Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi c13.s1: Janapada and the Greek City-State

India as Known to Pāṇini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashṭādhyāyī c13.s1

Language
English

Contents

Janapada and the Greek City-State

c13.s1.1

*JANAPADA ANALOGOUS TO CITY-STATE*—The *Charana*, *Gotra* and *Janapada* are three typical Pāṇinian institutions of educational, social and political life respectively. It is not without significance that the term *Janapada* is conspicuous by absence in the Vedic Saṁhitās. It occurs only in the latest phase of the Brāhmaṇa period, and found its full development in the period of the *Ashṭādhyāyī*. A comparative study of human societies affords innumerable analogies, and we find unmistakable parallels between the *Janapada* State in India and the City-State in Greece. Both flourished at about the same period. In Greece a large number of City-States represented so many isolated communities, which were self-contained and had their own systems of government, but all of them had very similar social and religious customs and institutions. A few like Athens and Sparta were more important than others.

c13.s1.2

*JANAPADAS IN INDIA*—In India the number of *Janapada* States was quite large. Pāṇini gives a rich picture of *Janapadas* extending from Kamboja to Aśmaka and Sauvīra to Sūramasa, of which the geographical aspect has been dealt with in Chapter II and illustrated in the accompanying maps. The *Janapada* experiment in India was on a much larger scale than in the case of Greek city-states with regard to their extension both in place and time. The fuller lists of Indian *Janapadas* containing about 175 names, are preserved in the Bhuvanakosha chapters of the *Purāṇas* (*Vāyu*, ch. 45; *Matsya*, ch. 114; *Mārkaṇḍeya*, ch. 57; *Brahmāṇḍa*, ch. 49; *Vāmana*, ch. 13; cf. D. C. Sircar, Text of the Puranic List of Peoples, *I.H.Q.*, XXX, 1945, pp. 297-314). Almost all *Janapada* names in Pāṇini are traceable to that list. The territorial divisions envisaged there are (1) Madhya, (2) Prāchya, (3) Udīchya, (4) Dakshiṇāpatha, (5) Aparānta, (6) Vindhyaprishṭha, and (7) Parvata, and the Janapada names are grouped accordingly, which affords a clear picture of the States spread in all parts of the country. The *Parvatāśrayin Janapadas* of the *Purāṇas* find pointed mention in Pāṇini as *āyudha-jīvins* of the Parvata country (IV.3.91), i.e., military high-landers settled in the north-west of India and in the Trigarta country, as explained above (*ante*, pp. 434-6).

c13.s1.3

*BOUNDARIES*—In Greece the city-states were scattered mostly amongst hills and valleys and separated by well-defined boundaries. In India also the *Janapadas* had demarcated boundaries to which Pāṇini refers as *tadavadhi* (IV.2.124). The *Kāśikā* observes that other *Janapadas* formed boundaries of a *Janapada* surrounding it on all sides (*tad-avadbirapi janapada eva gṛihyate*). A chain of *Janapadas* occupied the entire stretch of land, and some of them were big enough to admit of several territorial divisions of which the names are regulated by *sūtras* VI.2.103 and VII.3.12; *e.g.*, the Sindhu divided Pūrva-Gandhāra with capital at Takshaśilā from Apara-Gandhāra with its chief town Pushkalāvatī; similarly Pūrva-Madra, Apara-Madra, and Pūrva-Pañchāla, Uttara-Pañchāla, and Dakshiṇa-Pañchāla.

c13.s1.4

*ACROPOLIS*—But it is more in the development of the *Janapada* State through the ages that we find a striking parallel with the Greek City-State. The *polis* or the city was the nerve-centre of the City-State, and it was opposed to the open village. The "fluid" term *polis* signified the acropolis or the fortified town. In India also each *Janapada* had its fortified town or capital. An interesting list of sixteen *Mahājanapadas* with their names of capitals is well-known in the Buddhist texts, and similarly twenty-five *Janapadas* in the Jaina literature together with names of their capitals.

