Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Corporate Life in Ancient India c7: Chapter III. Corporate Activities in Political Life (II)

Corporate Life in Ancient India c7

Language
English

Chapter III. Corporate Activities in Political Life (II)

c7.2

We have hitherto dealt with the corporate activities of people dwelling in a state ruled over by a king. The activities were exercised through various assemblies, auxiliary to the royal power, and more or less subordinate to it. There were however non-monarchical states in ancient India, where they would naturally get fuller play and a freer atmosphere. Unfortunately we do not know much about them, but their very existence is an unimpeachable testimony of the supreme power wielded by the people as a corporate body. In the previous part, dealing with the corporate activities of people in a kingdom, we had to take into account the nature of these activities as well as of the agencies by which they were performed. In the present case we may confine ourselves to the latter alone, for their activities must have embraced everything pertaining to the administration of a state in all its departments.

c7.3

Years ago Professor Rhys Davids recognised the existence of these ‘republican’ states from some references in the Buddhist Literature.¹ After him the subject was treated in greater detail by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal² in the pages of Modern Review, and Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar in his Carmichael Lectures (Vol. I, pp. 146 ff.). Though the arguments of these scholars have not been endorsed in full by others, their main contention about the existence of non-monarchical states in ancient India has now gained general acceptance. We shall attempt in the following pages, to sketch an account of these states on the same plan as we have adopted in the case of the 'guilds.'

c7.4

¹ Buddhist India, pp. 1-2, 19 ff.

c7.5

² Modern Review, 1913, p. 535 ff.

c7.6

Regarding the antiquity of the non-monarchical form of government, there are some grounds for the belief that it was not unknown even in the Vedic period. Zimmer finds clear traces of the oligarchical form of government in the following verse in Ṛigveda.³

c7.7

³ X. 9. 16. "Bei dem die Kräuter zusammenkommen wie die Rājānaḥ in der Samiti, der gilt für geschickten Arzt, Krankheitvertreiber, Dämonenvernichter." Alt-indische Leben, p. 176. Macdonell, however, interprets it differently and does not accept the conclusion of Zimmer although he thinks that this state of affairs is perfectly possible. V. I, II-216.

c7.8

"As the kings (*rājānaḥ*) assemble together in the Samiti, the plants (*oshadhī*) gather together in him who is called a physician, one who heals disease and destroys demon." Zimmer

c7.9

thinks that this refers to a system of government in which the state is not ruled over by a single potentate but several members of the royal family jointly together. He also contends that some of the passages in the Atharva-veda relating to the election of kings (quoted above) refer to the contest of a member of the oligarchy for supremacy over others. In support of his contention he cites Atharva-veda I. 9. 3, where prayers are offered to Agni to set the candidate in supremacy ‘over his fellows’ (*sajāta*), Atharva-veda III. 4. 3, where wish is expressed on behalf of the successful candidate “unto thee let thy fellows come,” and Atharva-veda IV. 22. 1-2, where Indra is asked ‘to make the Kshatriya, the sole chief of the clan’ and ‘to place him as king at the head of the royal family (*Kshatrāṇām*).’¹ Zimmer finds in ancient India a parallel of the oligarchical form of Government existing among the ancient German Tribes, *e.g.*, among the Cherusci clan. (It was at first ruled over by Arminius and his relatives who all bore the title of king; Arminius however wanted to be the sole ruler of the clan, and there broke out a struggle in which he was defeated).

c7.10

¹ “An der Spitze der königlichen Familie stehe dieser als König,” Zimmer Alt-indische Leben, p. 165. Whitney’s Translation (Vol. I, p. 188) is not literal.

c7.11

Zimmer’s view is further corroborated by the fact that the Avesta contains distinct traces of the oligarchical form of Government. This has been clearly demonstrated by Spiegel¹ from Yaśna 19, 18,² where the ruling powers of two provinces are contrasted. In one of these, the sovereign authorities consisted of the chiefs of house, street and town, besides Zarathustra and there is no mention of the 'ruler of the land' which occurs in the other case.

c7.12

¹ Abhandlungen der k. bayer. Akad. der W. I. Kl. 7. Band, 3 Abth. p. 683.

c7.13

² Dr. I. J. S. Taraporewala has supplied me with the following literal translation of the passage in question. "Who (are the five) leaders? (He) of the house, (he) of the street, (he) of the town, (he) of the country, (and) Zarathustra, the fifth, (is leader) of those countries which (are) different from those under Zoroastrian laws (lit. other than those ruled over by Zoroastrian laws). (The city of) Ragha belonging to Zarathustra is under four leaders. Who (are) its leaders? (He) of the house, (he) of the street, (he) of the town, (and) the fourth Zarathustra (Himself)."

c7.14

Mr. K. P. Jayaswal³ has furnished another evidence for the existence of non-monarchical form of Government in the Vedic period. He refers to a passage in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (VII. 3. 14) which mentions that among the Uttara Kurus and the Uttara Madras the whole community was consecrated to rulership and their institutions were called 'Vairājya' or king-less states.

c7.15

³ Modern Review, 1913, p. 538.

c7.16

Two points may be urged against this view. In the first place the same passage in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa expressly locates the two tribes beyond the Himālayas (*pareṇa Himavantam*) and as such their institutions cannot be taken as types of those prevailing in India. Zimmer¹ has, however, shown good grounds for the belief that both these tribes are to be located in India proper, in Kashmir and its neighbourhood, and contends, not without reason, that to the people living in Madhyadeśa Kashmir might very well appear as ‘*pareṇa Himavantam*.’

c7.17

¹ A. L., p. 102.

c7.18

Secondly, the term ‘Vairājya’ which has been explained by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal as ‘Kingless states,’ has been taken by Messrs. Macdonell and Keith² as denoting some form of royal authority. This however does not seem to be probable when we compare the four sentences referring to the form of Government in the four directions. Thus we have

c7.19

² V. I. II, p. 221.

