Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c13: Chapter VI: Republics

State and Government in Ancient India c13

Language
English

Chapter VI: Republics

c13.2

Monarchy, which was the prevailing form of government in the post-Christian period, has been discussed in the preceding chapter ; we shall now consider the various problems connected with the non-monarchical forms of the state, variously known as aristocracies or democracies or republics.

c13.3

Some writers have averred that monarchy was the only form of government known to ancient India. They maintain that what are claimed to be republics were nothing more than tribal states. According to this view the Māłava-*gaṇa* and the Yaudheya-*gaṇa*, for instance, were not the Mālava and the Yaudheya republics, but the tribes of the Mālavas and the Yaudheyas respectively. This view, however, is obviously untenable ; for there is ample evidence to show that even if we grant that the Mālavas and the Yaudheyas were tribes, they had also a republican form of government. It can be proved beyond all doubt that *gaṇa* indicated a certain type of state, sharply distinguished from monarchy. When some merchants from Madhyadeśa, travelling in the Deccan, were asked by a local ruler as to who the kings were in their respective homelands, they replied, 'Sir, in the countries of some of us there are kings, but in those of others, there is *gaṇa* or republican government.'¹. A Jain work warns a monk that he should avoid visiting a country which has no king, or has a crown prince as the ruler, or two kings fighting with each other, or is governed by the *gaṇa* form of government.² These two passages make it clear that *gaṇa* had a definite constitutional meaning and denoted a form of government, where the power was vested not in one person, but in a *gaṇa* or group of people. Saṅgha was another term used precisely in the same sense, because it was sharply distinguished from monarchy.¹ When, therefore, we get coin legends on hundreds of coins, referring not to the kings of the Yaudheyas, the Mālavas and the Arjunāyanas, but to their *gaṇas* it is clear that they refer not to their tribes but to their *gaṇa* or republican states, which had authorised the coin issue.

c13.4

¹ देव केचिद्देशा गणाधीनाः केचिद्राजाधीनाः । *Avadānaśataka* II. p. 103

c13.5

² अरायणि वा गणरायणि वा जुवरायणि वा दोरज्जणि वा वेरज्जणि वा विरुद्धरज्जणि वा । *Āchāraṅgasūtra* I. 3. 160

c13.6

¹ क्षत्रियादेकराजात संघप्रतिषेधार्थम् । Kātyāyana on Pāṇini IV. 1. 160

c13.7

Apart from the evidence of coin legends and technical constitutional terms, we have also the valuable testimony of some contemporary Greek writers to show that there were many forms of non-monarchical states in ancient India. The account of Greek writers is held at discount in some quarters ;² it is impossible not to suspect, they say, that the account of the State machinery given by them was not deliberately assimilated to the forms of government prevailing in Greece. It is very difficult to accept this line of argument. The political sense was nowhere more developed and state institutions better studied than in ancient Greece. Greek historians found both monarchical and non-monarchical forms of the state prevailing in India. They themselves liked democracy better than monarchy, and there is no reason to believe that they would have gone out of their way in making a false statement about the prevalence of democracy among Indians, who were their bitter political opponents for a long time. A study of their writings shows that they have taken particular pains to distinguish the different forms of government. Amphi was a king and so was Porus ; when the latter became a faithful subordinate ally of Alexander the Great, we are told that the Greek conqueror added a large province to his kingdom, 'subduing inhabitants whose form of government was republican'.³ The government of the city of Nyasa was in the hands of an aristocracy.⁴ The Sabaracae was a powerful Indian tribe, 'where the form of government was democratic and not regal'.⁵ To the east of the Beas was a powerful kingdom 'in which the multitude was governed by the aristocracy, who exercised their authority with justice and moderation.¹ There were a number of non-monarchical states in the Indus valley, but when the Greeks came across a monarchy in that region, their historians do not fail to mention it. They are careful to point out that the kingdom of Mausikanos was governed by a king and that of Patala, by two kings belonging to two different families, but ruling simultaneously with the help of the popular council. When such minute facts about the variations in the forms of the state and administration have been carefully noticed by the Greek writers, we cannot brush aside their account on the fanciful plea that their imagination, which incited them to see Hellenistic things in non-Hellenic countries, was mainly responsible for their references to Indian republics. M'Crindle's view that the independent or autonomous states mentioned by the Greek writers refer to village communities is equally untenable.² Greek authors in fact have rarely referred to the village life or village government. Nor can we accept the opinion of Fick that the autonomous states of the Greek writers were individual cities or small states that maintained their independence in the neighbourhood of great monarchies like that of Magadha.³ The fact is that there was no such big monarchy in the Punjab in the days of Alexander the Great; as a matter of fact non-monarchical states were more extensive and powerful than the monarchical ones in that province at the time.

c13.8

² Beni Prasad, *State in Ancient India*, 168-9

c13.9

³ M'Crindle, *Invasion of Alexander the Great*, p. 308-9

c13.10

⁴ *Ibid*, p. 81

c13.11

⁵ *Ibid*, p. 252

c13.12

¹ M'Crindle, *Invasion of Alexander the Great*, p. 121

c13.13

² *Ibid*, p. 115, n. 2.

c13.14

³ Fick, *Social Organisation in the North-Eastern India*, p. 137.

c13.15

It must have been noticed that the states under discussion have been so far described by us negatively as non-monarchical. We must now proceed to ascertain their real form. They have been sometimes described as mere tribal organisations, sometimes as oligarchies, sometimes as aristocracies and sometimes as republics. Let us see what term will correctly describe their constitution.

c13.16

It is argued that to describe these states as republics or democracies would be hardly justifiable. Power was vested in these states not in the whole body of the citizens but in a small aristocratic class. Thus among the Yaudheyas, we definitely know that the government was vested in a college of 5,000 persons, each of whom was required to present an elephant to the state.¹ It is clear that the governing class of this state consisted of a rich aristocracy, members of which could afford to present an elephant to the state; common people had no voice in its administration. The same was also the case with the Śākyas and Koliyas; the question of peace or war, which vitally affected the fortunes of the man in the street, was decided there by the Śākya and Koliya aristocrats, (*rājās*), who were a few hundreds in number; the commoners like the farmers and the workers had merely to wait for and carry out the decisions of the privileged order.