Evolution of the City-State and the Janapada

c13.s1.t1.1

*PADA*—In the evolution of the City-State there were four well-defined stages known as Genos, Phratries, Phulai and Polis. The *polis* grew out of small beginnings, 'from the clan—the *genos*, the patriarchal clan, "the first unit of society"—and passes through the associations of families, the phratries, and the military groupings of clans, the *phulai* tribes, to the political organism which grew out of a settled life and synœcism' (Glotz, *The Greek City and Its Institutions*, Foreword by Henri Berr, p. ix).

c13.s1.t1.2

The last mentioned political organism was the City-State. The analogy holds true in the case of the evolution of the *Janapada* State in India, which had its humble beginnings in the clan or *Jana*; the *Jana* developed a number of individual units called families or *Kula*, and the associations of families formed the ruling Kshatriya tribes which wielded political power and are termed *Janapadins* in Pāṇini (IV.3.100). The *Janapadins* were, according to the *Kāśikā*, the ruling class in the *Janapada* (*Janapada-svāminaḥ kshatriyāḥ*). This was the stage when the *Janapada* State emerged in its full-fledged development. The correspondence of the *Janapada* and the City-State may be set forth below: I. Clan [*Genos*] *Jana*. II. Families [*Phratries*] *Kula*. III. Tribes [*Phulai*] *Janapadinaḥ*. IV. City [*Polis*] *Janapada*.

c13.s1.t1.3

*ABHIJANA*—We can now see why in the whole of the Vedic literature there is no reference to the *Janapada* institution, whereas the *Jana* finds repeated mention. The Bharata *Jana* tracing itself to a common ancestor was a compact clan. It must have expanded and the outcome was the increasing importance of independent families or *Kulas*, which ultimately developed into *Gotras* and *Vaṁśas*. The clan was not yet settled in any particular area, but with the growth of independent families it tended to lose its mobility and ultimately the tribe or *Jana* came to be tied down to an abode, called *Abhijana* in Pāṇini (IV.3.90), literally 'the region that had come under the "land-taking" of a *Jana*'.

c13.s1.t1.4

*JANAPADIN*—The territory of the *Jana* became the *Janapada*, whence the original settlers who formed the governing class were called *Janapadins*. In the *Janapada* there came to live also other peoples or aliens who were distinguished from the privileged class of rulers or *Janapadins* proper. The latter were consecrated to rulership and designated as *abhishikta vaṁśya*. In *sūtra* VI.2.34, Pāṇini refers to the *Rājanyas* of the Andhaka-Vṛishṇi *Saṅgha*, and, as clearly stated by the *Kāśikā*, the consecrated Kshatriyas of that confederacy formed the object of the grammatical rule. The evidence of the Lichchhavis of the Vṛiji *Janapada* is well-known; the waters of their *maṅgala-pushkariṇī* were used for the consecration of 7,707 *Rājans* and were closely guarded against others. It is, however, clear that in its later stages the *Janapada*, irrespective of the fact whether it was republican (more strictly oligarchical as in Greece) or monarchical (i.e. *gaṇādhīna* or *ekarāja*, IV.1.168, *vārt.*) consisted of a very mixed population. Patañjali explicitly says that members of the ruling Kshatriya class in the Mālava republic were called Mālavya, and in the Kshudraka Kshaudrakya, but the slaves and free labourers amongst them were excluded from its application.¹ In practice the name of the ruler in a monarchical state and the name of the Kshatriya members who constituted the privileged aristocracy (called *apatya*) were both derived from the name of the *Janapada* (*Kshatriya-samāna-śabdāj-janapadāt tāsya rājany-apatyavat*, *vārt.* on IV.1.168). Thus the king of Pañchāla and a Kshatriya descendant of Pañchāla were both called Pāñchāla.

c13.s1.t1.5

¹ १ इदं तर्हि क्षौद्रकाणामपत्यम् मालवानामपत्यमिति । अत्रापि क्षौद्रक्यः मालव्य इति नैतत्तेषां दासे वा भवति कर्मकरे वा । किं तर्हि । तेषामेव कस्मिंश्चित् । (Bhāshya, IV. 1. 168; II 269).

