Abstract
The Vedas mention consensus-based local governance systems such as Grām, Sabhā and Samiti replicated at all levels of polity. These indigenous local governance institutions and systems have existed since time immemorial, keeping the individual and community as their warp and woof, and beautifully upheld an organic harmony in society, helping people from all sections of society pursue their swadharma, purusharthas, and varnashrama dharma in peace for a prosperous country.
Due to a well-functioning village economy, they were completely self-dependent and self-sustaining, which made them insular to a rule change at the central level.
The British experimented with these indigenous models in order to link them with central structures, leading to disastrous consequences that left these autonomous systems deformed and almost defunct.
Let’s delve into content analysis of our knowledge texts, systems, traditions, colonial and contemporary records, as well as contemporary Constitutional arrangements that have been made for modern local governance/Panchayati Raj institutions and their effects.
Introduction
The Indic concept of ‘Unity in diversity’ is clear from the various hymns in the Vedas, Smritis, Sutras, which showcase that India has always been a land of vast diversity of people, customs, usages and traditions. The ‘Unity’ of this diversity lay in the collective outlook focused on the protection and upholding of Dharma, which sustained nature and life, and led people to ethical prosperity and goodness. Anything that went against these was to be done away with as soon as possible in an autonomous manner at any level.
Therefore, in the Indian tradition, the King was never the sole repository of governance. Governance was performed in an autonomous manner from the grassroots, viz., the head of the Clan, Caste, Village, Province, up to the King.
A collection of families (Kula) made up a village (Grāma) which was headed by the ‘Gramani’. The clan (vis) was headed by Vispati, and the Tribe (Jana) was headed by Rajan. We see these tribes, their Kings and tribal alliances fighting in the Battle of Ten Kings (DasarajanyaYuddha) in the 7th Mandala of the Rgveda.
The Kula, jati, desa, grāma, sreni and so on had their laws framed by common consensus by which they governed their disputes and issues. This autonomy was authorised by the sanction of the King, who was governed by the one word Constitution – Dharma.
If there was something that went out of hand or was too serious and unsolvable by these local, indigenous and autonomous governance bodies, it was to be taken to the King by means of initiation of a lawsuit (Vyavahara).
The basis of Kingship – People
The origin of Kingship in Indian tradition is clearly explained as one being brought about by people’s demands after their understandings/pacts between various groups in the society for harmonious social living were obstructed. These pacts were the very customs, traditions and usages decided by the people, and to protect and enforce these, the protection of a King was called upon.
Bhishma Pitamah in the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata, speaks of the origin of Kingship whose only reason for existence is to protect and enhance the happiness of all the people.
The same is very elaborately explained even in Kautilya’s Arthashastra.
According to Katyayana, it was mandatory for the King to maintain all the authenticated records of various customs, usages and traditions followed in various parts of the Kingdom.
These records were to be used in lawsuits particular to such customs/usages and were to be respected if it was an established custom, even if it was not in sync with the dharmasastras. The example Katyayana gives to support this is that of marriages with a maternal uncle’s daughter (prevalent in the South of India) and about different diets of Brahmins in various parts of the country.
And, further, if there is a dispute between the residents of the same region, or same kula, the decisions should be according to their conventional usages, but in others, it will be according to the Dharmasastras.
Narada Purana enjoins the same by stating that the king must protect the customary laws, duties, rules of worship and means of livelihood of people who are even considered heretics. Along with that, he also extended this to corporate bodies, guilds, councils, troops, groups, and the like in towns and villages.
The same is enjoined in the various Smritis, and even the Arthashastra provides similar directions.
Why were the local customs given so much importance?
Richard D. Lariviere (2004) believes that the whole of the Dharma corpus is a record of custom. He bases this on the fact that a significant portion of the laws that were administered in royal courts were the ones that were authored by representative bodies of regions, guilds, trade groups, castes, etc.
This was how our indigenous law continuously evolved and grew. We have multiple smritis and commentaries on earlier ones coming out one after the other, right till the 16th century CE, not agreeing with certain sections of an earlier smriti and modifying it. We see that amply mentioned even in Kautilya’s Arthashastra.
