśvakarma-Vāstuśāstra.

It describes as many as 12 types of villages:

1. Maṇḍaka,
2. Prastara,
3. Bāhulika,
4. Parāka,
5. Caturmukha,
6. Pūrvamukha,
7. Maṅgala,
8. Viśvakarmaka,
9. Devarāṭ,
10. Viśveśa,
11. Kailāśa,
12. Nityamaṅgala.

Avoiding the details of these villages, a few remarks may be made. There is no hard and fast prescription about the fortification of the first three types. The streets are more important features which provide the laying out of the habitations. The next four are surrounded by ramparts and may be deemd as special habitations according to ancient canons of folk-planning. The Viśvakarma-grāma is a very large village and may be called a town. Its site is laid on the bank of a river. Here there is a provision for a palace of the king. The ninth variety is a temple-village as the name indicates. The tenth types is the commercial village and the eleventh is directed to be laid out on the sea-coast or on the slopes of a hill and it is also protected by ramparts. Lastly the Nityamaṅgala is as good as a big town having a population of about 6000 people.

Like the Samarāṅgaṇa, the Aparājitapṛcchā also does not treat the villages in any details. Both these texts being contemporary show the medieval tendencies of urbanisation when big cities especially the capital cities were more prominent in the minds of the authors who were mostly courtiers and naturally were biased with the imperial set ups.

Mānasāra.

According to Dr. Acharya’s notice there is not much difference between a village, a town and a fort. All are fortified places intended for the residence of people. A town is the extension of a village. A fort is in many cases nothing more than a fortified town, with this difference, that a fort is principally meant for purposes of defence, while a village or a town is mainly intended for habitation.

“Villages are divided according to their shapes into eight classes, called:

1. Daṇḍaka,
2. Sarvatobhadra,
3. Nandyāvarta,
4. Padmaka,
5. Svastika,
6. Prastara,
7. Kārmuka, and
8. Caturmukha.

Each village is surrounded by a wall made of brick or stone; beyond this wall there is a ditch broad and deep enough to cause serious obstruction in the event of an attack on the village. There are generally four main gates at the middle of the four sides, and as many at the four corners. Inside the wall there is a large street running alround the village. Besides, there are two other large streets, each of which connects two opposite main gates. They intersect each other at the centre of the village where a temple or a hall is generally built for the meeting of the villagers. The village is thus divided into four main blocks, eack of which is again subdivided into may blocks, by-streets which are always straight and run from one end to the other of a main block. The two main streets crossing at the centre have houses and footpaths on one side of the street. The ground-floor of these houses on the main streets consists of shops. The street, which runs round the village, has also houses and footpaths only on one side. These are mainly public buildings, such as libraries, guest-houses, etc. All other streets generally have residential buildings on both sides. The houses, high or low, are always uniform in make. Drains (jaladvāra, lit. waterpassage) follow the slope of ground. Tanks and ponds are dug in all the inhabited parts, and located where they can conveniently be reached by a large number of inhabitants. The temples of public worship, as well as the public commons, gardens, and parks are similarly located. People of the same caste or profession are generally housed in the same quarter.

The partition of the quarters among the various sects cannot be said to be quite impartial. The best quarters are generally reserved for the Brāhmaṇas and the architects. Such partiality to the artists is not met elsewhere in Sanskrit literature. The quarters of the Buddhist and the Jains are described in a few lines. The habitations of the Cāṇḍālas, as well as the place for cremation, are located outside the village wall, in the north-west in particular. The temples of fearful deities such as Cāmuṇḍā, are also placed outside the wall”.

Mayamata and Śilparatna.

The above description of villages in the Mānasāra is based on the respective shapes, the method of street planning, folk-planning and temple-dedication which, as we shall see, is the stereo-typed canon of town planning in ancient India. Hence our previous statement that according to the Mānasāra there is not much difference between a village, a town and a fort, gets supported. The detailed description of the Nandyāvarta, as reproduced in the Vāstulakṣaṇas is evidently very copious.

The author of the Mayamata and Śilparatna however, base their classification of the villages mainly upon planning of streets into:—

1. Daṇḍaka,
2. Svastika,
3. Prastara,
4. Prakīrṇaka,
5. Nandyāvarta,
6. Parāga,
7. Padma and
8. Śrīpatiṣṭhitā.

N.B.—Kāmikāgama divides villages into fifteen classes and after enumerating all the varieties named by the Mānasāra and Mayamuni cites four more, to wit,

1. Sampatkara,
2. Kumbhaka,
3. Śrīvatsa and
4. Vaidika.

Thus as many as 15 types emerge.

Daṇḍaka. Literarlly means a village that resemble a phalanx or a staff. Its streets are straight and cross each other at right angles at the centre, running west to east, and south to north.

Sarvatobhadra is oblong or square and may be divided into inter-lineal chambers after Maṇḍūka or Sthaṇḍila.

Nandyavarta is just like sarvatobhadra and is very auspicious. It is abode of bliss and is best suited to Brāhmaṇas. The text makes so many other alternatives with folk-planning like Maṅgala, Pura and Agrahāra [Agrahāram], needless to be dilated upon (see Datta’s book).

Padma or Padmaka according to the text has five varieties. Its shape is just like lotus—vide illustrations in the end. Svastika has got a special feature that its streets should be planned in conformity with the figure Svastika,

Prastara—etymologically means a village resumbling a couch. The Mayatamata directs that it is intersected by three streets running from east and west by several transverse roads numbering from three to seven, Kārmuka, is bow-shaped—vide illustration in the appendix and hence its shape is either semi-circular or semi-elliptical. Types of town like Pattana, Kheṭa or Karvaṭa are planned after this shape which as we shall sec are predominantly inhabited by Vaiśyas, traders-cum-laboureres and lower class people respectively.

The Kārmuka plan is suited generally to a reparian site or a sea-shore.

Caturmukha is square or oblong lying east-to-west-wise so that its walls are also of similar shape, Prakīrṇaka has five varieties according to the Maya text. It really means a ‘cāmara’ a fan made with big chowries (hairy tails) of yaks fastened to a handle. Parāga, as its nomenclature implies is of cobwebbed shape and has a such large number of streets that facilitates the traffic and locomotion of the village. Śrīpratiṣṭhita has a radical significance in as much as the Goddess of Fortune, Śrī is enshrined and secured here.

Sampatkara as its etymology connotes, is a very auspicious village and secures wealth and property Kumbhaka has its shape like a pitcher as the word denotes. It is cither circular or polygonal. The streets run parallel to the centre. Lastly Śrīvatsa and Vadika are also of the auspicious varieties, have the common planning but denoting some trait or the other as their names indicate.

This is only a very meagre account of these villages, the details may be seen in the Vāstulakṣaṇa, appended in the end. It may however be remarked that one feature of special significance in all of them is that the number of northerly streets in all types far exceed that of the easterly streets which means that the villages were alongated east to west and east to west streets were longer so that winds could not blow up clouds of dust while the buildings were open to pure and ventilation which in India generally runs from North to South, and South to North. Further in all these types the principal requirement, as surmized by the detailed accounts of these villages, is that they used to be laid out round a village shrine adjoining a bank and a flower garden thus making them all more or less garden-villages as abound in the South. Sri Vankatarama Ayyar furnishes these details in his work.