c13.s1.t1.6

*JANAPADA, A CULTURAL UNIT*—The stages of evolution from *Jana* to *Janapada* have yet to be clearly formulated and studied on the basis of literary evidence which is extensive. The *Atharvaveda* speaks of small homogeneous communities of people differentiated from one another (*bahudhā janam*), speaking different tongues (*vivāchasan*) and following diverse faiths (*nānā-dharmāṇam*, Pṛithivī Sūkta, XII.1.45). Soon new factors operated leading to the discovery of fresh centres of population and development of new routes, towns and professions depending on internal trade and commerce. All this contributed to the growth of regional consciousness and the emergence of the *Janapada* life. The *Janapada* was not merely a geographical term. It was more of a social, cultural and political phenomenon that found cumulative expression in the *Janapada*. Each State was free to choose its form of government—a state of circumstances envisaged in such expressions as *eka-kṛitāḥ* (i.e., *ekādhīna* or *rājādhīna*), *śreṇi-kṛitāḥ*, *pūga-kṛitāḥ* II.1.59); each was sovereign and independent so long as its freedom was respected by the neighbouring states; each was free to follow its intellectual and cultural life; each had its own language and local gods. The Buddha permitted the spread of his teachings in the local dialect of each *Janapada* and also drew attention to the continued worship of the traditional *chaityas* and deities. In the Greek cities close connection existed in the beginning between political organisation and religion. 'Every city had its deity as had every family' (Glotz., op. cit., p. 19). In India homage to the traditional *chaityas* and deities, such as Yakshas and Nāgas, was obligatory on all persons in the community, but with the emergence of new faiths like Buddhism and the Bhāgavata religion, the religious tie became less rigid and the "cultus" of the clan came to be replaced by a personal religion. The grammatical literature points to instances of linguistic peculiarities of *Janapadas*, e.g., of Kamboja, Surāshṭra and Prāchya (*Bhāshya*, I.9). Pāṇini refers to the particular domestic culture prevailing in the Kuru Janapada for which the linguistic expression *Kuru-gārhapatam* (VI.2.42) had become current. We have already drawn attention to its import. Kātyāyana adds to it *Vṛiji-gārhapatam*, which perhaps refers to the system of family government prevailing amongst the Lichchhavis. The *Mahābhārata* referring to the *Kula* system of polity mentions its two salient features; firstly there was a *Rājā* in each household (*gṛihe gṛihe hi rājānaḥ*, Sabhāparva, 14.2); and secondly in the *Kula* polity some one became supreme at one time, and somebody else at another (Sabhā., 14.6). This refers to periodical election to the headship of the oligarchical State; the system was called *Pārameshṭhya* (ib., 14.5). It is also stated that in the *Vṛiji Janapada* the social life of its citizens was regulated by the *Gaṇa* in certain matters such as marriage. The general rule was that no marriage should be contracted outside Vaiśālī and even outside its districts. The Śākyans also were very fastidious about the purity of their blood. Similar care in the matter was taken by citizens in Greek city-states.

c13.s1.t1.7

FORMS OF GOVERNMENT—The Janapada states in India had different systems of government just as the city-states in Greece. Pāṇini refers to several of them, e.g. *Gaṇa* or *Saṅgha*, *Avayavas* (IV.1.71) or member states of a Union, Leagues or Confederacies as in the case of *Trigarta-Shashṭha* (V.3.116), *Rājanyas* (VI.2.34), *Dvandva* or *Vyutkramaṇa* (VIII.1.15) *i.e.*, Party System, *Janapadins*, *Abhishikta-Vaṁśya Kshatriyas*, *Pūga*, *Śreṇi*, *Grāmaṇī*, *Vrātās*, *Kumāra-Pūga*, (VI.2.88), *Parishadvala Rājā* (V.2.112), *Saṁdhi-miśra Rājā* (VI.2.154), *Āyudhajīvins* and *Parvatīyas* (V.3.91; IV.2.143), etc. The political significance of these terms has been explained in their proper places. Just as bands of mercenary armed soldiers existed in many *Āyudhajīvī Saṅghas*, similarly they existed in Greece and many were enlisted in Alexander's army recruited from the Greek cities and the highlands in Thrace. The code of honour with these fighters also offers scope for comparative study.