In the study of Indian political and legal history, inscriptions offer a striking window into the modes of governance that operated beyond the formal apparatus of kingship. While modern historiography often centers the sovereign as the exclusive source of legal authority, epigraphic evidence from medieval India reveals a more decentralized and communitarian model of vyavahāra (normative social order), mediated by caste groups, Brahmanical councils, mercantile guilds, and religious institutions.
- Community Resolution and the Caukādika System: Nadol, 1140–41 CE
One significant example comes from the temple of Somesvara at Nadol (Rajasthan), dated 1140–41 CE, during the reign of Maharaja-dhīrāja ŚrīRayapāla of the Cāhamāna dynasty. Cited by the historian B.D. Chattopadhyaya, the inscription records the formulation of a legal document by representatives of Dhalopasthāna, a settlement organized into eight wards (pradeśas), each represented by two Brahmanas—sixteen in total.
The settlement employed a caukādika system, a “council of four” drawn from the community, to adjudicate disputes concerning property loss or theft involving various itinerant groups such as bards (bhāṭa), doorkeepers (dauvārika), merchants (vāṇijjaka), and pilgrims. If a loss occurred within a ward, the ward’s representatives were expected to recover the lost property directly.
Interestingly, while local accountability was emphasized, the state still played a supportive role—offering resources like funds, watchmen, or arms. The document also contains an oath of duty, threatening severe consequences, including death, for anyone who refused to comply, even if it was a Brahmana (who had the option to self-immolate) with community responsibility. A wide array of witnesses—Brahmanas associated with Śaiva temples (not necessarily from Dhalopa or Nadol), merchants (śreṣṭhins), and bankers (mahājanas) from places like Anahilapūra—attested to the arrangement.
The Nadol epigraph thus illustrates how local governance was embedded in community institutions, with shared responsibility across social and economic strata, and only limited intervention by the royal state, that too when asked for.
- The Sthiti-patraka of Lahadapura: 1173 CE
A second example of community-authored legal procedure comes from Lahadapura in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, dated to 1173 CE during the reign of Jayacandra of the Gāhaḍavāla dynasty. Here, a sthiti, or ordinance, was issued by the Brahmana residents of the village to protect themselves from predatory raids and cattle seizures (luṇṭhanam and mahīṣyādi-vestanam). The ordinance called for extreme punitive action—execution, property confiscation, demolition of the abettor’s home, and social ostracism of the instigators.
This was not merely a violent reaction, but a ritualized act of social discipline, sanctified by the invocation of the deity Dvādaśārka (loka-locana—“eye of the world”) as the witness. The sthiti functions as a powerful example of legal authority operating independently of royal mediation, rooted in dharma, custom, and divine sanction.
- Mediation and Royal Edict: ŚravaṇaBeḷgoḷa, 14th Century CE
A later inscription, dated to the second half of the 14th century and engraved at the Jaina site of BhandārāBasadi in ŚravaṇaBeḷgoḷa (Karnataka), presents a more visible role for the king. A religious conflict between the Jaina community and Vaiṣṇava bhaktas had led to a collective petition to King Bukkarāya. The king’s response was unique in its conciliatory approach: he symbolically joined the hands of the disputing parties and declared that no distinction should be made between the two darśanas (Jaina and Vaiṣṇava).
More importantly, the decree restored symbolic privileges to the Jainas—such as musical instruments and the kalaśa—and mandated the appointment of guards and temple repairs funded by taxes. Transgression of the decree was declared an act of betrayal against both the king and the samgha (religious community). The individual who initiated the mediation, Basavi-setti, was awarded the title of Saṅghanāyaka by both communities.
This inscription contrasts sharply with those of Nadol and Lahadapura. Here, the king is an active reconciler, not merely a distant figurehead. The decree was not only religious in nature but also enforced legal restitution, temple protection, and social harmony—revealing the moral responsibility of the state to uphold dharma beyond sectarian lines.
