Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Tribes in Ancient India c61.s5: Government and Administration of Justice

Tribes in Ancient India c61.s5

Language
English

Government and Administration of Justice

c61.s5.1

The Licchavis formed a republic in the sense that there was no hereditary monarch, the power of the State being vested in the assembly of citizens. It does not appear to have been a completely democratic republic, but an oligarchy, citizenship being confined to members of the confederate clans. There is ample evidence to show that in ancient times this form of government, as described in the Buddhist books, was much more in vogue than we are led to imagine from later literature.

c61.s5.2

The Licchavis formed what was called a *samgha* or *gaṇa*, that is, an organised corporation. One of the Buddhist canonical books, the *Majjhima Nikāya*,⁵ speaks of the Vajjis and the Mallas as forming *samghas* and *gaṇas*, i.e. clans governed by an organised corporation and not by an individual sovereign. The *Mahāvastu* says that when plague raged in Vaiśālī, a Licchavi named Tomara was elected by the gaṇa to appeal to the Buddha and bring him to the city.

c61.s5.3

⁵ P.T.S., Vol. I, p. 231.

c61.s5.4

Kauṭilya says¹ that the Licchavis and various other tribes were ‘rāja-śabda-upajīvinaḥ’. This apparently means that among these peoples each citizen had the right to call himself a rājā, ‘king’, i.e. a dignitary who did not owe allegiance or pay revenue to any one else. Each citizen not merely looked upon himself as a rājā, but considered that his title should be recognised not only by his fellow clansmen but also by the other people of India. This is corroborated by the description of the Licchavis given in the Lalitavistara, which says that at Vaiśālī there was no respect for age, nor for position, whether high or middle or low, each one thinking that he was a rājā.² Kauṭilya’s account shows that this designation of each individual clansman was not confined to the Licchavis, but was shared by them with many other warrior peoples of Northern India. Śavaraswāmī in his commentary on the Pūrvamīmāṃsā Sūtra, Book II, says that the word ‘rājā’ is a synonym for Kṣatriya, and states that even in his time the word was used by the Andhras to designate a Kṣatriya. On his authority, it can be said that the word ‘rājā’ in early times designated a member of the Kṣatriya caste, and subsequently acquired the specialised meaning of ‘king’.

c61.s5.5

¹ See Arthaśāstra, trsl. R. Shāma Shāstrī, p. 455.

c61.s5.6

² ‘Ekaika eva manyate ahaṃ rājā, ahaṃ rājeti.’ Lalitavistara, ed. Lefmann, Vol. I, p. 21; Bibl. Indica Series, Chap. III, 23.

c61.s5.7

In practice the rank of rājā must have been restricted to a comparatively small section of the community, because we learn from the Ekapaṇṇa Jātaka that besides the rājās, there were the uparājās, senāpatis, etc. What the real number of de facto rājās was, we do not know. The Mahāvastu³ speaks of the twice 84,000 Licchavi rājās residing within the city of Vaiśālī. The Pāli commentaries, e.g. the preambles to the Cullakāliṅga Jātaka⁴ and the Ekapaṇṇa Jātaka⁵ speak of seven thousand seven hundred and seven rājās of Vaiśālī. The Kalpasūtra speaks of only nine (Jaina Sūtras, Pt. I, S.B.E., Vol. XXII, p. 266).

c61.s5.8

³ Vol. I, p. 271.

c61.s5.9

⁴ Fausböll, Jātaka, Vol. III, p. 1.

c61.s5.10

⁵ Ibid., Vol. I, p. 504.

c61.s5.11

Kauṭilya⁶ observes that all these saṃghas by virtue of their being united in such corporations, were unconquerable by others. He further observes that for a king, a corporation was the best and most helpful of all allies, because of the power derived from their union which made them invincible. When Ajātaśatru sent his prime minister (mahāmātra) to ascertain the views of the Buddha with regard to his proposed extermination of the Vṛjis, the Buddha said to Ānanda, ‘So long, Ānanda, as the Vajjians hold these full and frequent public assemblies; so long may they be expected not to decline but to prosper.’¹

c61.s5.12

⁶ Arthaśāstra (2nd Ed.), p. 378.

c61.s5.13

¹ *Buddhist Suttas*, S.B.E., Vol. XI, p. 3.

