Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c15: Chapter VII: Republics in the Arthasastra (325-300 B.C.)

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c15

Language
English

Chapter VII: Republics in the Arthasastra (325-300 B.C.)

c15.2

§ 53 The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya deals with the characteristics of Saṁghas and the Imperial policy towards them.¹ They were still important, although a decline had set in owing to the rise of large monarchies and Alexander's invasion, the latter having discredited small sovereignties and emphasized the importance of large States (§ 64). Kauṭilya divides Saṁghas, as we have already seen, into two classes. One of them was the class whose Consuls bore the title of Rājā or 'king.' As he contrasts them with the other class, he implies that the latter had no provision for this title and did not allow it. Such constitutions are known to have existed from the evidence of coins.² Amongst the former class whose rulers bore the title, Kauṭilya enumerates—

c15.3

¹ Ch. XI., 376-79.

c15.4

² See discussion below, ch. xvii., on the coins of the Rājanyas, the Yaudheyas, the Mālavas, the Ārjunāyanas, etc.

c15.5

(1) the Lichchhivikas,
(2) the Vrijikas,
(3) the Mallakas,
(4) the Madrakas,
(5) the Kukuras,
(6) the Kurus,
(7) the Pāñchālas, and 'others.'

c15.6

The Kāśikā, in connection with rule V. 3. 114 of Pāṇini, points out that Mallas are not subject to the rule, because they are not 'military.'¹ There is therefore agreement between Kauṭilya and grammatical literature with regard to the character of the Mallas. As to the Lichchhavis, we know from Buddhist sources² that they called their Consul 'the Rājā.' Apparently, Kauṭilya, by mentioning the Lichchhavis separately, means by the term Vṛijis the Videhas only. Pāṇini gives a special rule for the formation of Madraka and Vṛijika,³ which forms we find in the Arthaśāstra. The Kurus, according to Buddhist records,⁴ had become weak as a kingdom, in the time of the Buddha. According to the Mahā Bhārata, the Purāṇas and the earlier authorities,⁵ the Kurus had been in earlier times under monarchy. Their adoption of republican constitution must, therefore, be dated after the Buddha and before Kauṭilya. The Videhas also had been in early (Vedic) times a monarchy. In the time of the Buddha, however, the Videhas had adopted republican constitution. The Videhas are treated as a republic by Patañjali also.⁶ The Pañchālas in Buddhist books are found divided into two kingdoms. But Kauṭilya mentions them as a republic. Patañjali also finds them a republic.⁶ The change in their constitution must have come after the death of the Buddha. The Uttara (Northern) Madras, according to the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, originally had a constitution where the whole country, as opposed to a king, was solemnized as the sovereign.⁷ The other portion of the Madras, or the Madras proper, in the time of Kauṭilya, if not earlier, had the 'king'-consul constitution.

c15.7

¹ १ आयुधजीविसङ्घार्थं किम् । मल्लाः । p. 456.

c15.8

² See above, § 47.

c15.9

³ IV. 2. 131, मद्रवृज्योः कन् ॥

c15.10

⁴ Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 27.

c15.11

⁵ The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, in giving illustrations of monarchical nations, cites the Kurus and the Pañchālas, Ch. VIII., 14.

c15.12

⁶ See above, § 31, *n*.

c15.13

⁷ Bk. VIII. जनपदो कुरुपञ्चाला उशोनरभद्रा इति......तेऽभिषिच्यन्ते ॥ १४॥ See below, Ch. X.

c15.14

§ 54. The political history of the Lichchhavis is too well-known to be repeated here¹ They were very powerful. They survived the Śaiśunāka and the Maurya empires and helped in building up the Gupta empire. They founded a curious constitution in Nepal which we shall have occasion to discuss later.

c15.15

¹ As to their alleged foreign origin, the theories are hopelessly untenable: see discussion below, Ch. XXI.