c7.20

“ये के च प्राच्यानां राजानः साम्राज्य्यायैव तेऽभिषिच्यन्ते”
“ये के च सत्त्वतां राजानः भौज्यायैव तेऽभिषिच्यन्ते”
“ये के च नीच्यानां राजानः येऽपाच्यानां स्वराज्य्यायैव तेऽभिषिच्यन्ते”
“ये के च परेण हिमवन्तं जनपदा उत्तरकुरव उत्तरमद्रा इति
वैराज्य्यायैव तेऽभिषिच्यन्ते”

c7.21

The substitution of ‘जनपदाः’ for ‘राजानः’ in the last sentence cannot be looked upon as merely accidental and lends support to Mr. Jayaswal’s view that we have here a reference to a democratic form of Government.

c7.22

There is one passage in the Atharva-veda (V. 18. 10) which seems to be a conclusive evidence for the existence of non-monarchical form of Government in the Vedic period. It occurs in the course of a long string of imprecations for the killing of a Brāhmaṇ’s cow, and runs as follows:—

c7.23

“ये सहस्रम्र् अराजन्र्थासन् दश शता उत ।
ते ब्राह्मणस्य गां जग्धा वैतहव्या पराभवन् ॥”

c7.24

Whitney translates it as follows:— “They that ruled, a thousand, and were ten hundreds, those Vāitahavyas, having devoured the cow of the Brahman, perished.” (W. A. V., p. 251.)

c7.25

Zimmer,¹ Muir and others translate it somewhat differently as follows:

c7.26

¹ A. L., p. 200.

c7.27

“The descendants of Vītahavya, who ruled over a thousand men, and were ten hundred in number, were overwhelmed after they had eaten a Brāhman’s cow.” (Muir S. T. I. 285.)

c7.28

But whatever the difference, the essential fact remains that the Vāitahavyas, thousand in number, ruled over a territory, and there can be scarcely any doubt that we have here an example of oligarchical or republican² clan. It is also worthy of note that like the later non-monarchical clans (Mallas, Lichchhavis, etc.) they were anti-Brāhmaṇical.

c7.29

² If we accept the translation given by Muir and Zimmer—thousand people ruling over a thousand,—the form of Governmeut must be republican. The figure 1,000 must of course be looked upon as conventional.

c7.30

The existence of democratic forms of government during the post-Vedic period is abundantly proved by a number of testimonies. The earliest in point of time is Pāṇini's celebrated treatise on Grammar which contains clear traces of the existence of political corporations. Thus the *sūtra* संघे चानौत्तराधर्ये¹ shows that the nature of a corporation was fully understood in those days; for here 'corporation' is sharply distinguished from mere collection or group, clearly indicating thereby that the former was a definite organisation bound by laws and regulations.

c7.31

Again, as Professor D. R. Bhandarkar has shown,² the meaning of which is that “*aṇ*-suffix takes place in nouns ending in *añ*, *yañ*, *añ* in the case of (*i.e.*, to denote) *aṅkas* and *lakshaṇas* of saṁghas.”¹ This not only testifies to the existence of saṁgha but also shows that a saṁgha had its *aṅka* or *lakshaṇa*, which latter Mr. Jayaswal would identify with *lāñchchhana* or heraldic crest of later Sanskrit.²

c7.32

¹ J. B. O. R. S., Vol. V, p. 27.

c7.33

² Ibid.

c7.34

In several *sūtras* Pāṇini refers to distinct kinds of corporations under the names of ‘*pūga*’³ ‘*Vrāta*’⁴ and ‘*āyudhajīvisaṁgha*.’⁵ The meaning of the first has already been discussed above. It is difficult to determine the real meaning of ‘*Vrāta*’ and so far as I know no satisfactory explanation has yet been offered. The Kāśikā commentary explains it as “**नानाजातीया अनियतवृत्तय उत्सेधजीविनः संघा ब्राताः**.”⁶ The first qualifying pharase distinguishes it from social and the second, from industrial corporations. The third phrase I would take to mean “living by means of slaughter or killing.” According to this interpretation, *Vrāta* would mean a corporation of robbers like the ‘Thuggies’ of later days. This view is corroborated by a passage of Kātyāyana,¹ “नानायुधधरावाताः समवेतास्तु कीर्त्तिताः”² The ‘*āyudha-jīvisaṁgha*’ means a corporation of military men. It is quite clear from Pāṇini, V. 3, 117, that the Yaudheyas were included in this category. The history of the Yaudheyas will be treated in detail below, but such examples scarcely leave any doubt that the term *āyudha-jīvisaṁgha* denoted independent political corporations or non-monarchical states.

c7.35

³ V. 3. 112.

c7.36

⁴ V. 3. 113.

c7.37

⁵ V. 3. 114.

c7.38

⁶ “Vrāta is a corporation (of people), belonging to different castes, having no definite means of livelihood, and living by means of slaughter or killing.”

c7.39

¹ Quoted in Vīramitrodaya, p. 426.

c7.40

² “Vrāta is said to be an assembly of people having arious weapons in their hands.” As *utsedha* also means ‘body’ it is just possible that *utsedhajīvinaḥ* denoted a corporation of day-labourers of various description.

c7.41

Our next source of information is Buddhist and Jaina literature. The existence of democratic, along with monarchical, states is most conclusively proved by a passage in Avadāna Śataka.³ We are told in Avadāna No. 88 that a few merchants from mid-India (Madhyadeśa) visited the Deccan and being asked about the form of government in their country, replied, “some provinces are under kings while others are ruled by *gaṇas*.”⁴ The Jaina Āyāraṁga-Sutta, an earlier text, also refers to *gaṇa rāya* (a territory where Gaṇa is the ruling authority.)¹

c7.42

³ My attention was drawn to this passage by Mr. Ramaprasad Chanda, B.A.

c7.43

⁴ “केचिद्देशा गणाधीनाः केचिद्राजाधीना इति”

c7.44

¹ For other passages testifying to the existence of a non-monarchical form of government, *cf.* the writings of Mr. Rhys Davids, Mr. Jayaswal and Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar cited above (§ 1, para. 2).

