Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c15.6

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.