c13.s1.t1.8

COMMON ANCESTRY—The city-states were formed of small communities of men who generally traced themselves to a common ancestry. The same fiction prevailed in the *Janapadas* in which the entire Kshatriya class of the *Janapadins* believed themselves to have descended from an original founder who was almost deified. So long the clan was compact this memory of a common forefather was rooted in truth. For example, the Sāvitrīputrakas mentioned by Pāṇini in the *Gaṇa-pāṭha* to V.3.116 (*Dāmanyādi*) formed a clan consisting of one hundred 'sons', all descended from Sāvitrī and Satyavān (*Sāvitryāḥ....tad vai putraśataṁ jajñe*, Āraṇyaka., 28.3.12). '*Putra*' in such cases certainly means 'descendant' and 'one hundred' was an indefinite number. They all bore the title of *Rājā* and all were Kshatriyas, each family in turn multiplying through its sons and grandsons (*te chāpi sarve rājānaḥ kshatriyāḥ putra-pautriṇaḥ*, Karṇa., 4.47). But such a claim for the whole tribe could only be a fiction, maintained seriously through generations. In many cases the names of eponymous founders of the *Janapadas* were invented, e.g. Aṅga, Vaṅga, Kaliṅga, Suhma and Puṇḍra are stated to be the five sons of Dīrghatamas, and each the founder of a *Janapada* (Ādi., 98.32).

c13.s1.t1.9

*JANAPADA CULTURE*—The city-state transformed the mental, social, religious and political outlook of the Greeks leading to an unparalleled flowering of the national genius as was seldom seen in world history. The religious and philosophical contributions of the citizens in the *Janapadas* constitute brilliant chapters in the history of Indian thought. The intellectual and metaphysical ferment during the *Janapada* period is well reflected in the Pali and Ardha-Māgadhī literatures and some of the sublime dialogues recorded in the Śāntiparvan are like the Brahmajāla-sutta of Sanskrit literature and bear witness to the moral and intellectual upheaval in the *Janapadas*. In one respect the change was all too marked, even for India, and it was the gradual secularisation of education and learning which were previously subservient to the Vedic *Charaṇas*. The foundations of most of the scientific and philosophical systems of India were laid in this period. As has been shown in detail, a mass of literature known to Pāṇini had been developed outside the aegis of the Vedic schools, grammar itself being such a subject cultivated by independent master-minds who were a glory to their *Janapadas*. It is stated for the Greek city-state that Homeric education there was replaced by a type of education which took its colour and shape from the practical and economic needs of the new city. The fact has its exact parallel in the Indian *Janapada*, where new factors brought into being a new ideal of education serving the needs of trade and economic life. Art and industry were for the first time accorded a place of honour. Yāska had noted this significant change:

c13.s1.t1.10

यथा जानपदीषु विद्यातः पुरुषविशेषो भवति ।

c13.s1.t1.11

'Proficiency in the arts required by the life of the *Janapada* confers on persons a title to distinction' (*Nirukta*, I.1.5). Pāṇini explains these *Jānapadīs* as so many *vṛittis* (IV.1.42), i.e. skilled arts and professions devoted to producing the necessaries of life. The Pali literature and Pāṇini record a number of such *Śilpas* flourishing with bee-hive activity in the *Janapadas*.

c13.s1.t1.12

*CITIZENSHIP*—Citizens of a common Janapada were known as *Sa-janapada* (VI.3.85), a term having the same importance as *Sa-brahmachārī* in the case of the *Charaṇa* institution to designate all its students (VI.3.86). The *Charaṇa* appellation, the *Janapada* appellation and the *Gotra* appellation—these three were important distinctions of an individual in the *Janapada* period.

c13.s1.t1.13

*LOYALTY (BHAKTI)*—Loyalty of the citizen to his *polis* and to its laws and rulers was the hall-mark of Greek life and counted as one of its cardinal virtues. Its noblest expression is found in the life of Socrates himself: "As to his parents and his master, so to the laws and his country, he must not return injury for injury, nor blow for blow. Country is more than a mother: for her sake all things must be endured" ,Glotz, *op. cit.* p. 140). The *Janapada* State was for the citizen his mother—*Mātā bhūmiḥ putro aham pṛithivyāḥ* (*Atharva*, XII. 1.12)—and the *Janapada Dharmas* or its laws must receive his complete loyalty. Pāṇini designates it as *Bhakti, i.e.*, the political and moral allegiance of the citizen both to the *Janapada* and its *Janapadins* (IV.3.100). A citizen of the Aṅga *Janapada* was called *Āṅgaka* with reference to his *Bhakti* to the Aṅga State; and similarly to the Aṅga Kshatriyas, the *abhishikta-vaṁśya* rulers of that *Janapada* of which the citizen was himself an integral part. The two-fold *Bhakti* is here significantly distinguished, *viz.* to the State in theory and to its government in practical life.