c13.17

¹ M'Crindle, *Invasion of Alexander the Great*, p. 121

c13.18

It can be at once conceded that the *gaṇa* states of the Yaudheyas and the Śākyas, the Mālavas and the Lichchavis were not democracies or republics in the sense in which we understand these words today. Supreme and ultimate power did not lie vested in the whole body of adult citizens, as is the case with most of the well developed modern democracies. We can, however, still describe these states as republics. Standard works and authorities on the political science define republic as a state, where the sovereign power vests, not in a single person as in monarchy, but in a group or college of persons, more or less numerous. Oligarchies, aristocracies and democracies have all been labelled as republics. Thus Sparta, Athence, Rome, medieval Venice, the United Netherlands and Poland have all been described as republics, though none of them possessed that full democratic character, which we are at present inclined to consider as the most distinguishing feature of a republic. In the republics of ancient Greece and Rome, the franchise was confined to a small minority, who governed a vast majority, consisting of slaves as well as persons like mechanics and artisans who were personally free and yet had no franchise. Democracy was a reality only with reference to the small class of full fledged citizens, and not the whole population. In the medieval republic of Venice, after the closing of the council, the franchise was confined to a strictly limited aristocracy, which itself was dominated by a small oligarchy. The republic of the Seven States of Netherlands was no doubt governed by an elected Stateholder, but he was raised to that position by the votes of a very small body of burghers, who only had the franchise. And even in modern times in the U.S.A. millions of Negroes had no franchise for a long time and England had a number of pocket boroughs till the middle of the 19th century. In the 20th century France, nearly half the population has no franchise, for women in that country cannot yet vote in elections.

c13.19

With this theoretic background and historic evidence, we can certainly describe ancient Indian *gaṇa* states as republics in the same sense in which the ancient states of Greece and Italy were given that designation. Sovereignty in these states was vested not in one individual, nor in a small number of persons, but in a fairly numerous class. In the beginning this class consisted only of the descendants of the Kshatriya families, who had colonised the land, brought it under cultivation and founded the new state. It appears that even the Kshatriya families, who arrived later, did not enjoy the privilege of admission to the ruling class for a long time. The descendants of the original Kshatriya families, whose heads were called *rājās*, were known as *rājanyas*, while the rest of the Kshatriyas were known as *rājans*. In the famous Andhaka-Vṛishṇi republic, the descendants of Śvāphalaka, Chaitraka, Vāsudeva and Śini could be called *rāj nyakas*; the rest were all *rājans*.¹ The coin legend *Vṛishṇi-rājanya-gaṇasya jayaḥ* would show that in the Vṛishṇi republic the power was vested in the original Kshatriya founder families. It may be interesting to note that in the eastern states of the U.S.A. the distinction between the descendants of the original settlers' families and those who arrived later, was for a long time recognised in the sphere of social life.

c13.20

¹ *Pāṇini*, VI. 2. 34. The *Kāśikā* describes *rājanya* as *Abhishikta-vaṁśya-kshatriyas*.

c13.21

The Kshatriya settlers had inherited monarchical traditions and the leaders of the colonising families claimed and enjoyed the privilege of royal coronation and royal title. Kauṭilya (Bk. XI.I) undoubtedly uses the term *rājaśabdopajīvinaḥ* with reference to such republics where this usage prevailed. When Yudhishṭhira in the *Mahābhārata* points out how in some places there were kings in every house,¹ he obviously has small republics in view where this custom prevailed. We can now well understand the statement in the Buddhist literature about the Lichchhavi Saṁgha or republic having 7707 kings in it. The traditional number of the original Kshatriya settlers, who had colonised Muzaffarpur district was 7707 ; each one of them enjoyed the title of *rāja* and claimed the privilege of ablution in the coronation tank (*abhisheka-pokaraṇī*), which is referred to in the Jātakas² and is still remembered at Vaiśālī. He also had his own crown-prince, general and treasurer. Vaiśālī was a small republic, covering not more than the area of one district, and if it had 7707 kings, one can well understand the taunt in the *Lalitavistara* that everybody at Vaiśālī considered himself to be a king.³

c13.22

¹ गृहे गृहे तु राजानः । II. XV. 2

c13.23

² वैशालीनगरे गणराजकुलानां अभिषेकमंगलपोक्खरिणी । Jātaka, IV. 148

c13.24

³ एकैक एव मन्यते अहं राजा अहं राजेति ।

c13.25

In course of time, political power became more broadbased in the republics. The *Amarakośa* distinguishes between two types of the Kshatriya republic ; *Rājanyaka-gaṇa* or republic was one where power was vested in the descendants of the original founder-families enjoying the title of the *rājā* ; whereas *rājaka-gaṇa* or republic was one where it was vested in all the Kshatriya families, whether descended from the original founders or not.⁴ We can therefore well understand how the Śāntiparvan in one place describes the members of a republic as equal to one another in their caste and family status.⁵

c13.26

⁴ अथ राजकम् । राजन्यकं च नृपतिक्र्षत्रियाणां गणे क्रमात् । II. 8. 9. 3

c13.27

⁵ जात्या च सदृशाः सर्वे कुलेन सदृशास्तथा ॥ XII. 107. 29

c13.28

Brāhmaṇas enjoyed high social privileges in ancient India. Some of them used to take to the military profession also and would often found their own republican states ; one such state existed in Sindh at the time of the invasion of Alexander the Great. In Brāhmaṇa republics they enjoyed the privileged position, but whether they had the same in Kshatriya republics, we do not know.

c13.29

The *Arthaśāstra* XI. 1 would show that in some republics, both the military and trading classes shared the political power.¹

c13.30

¹ काम्बोजसुराष्ट्रक्षत्रियश्रेण्यादयो वार्ताशस्त्रोपजीविनः । XI. 1

c13.31

The governing class in the Gaṇa state was thus a fairly large one, probably as numerous as the corresponding class in the ancient republics of Greece and Italy.

