Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c9.s1: Type of States

State and Government in Ancient India c9.s1

Language
English

Type of States

c9.s1.1

Let us now see what were the different types of states existing in ancient India. Ancient constitutional writers hardly discuss this problem. This is probably due to their having flourished in an age when monarchy had become the prevailing type of State. Had a book on *daṇḍanīti* been written by a citizen of an aristocratic or republican state, we might have got some interesting discussion about the nature and types of different states like monarchy, aristocracy and republics and their relative merits and defects. But curiously enough this does not seem to have happened.

c9.s1.2

Our writers again and again revolve round the same type of state, viz., monarchy; only a few of them passingly refer to the *Saṅgha* (republican) state. We have shown already how for a long time the state was tribal. Apart from the frequent references to *viśpatis* and *janapatis* the *Ṛigveda* (*c.* 2500 B. C.) frequently refers to specific tribes like the Yadus, the Purus, the Anus, the Turvaśas, etc. Viśvāmitra's prayers are said to have protected the Bharata people;¹ in the Rājasūya sacrifice, the king is announced as the ruler of the Bharatas or the Kuru-Pañchālas and not as the sovereign of a particular province or kingdom. The notion of a *rāshṭra* or a territorial state, however, was being gradually evolved in the later Vedic period; we find it clearly referred to in the *Atharvaveda*.² The *Taittīriya Saṁhitā*³ refers to a ritual, a partial performance of which could secure a king the over-lordship over his tribe (*viś*), but not over the country (*rāshṭra*). The Brāhmaṇa literature frequently refers to the emperors as the rulers not over all the tribes but over the whole earth bounded by the sea. It is clear that the notion of the territorial state was fully established at this time (*c.* 1000 B. C.)

c9.s1.3

¹ विश्वामित्रस्य रक्षति ब्रह्मेदं भारतं जनम्। III. 53. 2

c9.s1.4

² XX. 127. 9-10; XIX. 30. 3-4; III. 4, 2; VI. 98. 2

c9.s1.5

³ II. 3. 3-4.

c9.s1.6

Monarchy was the normal form of the State in the Vedic period, *rājā* (a king), *mahārāja* (a great king), *samrāṭ* (an emperor) are the different terms by which kings were designated according to their power and prestige. Some of them were also called *svarājas* and *bhojas*; probably they were feudatories and zemindars.

c9.s1.7

In the description of the coronation, the ritual is sometimes described as securing *rājya*, *svarājya*, *bhaujya*, *vairājya*, *mahārājya* and *sāmrājya* to one and the same individual.¹ A doubt, therefore, naturally arises as to whether these terms really denoted different types of states or monarchies. It is, however, not unlikely that it is the desire to emphasise the omnipotence of the ritual that is responsible for the priest claiming that the king who is receiving the holy coronation from him, can attain to all the different positions referred to above. This conjecture becomes more probable when we remember that a passage in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* states that the different types of States like *rājya* *bhaujya*, *vairājya*, and *sāmrājya* flourished in different provinces of the country.²

c9.s1.8

¹ *A. Br.*, VIII, 2.6; VIII, 3, 13.

c9.s1.9

² *A. Br.*, VIII, 3, 14.

c9.s1.10

In the later Indian history we always come across a large number of kings, enjoying different degrees of autonomy and ruling as feudatories of an emperor (*samrāṭ*). It is not unlikely that such feudatories existed in the Vedic period as well; they may have been known as *bhojas* and *svarājas* and their feudal lords as *samrāṭs*. The territorial extent of the dominion of a *samrāṭ*, as compared to that of *svarāṭ*, cannot be difinitely determined. Most of the states in Vedic period were small; it is doubtful whether there was a state big enough to extend over a quarter of the Punjab. The dominion of a *samrāṭ* was perhaps not much bigger than that of an ordinary king. Military glory and achievements were probably more responsible for his higher title than the extent of his dominion. Rājya probably denoted a smaller but independent kingdom. The statement in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* that kings were common in the Madhya-deśa and emperors in Eastern India would support our interpretation. *Vairājya* denoted a republic, a state which had no king.

c9.s1.11

States where the principal executive authority was vested in two rulers as in ancient Sparta were not unknown in ancient India. One such state existed at Paṭala in Sindh in Alexander's days, where the sovereignty was vested in two different kings hailing from different houses.¹ The *Arthaśāstra* (VIII. 2) also refers to such a state; probably it used to come into existence when two brothers or cousins, being claimants to the same kingdom, preferred to rule it jointly instead of dividing it into two parts. But just as two swords cannot remain in the same scabbard, two kings can hardly rule in harmony, when the power of each is unlimited and extends over the same kingdom. Such a state must have been often torn by factions and parties supporting the power of each ruler; one can, therefore, well understand why the *Arthaśāstra*² does not approve of it, and why a Jain monk is advised not to travel through or stay in it. To avoid discord, very often the brother or cousin rulers of a *dvairājya* state would divide the kingdom between them, as was done in the *dvairājya* kingdom, created in Vidarbha by the Śuṅgas.³ It would appear that though the kingdom was divided, the two rulers would hold joint consultations on all important matters. When the two kings were ruling in harmony, the state was called a two-kings-state (*dorajja* in Prakrit and *dvirājaka* in Sanskrit); when they were pulling in opposite directions, it was called a self-fighting state (*virudharajja* in Prakrit and *viruddharājya* in Sanskrit).⁴

c9.s1.12

¹ Mc Crindle, *Alexander's Invasion*, p. 296

c9.s1.13

² द्वैराज्यमन्योन्यपक्षद्वेषानुरागाभ्यां परस्परसंघर्षेण वा विनश्यति । VIII. 2

c9.s1.14

³ *Mālavikāgnimitra*, Act V, v. 13.

