Chapter 4.7 - Existence of the Autonomous Bodies or Groups

The Vyavahārādhyāya indicates another essential pragmatic character of the royal policies. There are certain recognised guilds, corporations, artisans, religious fraternities, which worked as individual bodies and a very large number of autonomy has been attributed to them. The king is under obligation to respect or insist upon usages, conventions, etc. He has to allow pursuing the course of actions of the groups, known as under the common heading samūha and the bodies particularly called śreṇis, naigamas, pākhandins, and gaṇas.^[1] A tendency to protect the property and strengthen the organisation of these public bodies may be observed in the Vyavahārādhyāya under the title of law called saṃvidvyatikrama.^[2] It appears that in the monarchical set up of the country, these institutions enjoy an honourable place as the king is required to give priority to the representatives of corporations and guilds.^[3] These institutions might have been very wide-awake and exerted considerable influence over the king. It marks the improvement of political status of these bodies.

The villages have a village headman, who seems to be responsible for the administration of the village attached to him. For instance, in the Vyavahārādhyāya, it is stated that in case of murder or theft, if the village headman cannot trace out the escape of the offender from the village, then the blame attaches to the village headman.^[4] In this respect, the village headman might have worked as the delegated authority or agent of the king. The Mitākṣarā makes it clear that the blame would be attached to the headman of the village for neglecting the murderer or thief. He, himself must catch the guilty person, due to the responsibility vested upon him, and has to hand over the offender to the king. Moreover, being unable to do so, he is bound to pay the stolen amount to the owner, in case he cannot show the sign of going out of the culprit from the village, the responsibility of which is on his shoulder.^[5]

In this respect, the observation made by A.S. Altekar is noteworthy, which throws light on an important aspect of governance that the principle of decentralisation had been carried on to a great extent and extensive powers were devolved to the village authorities, trade guilds, etc. The king used to govern in closer co-operation with wellestablished popular bodies like trade guilds, village authorities, etc.^[6]

In fine, a glance at the political aspects reflected in the Vyavahārādhyāya, though scanty, evidently brings out the conception of kingship, whose duty is to protect the people, to afford them justice, to ensure economic prosperity, equipped with the ideas akin to a welfare state.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

śreṇinaigamapākhaṇḍigaṇānāmapyayaṃ vidhiḥ/ bhedaṃ caiṣāṃ nṛpo rakṣet pūrvavṛttiṃ ca pālayet// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.192

[2]:

Ibid., 2.185-192

[3]:

Ibid., 2.189

[4]:

ghātite’pahṛte doṣo grāmabharturanirgate/ Ibid., 2.271

[5]:

yadi grāmamaddhye manuṣyādiprāṇivadho dhanāpaharaṇaṃ vā jāyate tadā grāmapatereva/ cauropekṣā doṣastatparihārārthaṃ sa eva cauraṃ gṛhītvā rājñe’rpayet/ tadaśaktau hṛtaṃ dhanaṃ dhanine dadyāt/ yadi caurasya padaṃ svagrāmānnirgataṃ na darśayati/ Mitākṣarā,Ibid.

[6]:

cf., Altekar, A.S., State and Government in Ancient India, page 60