Ancient Period Panchayati Raj

Firoz Ansari & Prof. Mohammad Abid

India has a long tradition of Village Panchayats. Their history can be traced back to ancient times. The establishment of the Panchayat is said to have guided and controlled the administration of the villages of India since time immemorial. R.K. Mukharji describes it as “a sort of Noah’s ark, which very safely protected the vital elements of Hindu civilization against the overwhelming deluges that swept over the country from time to time.”   The village as a collective unit has been well-known ever since the Vedic period. Agriculture, being the chief occupation of the Vedic people, ‘grama’ became the basis of social life. Vedic Literature hardly seems to go beyond the village, no doubt with modifications in its later period. The village was in early days a functional unit and not a territorial one.

Headman- his eminent position

It was through the agency and on the initiation of a headman that the entire work of a village was executed. He was the keystone of the village structure and wielded wide authority over it. He was one among the king’s Council of Ratnins (the jewels of the Royal establishment). Not only this, he was also a kingmaker.

Since a village had to be self-reliant in its defence, the most important duty of a headman was to defend the village with the help of local men. The collection of revenue was his next important duty. From Apastamba it is clear that the levy of central taxes was not on individuals but on the whole village. It was the headman’s duty to collect revenues from individuals and pay it to the state. As the fountain head of justice, he possessed considerable judicial powers. He decided all civil and petty criminal cases of his village. Being responsible for the maintenance of internal peace, in the capacity of an executive officer, he made the guilty pay fine and he also performed many other important functions.

Duties performed with the help and support of the whole village

For all his duties, the village headman was remunerated by rent-free land and could also get a number of petty dues which the village had to pay to the king. The headman transacted his business with the help of the villagers. Prof. Rhys Davids alluding to the accounts given of village administration in the Jatakas says: “Villages are described as uniting of their own accord to build mote-halls, rest houses and reservoirs, to mend the roads between their own and adjacent villages and even to lay parks”, and “The local affair of each village was carried on in open assembly of householders held in the groves which then as now, formed so distinctive a feature in the long and alluvial plain.” The cost of the undertakings of common welfare was met by the villagers out of the corporate fund, corporate property and fines imposed on the wrong-doers and mischief mongers.

The guilds – Economic corporate unions

The corporate unions known as guilds, in which manual labourers and skilled workers were organized, played an important role in the economic life of the village. Various references of such guilds are found in the Dharma Sutras, the Upanishads, the Epics and the Jatakas. There were guilds of muslin- weavers, leather-workers, painters, gold-smiths, stone-carvers, potters, dyers, jewelers and money lenders and so

on. Each of these guilds formed a whole village of its own. They possessed a quasi- judicial form and enjoyed a high degree of autonomy. Gautam (500 B.C.), the earliest writer, observes that peasants, traders, herdsmen, money-lenders, and artisans had authority to lay down laws for their respective classes, and the rules and customs of these guilds had to be respected by the royal judges in deciding suits brought before them in appeals from the guild tribunals.

Village Panchayats as Described in Kautilya’s Arthashastra

Kautilya’s Arthashastra gives a comprehensive account of the system of village administration prevailing at that time. The size of the village varied from 100 to 500 families. Its boundaries were to be demarcated by hills, forests, tanks, bounds, ditches, special kinds of trees, etc. Kautilya recommended that the villages should be located at a distance of two to four miles between them so that one village might go to aid the another village in case of need. The villagers were collectively responsible for the maintenance of law and order.

In the time of Kautilya, the village had an “Adhyaksha” (headman) and a number of other officials namely “Samkhyaka (Accountant), “Anikashta” (Veterinary doctor), “Jamgh Karika (Village couriers), “Chikitsaka” (Physician). The Gramik or village headman was responsible for ensuring collection of state dues and reporting and controlling the activities of the offenders. They were collectively responsible for that act. He was to see that the land was properly cultivated by the allottees, failing which, fine could be imposed and credited to the village fund.