c9.s1.15

⁴ अरायणि वा गणरायणि वा जुवरायणि वा दोरज्जणि वा बेरज्जणि वा विरुद्धरज्जणि वा । *Āchārāṅga-Sūtra*, II, 3, 1, 10.

c9.s1.16

The Vedic literature sometimes refers to *kings* meeting together in an assembly;¹ we are also told that that person alone can become a *king* who is permitted to become one by other kings.² These passages probably refer to the existence of an oligarchy, where power was vested in a council of nobles, each member of which was entitled to call himself a kin and had a right to elect the chief of the state, who also was called a king. We shall see later how this type of the state continued to exist down to the 6th century B. C. in some parts of North-Eastern India.

c9.s1.17

¹ यत्रौषधीः समग्मत राजानः समिताविव । *R. V.*, X. 97. 6.

c9.s1.18

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

c9.s1.19

Side by side with monarchical and oligarchical states, there also existed republican governments in ancient India as early as the Vedic age. A passage in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* states that the people in the vicinity of the Himalayas like the Uttarakurus and the Uttaramadras have a *virāṭ* (kingless) type of the state and are, therefore, called *vi-rāṭ* or kingless. When it is remembered how the same passage earlier refers to the *kings* of the easterners and the southerners and the titles that were borne by them, and how it carefully states that it is the *people* among the Uttarakurus and Uttaramadras,—not their *kings*,—who were called *virāṭ*, it becomes quite certain that these people had a non-monarchical or republican form of government. This conclusion is further strengthened when we remember how Greek authorities tell us that in the territory above referred to, republican types of states were the order of the day as late as the time of Alexander the Great. Whether the non-monarchical states of ancient India were also republican will be discussed later in Chap. VI.

c9.s1.20

The city state was another feature of the political life in the early period. We get some account of its constitution and administration from the Greek writers. Arrian describes Nyasa as a free city state flourishing at the time of the invasion of Alexander the Great ; its President, when out to meet the Macedonian hero with thirty deputies, said, ‘How Oh king, can a single city, if deprived of a hundred of its best men, continue to be well governed ?’ It is thus clear that Nyasa was not the capital of a kingdom, but a city state, almost entirely dependent upon its own resources. When Diodorus describes how the citizens from the Śibi state offered their submission, upon which Alexander permitted them to retain their freedom, he is obviously referring to the city state of the tribe. Several other city states are referred to by Greek writers ; among them we may mention Pimprama of the Adraisti and Sangala of the Kathaians and Patala in Sindh. When the *Mahābhārata* refers to the powerful *grāmas* on the bank of the Indus, it is obviously referring to the powerful city states,³ some of which are mentioned by the Greek historians. Coins issued by a number of cities like Tripuri, Mādhyamikā, Ujjayinī, Vārāṇasi, Kauśāmbī etc. have come to light.⁴ It is quite probable that at some periods of their history they were city states, rather than capitals, issuing coins on their own authority. It was but natural that the city states should have brought under their control some of the outlying villages ; but the government was usually carried on by the aristocratic classes in the city itself.

c9.s1.21

³ सिंधकूलाश्चिता ये च ग्रामणीया महाबला: II. 32. 9.

c9.s1.22

⁴ *J. N. S. I.*, XIII, pp. 40-45.

c9.s1.23

Composite and confederate states were not unknown to ancient India. The Kurupañchālas in the later Vedic period seem to have formed one composite state, ruled by a common king. The Kshudrakas and the Mālavas were separate states in the days of Pāṇini, but are very frequently mentioned together in the *Mahābhārata*. They had formed a confederation to meet the invasion of Alexander the Great, and it seems to have lasted for about a century. The alliance had been cemented by 10,000 intermarriages. The Yaudheya republican state seems to have comprised three sub-states. These confederations often lasted for short periods ; in the life-time of the Buddha and Mahāvīra, the Lichchhavis had formed a confederation, once with the Mallas and once with the Videhas. The Lichchhavi-Malla federal council consisted of 18 members, nine being elected by each of the confederating state. We do not, however, possess sufficient information to indicate how these composite or confederate states were functioning,—what powers were retained by the federating units and what authority was delegated to the federal centre. It, however, seems very probable that the jurisdiction of the central government of the confederating states was confined only to foreign policy and the declaration and prosecution of war. Otherwise each state retained its sovereignty. The general for the joint army in a particular campaign was elected by the confederating states; in the campaign against Alexander the Great, Kshudrakas and Mālavas had elected a Kshudraka generalissimo, who was famous for his skill and bravery.

c9.s1.24

¹ McCrindle, *Invasion of Alexander the Great*, p. 81.

c9.s1.25

² *Ibid*, p. 285.

c9.s1.26

Normally, however, states in ancient India were unitary in character. King was the fountain source from which the ministers and provincial governors derived their power. Village Panchayats, town-councils and trade-guilds also were under the general supervision and control of the central government. Long established tradition had, however, limited the state's intervention in the autonomy of these bodies only to those rare occasions when they were guilty of a breach of their traditional rules and constitutions. The unitary character of the the state in ancient India was, therefore, to a great extent modified by the presence of these autonomous bodies, which used to function on their own lines, though revolutions occurred at the centre.

Linked texts (9)