c7.45

Professor Rhys Davids has drawn up a list of the clans which are referred to by the Buddhist authors as existing at the time of Gautama Buddha. These are:—

c7.46

(1) The Sākyas of Kapilavastu.
(2) The Bhaggas of Suṁsumāra Hill.
(3) The Bulis of Allakappa.
(4) Kālāmas of Kesaputta.
(5) The Koliyas of Rāma-gāma.
(6) The Mallas of Kusinārā.
(7) The Mallas of Pāvā.
(8) The Moriyas of Pipphalivana.
.(9) The Videhas of / ā. / (10) The Lichchhavis / Vesāli. = The Vajjians.²

c7.47

² Buddhist India, p. 22. To this list should be added "the Mallas of Kāsi" on the authority of the Jaina literature. See Jaina Kalpasūtra edited by Jacobi, p. 65.

c7.48

While it may be generally inferred that all these lived under non-monarchical forms of government we hardly know the detailed constitution of any of them. The oft-quoted passage in the Mahā-parinibbāna-sutta in which the Buddha laid down the conditions under which the Vajjians would prosper and not decline, may be taken to signify the general spirit of these constitutions. Once while the Buddha was at Rājagṛiha, Ajātaśatru, the king of Magadha, resolved to destroy the Vajjians and sent his prime-minister to take the advice of the Blessed One. When the message was delivered to the latter he addressed Ānanda, "Have you heard, Ānanda, that the Vajjians hold full and frequent public assemblies?"

c7.49

"Lord, so I have heard" replied he. "So long, Ānanda," rejoined the Blessed One, "as the Vajjians hold these full and frequent public assemblies; so long may they be expected not to decline, but to prosper."

c7.50

[And in like manner questioning Ānanda, and receiving a similar reply, the Blessed One declared as follows the other conditions which would ensure the welfare of the Vajjian confederacy.]

c7.51

"So long, Ānanda, as the Vajjians meet together in concord, and carry out their undertakings in concord—so long as they enact nothing not already established, abrogate nothing that has been already enacted, and act in accordance with the ancient institutions of the Vajjians as established in former days—so long as they honour and esteem and revere and support the Vajjian elders, and hold it a point of duty to hearken to their words......so long may the Vajjians be expected not to decline but to prosper.”¹

c7.52

¹ S. B. E., Vol. XI, pp. 3-4.

c7.53

It thus appears that both the merits and the defects of the democratic constitution were present in these cases. On the one hand there was the general assembly, containing both the young and the old, as the supreme authority in the state, with power to enact new laws and abrogate old ones, while, on the other, they suffered from the want of that stability which is the peculiar merit of a strong monarchy, and were always liable to fall victims to disunion and a desire for too sweeping changes. Yet, on the whole, their constitutions were looked upon with favour and extorted the admiration of the Lord Buddha. Thus, referring to the Lichchhavis he said “O brethren, let those of the brethren who have never seen the Tāvatiṁsa gods, gaze upon this assembly (*parisaṁ*) of the Lichchhavis, behold this assembly of the Lichchhavis, compare this assembly of the Lichchhavis even as an assembly of Tāvatiṁsa gods.”²

c7.54

² S. B. E., Vol. XI, p. 32. I have substituted ‘assembly’ (parisham) for ‘company.’

c7.55

The great Buddha was an apostle of democracy. He adopted democratic ideas in his system of church government and himself taught the Vajjians³ the conditions, already quoted above, under which they would prosper and not decline. It is also worthy of note that he laid down the very same conditions, in identical words, for the welfare of his own community.¹ It is obvious that he perceived the underlying similarity between the two constitutions, working in two different spheres of life, and naturally looked upon both as beset with the same sort of evils.

c7.56

³ *Ibid*, p. 4.

c7.57

¹ *Ibid*, p. 5 ff.

c7.58

The introductory episodes of the Jātaka stories furnish some information regarding the constitution of the Lichchhavi clans. Thus Ekapaṇṇa-Jātaka (No. 149, I, 504) tells us that in the city of Vaiśālī, “There were always seven thousand seven hundred and seven kings to govern the kingdom, and a like number of viceroys, generals and treasurers.” The Chullakāliṅga-Jātaka (No. 301, III. 1) gives the same information with some additional details—“Tradition says that the Lichchhavis of the ruling family to the number of seven thousand seven hundred and seven had their abode at Vesālī, and all of them were given to argument and disputation.” The Bhadda-Sāla-Jātaka (No. 465, IV. 149) refers to “the tank in the Vesāli city where the families of the kings get water, for the ceremonial sprinkling.” We are told that “by the tank there was set a strong guard, within and without; above it was spread an iron net; not even a bird could find room to get through.” The same Jātaka relates the story how the commander-in-chief of Kosala violated the sacredness of the tank by bathing his wife in it and was pursued by five hundred angry Lichchhavi kings.

c7.59

Although the introductory episodes of the Jātakas from which the above accounts are taken are undoubtedly of much later date than the events which they relate, we cannot altogether dismiss their accounts as unworthy of credit. Though we need not attach much importance to the concrete figures which they supply, the general system described by them may be accepted as not much divergent from actual state of affairs. Thus while the number seven thousand seven hundred and seven may be dismissed as a purely conventional one, it may be accepted that the supreme assembly of the state consisted of a pretty large number of members and must, as such, be held to be a popular one. This is in complete agreement with the inference we have deduced from the utterances of the Buddha in the Mahāparinivvāna Sutta. The quaint remark in the Chullakālinga Jātaka that the members were all given to argument and disputation, seem to prove that the popular assembly was not merely a formal part of the constitution, but had active, vigorous life and wielded real authority in the state. An idea of the status and responsible position of these members may be had from the curious anecdote of the tank in Vāiśālī. No doubt the popular imagination had its share in building up the whole story, but we must be lacking in true critical spirit if we fail to find in it some amount of historical truth. It appears that each of the members of the supreme assembly had to pass through some sort of consecration, like the king in a kingdom, and that an important part of the ceremony consisted in a bath in a tank, reserved for the purpose in the city of Vaiśālī. This sacred ceremony by itself is an unimpeachable testimony of the supreme trust reposed in the members and the high responsibilities attached to their positions.

