Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Life in Ancient India as Depicted in the Jain Canons, with Commentaries: An Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey c7.s6: Assessment and Collection

Life in Ancient India as Depicted in the Jain Canons, with Commentaries: An Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey c7.s6

Language
English

Contents

Assessment and Collection

c7.s6.1

Unfortunately, we have very little information regarding the administration of land-revenue and taxation and the different grades of officials connected with this work. The Kalpa sūtra refers to the rajjuyasabhā, which belonged to the king Hatthivāla of Pāvā, where Lord Mahāvīra passed the last few days of his life and attained salvation. A rajjuya was a survey-minister, who measured a janapada field by holding one end of the rope tied to a stick, the other end being held by the owner of the field, and is identical with the rajjugāhaka amacca of the Jātakas and the rājuka o Aśokan Edicts.¹⁵ No other officials are mentioned.

c7.s6.2

¹⁵ Kurudhamma Jātaka (II, No. 276) ; Fick, op. cit., pp. 148-152, P.B.I., pp. 142-44.

c7.s6.3

About the collection of taxes it may be mentioned that the collectors were very oppressive to the poor-folk. We are told of a king who invaded another king for non-payment of taxes (kappaka).¹⁶ The Vivāgasuya refers to a district-officer (ratthakūḍa) named Ikkāi who harassed the people of five hundred villages under his jurisdiction by means of various taxes (kara), custom duties (bhara), interest, bribe, insult, compulsory contribution (dejja), punitive taxes (bhejja), extortion of money at the point of the sword, by giving shelter to thieves, by setting fire and waylaying the travellers.¹⁷ The Bṛhatkalpa Bhāṣya refers to the king of Sopāraya who demanded tax from the merchants (negama). They refused to pay and the king ordered his tax-collectors to burn down their houses.¹⁸

c7.s6.4

¹⁶ Ava cū, II, p 190

c7.s6.5

¹⁷ l. p 6 f.

c7.s6.6

¹⁸ l. 2506 f In the Jatakas the tax collectors are mentioned as hungry robbers draining the poor earnings of the cultivator. We come across references when the subjects, oppressed by taxation took their wives and families and wandered in the forest like wild beasts; where once stood villages, there now were none, and the people through the fear of the king's officers by day did not venture to dwell in their houses but fencing them about with thorn branches, as soon as the day broke, they disappeared into the forest (Fick, op. cit., p. 120 f.).

c7.s6.7

CHAPTER III

c7.s6.8

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

c7.s6.9

JUDICIARY AND JUSTICE

c7.s6.10

In the ancient books of the Hindus it is repeatedly emphasised that a judge should deliver his judgment free from any prejudice, dispassionately and impartially.¹ In the *Jātakas* it is said that punishment should be awarded with ‘careful measure’ to the nature and degree of the offence committed.² The *Vyavahāra Bhāṣya* refers to a judge called *rūpajakkha* (*rūpadakkha* in Pali), who is described as well-versed in *Bhambhīya*, *Asurukkha*,³ *Nītiśāstra* of Māthara and *Daṇḍanīti* of Kauṇḍinya, who never accepted any bribe and did not show favour to any one while pronouncing his judgment.⁴ However, it should be noted that too much importance cannot be attached to ideals of justice preached in ancient India, and from what we gather from various stories we come to the conclusion that the judicial arrangements were not sound and efficient, but corrupt and oppressive to a degree. The kings were suspicious by nature and most severe punishments were inflicted on those who gave rise to the slightest mistrust in their mind. Very often an innocent person was arrested on a charge of robbery and brought before the court, whereas the offender was set at liberty.⁵

c7.s6.11

¹ Cf. *Mṛcchakaṭika*, Act IX, pp 256 f.

c7.s6.12

² Cf. *Rathalaṭṭhi Jātaka* (No. 332), III, p 105 The commentary on the *Dīgha*, II, p 519 gives an account of the administration of justice in Vesālī. When a criminal was brought before the rulers of the Vajjis, at first he was made over to the *Vinicchayamahāmattas*, who set him free if he was innocent, otherwise made him over to the *Vohārikas* Then the *Vohārikas* made him over to the *Suttadharas*, if guilty, then to the *Aṭṭhakulas*, then to the *Senāpati*, then to the *Uparājan* and finally to the *Rājan*. The *Rājan* then investigated the case and set the accused free if he held him innocent, otherwise pronounced the judgment in accordance with the ‘*Paveṇipotthaka*,’ the ‘Book of Customs.’

c7.s6.13

³ *Ambhiya* and *Asurya* are mentioned in the *Lalitavistara* (p. 156).

c7.s6.14

⁴ 1, p 132; cf *rūpadakkha* in *Milindapañha*, p 344.

c7.s6.15

⁵ Cf. *Uttarā. Sū.*, 9. 30, also see *Jātaka* (IV, p 28 f), where an ascetic suspected of robbery at night is, after being reviled and beaten by the owners of the house, carried into the presence of the king and was impaled Similarly, Cārudatta of *Mṛcchakaṭika* was charged with the murder of a woman and theft of her jewels though no confession of crime was elicited from him.

