Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Tribes in Ancient India c61.s6: Political History

Tribes in Ancient India c61.s6

Language
English

Political History

c61.s6.1

It is from the Buddhist literature that we first realise the importance of the Licchavis. In the *Brāhmaṇa* literature, though there is repeated mention of Videha, which in the Buddha’s time joined with the Licchavis and formed a confederation, there is no mention of the Licchavis. It is remarkable that while the Mallas, their immediate neighbours, are mentioned in the *Mahābhārata*, the Licchavis are not found among the peoples that were encountered by the Pāṇḍava brothers in their peregrinations, or on their mission of conquest. In the sixth century B.C., however, we find them in the Jaina and Buddhist books as a powerful people in the enjoyment of great prosperity and of a high social status among the ruling races of Eastern India, and, as we have seen, they had already evolved a system of government and polity bearing no small resemblance to some of the democracies¹ of the western world. It must have taken a long time to develop such institutions. But we must not imagine that the system was a creation of the Licchavis; for it seems that the *saṃgha* form of government was the normal form in ancient India even among the peoples that had a king at their head. The earliest Indian tradition of a king is that of a person elected by the people and ruling for the good of the people.² The procedure of conducting the deliberations of an assembly must have been developing from the earliest Vedic times, as the *samiti* and the *pariṣad* were well-known institutions in the *Ṛgveda*. The Licchavis must have modelled their procedure on that which was already in vogue among the Indian Aryans, allowing a century for the evolution of the particular form of government of the Licchavis from the already existing system. Their emergence from obscurity may fairly be placed at the beginning of the seventh century B.C. It is true that we do not find the Licchavis among the Vedic peoples, but in the fourth century B.C. (the time of the *Arthaśāstra*) they are mentioned along with the Kuru-Pañcālas and the Madras, i.e. with some of the powerful races of the Brāhmaṇic period.

c61.s6.2

¹ It may be argued that the Licchavi constitution was not a democracy, since citizenship was confined to the Licchavi clan, but in reply it may be pointed out that even in the great democracy of Athens, every resident was not a citizen. The Metics and the Slaves, for instance, were excluded from citizenship.

c61.s6.3

² See, e.g., the story of Beṇa and Pṛthu, *Mahābhārata*, *Śāntiparvan*, Vaṅgavāsī Ed., Chap. 60, verse 94.

c61.s6.4

We know nothing of the history of the Licchavis during the period of their early growth and development. The earliest political fact of any importance that we know of is that a Licchavi girl was given in marriage to Seṇiya or Śreṇika Bimbisāra, king of Magadha. This Licchavi lady, according to the *Nirayāvalī Sūtra*, one of the early Jaina works, was Cellanā, the daughter of Ceṭaka,³ one of the *Rājās* of Vaiśālī, whose sister Kṣatriyānī Triśalā was the mother of Mahāvīra. In a Tibetan *Life of the Buddha*, her name is given as Śrībhadrā,⁴ and in some places she is named Maddā.⁵ She is, however, usually called Vaidehī in the Buddhist books, and her son Ajātaśatru is frequently designated ‘Vedehiputto’,⁶ or the son of the Videhan princess.

c61.s6.5

³ Jacobi, *Jaina Sūtras*, S.B.E., Vol. XXII, Introduction, p. xiii.

c61.s6.6

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. xiii, note 3.

c61.s6.7

⁵ Mrs. Rhys Davids and S. Sumaṅgala Thera, *The Book of the Kindred Sayings*, Pt. I, p. 38, n. 1.

c61.s6.8

⁶ *Saṃyutta Nikāya*, Pt. II, p. 268.

c61.s6.9

The *Divyāvadāna* in one passage¹ speaks of Ajātaśatru as Vaidehīputra, and elsewhere² it states that King Bimbisāra reigned at Rājagṛha with his chief queen Vaidehī, and Ajātaśatru, his son. The Tibetan *Dulva* gives the name of Vāsavī to Ajātaśatru’s mother, and narrates a story regarding Ajātaśatru’s origin which cannot be traced in the *Pāli Canon*.³

c61.s6.10

¹ *Divyāvadāna* (Cowell and Neil), p. 55.