c7.60

The question naturally arises, how were these members selected? Now, we learn from Ekapanna Jātaka (I. 504), that corresponding to the seven thousand seven hundred and seven kings there was a like number of viceroys, generals and treasurers. This would imply that each member of the supreme assembly possessed a full suite of officers requisite for the administration of a state. It would appear, therefore, that each of these members was the head of an administrative unit. In other words, the whole state consisted of a number of administrative units, each of which was a state in miniature by itself, and possessed a complete administrative machinery. The business of the state as a whole was carried on by an assembly consisting of the heads of these states who were in their turn attended by their principal officers. Those who are familiar with the Cleisthenian constitution of the city state of Athens cannot fail to find its prototype in the city of Vaiśālī. For in Athens too there was a central Assembly, consisting of the representatives of the smallest local units, the demes, which managed their own local affairs,—being ‘corporations with officers, assemblies and corporate property.’

c7.61

The Lichchhavis are called ‘gaṇas.’ It has been already pointed out (p. 142) that this term is applied in Smṛiti literature to denote the corporations of villages or cities. That this term also denoted independent political corporations is abundantly testified to by epigraphic and numismatic evidences. Thus the inscriptions refer to the Mālava and Yaudheya gaṇas, and in Samudragupta’s Allahabad Pillar Inscription they are clearly distinguished from the kingdoms. The coins issued by them leave no doubt that they were independent corporations, and the Bijaygaḍh Pillar Inscription expressly refers to the fact that the Yaudheya gaṇa used to elect its chief who also served as general.¹

c7.62

¹ “यौधेयगणपुरस्कृतस्य महाराजमहासेनापतेः” Fleet translates it as “Of the Mahārāja and Mahāsenāpati who has been made the leader of the Yaudheya tribe” (Gupta Ins., p. 252). No objection can possibly be made to this translation as the lexicons give ‘chosen’ as one of the meanings of पुरस्कृत ।

c7.63

The Vīramitrodaya (p. 426) quotes from Kātyāyana :

c7.64

“ कुलानां हि समूहस्तु गणः सम्परिकीर्त्तित इति ”

c7.65

The root-meaning of the word ‘कुल’ is a group, a multitude, a community.¹ According to this interpretation therefore ‘गण’ would mean a federation of different groups or communities. This is fully in keeping with the view I have put forward above about the constitution of the supreme assembly of the Lichchhavis, on the basis of the Jātaka stories. It would follow then that each of these communities was a state in miniature with a completè staff of officials, while the supreme assembly administering over the whole state consisted of the heads of these communities. It may be noted that Mahāvagga (V. 1) preserves, in connection with the kingdom of Magadha, an instance of a central assembly consisting of the heads of the smallest administrative units of the kingdom. The assembly was held during the reign of Bimbisāra, the very period to which the constitution of the Lichchhavis under discussion is to be referred.

c7.66

¹ Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar takes ‘*Kula*’ in the sense of ‘family,’ and explains the constitution of a gaṇa differently. (Carmichael Lectures, Vol. I, pp. 160 ff.)

c7.67

The Jaina Kalpa Sūtra refers to “ नव मल्लई नव लेच्छई कासी कोसलस्स अट्ठारस वि गणरायाणो ”² in connection with the illumination at the night of Mahāvīra's death. The exact sense of “**नव गणरायाणो**” is uncertain. It may mean merely nine of the so-called 7707 Lichchhavi kings who formed the Supreme Assembly, but this would imply that Jainism was confined to a very limited section of the Lichchhavi community and it is unlikely that such a thing should be confessed by a Jaina author. The other possible interpretation would be to take the term to denote nine kings or heads, *i. e.*, executive officers, of the Lichchhavi *gaṇa*. We have already seen that the guilds appointed executive officers to transact their business, and it is inconceivable that the affairs of a state could have been managed by a big assembly without the help of one or more executive officers. The ‘**नवगणरायाणो**’ would thus represent the whole state of the Lichchhavis and this would be exactly in keeping with the tenor of the whole passage.

c7.68

² Kalpa Sūtra, edite d by Jacobi, p. 65.

c7.69

We possess some information regarding the method in which justice was administered among the Lichchhavis. The system is chiefly remarkable for the ultra-democratic spirit which characterises it, and is calculated to give us some insight into the principles of administration followed in these ‘non-monarchical’ states. We learn from Aṭṭhakathā¹ that a criminal was at first sent for trial to the officer called “Vinichchaya mahāmatta.” If they found the accused innocent they acquitted him, but if he was guilty in their opinion, they could not punish him, but had to send him to the next higher tribunal, that of the ‘Vohārika.’ They too could acquit the accused if they found him innocent, but had to send him to the next higher tribunal, *viz.*, that of the ‘Suttadhara,’ if they considered him guilty. There were three other tribunals with similar functions, *viz.*, those of Aṭṭhakulaka, Senāpati, and Uparāja, each of which could acquit the accused, if innocent, but had to send him to the next higher tribunal if found guilty. The last tribunal, *viz.*, that of the Rāja had alone the right to convict the accused, and in awarding punishments he was to be guided by the ‘*Paveni pustaka*’ or the Book of Precedents. The right of the individual was thus safeguarded in a manner that has had probably few parallels in the world. He could be punished only if seven successive tribunals had *unanimously* found him guilty, and he was quite safe if but one of them found him innocent. And it is but fitting that the right of the people should thus be safeguarded in a state where the people governed themselves.

c7.70

¹ See the translation of the important passage by Turnour in J. A. S. B., VII, pp. 993-4.

c7.71

Besides the Lichchhavis, the Śākyas are the only clan about whose constitution something definite is known. Professor Rhys Davids summed up the available information on the subject as follows.¹

c7.72

¹ Buddhist India, p. 19.

c7.73

"The administrative and judicial business of the clan was carried out in public assembly, at which young and old were alike present, in their common mote-hall (*santhāgāra*) at Kapilavastu. It was at such a parliament, or palaver, that King Pasenadi's proposition was discussed. When Ambaṭṭha goes to Kapilavastu on business, he goes to the mote-hall where the Śākiyas were then in session...