Cases

c7.s6.t1.1

The term used for a law-suit in our texts is ‘*vavahāra*’ Theft and robbery seem to have been most ordinary cases that came before the court for adjudication, but other cases were also not less in number.⁶

c7.s6.t1.2

⁶ The topics which give rise to law-suits are grouped by *Manu* (VIII, 4-7) under eighteen titles, namely : (1) recovery of debts, (2) deposit and pledge, (3) sale without ownership, (4) concerns among partners, (5) resumption of gifts, (6) non-payment of wages, (7) non-performance of agreements, (8) disputes regarding boundaries, (11) assault, (12) defamation, (13) theft, (14) robbery and violence, (15) adultery, (16) duties of man and wife, (17) inheritance and partition, (18) gambling and betting.

c7.s6.t1.3

We are told of a simple villager, who was going to trade with his bullock-cart loaded with corn and a partridge-cage tied to it. On his way he met some perfumers who enquired whether he wanted to sell his ‘partridge-cage tied to the cart’ (sagaḍa-tittiri) which could also mean ‘the cart as well as the partridge.’ The simpleton replied in the affirmative. The perfumers paid him a kāhāvaṇa and taking his bullock-cart as well as the partridge made off. The poor villager went to the court, but lost his case. After sometime the villager visited the perfumers with his bullocks in exchange of two pālis of sattu provided their mother came to him nicely dressed and decked with ornaments with the offer. The perfumers agreed to the proposals and their mother approached the villager as desired by him. The villager succeeded in his stratagem and holding the woman by hand departed. In the meantime the people gathered there, and they heard the whole story. The villager got his bullock-cart back and allowed the woman to go.⁷

c7.s6.t1.4

⁷ Das cū, p 58, Vasu, p 57, also cf .Īla cū, p 119 8 Āva cū, II, p 181 f 9 Vya Bhā 3 345 f, p 69. 10 Uttarā Ṭī, 9, p 134. 11 Āva. cū, p 391 f. 12 Brh Bhā, 4. 4923-25, also see Uttarā., 3, p. 72 a.

c7.s6.t1.5

Then we hear of a murder case. Kappaka, who was a Brāhmaṇa by caste, once murdered a washerman and in wrath dyed his clothes with the latter’s blood. The guild of the washerman (seni) went to the court (rājakula), but seeing Kappaka there conversing with the king, came home.8

c7.s6.t1.6

Sometimes even for ordinary offences complaints were lodged with the king. We are told about a man of Lāṭa, who took away the umbrella of a Mahārāṣṭrian. The latter sued the former in the court, but he lost the case.9 Then we hear of a quarrel between Karaṇḍu and a Brāhmaṇa over a staff (daṇḍa). Karaṇḍu pleaded before the judges (kāraṇikas) that since that bamboo staff had grown in his cemetry, it belonged to him, the judges pronounced their judgments in favour of Karaṇḍu.10

c7.s6.t1.7

Sometimes even the Jain monks had to appear in the Law-Court. We are told that when Vaira was six months old he was taken by the Jain monks for ordination. In course of time, the mother of the child filed a suit in the court against the monks. The king sat to the east, the Jain Sangha to the south and the relatives and friends of Vaira on the left of the king. The whole town was on the side of the plaintiff. The mother tempted the child by showing various toys but the child would not come to her. The father of Vaira, who had taken to ascetic life, and who belonged to the opposite party, called out his child and asked him to take up the rajoharaṇa and the child obeyed. The mother lost the case and the child was given to the monks.11 At times the Jain monks visited the king and complained against the prostitutes, who trespassed on their residence with the intention of distracting and seducing them.12

c7.s6.t1.8

False testimony (*kūdasakkha*) and falsification of documents (*kūḍaleha-karaṇa*) were common.¹³