c13.32

We can, therefore, legitimately describe the ancient Gaṇa states as republics in the same sense in which the standard works on the political science describe the states of Athens, Sparta or Venice as republics, remembering at the same time that they were not democracies of the modern type, where the franchise is vested in as large a number of citizens as possible. Political power was mainly in the hands of the Kshatriyas. In ancient Greece, there was often a conflict between aristocracy, which wielded the power, and the common people, who wanted to have it. We do not know whether there were such conflicts in ancient India.

c13.33

There is sufficient evidence to show that in the Gaṇa states the non-Kshatriyas were sharply distinguished from the ruling aristocracy. This distinction was so well established that special terms were devised to indicate it. Thus in the Mālava and Kshudraka Gaṇa states, the terms Mālava and Kshudraka denoted only the members of the privileged Kshatriya order; those, who were neither the Kshatriyas nor the Brāhmaṇas, were called, not Mālavas or Kshudrakas, but Mālavyas and Kshudrakyas respectively. It seems that the Brāhmaṇas could get exemption from being designated as Mālavyas and Kshudrakyas under certain circumstances, which, however, are not quite clear.²

c13.34

² आयुधजीविसंघाञ् ञ्यङःवाहीकेष्वब्राह्मणराजन्यात् Pāṇini, V. 3. 114 वाह्रीकेषु य आयुधजीविसंघस्तद्वाचिनः प्रातिपादकाद् ब्राह्मणराजन्यवर्जितात् स्वार्थे ञ्यट्प्रत्ययो भवति। ब्राह्मणे तद्विशेषग्रहणम्। राजन्ये तु स्वरूपग्रहणमेव। क्षौद्रक्यः क्षौद्रक्यौ। क्षुद्रकाः। मालव्यः। मालव्यौ। मालवाः। *Kāśikā*, on V. 3. 114

c13.35

Let us now trace the history of our republics. As shown already, monarchy was the normal form of government in the Vedic age. It was a period of Aryan expansion and the advantages of a capable and unitary leadership were naturally valued. Curiously enough a tradition narrated to Megasthenes in the 4th century B. C. also averred that monarchy was the earlier and democracy the later form of government.¹ The Madras, the Kurus, the Pāñchālas, the Śibis and the Videhas, who figure as republics in the 6th century B. C., were all monarchies in pre-historic times as shown by the pre-Buddhist genealogies of their dynasties preserved in the Purāṇas.

c13.36

¹ Cf. 'At last after many generations had come and gone, the sovereign-ty, it is said, was dissolved and a democratic government set up in the cities'. Arian, Chap. IX.

c13.37

The concluding hymn of the *Ṛigveda* prays that the deliberations of the *samiti* should be harmonious and the minds of its members well-disposed towards one another and its conclusions unanimous.² It is not impossible to argue that the hope and the desideratum expressed in the hymn refers to the deliberative and administrative activity of a republican state. Usually, however, the *samiti* is associated with a king and served as a check upon his power. It is, therefore, doubtful whether it denoted the Central Assembly of a republican state. The hymn by itself cannot conclusively prove the existence of a republican state.

c13.38

² समानो मंत्रः समितिः समानी समानं मनः सह चित्तमेषाम् । X. 191. 2

c13.39

In one place we get a reference to several kings meeting together in one *samiti*.³ In another place we get the significant statement that he alone becomes a king whose leadership of the state is assented to by *other kings*.⁴ The *kings* here referred to were probably the heads of the Kshatriya families, entitled to coronation and the state contemplated by this passage is one which was the prototype of the later republics already described above. The sovereign power of course rested not in the populace in general but in the aristocratic leaders of the cantons who were fairly numerous. If the kingship or leadership assented to by them became hereditary in the course of time, the normal monarchy of the later period was evolved. If, on the other hand, power was delegated to their leader by the members of the aristocracy for a short time, and if the leadership was not allowed to become hereditary, then circumstances were created which were to develop into the Kshatriya republics of the later times known as *gaṇas* or *saṁghas*. It is interesting to add that the kingship that is disclosed in Homer was similarly replaced by aristocracy at *c.* 700 B. C. on account of the power passing into the hands of a relatively small number of privileged persons.¹

c13.40

³ यत्रौषधीः समग्मत राजानः समिताविव । *R. V*, X. 97. 6

c13.41

⁴ यस्मै वै राजानो राज्यमनुमन्यन्ते स राजा भवति न स यस्मै न । *S. Br.*, IX. 3. 2. 5

c13.42

¹ Dunning, *Political Theories*, I. pp. 7-8

c13.43

A well-known passage in the later Vedic literature² observes that the kings of the easterners were known as *Samrāṭs* or emperors, those of the Sātvatas as *Bhojas*, those of the Nichyas and Apāchyas as *Svarāṭs*, while the countries to the north of the Himalayas like the Uttaramadras and Uttarakurus had a *vairājya* state and their *people* were called *virāṭs*. There is some difference of opinion about the meaning of the terms *Svarāṭs* and *Bhojas*,³ but there can be no doubt that the *vairājya* states of the Uttarakurus and the Uttaramadras were kingless (*vairājya*) states, where people, that is the heads of founder families, were consecrated for the rulership.⁴ It is worth noting that the Punjab, which was near the homeland of the Uttarakurus and the Uttaramadras, continued to have republican states down to the 4th century A. D., as will be soon shown.

c13.44

² ये के च प्राच्यानां राजानः साम्राज्यायैव तेऽभिषिच्यन्ते । ये के च परेण हिमवन्तं जनपदा उत्तरकुरव उत्तरमद्रा इति वैराज्यायैव तेभिषिच्यन्ते विराडित्येतानभिषिक्तानाचक्षते । *A. Br.*, VII. 3. 14

c13.45

³ Dr. Jayaswal contends that they denote republican states (*Hindu Polity*, I, pp. 90-1); but this does not seem probable.