"A single chief—how, and for what period, chosen, we do not know—was elected as office-holder, presiding over the sessions, and, if no sessions were sitting, over the state. He bore the title of rāja which must have meant something like the Roman Consul, or the Greek Archon.......We hear at one time that Bhaddiya, a young cousin of the Buddha's, was the rāja; and in another passage, Suddhodana, the Buddha's father (who is elsewhere spoken of as a simple citizen, Suddhodana the Sakiyan), is called the rāja."

c7.74

Professor Rhys Davids' views about the Śākya clan have been challenged in some of its essential aspects. Thus Watters is of opinion that Kapilavastu and the surrounding territory were included within the kingdom of Kosala, and that we cannot therefore speak of a Śākya king or kingdom.¹ So far as I know, the only ground in support of this view is the expression "*Āṇāpavattitthāna*" used, with reference to Kosala, by the Śākyas themselves about their territory in the introductory episode of the Bhaddasāla Jātaka (No. 465, IV. 145). The full significance of the expression is, however, far from being definite, and Oldenberg took it to mean that the Śākyas owed some honorary dues to the Kosala kingdom. Be that as it may, the same Jātaka clearly shows that Kapilavastu was outside the boundaries of the kingdom of Kosala. For we are told, that while Viḍūḍabha resolved to destroy the Śākyas the Buddha set out for Kapilavastu and sat beneath a tree near the city. "Hard by that place, a huge and shady banyan tree stood on *the boundary of Viḍūḍabha's realms*."² This clearly proves that the Śākya territory just touched the border, but was outside the jurisdiction of the Kosala kingdom.

c7.75

¹ "On Yuan Chwang." Vol. II, p. 3.

c7.76

² Jat., IV, p. 152. "ततो अविदूरे विडूढभस्स रज्जसीमाय..."

c7.77

The other objection against Prof. Rhys Davids' view is that regarding the constitution of the Śākyas. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar maintains the view that the Śākya territory was ruled by a hereditary king, like any ordinary kingdom.¹ It may be pointed out, however, that the introductory episodes of the Jātakas seem to prove that the constitution of the Śākyas was not unlike that of the Lichchhavis. The Kuṇāla Jātaka (No. 536, V, 412 ff.) describes a feud between the Śākyas and their neighbouring clan, the Koliyas. A careful study of the whole account hardly leaves any doubt that the Śākyas were governed on the same principle as the Lichchhavis. Thus when the quarrel grew serious over the waters of the Rohiṇī River which each party wanted for irrigation purposes, the Śākyas went and told the Councillors appointed to such services, and they reported it to the multitude of kings (or royal families).² It was then resolved, apparently by these kings, that they should fight and so the Śākyas sallied forth, ready for the fray. The number of these kings is not definitely stated but must be held to have been considerable in view of the fact that two hundred and fifty princes were offered as escorts for the Buddha.

c7.78

¹ Carmichael Lectures, First Series, p. 161.

c7.79

² “अमच्चा राजकुलानं कथेसुं (p. 413).

c7.80

Not only is there not the least reference to any individual royal authority in this circumstantial narrative but the chiefs of the Śākyas are all called kings—“Why are ye come here, mighty kings?” said the Buddha, and again we have the expression “Becoming believers the kings said, etc.” In the Samudda-Vānija-Jātaka (No. 466, IV, 158) Devadatta laments that he was renounced by all the kings of the ‘Śākyas’ (सक्यराज कुलेहिपि). Similarly we learn from the Bhadda-Sāla-Jātaka (No. 465, IV, 144 ff.) how King Pasenadi sends his messenger asking for one of the daughters of the Śākya clan in marriage. On receipt of this message the Śākyas gathered together and deliberated. Here, again, there is no reference to any king to whom the message was delivered. According to time-honoured customs ambassadors are despatched by one king to another, if there be any, and the omission in this respect seems to lend considerable strength to the assumption that the Śākyas had no king in the sense which we attach to the term. It is true that ‘Vāsabha Khattiyā,’ born of a slave woman and Mahānāma, is referred to by the king of Kosala as ‘daughter of the Śākya king,’ but Mahānāma is elsewhere (p. 147) referred to as simply ‘Mahānāma the Śākya,’ and Vāsabha-khattiyā tells her son “My boy, your grandsires are the Śākya kings.” The young Śākyas are also referred to as ‘princes.’

c7.81

The above references, though they do not help us to acquire a detailed knowledge of the constitution of the Śākyas, seems to me to be conclusive evidence in favour of Prof. Rhys Davids' theory that the Śākyas had a non-monarchical constitution. It is difficult to accept the view, maintained by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar¹ that Bhaddiya, who is called '*Śākya-rājā*' is to be looked upon as a hereditary king. The instances quoted above from the Jātakas hardly leave any doubt that the Śākyas, like the Lichchhavis, had a *number of rājās*, who were probably members of the supreme assembly ruling over the state. We hear also of a class of officers called "*uparājāno*" or viceroys² and this makes it probable, that like the Lichchhavi *rājās*, the Śākya *rājās* were also heads of minor administrative units. So far, therefore, as the evidence goes, the Śākya and Lichchhavi constitutions appear to resemble each other to a great extent.

c7.82

¹ Carmichael Lectures, First Series, p. 161.

c7.83

² Jat., Vol. V, p. 413, l. 15.

c7.84

We possess no detailed information regarding the constitution of the other clans to which reference is made in the Buddhist and Jaina texts. They probably belonged to the same type, and on the whole the states governed on these democratic principles seem to have enjoyed considerable prosperity. Buddha's reply to the ministers of Ajātaśatru is an unimpeach-able testimony of the inherent strength of the Lichchhavis. We also learn from Ekapanna-Jātaka (No. 149, I, 504) that "in those days Vaiśālī enjoyed marvellous prosperity. A triple wall encompassed the city, each wall a league distant from the next, and there were three gates with watch-towers." The high admiration entertained by Buddha towards the Lichchhavi people has already been referred to. Mutual discord, as pointed out by Buddha, was however the chief danger in these states, and the way¹ in which Vaiśālī was conquered by Ajātaśatru by sowing dissensions among its chiefs is probably a typical example of the fate which befell many others.