c7.s6.t1.9

¹³ *Uvā*, p 10, also notes, p 215, *Ā.a Sū*, (Hari), p 820

c7.s6.t1.10

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Robbery

c7.s6.t2.1

Various kinds of offences are mentioned in the Jain texts, amongst which robbery, adultery murder and non-execution of the king's order are the chief. Robbery was considered a regular art (*vijjā*) in ancient India.¹⁴ Various types of thieves are mentioned: thieves (*āmosa*), robbers (*lomahaka*), cut-purses (*ganthibheya*) and burglars (*takkara*)¹⁵ The Jain canons describe a number of robbers of fame, who resided well-guarded in the robber-settlements known as *corapalli*. The *Vivāgasuya* gives a graphic description of a *corapalli* known as Sālādavī situated in the north of Purimatāla in a forest. The *corapalli* was located in an unapproachable mountain-ravine; it was further guarded by a wall and bamboo-hedges (*vamsyāli*) and surrounded by a trench (*pariha*) formed by inaccessible water-falls (*pavāya*) of the mountain. It had one gate but there were many secret passages and it had its own water supply.¹⁶ Sīhaguhā is mentioned as another *corapalli* in Rāyagiha.¹⁷

c7.s6.t2.2

¹⁴ Science of larceny is ascribed to various authors headed by Skanda, Kanakasakti, Bhāskarānandī and Yogācārya. Thieves were also called Skandaputra. Compare Grecian Mercury and St Nicholas of England. This God was the patron deity of thieves. Radha Govind Basaka, I H Q, V, 1929 pp 312 ff, also see *Kathāsaritsāgara* (Vol II, pp 183 4), note on ‘Stealing’. Mūladeva is considered as the arch-thief of Hindu fiction, whom Bloomfield identifies with Karnisuta, Goniputraka, Gonikāputra or Gonikasuta. He is supposed to have written a famous manual of thieving entitled *Steyashāstrapravartaka* or *Steyavithrapravartaka*. Mūladeva is also mentioned in the com on the *Dīgha* (I, 89), also see Dr A N Upadhye’s *Dhūrtākhyāna*, A critical Study, p 23 and note.

c7.s6.t2.3

¹⁵ *Uttarā Sū*, 9 28. For seven types of robbers and eighteen ways of encouraging robbery, see *Panha Ti* 3, p 58, cf the types of *coras* in the Buddhist literature, Law, *India Described*, pp 172 f

c7.s6.t2.4

¹⁶ 3, p 20

c7.s6.t2.5

¹⁷ *Nāyā*, 18, p 209

c7.s6.t2.6

The elaborate description of the robbers given in Jain canons¹⁸ shows that they were very powerful and it was difficult even for the king to suppress them. There were regular fights between the king's army and the robbers which sometimes resulted in the defeat of the former. The robbers carried off the cows,¹⁹ horses, maid-servants, children,²⁰ even nuns,²¹ and set fire to the villages, towns, houses and forests. They destroyed the ships, extracted money at the point of the sword, made forcible entry into the residence of monks and threatened them with death.²³ The thieves were expert in making breaches in the wall. Various types of the breaches of the wall are mentioned, *viz.*, the breach of the shape of a cornice (*kavisīsa*), jar (*kalasa*), fish (*nandīvatta*),²³ lotus and a human being. It is stated that once a burglar was caught in the breach he had excavated, by the owner of the house who took hold of his feet protruding from the breach. But the burglar’s companions dragged him out from the other side of the wall. Caught in this position he was smashed by the cornice coming down.²⁴ The robbers came out at night and at times lived on half-burnt corpses, flesh of wild animals and roots.²⁵

c7.s6.t2.7

¹⁸ *Panha*, 3, pp 43a ff

c7.s6.t2.8

¹⁹ Cf also *Mahābhū*, I, 233, 5 ff

c7.s6.t2.9

²⁰ See *Uttarā cū*, p 174, cf also *Mrcchakatika* (IV, 6) which refers to children being robbed away from the lap of the nurses

c7.s6.t2.10

²¹ Cf *Vya. Bhā.*, 7, p 71a, *Brh Bhā.*, 6 5275.

c7.s6.t2.11

²³ *Brh Bhā*, 3. 3903 f., also cf. *Cora Sutta* in the *Anguttara*, IV, p. 339.

c7.s6.t2.12

²³ *Nandīyavattu* is the name of a huge fish (the com. on the *Anguttara* (S.II.B), I, p. 205 after Malalasekara, *op cit*, II, p. 29).

c7.s6.t2.13

²⁴ *Uttarā. Ṭī*, 4, p. 80a f.

c7.s6.t2.14

²⁵ *Paṇha*, 3, p. 45a.