If a person took a loan and did not use it for the purpose for which it was meant, he was to be fined with thrice the amount of loan, the amount being deposited in the village fund. Land was granted free for the construction of tanks, rest houses or places of worship. The village Gramik had the duty of arranging numerous types of entertainments for its inhabitants, making arrangement for receiving religious preachers and government officials. During the time of Ashoka, the Panchayats also enforced prohibition on animal slaughter except in those places where the local custom permitted such practices.

The next higher official to Gramik was the “Gopa” who had between five to twenty villages under his charge. He was the registrar of land records and census data. It was his duty to keep his records up to date regarding utilization of land, showing

clearly the cultivated and uncultivated land, pastures, fallow land, orchards, and land under commercial crops. In addition to this, he kept records of census figuring, namely, males, females, old and young, their incomes and professions and the cattle possessed by each individual as well as by farms. He was the person to look upon boundary dispute between the villages. He was required to register the local rules, customs and usages and forward the same to his superior.

At the district level Rajukas were empowered to survey the land and to fix land revenue. They also acted as judges assisted by leading citizens and officials. The Vishayapati (the head of the district) and the provincial viceroys were appointees of the crown, but they acted in the council (Saparishad) with the high officials called Mahamatras receiving orders from the King and were subjected to periodical supervision by special officers sent by the king.

The Gupta Reign and the Rural Local Self-Government

The system did not change under the Guptas reign although it underwent certain changes in nomenclature. The Vishayapati continued to be the district official, who was also a feudatory Maharaja owing allegiance to the Emperor and enjoying sovereignty with regard to inner matters in lieu of a tribute (Bali), or he was a royal official. He was advised by guild presidents, chief scribes and leading people of the locality. In the South, the provincial unit was called Mandal, subdivided into Nadus (districts) and Kottams (sub-districts). Below them were Kurram (union of villages) and gram (villages). The village was governed by Grampati (headman) as assisted by the village assembly, which consisted of the entire population of male adult (urar) and sometimes of selective elders (Mahattaras).

The assembly appointed a number of committees to look after the various aspects of village administration namely, tank, temples, roads, gardens, education and justice,etc. These Committees were responsible for acquisition and sale of land, preserving common lands and pastures, running endowments, maintaining irrigation works, temples, educational and spiritual institutions, providing watch and ward services as well as settling problems of usual rights between the various village servants, artisans and cultivators. The rural community had its own finances, which were credited by fines, Donations, Collections and endowments. The village’s wealth could draw deposits for specific purposes on enduring source.

Panchayati raj during chalukyas and pallavas

From the middle of the seventh century to the 12^th century A.D. the history of North India is not clear. Thus focus on the political history shifts to Deccan and South India where the Chalukyas and Pallavas empires continued for long. Enough inscriptional and literary material is not available to give in detail the exact form of the local institutions in Northern India during this period. The information obtained about the administration of village communities belongs mostly to the south. There is an abundant of evidence to prove that the south by this time had evolved a regular system of village self government through assemblies, committees and elected officers.

Village Assembly

The frequent mentioning of the village assemblies in the inscriptions of ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries A.D. indicates that the Village Assembly was the supreme authority in the village, and it was a highly developed organization. In some places, it was composed of young and old, i.e. all the males of the village, whereas at some other places, it was a select body consisting of the learned Brahmans and other distinguished male members of the village. Its meeting places used to be sometimes a hall (Specifically built for this purpose), local temples and sometimes the shade of a tamarind tree.

Jurisdiction of Assembly

The Village Assembly was practically the absolute proprietor of the village land and was responsible for the payment of total amount of revenue to the government. In case the owner of a plot failed to pay his share, it became the property of the Village Assembly which had a right to dispose it to realize the dues. It possessed corporate property which could be sold for public purposes. Besides, the imposition of regular taxes, it could levy extra tolls for specific objects of public utility. It made provisions for educational and charitable institutions. It also regulated the markets and assigned particular sites for the sale of particular commodities. It took special care to maintain the means of communication and irrigation.

Besides the general powers and functions, the Village Assembly also exercised absolute authority over its people. Village Assembly had the power to extract forced labour from the inhabitants of the village. To what extent the Village Assembly

controlled the private life of individuals is clear by the following regulation: “Persons who are qualified to do the service of accountancy, carpentry, etc, should take up such services in the village only. Those who engage themselves in these services beyond the village will be considered to have transgressed the law, to have committed a fault against the Assembly and have ruined the village.”