c61.s5.14

The public hall where the Licchavis used to hold their meetings was called the *Santhāgāra*, and there they discussed both religion and politics. We have seen in the story of the conversion of Sīha that the Licchavis met at the *Santhāgāra* to discuss the teaching of the Buddha. The procedure that was followed in these assemblies may be gathered, as D. R. Bhandarkar² has pointed out, from an account of the procedure followed at a ceremony of ordination in the *saṃgha* of the Buddhist Bhikkhus. There can be no doubt that in organising the Buddhist *saṃgha*, the Buddha took as his model the political *saṃghas* of N.E. India, especially that of the Licchavis whose corporation, as we have seen, he esteemed very highly. Fortunately for us, the rules of procedure followed in the Buddhist community or *saṃgha* have been preserved in the description of the *upasampadā* or ordination ceremony in the *Pātimokkha* section of the *Vinaya Piṭaka*, and from this description we can form an idea of the procedure followed in the political *saṃgha* of the Licchavis. First of all, an officer called the *Āsana-paññāpaka* (regulator of seats) was elected, whose function seems to have been to seat the members of the congregation in order of seniority.³ As in the Buddhist congregation, so among the Licchavis, the elders of the clans were highly respected, as we see from the *Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta*.⁴

c61.s5.15

² *Carmichael Lectures*, 1918, p. 181.

c61.s5.16

³ *Vinaya Texts*, S.B.E., Vol. XX, p. 408, f.n.

c61.s5.17

⁴ *Buddhist Suttas*, S.B.E., Vol. XI, p. 3.

c61.s5.18

The form of moving a Resolution in the council thus assembled and seated may be gathered from the full description of procedure in the Buddhist *saṃgha*, for which see Rhys Davids and Oldenberg, *Vinaya Texts*, Pt. I, pp. 169-70.

c61.s5.19

As might be expected in such an assembly, there were often violent disputes and quarrels with regard to controversial topics. In such cases, the disputes were settled by the votes of the majority and this voting was by ballot; voting tickets or *salākās* were served out to the voters, and an officer of approved honesty and impartiality was elected to collect these tickets or voting papers.⁵ The appointment of this officer, who was called the *Salākā-gāhāpaka*, was also made by the whole assembly.

c61.s5.20

⁵ *Cullavagga*, S.B.E., Vol. XX ; *Vinaya Texts*, Pt. III, p. 25.

c61.s5.21

There was also a provision for taking the votes of absent members. The *Mahāvagga*¹ mentions an example of a declaration of the consent of an absent member (of the congregation of monks) to an official Act. Such a declaration was called *Chanda*.

c61.s5.22

¹ *Mahāvagga*, S.B.E., Vol. XIII, p. 277.

c61.s5.23

A quorum was required, and difficulty was often experienced in securing the right number, so that the Buddha exhorted the Bhikkhus to help to complete the quorum.² There are other detailed rules in the *Vinaya Piṭaka* for the regulation of the assembly. This elaboration of the procedure, as well as the use of technical terms for each detail, shows that the organisation of these popular assemblies had already been highly developed among the political *saṃghas* like that of the Licchavis before the Buddha adopted them for the regulation of his religious *saṃgha* or congregation.³

c61.s5.24

² *Ibid.*, pp. 307-9.

c61.s5.25

³ For the democratic organisation of the Licchavis, see D. R. Bhandarkar, *Carmichael Lectures*, 1918, pp. 179-84.

c61.s5.26

The Tibetan works mention a Nāyaka who was the chief magistrate of the Licchavis and ‘was elected by the people or rather by the ruling clans of Licchavis’.⁴ We do not know exactly what his functions were; perhaps he was an executive officer for carrying out the decisions of the assembly.

c61.s5.27

⁴ Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, p. 62.

c61.s5.28

There does not appear to have been any outstanding figure among the Licchavis, comparable to Śuddhodana among the Śākyas. The preamble to the *Ekapaṇṇa Jātaka*⁵ relates that of the *Rājās* who lived in Vaiśālī permanently exercising the rights of sovereignty, there were seven thousand, seven hundred and seven, and there were quite as many *Uparājās* (subordinate officials), *Senāpatis* (generals), and *Bhāṇḍāgārikas* (treasurers). A passage in the preamble to the *Cullakāliṅga Jātaka*⁶ also mentions seven thousand, seven hundred and seven Licchavi *rājās*, who lived at Vaiśālī. The number seven thousand, seven hundred and seven cannot be the number of all the Licchavis living in the town of Vaiśālī; in fact we are told in the *Mahāvastu* that the Licchavis, who went out of Vaiśālī to meet the Buddha on his first visit to that city, numbered as many as twice eighty-four thousand, which was not an incredible number for such an extensive city as Vaiśālī. But 7,707 is evidently an artificially concocted number, seven being used from the idea that it had some magic potency. It is significant that none of the canonical texts themselves gives this number, which occurs only in a later commentary, the *Nidānakathā* of the Jātakas.