c13.s1.t1.14

*LAW (DHARMA)*—The new conception of law in the city-state was inspired by religious respect and marked by moral grandeur considered to be of divine origin. It is almost identical with the new interpretation of *Dharma* given to it in the *Mahābhārata*:

c13.s1.t1.15

नमो धर्माय महते धर्मो धारयति प्रजाः । (Udyoga., 137.9).

c13.s1.t1.16

It is not the place to enter into details about the new ethico-social meaning of *Dharma*, but it is clearly intended by Pāṇini in such a term as *Dhārmika*, *Dharmam charati*, (IV. 4.41), where *charati* is explained as *āsevā*, habitual moral conduct or practice of virtue, and *Dharmya*, that which is righteous, just, virtuous, moral and accordant with social and universal law (*Dharmad-anapeta*, IV.4.92). *Dharma* at once denoted both justice and virtue. The ideal of the *Janapada* State was the highest development of virtue and its object was to produce the perfect citizen. This ideal is embodied in the famous words of king Aśvapati of Kekaya which he uttered in the presence of such citizens as were householders possessing magnificent mansions (*mahāśāla*), supplied with all the luxuries that *Janapada* life would provide, but who still chose the path of virtue and learning (*mahāśrotriya*):

c13.s1.t1.17

'Within my realm (*Janapada*) there is no thief,
No miser, nor a drinking man,
None altarless, none ignorant,
No man unchaste, no wife unchaste.'
(Chhāndogya Up., V.11.5)¹

c13.s1.t1.18

Reason was cultivated as the ideal of individual perfection in the city-state, and we find a similar ideal embodied in the new word *Prajñā*, which is explained in several discourses of the *Mahābhārata*, the *Vidura-nīti* being a summary of those ideals of virtue and common-sense which were cultivated by the *Janapada* citizens. The rulers also must be *Prājña* (Śānti, 67.27). The sum total of all virtues and of the legal, social and moral ordinances which governed the life of the citizens and the *Janapada* polity was called *Vainayika*, to which both Pāṇini (V.4.34) and the Śāntiparva (68.4) refer. The *Vainayika* functions of the *Janapada* state are described at length in the *Mahābhārata* in a chapter with the epic strain '*Yadi rājā na pālayet*' (Śānti., 68.1-61).

c13.s1.t1.19

DEFENCE (*Gupti*)—The defence of the city-state was of the utmost concern to its rulers as well as the citizens. "The people ought to fight for the laws as for the walls of its city," said Heraclitus (Glotz, *op. cit.*, p. 139). The *Mahābhārata* discusses in detail the defence of the *Janapada* (*kathaṁ rakshyo janapadaḥ*, Śānti, 69.¹) and lays great stress on *Gupti* or the military preparedness of the fortified city and its citizens. It refers to *parikhā*, *prākāra*, etc. as parts of that defensive system which Pāṇini also mentions. The evidence in the epic is naturally more elaborate, mentioning a full contingent of military and civil institutions needed for the defence of the realm, e.g. *durga*, *gulma*, *nagara*, *pura*, *śākhā-nagara*, *ārāma*, *udyāna*, *nagaropavana*, *āpaṇa*, *vihāra*, *sabhā*, *āvasatha*, *chatvara*, *rāshṭra*, *balamukhyas*, *sasyābhihāra*, *saṁ-* *krama, prakaṇṭhī, ākāśa-jananī, kaḍaṅga-dvāraka, dvāras, śataghvī, bhāṇḍāgāra, āyudhāgāra, dhānyāgāra, aśvāgāra, gajāgāra, balādhikaraṇa*, all leading to the complete defence of the *Janapada* and its *pura* (Śānti, 69.1-71). We are told by the Greek historians of Alexander how the impregnable nature of the defences of the Massaga and Aornos forts (Maśakāvatī and Varaṇā) helped the heroic Āsvakāyanas of Gandhāra in offering resistance to the invaders.