c7.85

¹ *Cf.* Aṭṭhakathā translated by Turnour in J. A. S. B., Vol. VII, p. 994 ff, f. n.

c7.86

The Buddhist Texts thus clearly establish the fact that some states in ancient India possessed democratic forms of government, the most notable feature of which was the supreme popular assembly, that regularly held its sittings at the Santhāgāra in the capital city. It has been noticed above that the Buddha introduced the same democratic principles in his church government. The Buddhist Texts naturally dwell at greater length upon the latter, and make it possible to form a definite idea of the procedure by which the deliberations of these religious assemblies were guided. Years ago Prof. Oldenberg² noticed some of the important features of this procedure. Mr. K. P. Jayaswal has since treated the subject in a systematic way, and, what is more important, has deduced from it valuable information about the constitution of non-monarchical states.¹ Thus he says:—"We may safely accept the procedure followed at the deliberations of the Buddhist Saṁgha as identical with that observed by its parent, the political Saṁgha, in its main features." Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar has also practically supported this view,² and laid some stress on the argument, originally advanced by Mr. Jayaswal, that as the Buddha never stopped to explain the technical terms like *jñapti*, *pratijña*, they must be held to have been already current and fairly well known in his time.

c7.87

² Buddha, p. 349.

c7.88

¹ Modern Review, 1913, p. 664 ff.

c7.89

² Carmichael Lectures, First Series, p. 184.

c7.90

This argument may, however, be at once disposed of. It is generally admitted that the Buddhist scriptures were not put into writing till a considerable period had elapsed since Buddha's death, and as these technical terms must have been in constant use during this interval, they were too well known then to require any specific definition. It is not however quite accurate to say that these terms have never been defined in the Buddhist scriptures, for although no logical definition has been offered, the term *jñapti*, and the whole procedure has been fully explained on the first occasion when we hear of it, in connection with the initiation ceremony.

c7.91

Thus we learn from Mahāvagga, I, 12, that originally the *pabbajjā* and *upasampadā* ordinations were conferred on a candidate after he repeated thrice the well-known formula "I take my refuge in the Buddha, I take my refuge in the Dhamma, I take my refuge in the Saṁgha."

c7.92

Later on, on the occasion of initiating a particular Brāhman, the Buddha laid down as follows (Mahāvagga, I, 28):—

c7.93

"I abolish, O Bhikkhus, from this day the Upasampadā ordination by the three-fold declaration of taking refuge, which I had prescribed. I prescribe, O Bhikkhus, that you confer the Upasampadā ordination by a formal act of the Order in which the announcement (*ñatti*) is followed by three questions.

c7.94

And you ought, O Bhikkhus, to confer the Upasampadā ordination in this way: 'Let a learned competent Bhikkhu proclaim the following *ñatti* before the Saṁgha:

c7.95

'Let the Saṁgha, reverend Sirs, hear me. This person N. N. desires to receive the Upasampadā from the venerable N. N....If the Saṁgha is ready, let the Saṁgha confer on N. N. the Upasampadā ordination with N. N. as Upajjhāya. *This is the ñatti.*

c7.96

'Let the Saṁgha, reverend Sirs, hear me. This person N. N. desires to receive the Upasampadā ordination from the Venerable N. N. The Saṁgha confers on N. N. the Upasampadā ordination with N. N. as Upajjhāya. Let any one of the venerable brethren who is in favour of the Upasampadā ordination of N. N. with N. N. as Upajjhāya, be silent, and any one who is not in favour of it, speak.'

c7.97

'And for the second time I thus speak to you: Let the Saṁgha, etc. (as before).

c7.98

'And for the third time I thus speak to you; Let the Saṁgha, etc.

c7.99

N. N. has received the Upasampadā ordination from the Saṁgha with N. N. as Upajjhāya. The Saṁgha is in favour of it, therefore it is silent. Thus I understand." (S. B. E., XIII, pp. 169-170.)

c7.100

Now this is a full exposition of the procedure, and was quite intelligible to everybody even if he heard of it for the first time. If Buddha merely copied existing institutions and usages he might have expressed himself more briefly. Then, again, the string of regulations laid down in Mahāvagga, IX, 3, also shows that the Buddha was constructing a whole system of procedure and not merely copying it from that of a political state. There is nothing, therefore, in the method of Buddha's exposition of the procedure, to show, that it was already current, and that he merely adopted it for particular kinds of cases arising in his organisations. The only other argument advanced by Mr. Jayaswal in support of his theory, is the assumption ‘that the Buddhist Brotherhood, the saṁgha, was copied out from the political saṁgha, the republic, in its constitution.’ But though we may generally believe that in forming his church, the Buddha was inspired, to a great extent, by the highly flourishing democratic states in his neighbourhood, it would be too much to say that he deliberately copied any one of these constitutions or accepted anything beyond the general democratic principles involved in each of them.

c7.101

It would therefore be risky to accept the detailed regulations of the Buddhist church as applicable to the procedure adopted by the political assemblies of the great democratic states. Nevertheless an historian may study them with profit in order to obtain a general view of the stage of development attained by the latter. For, when subjected to a careful analysis, these regulations unfold to us a number of characteristic features which are so intimately associated and almost organically connected with the workings of popular assemblies that it is difficult, nay, almost impossible, to believe that their knowledge was confined to only one sphere of life. They are so indispensable to the successful working of big assemblies, that we may accept it as almost certain, that had they been known in one sphere of life they were sure to be imitated in others. Thus when we read in Chullavagga, IV. 14. 19 ff. how a matter could be referred by the assembly to a committee we may be almost sure that the well-known modern system of expediting business by referring complicated questions to committees was not unknown to the ancient Indian assemblies, religious or political. For this feature is so essentially necessary for the successful working of an assembly, and its utility so obvious even to the common mind, that whether it had originated in the church or in a political assembly, it was sure to have been copied by the one from the other. Arguing on similar lines the following important features of the popular assembly of a democratic state may be gathered from the regulations relating to procedure laid down in the Buddhist scriptures.¹

c7.102

¹ *Cf.* Mr. Jayaswal's article in Modern Review, 1913, p. 664 ff.