c7.s6.t2.15

The *Vivāgasuya* describes Vijaya of Sālādavi who was the ring-leader of the robbers who aimed at the object on hearing its sound (*saddavehi*) and was the foremost warrior in wielding the sword. He gave shelter to adulterers, pick-pockets, thieves and many other undesirable persons. He raided towns and villages, lifted cattle, took captives, waylaid travellers, terrorised people by breaking open their walls, tortured them, destroyed their property and extracted money from them by force.²⁶ Then we hear of Cilāya, a slave-boy (*dāsaceḍa*) of Dhanna of Rāyagiha. Being dismissed by his master from service he approached Vijaya, the leader of five hundred robbers of Sihaguhā and joined his gang. The leader of the robbers appointed him as his body-guard with a sword in his hand (*asilatthiggaha*). Vijaya taught him various spells (*vijjā*) and incantations (*manta*) etc., in connection with the art of larceny. In course of time, Vijaya died and Cilāya was appointed in his place. Once Cilāya proposed to commit a dacoity in the house of Dhanna. The robbers got ready equipped themselves well with swords, bows, arrows and various other weapons and marched towards Rāyagiha, amidst the beating of drums, to invest the house of Dhanna. The robbers reached the city-gate, their ring-leader recited the spell which could open the locks (*ulugghāḍanivijjā*),²⁷ took out water from his water-bag (*udagabatthi*) and sprinkled it over the doors. The doors were opened and Cilāya, along with his party rushed into the city. He challenged the citizens to stop him and along with huge amount of wealth, carried off Sumsumā, the daughter of Dhanna to the forest.²⁸

c7.s6.t2.16

²⁶ 3, p. 20, also *Nāyā*, 18, p. 208 f.

c7.s6.t2.17

²⁷ Thieves also carried *agneyakīla* to extinguish the lamps; Radha Govind Basaka *I.H.Q.*, Vol. V, 1929, p. 313, see *Dasakumāracarita*, p. 77, Kale, Bombay, 1925.

c7.s6.t2.18

²⁸ *Nāyā*., 18, p. 209 ff.

c7.s6.t2.19

The commentary on the *Uttarādhyayana* mentions another robber Maṇḍiya by name. Maṇḍiya tied a bandage round his knee and pretended that he was suffering from a festering boil (*duṭṭhagaṇḍa*). He worked as a tailor (*tunnāya*) during the day time and robbed the people.

c7.s6.t2.20

at night. The robber had an underground cell and whatever wealth he brought was kept in this cell. The robber also had a sister. It was the practice of the robber to get the stolen property carried by a man, who was seated near the well built in the middle of the underground cell and his sister under the pretext of washing his feet, hurled him into the well where he died. When Mūladeva was appointed as sovereign of Bennāyada, he tried to catch the robber but could not succeed. Once Mūladeva (clad in the dress of a Kārpaṭika) hid himself at a certain place at night. Maṇḍiya passed that way and promised Mūladeva to make him rich. Mūladeva was made to carry the stolen goods. But while washing the feet of Mūladeva, Maṇḍiya’s sister made him a sign to flee away and Mūladeva escaped. Later on, Mūladeva married Maṇḍiya’s sister and impaled the robber.²⁹

c7.s6.t2.21

²⁹ 4, p. 94a f, also cf. Bhuyangama cora (Uttarā Ṭī, 4, pp. 87 ff), Rauhaṇeya cora (Vya. Bhā., 2. 304; also Yogaśāstra, com pp 116a ff by Hemacandra, J.A.O.S, Vol 44, 1-10, article by H. M. Johnson, also cf. Yājñavalkyasmṛti, II, 23. 273.

c7.s6.t2.22

Punishments for robbery were of various kinds, amongst which imprisonment, mutilation and death penalty were the chief. We are told that when the robber Vijaya carried off the daughter of the merchant Dhanna, the latter approached the city police (nagaraguttiya) with large presents and lodged a complaint. The police officers, clad in mail coats, duly armed with bow, arms and weapons, started in search of the robber. They reached an old garden and discovered the corpse of the girl in a well. Following the foot-marks of the robber the police reached the mālukā thicket and put the robber under arrest. They showered blows on him with fists, elbows, knees and sticks, tied his hands behind his neck, suspended the ornaments of the deceased girl on his neck and brought him to the town. They marched him on the roads beating him with thong, cane and whip (kasa-laya-chiva), throwing over him ashes, dust and filth proclaiming to the citizens his crime of murdering the child. They then put him into prison where his feet were tied in a wooden frame (haḍibandhana), deprived him of food and drink and beat him with lashes thrice a day. The robber died in course of time.³⁰

c7.s6.t2.23

³⁰ Nāyā., 2, pp. 53 f.