c15.16

The Mallas do not live so long. They disappear in the time of the Mauryas, or a little later², as a republican community, though individual Malla families rise up now and then, in Tirhut and Nepal, up to the eleven centuries and even later.³ The modern representatives of the Mallas are the Malla caste in the districts of Gorakhpur and Azamgarh⁴, generally given to trade. It is a common phenomenon in the career of Indian republics that when the republicans lost their political power they still retained their commercial intelligence and turned into traders.⁵ (The Pāñchāla survived the Mauryas, for they are mentioned by Patañjali. But the Kurus as a state succumbed. The Kukuras, according to the Mahā-Bhārata, were a member of the Andhaka-Vṛishṇi league. Some of the members of the league apparently observed the 'king'-consul constitution, while others did not.) The Kukuras are mentioned in inscriptions of Western India towards the close of the first century B.C.⁶

c15.17

² They do not figure in Kātyāyana or Patañjali.

c15.18

³ See Lévi, *Le Nepal*, II. pp. 210-213.

c15.19

⁴ Cf. H. Panday, *J. BORS*, 1920, pp. 262-65, on modern Mallas.

c15.20

⁵ Other examples are the Khatris of Sind and the Punjab (the Xathroi of the Greeks), and the Arodas of the Punjab who very likely represent the ancient *Arattas*.

c15.21

⁶ *Ep. Ind.*, VIII, pp. 44, 60; see § 57, n.

c15.22

§ 55. The other class of Kauṭilya's¹ republics is illustrated by—
(1) the K ā m b h o j a s,
(2) the S u r ā s h ṭ r a s,
(3) the K s h a t r i y a s,
(4) the Ś r e ṇ i s, and 'others.'

c15.23

¹ काम्बोज-सुराष्ट्र-क्षत्रिय-श्रेण्यादयो वार्त्ताशस्त्रोपजीविन: (AS., xi. 1.160, p. 376).

c15.24

This class, by implication, had no king-consul. The other chief feature of their constitution was that they emphasized on their citizens the duty to acquire military skill. In other words, they had a citizen army. Each state was a nation-in-arms. Conversely, the other class, where the 'king'-consul constitution obtained, probably had, like monarchs, a regular or hired (standing) army. The nation-in-arms class, however, did not become purely military, for their constitution also required their citizens to devote attention to industry and agriculture (vārttāśastropajīvinaḥ). Hence they were found rich as well as strong.

c15.25

§ 56. The K s h u d r a k a s and the M ā l a v a s, who were the most prominent amongst these martial republics, are not mentioned by Kauṭilya. Probably they had already come under the imperial sway. The martial republics named in the Arthaśāstra are headed by the K ā m b h o j a s. They were in eastern Afghanistan. They are mentioned in Aśoka's inscriptions as a community next to the G a n d h ā r a s.² According to Yāska, their mother-tongue was Sanskrit with certain bases which seem to have been imported from the Iranian neighbours.³ They are known to Pāṇini for he gives a rule⁴ for the derivative to denote their king. This would indicate that Pāṇini is referring to a monarchy. But the special rule and the exceptional form of the derivative raise a doubt as to whether the ‘rā jā’ of the Kāmbojas was a monarch or a consul. In the time of Kauṭilya, their constitution certainly did not admit of even a titular ‘king.’ The Bhojas, as we shall see hereafter, were a class of non-monarchical rulers: ‘Kambhojas would literally mean ‘Inferior Bhojas.’¹

c15.26

² See below, ch. xvii.

c15.27

³ II. 3. 4. शवतिर्गतिकर्मा कम्बोजेष्वेव भाष्यते, कम्बोजा: कम्बलभोजा: कमनीयभोजा वा कम्बः कमनीयो भवति विकारमस्यार्येषु भाषन्ते शव इति. Cf. the Persian root *shūdan*, 'to go.' See J.R.A.S., 1911, 801.

c15.28

⁴ IV. 1. 175.