c61.s5.29

⁵ Fausböll, *Jātaka*, Vol. I, p. 504: ‘*Niccakālam rajjaṃ kāretvā vasantānaṃ yeva rājūnaṃ sattasahassāni satta ca rājāno honti, tattakā yeva uparājāno, tattakā senāpatino, tattakā bhaṇḍāgārikā.*’

c61.s5.30

⁶ *Ibid.*, Vol. III, p. 1.

c61.s5.31

Bhandarkar says that an *Uparājā* or Viceroy, a *Senāpati* or general, and a *Bhāṇḍagārika* or treasurer formed the private staff of every Licchavi *Rājā*. He adds that each *Rājā* had personal property of his own which was managed by himself with the help of these three officers. This seems to be likely, because the existence of a *Bhāṇḍagārika* attached to each *Rājā* necessarily implies that each *Rājā* had his own separate *Bhāṇḍagāra* or treasury.

c61.s5.32

There must have been officers who recorded the decisions of the Council. A passage in the *Mahāgovinda Suttanta* of the *Dīgha Nikāya* seems to justify this conclusion. In describing a meeting of the thirty-three gods in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven, it is said that after the deliberations were over, four great kings recorded the conclusions arrived at, and on this passage the translators observe, ‘This sounds very much as if the Four Great Kings were looked upon as Recorders of what had been said. They kept the minutes of the meeting. If so (the gods being made in the image of men), there must have been such Recorders at the meetings in the Mote-Halls of the clans.’¹

c61.s5.33

¹ *Dialogues of the Buddha*, Pt. II, p. 263.

c61.s5.34

A passage in the preamble to the *Bhaddasāla Jātaka* mentions a tank, the water of which was used at the ceremony of *abhiṣeka* or coronation of the *kulas* or families of the *gaṇa rājās* of Vaiśālī.² This may refer to the ceremony performed when a Licchavi *rājā* was elected to a seat in the assembly of the State, or it may denote that the ceremony of coronation was performed when a young Licchavi *kumāra* (prince) succeeded to the title and position of his father.

c61.s5.35

² Fausböll, *Jātaka*, Vol. IV, p. 148: ‘*Vesālinagare gaṇarājakulānaṃ abhiseka-maṅgalapokkharaṇīm, ...*’ See also D. R. Bhandarkar, *Carmichael Lectures*, 1918, pp. 150-1.

c61.s5.36

The *Aṭṭhakathā* on the *Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta*³ gives an account of the judicial procedure among the Licchavis. When a person who had committed an offence appeared before the Vajjian *rājās*, they surrendered him to the *Viniccaya-Mahāmattas*, i.e. officers whose business it was to make enquiries and examine the accused with a view to ascertaining whether he was innocent or guilty. If they found the man innocent, they released him; but if they considered him guilty, they made him over to the *Vohārikas*, i.e. persons learned in law and custom. These could discharge him if they found him innocent; if they held him guilty, they transferred him to certain officers called *Suttadhāras*, that is, officials who kept up the *sūtra* (sutta) or thread of (ancient) law and custom. They in their turn made further investigation, and if satisfied that the accused was innocent, they discharged him. If, however, they considered him guilty, he was made over to the *Aṭṭhakūlakā*¹ (lit. ‘the eight castes or tribes’) which was evidently a judicial institution composed of judges representing the eight *kūlas* or tribes of the confederacy.

c61.s5.37

³ *Sumaṅgalavilāsinī*, II, 519 (P.T.S.).

c61.s5.38

¹ The Hon. G. Turnour says that no satisfactory explanation can be obtained as to the nature of the office held by these functionaries. It is inferred to be a judicial institution composed of judges from all the eight castes.

c61.s5.39

The *Aṭṭhakūlakā*, if satisfied of the guilt of the accused, made him over to the *Senāpati* or commander of the army, who delivered him over to the *Uparājā* or sub-king, and the latter in his turn handed him over to the *Rājā*. The *Rājā* released the accused if he was innocent; if he was found guilty, the *Rājā* referred to the *Paveṇipotthaka*, that is, the *pustaka* or book recording the law and precedents, and prescribing the punishment for each particular offence. The *Rājā*,² having measured the culprit’s offence by means of that standard, used to inflict a proper sentence.³

c61.s5.40

² It seems that the ‘*Rājā*’ who was the highest authority in the administration of criminal justice was different from the ordinary *rājās* who constituted the popular assembly. He was perhaps the senior amongst the *rājās*, or was one elected from time to time to administer criminal justice.

c61.s5.41

³ G. Turnour, *An Examination of the Pāli Buddhistical Annals*, J.A.S.B., December, 1838, pp. 993-4, f.n.

Cites (7)