c7.s6.t2.24

Then we hear another robber-chief named Abhaggasena of Purimatāla. The king of Purimatāla raided the robber-settlement with a huge army but before the king’s army reached the settlement, Abhaggasena was informed by his spies about the intended attack. He marched against the enemy and routed his army. After some time the king decided to win over the robber by conciliation (sāma) and by creating confidence in him. He declared a ten days’ festival in the town in which Abhaggasena was invited along with his friends and relatives. He was entertained by the king lavishly and one day when the robber was engrossed in merry-making he was put under arrest and was executed.³¹ We are told about a certain priest, who robbed the purse of a merchant containing one thousand (sahasso naulo). The merchant demanded the purse but the priest would not return it. At last the merchant sued in the court and the priest lost the case. The king ordered the priest either to be given one hundred lashes or to swallow human excreta (gū). The culprit preferred the former But after receiving a few lashes he was tired and he preferred to take excreta. After taking it a little he refused to take any more and he asked for the lashes again Thus the culprit had to undergo both punishments and his whole property was confiscated³²

c7.s6.t2.25

³¹ Vivā., 3, pp. 24 f.

c7.s6.t2.26

³² Ācā cū , 2, p 65

c7.s6.t2.27

Even women were punished for their offences although the severity of punishment to women-folk was not the same as those to men Pregnant women, for example, were exempted from torturous punishments We read of a certain girl who was banished by her parents. She got a job in the house of a wine-merchant The girl was pregnant and in order to fulfil her pregnancy-longing she used to steal money from her master's shop One day she was caught and the merchant reported to the king, who handed over the girl to be executed after delivery. After delivery however, the girl escaped and her son was brought up by the king.³³

c7.s6.t2.28

³³ Gacchā Vr , 36

Adultery

c7.s6.t3.1

Like robbery, adultery also was punished severely with death, imprisonment, mutilation and banishment. We are told that a person who committed adultery was censured and beaten, his head was shaved and his penis mutilated.³⁴ Ujjhiya was a merchant's son of Vāniyagāma who used to visit a courtesan named Kāmajjhayā. It so happened that the king also loved the same courtesan. One day, finding Ujjhiya in her house, the king turned him out and kept the courtesan as his mistress After some time Ujjhiya succeeded in visiting Kāmajjhayā secretly He was caught and was belaboured by the royal officers His hands were tightly bound behind his back, his nose and ears were mutilated, his body was besmeared with oil, he wore a pan of rough rags, round his neck was thrown a garland of red flowers, red dust was sprinkled over his body, he was made to eat the small pieces of his flesh, his offence being proclaimed at every square with the beat of a broken drum and thus he was led away to the place of execution.³⁵ A similar story is told about Sagada, who secretly visited the courtesan Sudamsanā, a keep of the king's minister. Sagada was charged with adultery and was brought before the king, who ordered him to be executed along with the courtesan Sagada was made to embrace a red-hot iron image of a woman till he died ³⁶ Then Bahassadatta, a minister of king Udayana, was impaled for a similar offence along with the queen.³⁷ Similarly, a merchant of Śrīnilayanagara is said to have been ordered to be executed for an offence of living in adultery with the queens of the harem. In this case it is said that not only the offender but even his friends and admirers were put to death³⁸

c7.s6.t3.2

³⁴ Nisī cū , 15, p 1002 , cf Manu, VIII, 374

c7.s6.t3.3

³⁵ Vivā , 2, p 18 f For a similar description see Kanavīra Jātaka, III, No 318 , Sulasā Jātaka, III, (No 419) , also cf. Yājñavalkyasmṛti (III, 5, 232 f) , Manu, VIII, 372 f.

c7.s6.t3.4

³⁶ Vivā., 4, p. 31.

c7.s6.t3.5

³⁷ Ibid, 5, p 35.

c7.s6.t3.6

³⁸ Piṇḍa Nir , 127.

c7.s6.t3.7

Then the commentary on the Uttarādhyayana refers to two brothers, named Kamaṭha and Marubhū of Poyanapura The former lived in adultery with the latter’s wife and was brought to the notice of the latter by the former’s wife. Marubhū left his house and returned after sometime in the disguise of a Kārpatika. He found his wife and his brother together and reported the matter to the king, who ordered Kamaṭha to be arrested, and accompanied with the music of harsh sounding drums with a garland of earthenware vessels (sarāva) around his neck, mounted on an ass,³⁹ he was led throughout the city and in the end was banished from the town⁴⁰.

c7.s6.t3.8

³⁹ Even women were awarded this kind of punishment (Manu. VIII, 370).

c7.s6.t3.9

⁴⁰ 23, p. 285 f Cf Gahapati Jātaka (II, No 199), p 131 f

c7.s6.t3.10

It seems that the Brāhmaṇas were awarded a lighter punishment for the same offence. We are told that a certain Brāhmaṇa committed adultery with his daughter-in-law and as a punishment he was asked to touch the four Vedas and that was considered enough to expiate his sin.⁴¹

c7.s6.t3.11

⁴¹ Vya Bhā. Pi , 17, p 10, cf Gautama, XII, 1, a śūdra who intentionally reviles twice-born men by criminal abuse or criminally assaults them with blows, shall be deprived of the limb with which he offends , also VIII. 12 f.

