India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi c14.19

c14.19

The *sūtra Vishayo deśe* (IV.2.52) calls for comment. What was the exact significance of *Vishaya*? Jainendra, Śākaṭāyana and Hemachandra take it as *rāshtra*, and Vardhamāna as *Janapada*, which is the same thing. The *Kāśikā* takes it as *grāma-samudāya*. Kātyāyana and Patañjali interpret *Vishaya* as being identical with *Janapada* in some cases, but their comments give the impression that even such geographical units as were not a *Janapada* were called *Vishaya*. For Pāṇini, if *vishaya* and *janapada* were identical, he would not treat of the former under a separate heading (IV.2.52-54). The truth seems to be that *Vishaya* denoted sphere of influence', 'lands', 'possessions', and as such was distinct from *nivāsa* or the actual settlement of the people whose possession it was. A *Vishaya* included both a bigger unit having the status of a *Janapada*, or a smaller area which was but an estate. In the words of the Rājanyādi *gaṇa*, *Vishaya* denoted *Janapadas*, while in those of the Bhauriki and Aishukāri *gaṇas* (IV.2.54) it was the landed property, their share of estate, *ṭhikānā* or *zamindārī* which was the source of their livelihood. The suffixes *vidhal* and *bhaktal* (i.e. *vidha* and *bhakta*) denoted food, division, share, property. *Vidhā* (food) seems to be derived from *vidha* having such a meaning, and *bhakta* is well-known as denoting 'source of livelihood or maintenance.' The villages (*grāma-samudāya*) which were the *zamindārī* of the Bhaurikis were called Bhauriki-vidha, and similarly Aishukāri-bhakta without any reference to the polity that prevailed there.