c61.s6.11

² *Ibid.*, p. 545.

c61.s6.12

³ Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, pp. 63-4.

c61.s6.13

D. R. Bhandarkar holds that ‘this matrimonial alliance was a result of the peace concluded after the war between Bimbisāra and the Licchavis’,⁴ and that ‘Bimbisāra thus appears to have seized Magadha after expelling the Vajjis beyond the Ganges’.⁵ Bhandarkar’s theory is based on Rhys Davids’ supposition that the expression *Vesālim Māgadham puram* in verse 1013 of the *Suttanipāta*⁶ (P.T.S.) refers to one and the same city, taking *Māgadham puram* in apposition to Vesālī. But the commentator has taken *Māgadham* to be a synonym of Rājagaha (= Rājagṛha).⁷ Mention of the Pāsāṇa-cetiya in the same verse also goes to show that *Māgadham puram* was not Vaiśālī. In several places we find mention of the *caityas* or *cetiyas* round about Vaiśālī, but nowhere do we come across a Pāsāṇa-cetiya. From verse 1014 of the *Suttanipāta* it appears that this *cetiya* was situated on a mountain peak. It is quite possible, therefore, that it was one of the *cetiyas* round about Rājagṛha, and most probably it was the Gṛdhrakūṭa (Pāli Gijjhakūṭa) monastery. There seems to have been some basis, however, for concluding that there was a war between Bimbisāra and the Licchavis, as such a war is referred to incidentally in the Tibetan *Dulva*, in a passage which traces the birth of Abhaya (‘fearless’), another son of Bimbisāra, also by the Licchavi woman.⁸ This story, which makes Abhaya or Abhayakumāra, as the Jaina books have it, a son of Ambapālī (Āmrapālī), the courtesan of Vaiśālī, is not confirmed by the Pāli books, where her son by Bimbisāra is called Vimala-Koṇḍañña, who became a Bhikkhu.⁹

c61.s6.14

⁴ *Carmichael Lectures*, 1918, p. 74.

c61.s6.15

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 73.

c61.s6.16

⁶ P.T.S. (new edition), p. 194.

c61.s6.17

⁷ *Suttanipāta Commentary*, p. 584: ‘*Māgadham puranti Magadhapuram Rājagahan-ti adhippāyo*’.

c61.s6.18

⁸ Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, p. 64.

c61.s6.19

⁹ *Psalms of the Sisters*, pp. 120-1; *Psalms of the Brethren*, p. 65.

c61.s6.20

The Licchavis appear to have been on friendly terms with King Pasenadi (Prasenajit) of Kośala, who speaks of them as his friends.¹ The relation of the Licchavis with their neighbours, the Mallas, also seems to have been friendly in general, as is evidenced by the Mallas standing by the Licchavis against their common foe, Ajātaśatru. The Jaina books also speak of nine Malla chiefs and nine Licchavi chiefs showing reverence to Mahāvīra at the time of his passing. There were, however, occasional hostilities between the two tribes, as is shown by the story of Bandhula, a Mallian prince, who was victorious over the Licchavi chiefs.²

c61.s6.21

¹ *Majjhima Nikāya*, P.T.S., Vol. II, pp. 100-1 (*Aṅgulimāla Sutta*).

c61.s6.22

² *Jātaka*, Vol. IV, p. 149 (*Bhaddasāla Jātaka*).

c61.s6.23

We must now speak of the relations of the Licchavis with Ajātaśatru, the son and successor of Bimbisāra. The Magadhan king must have felt that the confederacy formed the greatest bar to the realisation of his idea of Magadhan expansion; and we find him taking the dreadful resolve to root out and destroy the Vajjians.³

c61.s6.24

³ *Buddhist Suttas*, S.B.E., Vol. XI, pp. 1 and 2 (*Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta*).

