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.t5: Non-Execution of the King's Order

Life in Ancient India as Depicted in the Jain Canons, with Commentaries: An Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey c7.s6.t5

Language
English

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

Linked texts (16)