c13.s1.t1.20

¹ 'न मे स्तेनो जनपदे न कदर्यो न मद्यपः । नानाहिताग्निर्नाविद्वान् न स्वैरी स्वैरिणी कुतः ॥

c13.s1.t1.21

ASSEMBLY AND COUNCIL—Each *Janapada*, whether a kingly state or a *Saṅgha*, had its assembly (*Sabhā*) and a governing council (*Parishad*). In order to become a member of the Assembly the Greek citizen was required to have attained the age of eighteen years when he was enrolled on the register of the deme, but since usually two years of military service had first to be done, it was seldom that a man appeared in the Assembly before he was twenty. Pāṇini also refers to the qualification of a citizen to become a member of the *Sabhā* whence he was called *Sabhya*, having become privileged to be enrolled as a member and attend the meeting of the *Sabhā* (*Sabhāyā yaḥ*, IV.4.105; *Sabhāyāṁ sādhuḥ*, where *sādhu* specially means *yogya*, qualified). A Kshatriya young man, when eighteen years of age acquired the privilege of becoming a *kavacha-hara* (cf. *Vayasi cha*, III.2.10, *kavachaharaḥ kshatriya-kumāraḥ*), 'fit for military duty,' and at the age of twenty-one became privileged for all political rights and duties. The new word *Sabhya* was equivalent in meaning to the Vedic *Sabheya* which Pāṇini records as an old Chhāndasa term (IV.4.106). *Sabhā* had a two-fold meaning, i.e. the assembly and the assembly-hall (*Śālā*, II.4.23-24).

c13.s1.t1.22

In the ancient democracies of Greek which did not know the representative system, politics was for the mass of the citizens a regular preoccupation, a constant duty (Glotz, *ib.*, p. 175). There were 42,000 citizens of Athens in 431 B.C., all did not attend and rarely were more than 2,000 or 3,000 citizens seen on the Pnyx. Certain resolutions were supposed to be taken by the "entire people"; actually, in these cases, 6,000 votes constituted a quorum (Glotz, *ib.*, p. 153). We do not have many details of such matters for the *Sabhā* in the Indian *Janapadas*. But we are told that there were 60,000 Khatriyas in the capital of the Cheta State, all of whom were styled *rājāno* (*Jāt.*, VI.511). It at least means that they were all citizens entitled to the membership of their *Sabhā*. Amongst the Lichchhavis there were 7,707 *rājāno*. No information is available about the quorum in the *Sabhā*, but in one instance the number of the Deva-jana i.e., the Deva host functioning as the *Jana* is stated to be 6,000 (*shaṭ-sāhasrāḥ*, *Atharva.*, XI.5.2), and again as 3,000 (*Bṛih. Up.*, III.9.1). The former seems to refer to the quorum of the *Jana* as a whole, and the latter to the *Pṛithag-Devāḥ* (*Atharva*, XI.5.2.), *i.e.*, the approximate number of members individually attending their *Sabhā*. These numbers, obviously lacking any other reasonable explanation, seem to have been taken from the procedure as it prevailed in the *Janapada* assemblies of men. The Vṛishṇyandhaka heroes assembled in a body in an emergent meeting of their *Sabhā* are actually compared to the gods seated in the Sudharmā hall (Ādi., 212.15). Elaborate seating arrangements were made for the members (*ib.*, 212.13-14).

c13.s1.t1.23

The *Sabhā* must have held regular sessions on fixed days, and also emergent meetings convened to consider unforeseen events, as for example, the abduction of Subhadrā by Arjuna. Under the stress of public events, when there was urgent necessity, the Sabhāpāla officer convened an assembly of panic and tumult, summoning the citizens of the town by sounding the war drum (*sānnāhikī bherī*, Ādi., 212.11).

c13.s1.t1.24

The *Sabhā* as an institution existed both in the *ekarāja* states and the *gaṇas*. In the former it was named after the name of the king (II.4.23), as *Chandragupta-sabhā*.

c13.s1.t1.25

*SYMPOLITIES*—Under pressure of political events, neighbouring and kindred cities or groups of people united in larger communities. This led to confederations of the most diverse nature. Union was accomplished in all cases by the adoption of a common constitution. This was given the name of sympolity in the Greek city-states. The sympolities which are known to us present so many forms, so many gradations, that it is often puzzling to know how to define them, or one hesitates for the appropriate name. Almost the same political phenomena prevailed in the case of the *Janapada* states in the time of Pāṇini. He seems to have surveyed these diverse sympolities and arranged the different political terms in the *sūtra Śreṇyādayaḥ kṛtādibhiḥ* (II.1.59) The first three terms *Śreṇi*, *Eka* and *Pūga* have reference to three types of states, the diverse nature of their constitutional modifications being indicated by words in the *Kṛtādi gaṇa*. The constitutional variety and gradation may be set forth as follows for the *Śreṇi* :