Chola Empire

The Rashtrakata Kingdom and the Chola empire made the pioneering contribution in this regard by introducing self-governing units to carry out village affairs for the all-round development of people.In the Rashtrakata Kingdom for the administrative purpose entire territory was divided into Rashtra (province), Visaya (modern district), Bhukti (group of village) and Village (base unit). At the bottom level village affairs were governed by two officers known as the village headman and the village accountant.

They enjoyed office on hereditary basis and were paid granted the rent-free lands in discharge of their duties and responsibilities. They were largely assisted by Grama-Mahattra and village committee. The village committee functioned in close collaboration and co-operation with the village headman in administering multifaceted activities pertaining to agriculture, education, transportation, construction of bridges and temples. Apart from this, committee worked well in maintenance of law and order and raising funds to meet unforeseen circumstances.

In Chola empire, occupied territory was divided into Mandalam (province), Valnadu (modern district), Nadu (cluster of village) and village. The administration of village was the responsibility of two assemblies known as Ur (general assembly of village) and Mahasabha (a gathering of adult men in the village). The Brahmanas settled in those villages in which most of the land was rent free.

Mahasabha was vested with power to decide rights of farmers over land productivity and bring productive land under cultivation, to levy and collect taxes and through the funds help people in times of calamities like dearth, epidemics, floods, destruction of standing crops, etc. The executive committee of educated persons, had also helped village assemblies in management of local affairs. Likewise, other committees looked after the work related to the realization of land revenue and maintenance of peace and tranquility.

Relationship between local and State government

The autonomy of local self-government depended upon the local and state relationship. The main responsibility of the village was to collect and pay the State dues regarding land revenue and other taxes. The King sent officers to check the accounts of the local bodies and punish those who were found responsible for the misuse of public funds. The land was surveyed by the King’s officers who were assisted in their duty by the respective village committee that were formed for this purpose. Kautilya in his work recommended that land records, census records including records of cattle census and other fiscal data to be maintained by the Gopa who was a state officer for a group of villages.

The State Government could interfere on the grounds of morality, community health and safety of the kingdom. Narada states grounds of State interference; when these bodies form combinations, prejudicial to general interest and arm themselves without sufficient cause, quarrel with one another, take steps which were hostile to the king, cause waste of public money, commit acts which were morally repugnant, when members actuated by hatred combine to oust another member etc. Resistance to taxation, defiance of laws of public safety, health and public morals were sufficient for inviting State interference. Possibility of treasonable act on the part of the village body also entitled the king to dissolve the body, appoint his own officers and punish the persons responsible for conniving, provoking or committing such crime.

The State, on the other hand, took steps to organize the local self-government on “proper footing”. It demarcated their jurisdictions, assigned them resources to carry out their duties which were comprehensively defined in canonical literature and ensured that the lawful authority of local self-governments were respected by the citizens, officers and the courts of the king. Their laws and decisions were registered and were recognized by the king’s courts.

The king also appointed State officials (or accredited local persons for this purpose) to ensure that these bodies should function properly. His messages were written by his private secretary, countersigned by the Chief Secretary, who then passed them on to the royal officer in charge of the local government. These were then communicated to the provincial officers who relayed them to the district officer. The district officer would either serve the order or message personally or might send it to the next official below him namely, Gopa, to communicate the same. The process took considerable time (three years in one case)

because of the poor means of communication. The message or order was announced to the assembly and the fact was committed to writing. If it was a land grant, the village officer and the elders might accompany the royal officer serving the message to demarcate the land under grant and put some sort of signboard to notify the fact. The pattern of state-local relationship changed with the political changes in the country. Sometimes the state authority asserted itself almost in an overbearing fashion while at other times the local bodies were abandoned to secure their own protection and provide for their own welfare. There is, however, very little doubt that the system of rural local self-government was well organized into a definable relationship with the State Government and its provincial agencies.