c13.46

⁴ Sāyaṇa's explanation of वैराज्य as इतरेभ्यो भूपतिभ्यः श्रेष्ठयम् is due to his ignorance of a democratic state. The *Mbh.* XII. 67. 54 describes a *virāṭ* as one of the synonyms of the word king. But just as we can explain *virāṭ* as a *viśesheṇa rājā*, we can as well explain *Vairājya* state as one, which is devoid of (*vi*) the king. The *Vedic Index* explains *Vairājya* as a form of royal authority, but if in that state, the whole people, and not the kings only, were consecrated to the rulership, is it not reasonable to assume that the sovereignty in the *Vairājya* state was vested not in one individual, but in a large class, if not in the whole population?

c13.47

In historic times republics were flourishing in ancient India in a north-western and in a north-eastern zone. Curiously enough south India, where democracy was more effective in the realm of local government than in north India, does not seem to have developed any democratic state or republic. We shall now briefly notice the different republics that flourished in historic times. We shall start from the north-west.¹

c13.48

¹ Our chief sources of information abcut the republics of ancient India are the Greek writers for the north-western zone and the Buddhist works for the north-eastern one. Very valuable evidence is also obtained from grammarians like Pāṇini, and Patañjali, which has been lucidly utilised by Dr. V. S. Agrawala in his work, *India as known to Pāṇini*, Chap. VII. The *Mahābhārata* has two valuable chapters, written from a sympathetic point of view, directly describing some aspects of the working of the constitution of these states (XII. 81 and 107). The *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. XI, is mainly interested in describing measures to break the power of the *gaṇas* and *saṁghas*, but while doing so, it gives us some glimpses of the working of their consitution.

c13.49

The Punjab and the Indus valley were pre-eminently the land of republics from *c.* 500 B. C. to 400 A. D. Unfortunately in the case of some of them, we know nothing but their names fortunately preserved by some grammarians. To this category belong the Vṛikas, the Dāmaṇis, the Parśvas and the Kambojas. The Trigarta-shashṭhas, according to Pāṇini (V. 3. 116), formed confederation of six states which, according to the *Kāśikā* (composed about a thousand years later), were Kauṇḍoparatha, Dāṇḍaki Kraushṭaki, Jālamāni, Brahmagupta and Jānaki. Coins issued with the legend *Trakatajanapadasa*, coinage of the Trakata (Trigarta) country, seem to have been issued by them.² It is likely that this confederation flourished in the Jullandar Doab and later became a unitary state under the name of the Kuṇindas, coins issued by whom, but belonging to a later period, have been found in large numbers.³ In the course of the description of Arjuna's conquests in the Punjab, *the Mahābhārata* mentions⁴ the Pañchagaṇa and Saptagaṇa republics. These were probably federations of five and seven republics. The federating units may have been some of the Punjab republics mentioned by Pāṇini.

c13.50

² Allan *Coins of Ancient India*, Pl. XXXIX, 10. The legends on the coins issued by this and other republics afford very valuable and concrete evidence to prove their existence.

c13.51

³ R.C. Majumdhr and A.S. Altekar: *The Age of the Vākāṭakas and the Guptas*. Chapter II. It may be pointed out that the Kuṇinda republic flourished down to the 3rd century A. D. and offered valuable cooperation to the Yaudheyas in driving out the Kushāṇas.

c13.52

⁴ II. 27. 12, 16

c13.53

The Arjunāyanas flourished as a republic in the Agra-Jaipur tract from *c.* 200 B. C. to *c.* 400 A. D. Their coins have been found, which do not bear the name of any king or general ; the legend is simply *Arjunāyanānāṁ jayaḥ*. ‘victory to the Arjunāyanas.’ The coins belong to *c.* 100 B. C., but the Arjunāyana state must have been much more ancient, for the ruling class believed that it was descended from Arjuna, the epic hero. They worked in close cooperation with the Yaudheyas, their northern neighbours, who believed themselves to be the descendants of Dharma, the eldest brother of Arjuna.

c13.54

The Yaudheya republic was a fairly extensive state. The findspots of its coins show that it extended from Saharanpur in the east to Bahavalpur in the west, from Ludhiyana in the north-west to Delhi in the south-east. It was a confederation of three republics. Rohtak in the Punjab was the capital of one of them, and northern Pañchāla, known as Bahudhānyaka (rich in corn) country, was the centre of power of the second. Northern Rajputana seems to have been in the jurisdiction of the third. The powerful trans-Beas state, mentioned by Alexander’s historians, which possessed fertile territory and virile inhabitants, and which was governed by an aristocracy exercising its power with justice and moderation, is obviously the Yaudheya republic. The Yaudheyas had an unsurpassed reputation for bravery, and no wonder ; for they were the devotees of Kārttikeya, the generalissimo of gods. They were, therefore, also known as Mattamayūrakas, peacock (*mayūra*) being the vehicle of Kārttikeya.¹ It was this reputation of their bravery and the report about the rich resources of their state that made Alexander’s soldiers lose their heart and refuse to advance further. The Yaudheyas continued to flourish down to the end of the 1st century A. D., when they were temporarily overpowered by Kanishka I. But they soon became ‘insubordinate’, as a record of their enemy puts it, 'owing to their pride due to their valour being respected by all the Kshattriyas',¹ and rebelled against the Kushāṇa hegemony. They not only reasserted their independence in *c.* 225 A. D., but dealt a powerful blow to the Kushāṇa empire from which it could not recover.² They were flourishing as a republic down to *c.* 350 A. D. Their subsequent history is unknown.

c13.55

¹ *Mbh.*, V. 35. 3-4

c13.56

¹ Junagad inscription of Rudradāman I.

c13.57

² R.C. Majumdar and A.S. Altekar : *The Age of the Vākāṭakas and the Guptas*, pp. 28-33.

c13.58

The Madras in the Central Punjab were a republican state during the 4th century A. D ; they seem to be identical with the Kaṭhas whose republic is mentioned by Alexander's historians with its capital at Sialkot. They disdained to purchase peace by surrender and fought against the Greek invader to the bitter end. This republic continued to flourish down to the 4th century A. D.