- Dharmaśāstric Foundations of Plural Authority
These epigraphic examples find resonance in the texts of classical Dharmaśāstra. YājñavalkyaSmṛti defines svadharma not in individualistic terms, but as flowing from one’s kula (lineage), jāti (caste), śreṇi (guild), gaṇa (assembly), and janapada (region). Even when a foreign polity was conquered, ācāra (custom), vyavahāra (normative order), and kula-sthiti (lineage codes) were to be preserved in their existing forms.
Manusmṛti, too, instructs the king to recognize and uphold the customs of communities, provided they do not violate sacred law or the broader social order. Dharma, then, is not uniform law, but a federated system of plural jurisdictions, all tied to the common pursuit of social harmony.
Gautama Dharmasutra recognized that cultivators, traders, herdsmen, money-lenders and artisans (have authority to lay down rules) for their respective classes. Having learned the (state of) affairs from those who in each case have authority (to speak, he/King shall give) the legal decision.
Medieval period
Jadunath Sarkar states that the Islamic rule in India distorted this system and that the bulk of the litigation in the country (excluding those decided by caste, elders or village Panchayats mostly for the Hindus) came up then before the courts of Qazis or Sadars instead of the Kings. These courts were governed by Islamic law, which was alien to the people.
The Colonial Experiment
Beginning in 1772 by Warren Hastings, the British to appeal to the Indian public, attempted to translate the various smritis, especially the Manusmriti. They collected around 40 authorities on Hindu law. The Mitakshara and its regional variants, along with the Dayabhaga (Bengal school), were adopted by the British in deciding cases in 1817. However, within 10 years, they had to appoint a Hindu pandit to the court to help them out with the various customs, usages and traditions of the country.
The Civil Procedure Code of 1859 removed the Hindu pandit from the Court, stating that they were not effective as there were many customs which had no shastric backing and therefore, they felt that the Pundits were misleading them on these. In 1878-79, John Mayne accepted that there was nothing as codified Hindu Law, as everything was based on customs, and thus, Hindu law is basically a customary law.
A legal precedent was set that Smriti Chandrika and Sarasvati Vilas, commentaries of Manu Smriti for the South (Dravida school of Mitakshara) were taken as the code for deciding cases.
This fossilised the custom and tradition of evolving and exploring the law in our country. This led to the breakdown of customs and even changing them completely based on Victorian concepts of justice/savagery/barbarism/morality, etc.
Contemporary arrangements
Upon Independence, we adopted the governance, Justice and administrative machinery of the British, even the Constitution, which is mainly taken from the Govt of India Act, 1935.
The biggest blow to the indigenous autonomous system of local governance was the passage of the Hindu Code laws, which began with the British but found their culmination in independent India.
Madhu Kishwar (1994) states that:
There is almost no principle introduced by the Hindu personal code that did not already exist somewhere in India as accepted law. On the other hand, there were several existing, much more liberal principles that were decimated by the Hindu Code. In their determination to put an end to the growth of custom, the reformers were putting an end to the essence of Hindu law; but they persisted in calling their codification ‘Hindu ‘.
The Hindu Code bill was vigorously opposed by the majority of people from all classes and genders for the very same reason.
In 1951, during one of the debates on the Hindu Code Bill, Babu Ramnarayan Singh of Bihar stated:
“We have panchayats and panchs; and in our country, customs and usages are pliable, they will continue to hold good, and people would accept them automatically … What the country thinks, and what she needs, the government never worry about it …the government goes on spending money lavishly… goes on passing baseless and futile laws against the will of the public.”
Divorce provisions were directly lifted from the Indian Divorce Act 1869, made by the British.
There is a provision for customs and usages in the above-mentioned post-independence Hindu Code laws on adoption, marriage, divorce and inheritance, but with a condition that they are ancient, continuous, uniform, obligatory and not opposed to morality or public policy.
This has been problematic because it is a direct copy of the British codification process, where the British gave themselves the power to term what is ancient, the erroneous condition of uniformity, what is moral and immoral according to their own judgement along with the western models of public policy making.
Panchayat System – Then and Now
It is interesting to note that this hierarchy has been maintained right till the British era by these indigenous and autonomous local/village governance bodies.