c7.103

(*a*) Definite rules were laid down regarding the form of moving resolutions in the assembly. (For instances in Buddhist church *cf.* Chullavagga, IV. II. 2; XI. 1. 4).

c7.104

(*b*) There was a rule of quorum (Mahāvagga, IX. 3. 2).

c7.105

(*c*) In case ofa difference of opinion, the sense of the assembly was determined by the votes of the majority. There were prescribed methods for counting the votes, and voting by ballot was not unknown. (Chullavagga, IV. 9; IV. 14. 26).

c7.106

(*d*) Complicated matters were referred to the committees, and if they were unable to come to any decision, the matter was referred back to the assembly. (Chullavagga, IV. 14. 24).

c7.107

(*e*) Definite rules seem to have been laid down regarding such matters as votes of absentees (Mahāvagga, IX. 3. 5-6); and subsequent legalisation of acts done by an illegally constituted assembly (Chullavagga, XII. 1. 10).

c7.108

Next to the Buddhist Literature, the writings of the Greeks may be looked upon as the most important source of information regarding the subject under review. They clearly demonstrate the existence of the non-monarchical forms of Government, both aristocratic and democratic, at the end of the fourth century B. C. when the great Maurya Empire was in the making. Megasthenes lived for some time in India and as a Greek politician must be presumed to have possessed definite knowledge regarding the distinction between aristocratic and democratic forms of government. We ought not therefore to hesitate to accept his statement, that ‘most of the cities in his time adopted the democratic form of government’ (McCrindle’s Translation, p. 40). It is in the light of this remark that we ought to explain his other statements that “the Maltecorae, Singhae (and other tribes) are free and have no kings” (*Ibid*, pp. 143-144),” and also that “those who live near the sea have no kings” (*Ibid*, p. 156). Fick, however, denies that there were republican states in the days of Megasthenes. In his opinion, what the Greek author really meant was simply the fact, that in the immediate neighbourhood of a great kingdom like Magadha, some towns or small states preserved their independent existence, and not that their form of government differed radically from that of a kidgdom.¹ I am unable to endorse Mr. Fick’s opinion, as he adduces no reason for the same, and specially in view of the fact that a Greek politician is hardly likely to commit mistakes regarding such familiar institutions as democratic and aristocratic forms of government. Besides, Megasthenes’ account is corroborated by the statements of other Greek writers. Thus Arrian tells us that a republic was thrice established in India before the time of Sandrocottos.² It is true that the Greeks could not possibly have any authentic knowledge of these events, but even a tradition of this character, current among the Indians, would go a great way towards proving our point. Then, Arrian categorically asserts, with reference to the class of officers called Superintendents that 'they report everything to the king where the people have a king and to the magistrates where the people are self-governed.'¹ There can be no question that here Arrian contrasts the kingdoms with non-monarchical states.

c7.109

¹ Fick, p. 90.

c7.110

² Arrian's Indika, translated by McCrindle, p. 203.

c7.111

¹ *Ibid*, p. 212.

c7.112

Again Quintus Curtius refers to the 'Sabarcae' as 'a powerful Indian tribe where the form of government was democratic and not regal.'² An idea of the extent and resources of this democratic state may be formed from the fact that it possessed an army consisting of 60,000 foot, 6,000 cavalry and 500 chariots. When Alexander marched against them they *elected* three generals, a fact quite in keeping with their form of government. It must also be noted that here the question is not of a city-state, for we are told that the bank of the Indus was 'most thickly studded with their villages.'

c7.113

² McCrindle, p. 252. Diodorus also says of the Sambastai (who are identified by some with the Sabarcae) that 'they dwelt in cities in which the democratic form of Government prevailed' (*Ibid*, p. 292).

c7.114

The Greek writers also prove the existence of states ruled by oligarchy. Thus Arrian's Anabasis leaves no doubt that the city-state of Nȳsa had an oligarchical form of government, its governing body having consisted of a president and 300 members of the aristocracy. For we are told that "when Alexander came to Nysa, the Nysaians sent out to him their President whose name was Akouphis, and along with him thirty deputies of their most eminent citizens." We further hear that Alexander "confirmed the inhabitants of Nysa in the enjoyment of their freedom and their own laws; and when he enquired about their laws he praised them because the government of their state was in the hands of the aristocracy. He moreover requested them to send with him......100 of their best men selected from the governing body, which consisted of three hundred members."\1

c7.115

\1 McCrindle, pp. 79-81.

c7.116

Again Arrian remarks, "It was reported that the country beyond the Hyphasis was exceedingly fertile, and that the inhabitants were good agriculturists, brave in war, and living under an excellent system of internal government; for the multitude was governed by the aristocracy, who exercised their authority with justice and moderation."\2 Strabo also records a tradition, about the same country, that there is "an aristocratical form of government consisting of five thousand councillors, each of whom furnishes the state with an elephant."\3

c7.117

\2 McCrindle, p. 121.

c7.118

\3 Megasthenes—Indica, p. 67.

c7.119

The Greek writers also mention various other tribes such as the Malloi, Oxydrakai, Xathroi, Adraistai, etc., who seem to have lived under a non-monarchical constitution, either aristocratic or republican. It is also a noticeable fact that the majority of the Indian states with which Alexander came into contact belonged to this category. It may be safely inferred, therefore, that in the 4th century B.C. the non-monarchical form of government was more prevalent in the Punjab than the monarchical constitution.

c7.120

A fitting commentary to the accounts of the Greek writers about the non-monarchical states of the 4th century B.C. is furnished by the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, the celebrated minister of the founder of the Maurya Empire.