Murder

c7.s6.t4.1

Murder was another crime which was punished with the death penalty, public execution and fines. We hear of the prince, Maṇḍivad-dhana of Mahurā who wanted to kill his father and rule over the kingdom. He employed a barber and asked him to cut his father’s throat with the razor. The barber was frightened at the conspiracy and reported the matter to the king. The king ordered the prince to be executed publicly. He was led away by the police-officers to a square road where he was made to sit on a red-hot iron throne and was sprinkled over with hot water, etc. The officers put a red-hot necklace around his neck, fastened a badge (patta) to his forehead, and placed a crown on his head and thus he was executed.⁴² Even women were not spared and were severely punished. Devadattā, the queen of Pūsanandī, was jealous of her mother-in-law, whom she killed with a red-hot iron staff (lohadaṇḍa). When Pūsanandī came to know of this, he ordered Devadattā to be put under arrest by the police-officers, her hands were tied to her back, her nose and ears were mutilated and she was impaled publicly.⁴³

c7.s6.t4.2

⁴² Vivā., 6, pp. 36-39.

c7.s6.t4.3

⁴³ Ibid, pp. 49, 55.

Non-Execution of the King's Order

c7.s6.t5.1

Non-execution of the king's order was another offence which was dealt with very severely. Generally the king was an absolute monarch in those days, and as a rule it was absolutely necessary to carry out his orders. It is said that the persons who disobeyed the king's commands were thrown into salt (*kharantaka*) where within a very short time—its duration being calculated by the time that was taken in milking a cow—their bodies were reduced to skeletons.⁴⁴ Four kinds of assemblies (*parisā*) are referred to in the Jain texts, viz., Khallīya, Gāhāvar, Māhana and Isi.⁴⁵ It is said that an offender from the *Khattiya* assembly was punished with cutting off his hands or feet, he was beheaded, impaled, killed by one stroke of the sword and was thrown away. The offender from the *Gāhāvar* assembly was burnt to death on a pile of bark, husk or chaff, the offender from the *Māhana* assembly was taunted in disagreeable terms and was branded with a mark of a pot (*kuṇḍiya*) or a dog (*sunaga*) or was banished;⁴⁶ and the offender from the *Isi* assembly was admonished mildly.⁴⁷

c7.s6.t5.2

⁴⁴ *Ava cū*, p 38

c7.s6.t5.3

⁴⁵ Cf the eight assemblies in the *Anguttara*, IV, p 307 f

c7.s6.t5.4

⁴⁶ Cf *Arthaśāstra*, p 230, *Yājñavalkyasmṛti*, II, 23, 270

c7.s6.t5.5

⁴⁷ *Rāya*, 184

c7.s6.t5.6

People giving rise to the slightest degree of suspicion in the minds of the kings, were punished heavily and often were deprived of their life. We hear of Kappaya, the minister of Nanda, who was once preparing for the wedding feast of his son. The ex-minister of Nanda, who was a rival of Kappaya, informed the king that Kappaya was making preparations to establish his son on the royal seat. The king, without making much inquiry, is said to have ordered Kappaya and his whole family to be cast into a well.⁴⁸ The same plot was devised by Vararuci against his rival Sagaḍāla, the minister of the ninth Nanda. When Sagaḍāla came to know that he was suspected by the king and being anxious to prevent the ruin of his whole family, he persuaded his son to put him (Sagaḍāla) to death.⁴⁹ Cāṇakya too is said to have met the same fate at the hands of his master. It is said that once Subandhu, who was jealous of Cāṇakya, approached the king and reported that the latter had killed his (king's) mother.⁵⁰ The king inquired of the maid-servant, who confirmed the report. Next day when Cāṇakya visited his master, he did not receive him properly. Cāṇakya felt that now his life was drawing to its close. So being indifferent to worldly interests, he retired to the jungle to starve himself to death, and was consumed in the flames.⁵¹

c7.s6.t5.7

⁴⁸ *Ava cū*, II p 182

c7.s6.t5.8

⁴⁹ *Ibid*, p 184

c7.s6.t5.9

⁵⁰ It is said once Durdharā, the queen of Candragupta, who was pregnant was dining with the king. On Cāṇakya's order the food of the king was mixed with very minute dozes of poison so that the king may gain immunity from poison. Now observing that the poison almost instantly killed the queen, Cāṇakya ripped open her womb and extracted the child; *Sthavirāvalī carita* (8 377 411), cf also Buddhist tradition about Bindusāra, Malalasekera, *op cit*, Vol II, under 'Bindusāra'

c7.s6.t5.10

⁵¹ Das. cū., p 81 f. In the Mahābodhi Jātaka (v. 229 ff) we come across a king who stripped his five ministers of all their property, and disgracing them in various ways, by fastening their hair into five locks, by putting them into fetters and chains, and by sprinkling cow-dung over them, he drove them out of his kingdom.

