State and Government in Ancient India c13.109

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.