c13.59

The Mālavas and the Kshudrakas were among those republics, which offered stoutest resistance to Alexander the Great. The region between the Chenab and the Ravi along with some territory further south was the homeland of the Mālavas at this time, and the Kshudrakas were their southern neighbours.³ In order to meet Alexander's invasion, they formed an alliance, but before their armies could effect a junction, Alexander struck against the Mālavas. The Mālavas, who could muster an army about 1,00,000 strong, offered bitter opposition, and Alexander almost lost his life while trying to capture one of their forts. Eventually both the Mālavas and the Kshudrakas were compelled to sue for peace. The two states, however, became wiser by this defeat and formed a confederation which lasted for a few decades. In the *Mahābhārata*, the Mālavas and the Kshudrakas are always mentioned together,⁴ and grammarians refer to a peculiar dual compound formed from the names of the two states. Later on the Kshudrakas seem to have completely merged in the Mālavas, who eventually migrated to Ajmer-Chitor-Tonk area in *c.* 100 B. C., and to the modern province of Mālwā about 400 years later. They were for a time subjugated by the Scythians in *c.* 150 A. D., but they reasserted their independence in *c.* 225 A. D. They claimed descent from the illustrious Ikshvāku stock of Śrī-Rāmachandra. They have left a very copious copper currency, whose legends do not mention any king but commemorate the victory of the Mālava republic.

c13.60

³ M,Crindle, *Invasion of Alexander the Great*, pp. 138 ff.

c13.61

⁴ II, 79, 90 ; V. 57, 18

c13.62

The precise location of the Agesinae and the Śibis, who were in the nieghbourhood of the Mālavas at the time of Alexander's invasion, is not known. The Śibis had a monarchy in the earlier days but became a republic later. By *c.* 100 B. C. they migrated to Mādhyamikā, near Chitor in Rajputana, where a large number of their coins, issued in the name of their republic, and not that of any king, have been found.¹

c13.63

¹ The legend is '*Majhamikāya Śibi-janapadasa*' (The coinage) of the Śibi country or commonwealth (issued in the city) of Majhamikā or Mādhyamikā. Allan, *Coins of Ancient India*, p. cxxiv

c13.64

In the neighbourhood of the Kshudrakas there was another republic, that of the Ambashṭhas (Sambastai of the Greeks). Curtius expressly describes their form of government as democratic. They had an army of 60,000 foot, 6,000 cavalry and 500 chariots, and had elected three generals to oppose Alexander the Great. Eventually, however, they decided to submit to him following the advice of their elders. Their later history is not known

c13.65

The Andhaka-Vṛishṇis, the Yādavas, the Kukkuras and the Bhojas are described in the *Mahābhārata* as having their full confidence in the leadership of Kṛishṇa. Probably they, formed a federal republic at least for some time.² The *saṁgha* states of Kathiawar mentioned by the *Arthaśāstra* (Bk. XI) appear to have continued the ancient republican tradition.

c13.66

² > यादवाः कक्कूरा भोजाः सर्वे चान्धकवृष्णयः ।

c13.67

The Buddhist canon and the Jātakas and their commentaries disclose the existence of a large number of republics flourishing in the Gorakhpur division of U. P. and in northern Bihar. Of course the Bhaggas, the Bulis, the Koliyas and the Moriyas were very small states, hardly more extensive than a tehsil or

c13.68

त्वय्यासक्ता महाबाहो लोका लोकेश्वराश्च ॥ XII.81.29

c13.69

two of the modern times. The Śākyas, the Mallas, the Lichchhavis and the Videhas were relatively larger, but the total extent of the territories of all these four states did not cover an area of more than 200 miles in length and 100 miles in breadth, between Gorakhpur in the west and Darbhanga in the east, between the Gangā to the south and the Himalayas to the north.¹ Of these four states, that of the Śākyas was the smallest and occupied a portion of Gorakhpur district. The Mallas were to their east and occupied the territory round Kusinagar. Then came the Lichchhavis and the Videhas.

c13.70

¹ It will thus be seen that these republics were not much larger than the city states of ancient Greece. Sparta, the biggest state, had an area of 3360 sq. miles; the area of the Lichchhavi state was approximately the same. Athencs at the time of its greatest prosperity ruled over 1060 sq. miles, which seems to have been the area of the Śākya republic.

c13.71

Some doubts arise as to the nature of the Śākya state. Some references in the Buddhist canonical literature suggest that the Śākyas had a monarchy. Bhaddiya, who was a king in Buddha's time, takes a week to arrange for the succession to his kingdom when he decides to enter the Holy Order. We, however, know that each member of the Kshatriya aristocracy, which ruled these eastern states, was entitled to call himself a *rājā*, and Bhaddiya may have been a *rājā* in that restricted sense of the term. Jātaka evidence shows that the Śākyas had an Assembly Hall, where all of them used to meet and decide important questions of peace, war and alliance. It does not refer to a hereditary king ruling over the whole state.

c13.72

There is no doubt that the Mallas, the Lichchhavis and the Videhas were republics during the life time of the Buddha. Their neighbours, the kings of Magadha and Kośala, were anxious to conquer them, and so we find these republics often forming confederation among themselves. Sometimes we find the Lichchhavis confederating with the Mallas and sometimes with the Videhas. The latter two, however, disappear from history from *c.* 500 B. C., when they were conquered by Magadha. The Lichchhavis had also to bow before the Magadhan imperialism, but they reasserted their independence by *c.* 300 B. C. They were a powerful state at the beginning of the 4th century A. D. and it was by an alliance with them that the Guptas could rise to the imperial position.

c13.73

We shall now proceed to consider the constitution and the administrative machinery of ancient Indian republics. Our main handicap is the absence of sufficient evidence to enlighten us upon the point. We shall have to consider disconnected data, often belonging to widely distant centuries and referring to different states and draw a composite picture. This method has its own obvious limitations and dangers, but there is no other procedure possible in the present state of our knowledge.