c15.29

¹ Pāṇini spells it as Kamboja, so does Yāska. But Yāska derives it from *bhuj.* The Rāmāyaṇa (I. 55. 2) and the Artha-Śāstra have Kāmboja and Kāmbhoja, respectively. The former indicates Iranian or Pahlavi influence.

c15.30

§ 57. The Surāshṭras (Su-rāshṭra, *lit.* ‘good realm’) were in Kathiawar. Their name still lives in modern Soraṭha. They seem to have survived the Mauryan imperialism, as they figure in the inscriptions of Bala Śrī (about 58 B.C.²) and in the Junagadh inscription of Rudradāman (2nd century A. C.³)

c15.31

² *Ep. Ind.* Vol. VIII p. 44. The date is based on my own theory of chronology and identification of Vikrama with Gotamīputra Sātakarṇi Sātavāhana (J.B.O.R.S. I. 101; *Brahmin Empire* (‘Express’, Patna, 1914); *Modern Review*, 1914. The date assigned by other scholars to this inscription is over a century later.

c15.32

³ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. VIII, p. 60.

c15.33

§ 58. The other two states—the Kshatriyas⁴ and the Śreṇīs⁵—appear as neighbours in Sind in the records of the Macedonian writers.⁴ The Kshatriyas are called by them Xathroi. European scholars have taken it as a caste denomination; that it is a proper name of a political body is now disclosed by the Artha-Śāstra. Ptolemy also mentions the nation or community Xathroi. Various terms have been used by Classical writers to denote what seems to be Agra-Śreṇīs or the First Śreṇīs⁵ Apparently, the Śreṇīs were sub-divided into internal units, and the one which came in contact with Alexander was that of the “First Śreṇis."¹ Such divisions seem to have existed among the Yaudheyas, whose coins, marked "2" and "3," have been found.²

c15.34

⁴ Arrian, Bk. VI. ch. XV.

c15.35

⁵ See McCrindle, *Ancient India, Its Invasion by Alexander the Great*, p. 367. The forms are: Agalassī, Agesinae, Acensoni, Argesinae etc.

c15.36

¹ It is, however, not impossible that Agassaeoi of Alexander has been abbreviated as Śreṇi by Kauṭilya.

c15.37

² Cunningham, *Coins of Ancient India*, p. 78.

c15.38

The Xathroi or the Kshatriyas seem to survive in the numerous caste called the *Sindhi Khatris* (the Khattris of Sindh), a handsome race occupying the neighbourhood of the site indicated in the Greek writers as the territory of the Xathroi. The Khattris of the Punjab may also represent them.

c15.39

§ 59. I may here point out that the translator of the Artha-Śāstra has fallen into an error in translating the passage '*Kāmbhoja-Surāshṭra-Kshatriya-Śreṇy-ādayaḥ*' as "the corporations of warriors (Kshatriya Śreṇi) of Kāmbhoja and Surāshṭra and other countries"³ The rendering is against grammar; '*ādayaḥ*,' 'and others,' excludes the possibility of a description coming in the group just preceding. If Kāmbhoja is a proper name, the rest, up to '*ādayaḥ*,' must be proper names. The description really comes after the enumeration closed with '*ādayaḥ*,' in *vārtā-śastropajīvinaḥ*. Both in view of our identification and grammatical considerations, the translation is unacceptable. There is yet another error to be avoided, *viz*., taking '*Śreṇi*' here to mean a guild. If *vārtā* (industry and agriculture) refers to alleged guilds (Śreṇis), it ought to have been placed after, not before, *śastra*, as *Śreṇī* is the last, coming after *Kshatriya*, in the group.⁴

c15.40

³ Shama Sastry, *Kautilya's Artha-S'āstra*, p. 455.

c15.41

⁴ Cf the expression Sastra-Vārtāḥ used by Varāha Mihira (संग्राम शस्त्रकुशलास्तथापि वार्त्ताप्रजीविनश्चिवरात्र प्रख्याताः. Bṛi. S., v. 39) where the two characteristics have to be taken as applying to the same communities. See also §§ 32, 33 above.

Linked texts (7)