c7.s6.t5.11

Then we are told about Sālivāhana of Paiṭṭhāna who once ordered his commander-in-chief to go and conquer Mahurā. The commander-in-chief could not understand as to which Mahurā was to be conquered, southern or northern. He marched with his army and succeeded in conquering both. When the king learned of his victory, he felt extremely happy. At the same time he also got news of the birth of a son and the find of a treasure-trove. The king's pleasure knew no bounds and in an excitement he started striking at his beds, pillars, buildings, etc. Now, in order to bring the king back to his senses his minister started destroying the pillars, the furniture and the buildings of the palace himself and declared that it was the act of the king. When the king heard of this he was seized with wrath and he ordered the minister to be executed. However, the minister was concealed by the officers and was saved.⁵² we read almost a similar story about king Sankha of Vārānasi, who, at some slight fault of his minister ordered his execution secretly.⁵³ About Candragupta it is said that when he occupied the throne of Pāṭaliputra, the Kṣatriyas taking him to be a son of peacock-tamers, did not obey his commands. Candragupta was enraged at this and he ordered the whole village to be burnt to ashes.⁵⁴

c7.s6.t5.12

⁵² Brh Bhā, 6 6244 6249

c7.s6.t5.13

⁵³ Uttarā Ṭī, 13, p 185a

c7.s6.t5.14

⁵⁴ Brh Bhā, 1. 2489.

c7.s6.t5.15

It seems that even for ordinary offences the kings did not hesitate to inflict severe punishments. The commentary on the Uttarādhyayana tells us that once during the time of the Indra festival, the king made a proclamation that the citizens should leave the town and go out to celebrate the festival. A priest's son, unmindful of the king's order, remained in the house of a harlot; the king ordered him to be executed. The priest offered his whole property to save his son, but he could not save him from the gallows.⁵⁵ On another occasion, king Ratnaśekhara announced the celebration of moon-lit night (kaumudīpācāra) and asked the citizens to leave the town in the company of their wives. The six sons of a layman did not care for the royal command and stayed at home. Later on, at the request of the layman, only one son was saved and the rest were executed.⁵⁶

c7.s6.t5.16

⁵⁵ 4, p 82 a.

c7.s6.t5.17

⁵⁶ Sūya Ṭī., II, 7, p. 413.

c7.s6.t5.18

There are instances when the autocrat kings acted wantonly. It is said that king Kumbhaga of Mihilā banished the guild of the goldsmiths simply because they could not repair his ear-rings.⁵⁷ A physician was put to death by a king simply because he could not cure the prince.⁵⁸ We are told that the prince Malladinna ordered a painter to be executed for no fault of his.⁵⁹

c7.s6.t5.19

⁵⁷ Nāyā, 8, p. 105.

c7.s6.t5.20

⁵⁸ Brh Bhā, 3. 3259 f.

c7.s6.t5.21

⁵⁹ Nāyā., 7, p. 107.

c7.s6.t5.22

The offenders were also sentenced to great humiliation as their relatives were ordered to live in the Cāṇḍāla settlement.⁶⁰

c7.s6.t5.23

⁶⁰ Uttarā Ṭī., p 190a

c7.s6.t5.24

Besides, the following types of punishments are mentioned specifically :—putting in irons (aduyabandhana),⁶¹ in fetters, in stocks (haḍibandhana), into prison, screwing up hands and feet in a pair of shackles and breaking them, cutting off hands and feet, or ears or nose or lips or head or throat-glands (muṇavī), piercing the organ (veyagachahiya?)⁶² body (angachahiya), the sides, tearing out eyes, teeth, testicles, or tongue, hanging, brushing, whirling round, impaling, lacerating, pouring acids (in wounds), belabouring with a leather strap, twisting the organ like a lion's tail (sīhapucchiya),⁶³ like a bull's tail, burning in a wood fire and exposing the offender to be devoured by crows and vultures.⁶⁴

c7.s6.t5.25

⁶¹ This is also mentioned in the com on the Udāna, p. 149.

c7.s6.t5.26

⁶² This meaning is given in the Pāyasaddamahannavo, p 1020, Abhayadeva, however, gives a variant, ‘tārkacchachinnaga’ and renders as ‘uttarāsaṅganyāyena vidāntaḥ’ (Ovā. Sū, 38, p. 164)

c7.s6.t5.27

⁶³ Also refer to the commentary for explanation.