Charles Metcalfe, in his famous minute of 1830, mentions:
The village communities are little republics, having nearly everything they can want within themselves…They seem to last where nothing else lasts. Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down, revolution succeeds revolution …. but the village community remains the same… This union of the village communities, each one forming a separate little state in itself, has … contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the peoples of India … and the enjoyment of freedom and independence.
He also stated that he dreaded anything that tended to break these village constitutions apart. Even under Chandragupta Maurya’s empire, the villages were never interfered with. Every village had its own Sabha (assembly) which debated all matters relating to the village; rules helpful to the entire community were framed, and the offenders were punished through regular trials and judgements. The. Sabha was the centre of the multifarious activities of the village. It discussed religious and social matters. It arranged numerous types of entertainment…
The Sabha met under a shady tree … Representatives of village families, the elders, and other experienced folk gathered there … The Indian people lived independently in these self-governing village republics
This policy towards the autonomy of the village councils was the norm in Indic governance thought and practice from the beginning till the British era.
Panchayats in today’s day and age are merely executors of administrative decisions taken at the top. There are multiple reports even till this date which describe the unempowered and bad state of the Panchayats in matters of lack of funds and infrastructure, non-devolution of powers and many more such issues despite all the so-called ‘Reforms’ from time to time.
After the centralization of legal functions in the form of courts in India from the British time onwards, we have come to a state where Nyaya Panchayats have to be set up at the village level to ease the burden of courts and ensure speedy and economical justice to the people at the grassroots. This, too, has not been successful because it is being directed from the top and does not give autonomy to the people involved. In order to counter this failure, there was the setting up of Lok Adalats, which too hasn’t seen much success.
The Scheduled Tribes, who have a constitutional protection that safeguards their autonomy, don’t want the regular justice system applied to them and till date prefer their customs, usages and traditional way of getting justice since time immemorial.
There is never going to be any real ground-based success in governance until these ‘little republics’ are reinstated the way they continued from the Vedic times till today, we can see them in the form of the Gaunkars in Goa, the Khaps in Haryana, and so on and so forth.
The example of the Autonomous Gaunkars of Goa
The ancient village republics still stand as they did more than 2000 years ago. These gaunkaris are more than 222 currently, and each boy at a certain age is supposed to register himself in the register maintaining the records of his forefathers, as a mandatory practice.
These village communities functioned according to their customs, traditions and usages since millennia and were very successful in cooperation in building and maintaining public works, temples, pāthshālās, as well as upholding harmony in society with autonomous political, judicial and economic powers.
Under the Portuguese rule, for the first time, they were interfered with and had to codify their customs, usages and traditions into a ‘Code of Comunidades’, and this forms their private code today by which these village comunidades govern themselves and consider only decisions based on it as legal and binding.
They consider the British-inspired laws practised today by the State government and the GoI as a threat to their existence. A lot of amendments have been made to their Code of Comunidades, which the gaunkars call illegal. The introduction of the Constitutional Panchayat system and Tenancy laws has disrupted the cooperative atmosphere and has been unsuccessful as compared to the earlier Gaunkari/Grāmsanstha/Comunidades system.
They question the Indian Constitution based on British ideas and concepts, which do not recognise the private comunidade villages of Goa, but only government revenue villages, which is a commonwealth concept under British laws.
The fight of Gaunkars is not their fight alone, but it is the fight of the entire movement for authentic and autonomous local self-governance in India – the self-governing ‘Village Republics’ need to be revived for the real success of the Indic governance model.
Conclusion: Vyavahāra as a Shared Responsibility
Together, these records illustrate a sophisticated and layered model of governance in pre-modern India. While kingship remained a symbol of political unity, vyavahāra—the realm of justice, ethics, and order—was often a shared responsibility, negotiated through local councils, caste assemblies, religious leaders, and merchants. The king’s role, when invoked, was as a dhārmika protector of balance, rather than an autocratic lawgiver.
In a modern context where centralization of law and statecraft is often assumed to be the only viable model, these examples from India’s own past offer alternative paradigms: ones in which community, consensus, and custom upheld dharma—not through rigid enforcement, but through participatory ethical governance.
Feature Image Credit: istockphoto.com
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.