c13.74

It is clear that the constitutional machinery of small states like those of the Moriyas, the Koliyas and the Śākyas, which included hardly a few score villages in their jurisdiction, must have been different from that prevailing in big states like those of the Yaudheyas and the Mālavas, which covered extensive territories including dozens of cities and thousands of villages. It appears that in the small states of north-eastern India, most of the members of the Central Assembly lived in the capital where they used to meet frequently in the Assembly Hall (*santhāgāra*) to transact business of the state. Each member of the aristocratic order was known as a *rājā* and his son as an *uparājā*.¹ Probably the *rājā* held some zemindari land in the moffusil which he managed through his local agents. Besides the governing class, the population consisted of a large number of artisans farmers, servants and serfs. When a quarrel arose between the farmers and servants of the Koliyas and the Śākyas about the distribution of the water of the Rohiṇī, they reported it to the officer of their own state, who in turn appraised their *rājās* about it. It is the latter, who decided to go on war with the opposing state. This incident, therefore, shows that the commoners had not much voice in the momentous decisions of the central government on important topics like peace or war, which affected the whole population. There were, however, a number of small towns and villages in the Sākya state, which had their own Assemblies meeting in their Assembly Halls (*santhāgāras*).¹ It is very likely that in these village assemblies the non-privileged classes may have had an equal voice in local affairs.

c13.75

¹ This is, as shown above, the correct interpretation of the statement, तत्थ निच्चकालं रज्जं कारेत्वा वसंतनं येव राजूनं सत्तसहस्सानि सत्तसतानि सत्त च राजानो होंति तत्तका येव उपराजानो तत्तका सेनापतिनो तत्तका भंडागारिका । *Jātaka*, I, p. 504 Dr. Bhandarkar’s view that this statement suggests that the Lichchhavi state was a confederation of 7707 principalities, each having full authority under its *rājā*, *uparājā* etc., does not seem probable. *Carmichael Lectures*, 1918, p. 135. Such a big confederation is impracticable. For Dr. R. C. Majumdar’s interpretation, see *Corporate Life*, pp. 53-4 (1st edition).

c13.76

¹ 2. The assembly hall of the village Chatuma is expressly mentioned in the Buddhist canonical literature; *M. N*, I. 457

c13.77

The administration of bigger states like that of the Yaudheyas or the Mālavas was naturally organised in a different way. They were divided into provinces, each under a separate governor, probably recruited from the privileged class. The numerous cities of the state constituted separate government units, completely autonomous, and administered by their leading men. Unfortunately we do not know how these city councils were constituted. It is likely that the members of the privileged order may have dominated in them, but what we know of other city councils functioning in monarchical states enables us to infer that traders, artisans and agriculturists also belonging to the general population, may have had their own representatives on that body. In the village councils of the hundreds of villages that were situated in these states, the average population must have had the dominating voice. It is likely that the headman of the village may have been a member of the ruling class; the bureaucracy also may have been largely recruited from it. But the vast majority of the members of the village councils must have belonged to the different trades and professions which were recruited from all classes and castes.

c13.78

The sovereignty in these republics was vested in a very large Central Assembly. Its membership is stated to have been as high as 5,000 among the Yaudheyas and 7,707 among the Lichchhavis. The Kshudrakas had sent 150 of their leading men to negotiate peace with Alexander; the number of the members of their Central Assembly may have been probably much larger.

c13.79

These figures no doubt strike us as very large; but we should not forget that in contemporary Greece, the Athenian Assembly consisted of 42,000 citizens, each of whom had a right to attend its meetings. In actual practice, however, not all the members cared to attend. The country people did not like to spend time and money to attend all the meetings. The normal attendance was 2,000 to 3,000, hardly 7 or 8 per cent of the total membership. The Central Assembly of 7,707 members of the Lichchhavis or of 5,000 of the Yaudheyas probably consisted of the heads of the families of the descendants of the founder members of the privileged aristocracy, who were all entitled to the honorific title *rājā*.¹ Some of them stayed at the capital and some were scattered in moffusil or serving there as important government officers. They were all entitled to attend, but at ordinary meetings of the Assembly hardly 10 per cent members may have attended, as in ancient Athens. If a city like Nyasa had an Assembly of 30 councillors, a big state like that of the Yaudheyas might well have had one of 5,000. We should not forget that the membership depended upon belonging to the privileged order, and no one who belonged to it by his birth and extraction could be excluded from it; each member was extremely jealous of his proud position and extraction. There was no question of the possibility of a number of them being represented by one representative, even if the principle of representation had been known at the time, which of course was not the case. In ancient Indian republics, there was then no electoral role giving a list of qualified voters; nor were there any periodical elections. Had any such existed, they would have been referred to in the literature bearing upon the science of polity.

c13.80

¹ One Jātaka states that there were twice eighty four thousand nobles at Vaiśālī (I. 271). Probably the total population of the ruling class was 1,68,000 and the Assembly probably consisted of the heads of big joint families, each consisting of about 20 persons.

c13.81

to in the literature bearing upon the science of polity.

c13.82

Dr. Jayaswal has suggested that in some of these states there were two Houses, an Upper and a Lower House.² This seems to be very improbable. The members of the privileged classes, who constituted the Assembly, were very jealous of their status and extraction, and would hardly have tolerated an Upper House. The elders, on whose advice the Ambashṭhas decided to make peace with Alexander, were not the members of a House of Elders, but the senior persons of their own order.

c13.83

² *Hindu Polity*, I, p. 84. The grammatical *Sūtra*, *Saṁghe chānauttarādharye* (*Pāṇini*, III. 3. 42), does not at all refer to the higher and lower hourses of a legislative assembly. It does not refer to a political constitution but to the groups of monks, Brāhmaṇas and herds of swine and points out that in the first two cases there is a difference among their members and in the last one there is none.