c13.s1.t1.26

1. *Śreṇi-kṛita*, formed or organised into a *śreṇi* under external pressure of events.
2. *Śreṇi-mita*, groups of people, with a *śreṇi* constitution to a limited extent only.
3. *Śreṇi-mata*, united with the approval of the constituent groups, each of the confederating units retaining the status of a *śreṇi*.
4. *Śreṇi-bhūta*, fully welded or confederated as one *śreṇi*, with the spontaneous urge of members.
5. *Śreṇi-ukta*, having only the formal designation of a *śreṇi*, otherwise retaining the independence of each group in the union.
6. *Śreṇi-samājñāta*, probably similar to an administration in which only a few officials like magistrates, *mahattaras*, were accepted in common by the contracting parties to the union.
7. *Śreṇi-samāmnāta*, a union as *śreṇi*, in which a common constitution was adopted by several *Janapadas* by incorporating some parts of one with some of the other.

c13.s1.t1.27

8. *Śreṇi-samākhyāta*, completely and fully merged or brought into a common relationship with one another.
9. *Śreṇi-sambhāvita*, welded as a unit by the mingling or transference of populations, perhaps akin to synœcism in the city-states.
10. *Śreṇi-avadhārita*, *śreṇis* forming unions in only a limited or restricted manner.
11. *Śreṇi-nirākṛita*, *śreṇi* that had seceded from the union or hegemony of states to which it formerly belonged.
12. *Śreṇi-avakalpita*, a state that was ripe to form a union by virtue of its strength of arms.
13. *Śreṇi-upakṛita*, a smaller state becoming a partner with a bigger *Janapada* and earning some advantage fot it by this deal.
14. *Śreṇi-upākṛita*, brought near or driven to form a union as a reaction to the menacing growth of some neighbouring state.

c13.s1.t1.28

We may have two more groups of similar terms for *Pūga* and *Eka* forms of government.¹

c13.s1.t1.29

¹ पूग—पूग-कृत, पूग-मित, पूग-मत, पूग-भूत, पूग-उक्त, पूग-समाज्ञात, पूग-समाम्नात, पूग-समाख्यात, पूग-सम्भ वित, पूग-अवधारित, पूग-निराकृत, पूग-अव-कल्पित, पूग-उपकृत, पूग उपाकृत । एक—एक-कृत, एक-मित, एक-मत, एक-भूत, एक-उक्त, एक-समाज्ञात, एक-समाम्नात, एक-समाख्यात, एक-सम्भावित, एक-अवधारित, एक-निराकृत, एक-अवक्लित, एक उपकृत, एक-उपाकृत ।

c13.s1.t1.30

The word-meanings given to the various terms of the *gaṇa Kṛitadi* are more or less hypothetical and the determining of precise political significance must await further clarification. This much, however, is indicated that they refer to political unions or constitutional forms of diverse nature and extent, by which new states were created out of old ones, embracing new groups, losing some part of their autonomy, or effacing their frontiers to form into bigger unions, or organising into military bands (*pūgas*) of varying camaraderie and cohesion.

c13.s1.t1.31

AVAYAVAS—Pāṇini refers to this term in *sūtra* IV.1.173; its meaning cannot be said to be beyond doubt. The *Kāśikā* mentions six *Avayavas* of the Sālva state, viz., Udumbara, Tilakhala, Madrakāra, Yugandhara, Bhuliṅga, and Śaradaṇḍa, to which Patañjali adds three more, *viz.*, Ajamīḍha, Ajakranda and Budha (*Bhāshya*, II.269). Their territories were far flung over Rajputana and the Panjab without any geographical contiguity. It seems that the *Avayavas* were Sālva citizens who were detached from the main body and quartered on other *Janapadas* as an occupying colony where they enjoyed all the privileges of the new state, but at the same time considered themselves to be part and parcel (*avayava*) of the parent state of the Sālva Kshatriyas. Thus they were "the Sālva people of Udumbara," "the Sālva people of Tilakhala," etc., but constitutionally a section of the Sālva *Janapada*. Such a system was known in Athenian democracy where the *cleruchs* (persons sent out from Athens as occupation forces) were quartered in thousands on the soil of other cities, and were designated as "the Athenian people of Imbros," "the Athenian people dwelling in Scyros," etc. (Glotz. *ib.* p. 282).

Linked texts (8)