c7.s6.t5.28

⁶⁴ Sūya II, 2 35, Ovā Sū, 38, p 162 f. Panha, 3, 52a ff, also cf. Milindapañha, p. 197, Majjhima, I, 87

Prisons

c7.s6.t6.1

There were regular prisons in those days,⁶⁵ although we do not know what kinds of offenders were imprisoned and for what period. But it seems that the general conditions of the prison were not good. The prisoners were severely tortured in the prison and frequently they died. The Vivāgasuya gives a vivid description of a well-equipped prison in Sihapura. Dujjohana was the jailor who provided jails with various kinds of instruments of torture. There were a number of iron-jars filled with copper, tin, lead, lime-water (kalakala) and oil cooked with alkaline ingredients (khāratella) always kept on fire. There were jars containing urine of various animals; handcuffs (hatthaṃduya), fetters (pāyaṃduya), wooden frames to fasten the feet (haḍi), and iron chains; various kinds of whips, stones, sticks, clubs, ropes, traps, swords, saws, razors, iron-nails, leather-straps, needles, hatchets, nail-cutters, and darbha grass. The criminals were made to lie on their backs, their mouths were opened by means of an iron-staff, a red-hot copper etc. and the urine was poured into their mouth; they were tortured by various instruments.⁶⁶ The plight of the prisoners was miserable. They suffered from hunger, thirst, heat, cold, cough and leprosy. Their nails, hair, beard and moustaches were allowed to grow unattended; they lay in their own excrement and urine and died in prisons only. They were dragged by the feet and were thrown away in ditches where they were devoured by wolves, dogs, jackals, big rats (kola), cats, and birds.⁶⁷

c7.s6.t6.2

⁶⁵ According to Jain tradition during the first era the punishment was of a mild character. The first two Kulakaras established the ‘hakkāra’ (expression of regret), then came ‘makkāra’ (prohibition), then was established the punishment of ‘dhikkāra’ (reproach)—dhigdaṇḍa and vāgdaṇḍa are also mentioned in the Yājñavalkya smṛti, I, 13, 367 Then it is said that Ṛṣabhadeva, the first Tīrthaṅkara introduced the punishment of confinement to a particular area (maṇḍalabandha) After that Bharata is said to have introduced caraka or imprisonment and chaviccheya or mutilation of hand, foot and nose etc (Jambu. Sū., 2, 29; Ṭhā., 7. 557).

c7.s6.t6.3

⁶⁶ b, pp. 36 ff.

c7.s6.t6.4

⁶⁷ Panha, 3, p. 54. ⁶⁸ Nāyā., 2, p 54 ff. Compare the Jātaka where the life of the prisoner is described very hard The sad and miserable plight of a released prisoner is taken as a standard of comparison for a person who had not bathed for days together, nor rinsed his mouth nor performed any bodily ablution (P B I, p 159) ⁶⁹ Āia cū, II, p 171. ⁷⁰ Cf. Nāyā, 1, p 20, cf. also Arthaśāstra, p. 165

c7.s6.t6.5

Another reference to prison is made in the Nāyādhammakahā. It is mentioned that once for some slight fault, the merchant Dhanna of Rāyagiha, referred to above, was arrested and was put into prison where the robber Vijaya was undergoing imprisonment. Both were put together and their feet were bound in the same wooden frame The wife of the merchant used to send her husband a sealed tiffin box (bhoyana-piḍaga) every day through her servant. Vijaya requested Dhanna to share his food with him but the latter always refused saying that as he had murdered his daughter he preferred giving it to crows and dogs or he would throw away on dung-hills but he would never share it with a murderer of his own child. Once Dhanna wanted to go to attend the call of nature. He asked Vijaya to accompany him to a place where he could be at ease. But Vijaya refused saying that he had taken plenty of food and drink and hence it was natural for him to go for excretion whereas he had nothing to eat. The merchant again requested the robber and ultimately agreed to share his food with him. In course of time, through the influence of his relatives and friends, and after paying money to the king, Dhanna was released from prison. He immediately left for a hair cutting saloon (alaṅkāriyasabhā), he bathed in a lake and having offered oblations (balıkamma) to the deities, he came home. The robber Vijaya, however, died in the prison and never came out.⁶⁸ We are told about the imprisonment of king Seṇiya who was given hundred lashes every morning and evening; neither food and drink was allowed, nor anybody was permitted to interview the king. Later on, his queen Cellanā was allowed to see him, she concealed food in her hair and offered it to her husband.⁶⁹

c7.s6.t6.6

On certain special occasions, such as the birth of a child, coronation ceremony or festivals general release of prisoners was declared by the king.⁷⁰

Linked texts (26)