c13.84

Sovereignty was vested in these large Central Assemblies, which were very jealous of their rights and powers. They elected not only the members of the executive, but also the military leaders. When reports reached about the impending invasion of Alexander the Great, the Ambashṭhas elected three generals renowned for their bravery and military skill to lead their armies. It seems that like the Roman Senate, the Assemblies of these republics elected their own generals for the different campaigns.¹ The election in the beginning at any rate was for a specific campaign; this was a precaution against a general seizing all the powers of the state. What was true of the Ambashṭhas of the 4th century B. C. was true also of the Yaudheyas of the 4th century A. D., for an inscription of the Gupta period refers to a general elected, *puraskṛita*, by the Yaudheya *gaṇa*.² Gradually these tended to become hereditary. The Mālava general, who regained the independence for his state in *c.* 225 A.D., belonged to a family which was entrusted with the military leadership for three generations.³ Its leaders, however, were not permitted to have any regal title like *rājā* or *mahārāja*.

c13.85

¹ In ancient Athens also generals were elected by the people. Dunning, *Political Theories*, I. p. 15

c13.86

² Fleet, *C. I. I.*, III. p. 152

c13.87

³ *Cf.* जयसोमपुत्रस्य सोगिनेतुः श्रीसोमस्य । ll. 15-16. Nandsa inscription, *E. I.*, XXVII, p. 252

c13.88

The evidence of the Buddhist literature shows that the Central Assemblies of the republics controlled foreign affairs, entertained ambassadors and foreign princes, considered their proposals and decided the momentous issues of peace and war.⁴ On grave occasions the latter power was entrusted to a smaller body; the 150 'ambassadors' deputed by the Kshudrakas to Alexander the Great, were obviously the leading members of their Central Assembly; they had been entrusted with full powers to conclude the treaty.¹ Some writers were of the opinion that it is in the interest of the *gaṇas* themselves that they should not discuss delicate questions like peace and war in the General Assembly, but should leave them to the decision of the Executive.² It is quite possible that this policy might have been followed in some states in order to ensure secrecy, so necessary for the success in foreign policy. But their number was not large, for one of the weaknesses of the Gaṇa state frequently emphasised by constitutional writers is its incapacity to preserve political secrets.

c13.89

⁴ *Jātaka*, IV. p. 145 (No. 465); Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, pp. 118-9

c13.90

¹ M'Crindle, *Invasion of Alexander the Great*, p. 154

c13.91

² न गणाः कृत्स्नशो मंत्रं श्रोतुमर्हन्ति भारत। गणमुख्यैस्तु संभूय कार्यं गणहितं मिथः। *Mbh*, XII. 107. 24

c13.92

Generally speaking the Executive was under the complete control of the Central Assembly in the republican states. Śrī Kṛishṇa, who was the President of the Andhaka-Vṛishṇi state, bitterly complains to Nārada that he is not the master but the slave of the Central Assembly, as he has to listen patiently to the bitter criticisms of the different parties.³ The *Arthaśāstra* (Bk. XI) shows that if the President of the *Saṁgha* (*Saṁghamukhya*) or the members of the Executive Council were guilty of the mismanagement of the public funds or violating the ordinary laws of the land, they could be dismissed and punished by the state tribunals. The Executive was thus under the complete constitutional control of the Central Assembly. Though there is no specific evidence on the point, it is almost certain that the appointments to the state services and the governorships of the provinces must have been made by the Central Assembly. That must have been one of the reasons for the keen contest for power that was often going on in that body.

c13.93

³ दास्यमैश्वर्यभावेन ज्ञातीनां वै करोम्यहम्। अर्धभोक्तास्मि भोगानां वाग्दुरुक्तानि च क्षमे। *Mbh*, XII. 81. 5

c13.94

The Assembly Hall also served the purpose of a social club, where social and religious topics were also discussed at times.

c13.95

The Mallas of Kusinagar discussed the problems about the funeral of the Buddha and the disposal of his ashes in their Assembly Hall. They, as well as the Lichchhavis, are known to have requested the Blessed One to perform the opening ceremonies of their new Assembly Halls by first using them for delivering a sermon to a congregation assembled therein.

c13.96

The meetings of the Assembly held for such religious or social functions may have been peaceful; but such was not very often the case when political matters of moment had to be discussed and decided. Many of the Assemblies of these republics, like the Parliaments and municipalities of the modern age, were torn by party factions; in fact the Buddhist literature, the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Mahābhārata* point out that family quarrels, party factions, lure of corruption, internal dissensions and mutual recriminations among the members of the Assembly constitute the main weaknesses of the Gaṇa states. Bhīshma emphasises again and again that the danger from foreign invasion is not at all so great as the danger from the internal quarrels.¹ The latter were often carried to such an extent that leaders and members of different parties would not even speak with one another. The language used by Bhīshma to describe the strained relations among the republican parties is almost a paraphrase of the words in Buddhist literature used to describe the conditions of the Lichchhavis after the seeds of dissentions were successfully sown among them by spies and agents of their enemy, king Ajātaśatru. The Buddha and Nārada, who viewed the republics with a sympathetic eye, warn them against these dissensions and give helpful suggestions as to how they were to be avoided.² Kauṭilya, who was unsympathetic to them, suggests several crooked methods by which the internal feuds could be further intensified (Bk. XI).

c13.97

¹ आभ्यन्तरं भयं रक्ष्यमसारं बाह्यतोभयम् । आभ्यन्तरं भयं राजन्सद्यो मूलानि कृन्तति ॥ XII. 107. 28

c13.98

² *Cf.* भेदमूलो विनाशो हि गणानामपलक्षये । मंत्रसंवणं दुःखं बहूनामिति मे मतिः ॥ कुलस्य कलहा जाता मंत्रवृद्धैरुपेक्षिताः । गोत्रस्य नाशं कुर्वन्ति गणभेदस्य कारकम् ॥ भेदाच्चैव प्रदानाच्च भिद्यन्ते रिपुभिर्गणाः ॥ *Mbh*, 107.27-32 See also *Dialogues of the Buddha*, II. p. 80.