c7.121

Kauṭilya devotes a whole chapter (Bk. XI, Chapter I) on 'corporations' and divides them into two classes:—

c7.122

“काम्भोज-सुराष्ट्र-क्षत्रियश्रेण्यादयो वार्ताशस्त्रोपजीविनः।
“लिच्छिविक-वृजिक-मल्लक-मद्रक-कुकुर-कुरु-पाञ्चालादयो राजशब्दोपजीविनः।” (p. 376.)

c7.123

Thus the first class consisted of the Kshatriya guilds which followed trade, agriculture and military profession. These have already been discussed in connection with the guilds. It may only be noted here that it appears from Kauṭilya's tenor of writings that they had sometimes an independent political career.

c7.124

The other class of corporations was that of the Lichchhivikas, Vṛijikas, Mallakas, Madrakas, Kukuras, Kurus and Pāñchālas who made use of the epithet of king (*rāja*).¹

c7.125

¹ The word ‘राजशब्दोपजीविनः’ is one of considerable difficulty. ‘राजशब्द’ may be compared with such expression as ‘युवराजशब्द’ in *e.g.*, Raghuvamśa, III-35 ‘नृपेण चक्रे युवराजशब्दभाक्’ and translated as “epithet, or title (including rank?) of a king.” But the ordinary meaning of ‘उपजीविनः’ is hardly suitable here. Thus Shamasastry's translation: “The corporations......live by the title of a rāja” offers no meaning; for how can one possibly live by a title? In V. S. Apte’s Sanskrit Dictionary ‘to make use of’ is given as one of the meanings of the root उपजीव् and the following is quoted from Mbh. in support of it. ‘तदेतद्भारतं नाम कविभिस्तूपजीव्यते.’ This meaning is quite suitable to both the expressions above. In the passage of Mbh. the implied force of ‘उपजीव्’ is that the poets not only make use of ‘Bhārata’ but also derive materials for their books from it. It may be held, therefore, that in the present case also the Lichchhivikas not only made use of the epithet of king but this supplied the material or the essence of their corporate existence.

c7.126

The statement that the Lichchhivikas make use of the epithet of *rāja* is corroborated, as we have seen above, by the Buddhist literature. The Arthaśāstra merely proves that the Lichchhavis survived the attacks of Ajātaśatru and that their democratic constitution existed at least up to the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century B.C. I have already given some account of the constitution of the Lichchhavis, and it may be presumed that it did not alter much at the time of Kauṭilya, and that the constitution of the other corporations mentioned by him belonged to the same type. He does not give us much information on this point but the little that he says is fully compatible with this view of the case.

c7.127

Thus it is evident from the following passage that there was a general assembly of the corporation, and that the executive officers (called *Mukhyas*) were subordinate to it.

c7.128

"सत्री वा स्त्रोलोलुपं सङ्घमुख्यं प्ररूपयेत्-"अमुष्मिन्ग्रामे दरिद्रकुलमपसृतं; तस्य स्त्रो राजार्हा गृह्यताम्" इति। गृहोतायामर्धमासान्तरं सिद्धव्यञ्जनो दूष्यसङ्घमुख्यं मध्ये प्रक्रोशेत्-"असौ मे मुख्यां भार्यां स्नुषां भगिनीं दुहितरं वाऽधिचरति" इति। तं चेत् सङ्घो निगृह्लीयात्, राजैनमुपगृह्य विगुणेषु विक्रमयेत्" ( ३७८ पृः )

c7.129

Here we must presume a general assembly of the corporations, for मध्ये cannot mean anything but 'in the midst of the assembly.' As the assembly had the right of hearing complaints against, and punishing, the '*Mukhyas*,' they must be held to have been subordinate to it.

c7.130

R. Shamasastry has translated the word '*Mukhya*' as the chief of a corporation (pp. 457, 458). This may be taken to imply the existence of a supreme chief, but I do not find any authority for this view. That there were several ‘*Mukhyas*’ is quite clear from such expressions as “सङ्घमुख्यांश्च धर्मिष्ठान” (p. 377), “भिक्षुकीवा प्रियभार्यं मुख्यं ब्रूयाद् असौ ते मुख्य” ......... (p. 379). Mukhyas should therefore be taken as ‘executive officers.’

c7.131

The members of the assembly were called *rājas*. This not only follows from the word ‘राजशब्दोपजीविनः’ but also from such expressions as “राजशब्दिभिरवरुद्धमवक्षिप्तंवा.” Evidently one could be imprisoned or rejected (lit. thrown away, *i. e.*, probably exiled) only by the orders of the assembly. Hence ‘राजशब्दि’ would denote the members of the assembly or in other words each of them had the epithet ‘राज’ or king. The democratic nature of the constitution is well hinted at by Kauṭilya in the following passage.

c7.132

सङ्घमुख्यश्च सङ्घेषु न्यायवृत्तिर्हितः प्रियः ।
दान्तो युक्तजनस्तिष्ठेत् सर्वचित्तानुवर्त्तकः ॥ (p. 379.)

c7.133

Thus the ‘सङ्घमुख्य’ was to pursue that course of action which was approved by the members of the सङ्घ।

c7.134

The list of corporations given above is indeed suggestive. It includes Vṛijikas, Lichchhivikas and Mallakas in the east, the Kurus and Pāñchālas in the centre, the Madrakas in the north-west and the Kukuras in the south-west, of northern India. This shows that at the beginning of the Maurya period, the whole of northern India was studded with these democratic states. That they possessed considerable power is admitted by Kauṭilya himself when he says that to a king the acquisition of the help of corporations is better than the acquisition of an army, a friend or profits. Kauṭilya thus corroborates and supplements the accounts of the Greek writers whose picture of India, it may be noted, refers exactly to the same period.

c7.135

The onward march of imperialism was, however, destined to make a clean sweep of all these centres of corporate political activities, and the way was paved by the unscrupulous doctrines of the Machiavellian minister of the founder of the great Maurya empire. The existence of independent democratic states seemed incompatible with his conception of empire, and the great minister set himself to the task of undermining their power by any means fair or foul.

First 134 of 243 passages. Read on

Linked texts (26)