c61.s6.25

According to one account,⁴ the Vajjians attacked Ajātaśatru many times. This enraged him, and in order to baffle their attempts he had a fort constructed at Pāṭaligāma, and finally annihilated them. It is probable that Ajātaśatru was partly influenced by his fear of his foster-brother Abhaya, who had Licchavi blood in him. At this time, too, the Licchavis were gaining strength day by day, and no doubt becoming increasingly arrogant. In the *Sumaṅgalavilāsinī* account⁵ we read that there was a port near the Ganges extending over a yojana, half of which belonged to Ajātaśatru and half to the Licchavis. There was a mountain not far from it, and at the foot of this mountain was a mine of precious substance (*Mahogghabhaṇḍa*). Once Ajātaśatru was late in arriving there, and the Licchavis took away all the treasure; and this happened again the following year. Having sustained a heavy loss, Ajātaśatru decided on vengeance. He realised, however, that the Licchavis were numerically stronger; so he conceived the idea of destroying their unity by sowing seeds of dissension among them. He sent his prime minister Vassakāra to the Buddha, who predicted that in future the Licchavis would be delicate and pleasure-loving, but that at present they could not be overcome save by propitiating them with tributes, or dissolving their internal unity. When Vassakāra reported this to Ajātaśatru, the king did not agree to propitiate the Vajjians with tributes, so he decided to break up their union, and arranged to bring a trumped-up charge against Vassakāra, whereupon the latter, feigning anger at his disgrace, would go to the Vajjis and offer to betray Ajātaśatru to them. This plan was duly carried out, and the Vajjis offered Vassakāra the same post as he had held in Magadha, of ‘Judicial Prime Minister’. Vassakāra accepted this post, and very soon acquired a reputation for his able administration of justice. After some time he started sowing dissension among the Licchavis, making them suspicious of each other and of their chiefs. In this way he succeeded in the course of three years in bringing about such disunion among the rulers that none of them would tread the same road together. He then sent a mission to Ajātaśatru, telling him that the time to strike had arrived. The king forthwith assembled his forces and set out. The Vajjians, on receiving intimation thereof, sounded the tocsin calling the citizens to action; but no one responded to the call, and Ajātaśatru entered the city and routed the inhabitants.¹ Thus the Magadhan kingdom was very much extended during his reign.

c61.s6.26

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 18.

c61.s6.27

⁵ (P.T.S.) II, p. 516.

c61.s6.28

¹ Dīgha Nikāya Comm. (Sumaṅgalavilāsinī), II, 524 (P.T.S.).

c61.s6.29

Of the subsequent history of the Licchavis we know very little. But it is certain that they were not completely exterminated by Ajātaśatru. He seems to have succeeded in making the Licchavis acknowledge his suzerainty and pay him revenue, but they must have been independent in the matter of internal management, and maintained their democratic institutions, for Kauṭilya speaks of them two centuries later as living under a *saṃgha* form of government, and advises King Candragupta Maurya to seek the help of these *saṃghas* which, on account of their unity and concord, were almost unconquerable.

c61.s6.30

It may safely be presumed that the Licchavis acknowledged the suzerainty of Candragupta’s grandson Aśoka. After this we next meet them (as Licchivis) in Manu’s Code, some time between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D., and then we do not hear of them again until the fourth century A.D., when their name appears in the records of the Imperial Guptas.