c13.99

Personal rivalry and greed for power were usually at the root of party factions. As in modern times, so in ancient days, members used to form groups of their own in order to get power for themselves. Those, who were energetic in habits and skilful in organisation and noted for successful oratory, usually succeeded in gaining power in their hands.¹ When two parties were more or less evenly balanced, small groups of members made or unmade the governments as in modern days. Some members had a nuisance value; they were equally a source of trouble whether they were included or excluded from the party. Ahūka and Akrūra had the unenviable reputation of belonging to this class in the Andhaka Vṛishṇi state.² As in modern times so in ancient days, it was usually found to be a difficult task to oust the party in power.³ When the Assembly was torn by factions, the task of its President was very difficult. Often he was furiously attacked by both the parties, neither of whom was usually entirely in the right. Under such circumstances, like the mother of two sons who are gambling with each other, the impartial President, anxious for the welfare of the state, could wish success to neither party. Keeping himself unruffled, he would try to restore a calm atmosphere to ensure a proper consideration of the points at issue.

c13.100

¹ अन्ये हि सुमहाभागा बलवन्तो दुरासदाः । नित्योत्थानेन संपन्ना नारदान्धकवृष्णयः ॥ यस्य न स्युर्न वै स स्याद्यस्य स्युः कृत्स्नमेव तत् ॥ *Mbh*, XII. 81. 8-9 अन्योन्यं नाभिभाषंते तत्पराभवकारणम् । *Mbh*, XII. 107. 29-30

c13.101

² स्यातां यस्याहुकाक्रूरौ किं नु दुःखतरं ततः । यस्य चापि न तौ स्यातां किं नु दुःखतरं ततः ॥ *Mbh.*, XII. 81. 10

c13.102

³ बभ्रुसेनेनतो राज्यं नाप्तुं शक्यं कथंचन । ज्ञातिभेदभयात्कृष्ण त्वया चापि विशेषतः ॥ *Mbh.*, XII. 81. 17

c13.103

In the ideal Gaṇa state, there were no parties and matters were not pressed to a vote. Meetings were characterised by concord and harmony and the opinions of the elders and not the vote of the majority decided the issue. This was the usual practice among the Lichchhavis during the golden period of their republican constitution.¹ The Assembly of the Ambashṭha republic first appointed generals to oppose Alexander the Great, but later accepted the advice of their elders and decided to make peace proposals.

c13.104

¹ *Dialogues of the Buddha*, II. 80

c13.105

Chap. 107 of the Śāntiparvan gives us a good picture of the internal condition of an ideal republic. The rising generation was properly educated and the youths were taught proper manners and made to realise that they must follow the path of virtue and the lead of the elders. Experienced statesmen noted for their valour, intelligence and prompt dispatch were entrusted with the responsible posts in the administration and they usually enabled the republic to tide over serious crises. Delicate questions of policy, internal or external, were left to be tackled by them; they were not publicly discussed in the parliament. Members of the government worked in harmony and concord to achieve the interests of the state. Spies and ambassadors were selected with great care and particular attention was paid to the development of a sound economic policy to ensure the prosperity of the state and the people.

c13.106

Normally the republican government was a government by parties. We have already explained above how they came into existence. The party system was so common among the republics, that it is referred to even by the grammarians. The term *dvandva* was used to denote the rival parties and the term *vyutkramaṇa* to their rivalry.² As in modern parliaments, members of the parties sat in separate groups.³ *Vargya*, *grihya* and *pakshya* were the technical terms used to denote party members. Parties were usually named after their leaders; *Vāsudeva-vargya* was the name to denote a member of the party of Vāsudeva or Kṛishṇa, *Akrūrapakshya*, a member of Akrūra party, and so on.

c13.107

² Pāṇini, VIII. 1. 15

c13.108

³ व्युत्क्रमणं भेदः पृथगवस्थानम् । द्विवर्गसम्बंधेन पृथगवस्थिता द्वन्दं व्युत्क्रान्ता इत्युच्यन्ते । *Kāśikā* on Pāṇini, VIII, 1. 15

c13.109

It is but natural that some rules of procedure should have been evolved as far as the debates and working of the Assembly were concerned. But unfortunately they are not anywhere described by our political writers. We can get, however, some idea in the matter if we assume, as is very probable, that the rules of the procedure and the debates in the meetings of the Buddhist *saṁgha* were modelled on those of the Assemblies of the *Gaṇa* or *Saṁghas* states. A Buddhist chapter required a quorum of 20; it is very likely that a similar rule may have prevailed in the meetings of the political *Saṁgha*, especially when we remember that usually there were parties keen in getting power in their own hands. Pāṇini refers to *gaṇa-titha* as the person whose attendance completed the quorum in a *Gaṇa* and to *Saṁgha-titha* as one who completed the quorum of the *saṁgha*. The person who acted as a 'whip' to secure the quorum is described as a *gaṇapūraka* by the *Mahāvagga* (III. 3. 6.) There was an officer who was in charge of the allotment of seats; probably the executive had the seats on a dais and other members were grouped partywise in their front. The *saṁghamukhya* or the President of the State presided over the Assembly and regulated its debate. He was to observe strict impartiality; otherwise he was furiously criticised. The resolution was formally moved by its mover and then the debate followed. In the Buddhist *Saṁgha* the practice was that those in favour of the proposal kept silent, while those who were against it expressed their dissent. It is, however, very likely that in the political *Saṁgha* where passions often ran high, both sides must have voiciferously expressed their votes. In the Buddhist *Saṁgha*, as in some modern legislatures, a motion was thrice proposed and passed. One may doubt whether this procedure was followed in the meetings of the political Assemblies. In the case of difference of opinion votes were taken and the majority view prevailed. When the ultimatum was received by the Śākyas from the Kośala king, who was besieging their capital, their Assembly assembled to deliberate whether they should open the gates or not. Some favoured the proposal, others opposed it. Eventually, therefore, votes were taken to ascertain the majority view, which it was discovered favoured capitulation.¹ Accordingly action was taken. This procedure, being the obvious and natural one, must have been followed everywhere.

First 108 of 140 passages. Read on

Linked texts (20)