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.t2: Robbery

Life in Ancient India as Depicted in the Jain Canons, with Commentaries: An Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey c7.s6.t2

Language
English

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

Linked texts (7)