c61.s6.31

At the beginning of the fourth century A.D., Candragupta I, a son-in-law of the Licchavi family and son of Ghaṭotkaca Gupta, established a new kingdom.² A gold coin was introduced under the name of Candragupta I by his son, the emperor Samudragupta, who succeeded in establishing his suzerainty over a great part of India. On the obverse of the coin were incised the figures of Candragupta and his queen Kumāradevī. The former is offering an object (which on some coins appears clearly as a ring) to his queen. The words ‘Candragupta’ and ‘Kumāradevī’, or ‘Śrī Kumāradevī’, or ‘Kumāradevī Śrīḥ’ are inscribed in the Brāhmī character of the fourth century A.D., and on the reverse was engraved the figure of Lakṣmī, the goddess of Fortune, seated on a lion couchant, with the legend ‘Licchavayaḥ’, ‘the Licchavis’. With this is to be combined the significant fact that Samudragupta in his Allahabad Inscription takes pride in describing himself as ‘Licchavidauhitra’, ‘the son of a daughter of the Licchavis’. This combined evidence justifies the conclusion that in the fourth century A.D., when the Guptas rose to power, the Licchavis must have possessed considerable political power in N.E. India. It is quite probable that Candragupta’s dominions received considerable expansion by the addition of the country which he obtained through his Licchavi wife Kumāradevī, perhaps by succession.

c61.s6.32

² R. D. Banerjea, Prācīna Mudrā, p. 121.

c61.s6.33

Fleet, in editing the inscriptions in which the Gupta-Licchavi connection is mentioned, observes: ‘Proof of friendly relations between the early Guptas and the Licchavis, at an early time, is given by the marriage of Candra Gupta I with Kumāra Devī, the daughter of Licchavi or of a Licchavi king. And that the Licchavis were then at least of equal rank and power with the early Guptas, is shewn by the pride in this alliance manifested by the latter.’¹ Fleet even goes so far as to declare: ‘In all probability the so-called Gupta era is a Licchavi era, dating either from a time when the republican or tribal constitution of the Licchavis was abolished in favour of a monarchy; or from the commencement of the reign of Jayadeva I, as the founder of a royal house in a branch of the tribe that had settled in Nepal.² The fact that this royal house that was planted by the Licchavis in Nepal about the period 330 to 355 A.D. by Jayadeva I³ was all along Brahmanical, proves that the Licchavis had not entirely dissociated themselves from the Brahmanic faith.’

c61.s6.34

¹ Fleet, *Gupta Inscriptions—Corpus Ins. Ind.*, Vol. III, Introduction, p. 135.

c61.s6.35

² Ibid., p. 136.

c61.s6.36

³ Ibid., p. 135.

c61.s6.37

Allan⁴ presumes that it was to keep up the memory of his father, Candragupta, and his mother, Kumāradevī, that the coin bearing their names and that of the Licchavis was issued by Samudragupta. It is not improbable that the inscription ‘Licchavayaḥ’ which occurs on Candragupta’s gold coins together with the name of his queen Kumāradevī may signify that she belonged to a royal family of the Licchavis previously reigning at Pāṭaliputra⁵ (modern Patna), which seems to have been the original capital of the Gupta empire. A similar opinion is held by V. A. Smith, who says that Candragupta, a local rājā at or near Pāṭaliputra, married Kumāradevī, a princess belonging to the Licchavi clan, in or about the year 308.¹ In ancient times, the Licchavis of Vaiśālī had been the rivals of the kings of Pāṭaliputra, but Candragupta was now elevated through his Licchavi connection from the rank of a local chief.

c61.s6.38

⁴ Allan, *Gupta Coins*, pp. 8-11.

c61.s6.39

⁵ Rapson, *Indian Coins*, pp. 24, 25.

c61.s6.40

¹ V. A. Smith, *Early History of India* (4th Ed.), p. 295.

c61.s6.41

The Nepal inscriptions point out that there were two distinct houses, one of which, known as the Thākuri family, is mentioned in the *Vaṃśāvalī*, but is not recorded in the inscriptions; and the other was the Licchavi or the Sūryavaṃśī family which issued its charters from the house or palace called Mānagṛha and uniformly used an era with the Gupta epoch.²

c61.s6.42

² Fleet, *Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum*, Vol. III, p. 135.

Linked texts (8)