Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c17: Chapter IX: Constitutional Survey of the Hindu Republics in Greek Writers

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c17

Language
English

Chapter IX: Constitutional Survey of the Hindu Republics in Greek Writers

c17.2

§ 80. In the above survey it would have been noticed that we have various constitutions. This shows that the constitutions were adjusted to the particular needs and circumstances of the people composing the states. We have for instance, the democracy of the Ambashṭhas. The democracy of the Ambashṭhas had a Second House composed of elected elders. They elected their generals also. Apparently every man in the community had direct franchise, the Greeks calling the constitution a democracy.

c17.3

§ 81. Then we have the Kshudrakas and Mālavas who had no 'king' consul, as they sent 100 or 150 representatives to negotiate the treaty of peace. Evidently their constitution would not allow power to vest in one man or a small body of men. It is noteworthy that the two armies elected a common general.

c17.4

§ 82. Passing to the constitution of the Kathaians or the Kaṭhas, we find an elected 'king.' In this state children were born to their parents as citizens first and individuals afterwards, the state deciding as to which of the prospective citizens were perfect in 'limbs and features' and which of them should be allowed to grow into manhood. (Diodorus, XCI). The Saubhūta constitution was similar. In these states, man was really a political animal The individual existed for the state. To secure the life of the group, the individual sacrificed himself and his sentiments as father and mother. Probably it was due to this law that the Kaṭha philosophers glorified a child (Nachiketas), offered to Death by his father, as attaining immortality.

c17.5

The constitution, like that of Patala, which provided for the election of a 'king' consul, was what Kauṭilya calls a Rāja-śabdin Saṃgha, a republic which recognized the title of Rājan.¹ Such elected 'kings' also obtained amongst the Lichchhavis. The elected king was not necessarily the leader of the army. Amongst the Lichchhavis, the leadership of the army vested in another elected chief called Senāpati (General). An elected 'king' president was the feature of the Śākyan constitution as well.

c17.6

¹ It was probably a constitution of this sort which prevailed amongst the Kuṇindas, a state whose coins were struck in the name of the king and the political community. Their king is always mentioned there as '*Amoghabhūti*', '*Of unfailing prosperity*,' and the same appellation appears for centuries (150 B C. to 100 A C.). This was an official title, and not a personal name (as wrongly interpreted by numismatists: V. Smith, CCIM., Vol. I., pp. 161, 167). The leaders of the Gaṇa of the Kaulindas (spelt also as Kuṇinda) are mentioned by V. Mihira, *Br. S.* IV. 24, (कौलिन्दान् नयपुङ्गवान्); xiv. 30, 33. Ptolemy has Kulindrine; the Viṣṇu P., Kulinda and the Mārkaṇḍeya P., Kaulinda. Cunningham, CAI., 71. Their coins are found between Ambala and Saharanpur. Their proposed identification with 'Kanets' [which ought to be Kanets] of the Simla hills (A.S.R., XIV, p. 126) is doubtful.

c17.7

§ 83 In the constitution of the Patalas the "council of elders" ruled. They had two so-called 'kings,' hereditary in two families, for the purposes of command in war only. Hereditary 'royal' families in republican bodies are also mentioned in the Mahā-Bhārata.² The Patala 'kings' were responsible to the Council which in turn was probably elected by the whole community, it being a democracy. Here we have in the Patala constitution a mixture of aristocracy and democracy.

c17.8

² Ch. XIV below.

c17.9

The ultimate political authority in all these cases rested with the Gaṇa or Saṃgha.

c17.10

§ 84. As to the executive authority in these republics, it was in some constitutions delegated to a Second Chamber or the House of Elders, while in others there are indications that it remained with the general Gaṇa or Parliament. According to the Greek writers the Council of Elders at Patala had the supreme authority, and the Ambaṣṭhas listened to the advice of their Elders. The Mahā-Bhārata says that the chief difficulty in the Gaṇa constitution is to keep a resolution of theirs secret, because their number is large. It is therefore urged that the matters of policy (mantra) should not be discussed by the whole Gaṇa and that the state policy should remain in the hands of the Leaders.¹ One set of the coins of the Yaudheyas is struck in the name of the *Mantra-dharas* and the Gaṇa, while other coins are struck simply in the name of the Gaṇa. *Mantra-dharas* mean the council which is vested with the authority of *mantra* or policy. The officers called the chiefs or leaders of the Gaṇa thus formed the Executive Body or the Cabinet. The Elders formed another body. They were like a *Second House*. They had varying powers according to individual constitutions. Amongst the Patalas; they were for all purposes the *Government*. In the Ambaṣṭha Saṃgha they were not so. They were like the Vṛiddhas mentioned in the Mahā-Bhārata who advised on matters of mutual subordination and correct dealings, etc. (ch. xiv). The *Vṛiddhas* or *Elders* were not necessarily people old in age, though primarily age might have been the qualification. The Mahā-Bhārata has the expression ‘*Elders by knowledge*,’ i.e., by merit. Evidently one was elected an elder on merit.

c17.11

¹ Ch. XIV, below.

c17.12

The discussion in the Mahā-Bhārata implies that some *Gaṇas* or *Parliaments* did reserve in their own hands the executive policy and did not delegate it to their council or cabinet, as it says that the system is a weak point in Gaṇa constitution. Probably non-delegation of executive power was more general a trait than delegation. The Ambaṣṭhas and the Kshudraka-Mālavas seem to have had such constitutions. The democracies seem to have followed the non-delegation system. The government of the *city-states* in the Punjab is taken by the Greek writers to have been as a rule democratic. "At last after many generations had come "and gone, the sovereignty, it is said, was dissolved and "democratic governments were set up in "the cities," (Diodorous, III. 38.)¹ "Most of the cities 'adopted the democratic form of government, though some 'retained the kingly, until the invasion of the country by 'Alexander' (*Ibid*, 39).²

c17.13

¹ McCrindle, *Megasthenes*, p. 38.

c17.14

² *Ibid*, p. 40.

c17.15

§ 85. The states wherein the Greeks found Executive Power held by a few families on hereditary principle, although the rulers were subject to a Gaṇa, they have described as aristocratic. In fact they were a mixed constitution which may be called for want of a better term, aristocratic democracy. Take for example, the state on the other side of the Hupanis (Beas). This had a Gaṇa or Parliament of 5,000 members. Yet it was called an aristocracy: "for the "multitude was governed by the aristocracy, who exercised "their authority with justice and moderation." It was according to the Greek view "*an excellent system of internal government.*"³ The Gaṇa of 5,000 was not a direct assembly, for only those were entitled to sit there who furnished the state with an elephant. This was the qualification, and a seat in the Gaṇa was based on qualification. The population was composed of 'good agriculturists, and men brave in war.' Every agriculturist and every fighter could not have afforded an elephant. But every agriculturist and fighter presumably must have been represented. Evidently the elephant men represented the 'no elephant' men. To the class of this mixed type belonged also the Patala constitution. The hereditary 'kings' were under the complete control of the House of Elders. It was an aristocracy in form but democracy in spirit.

c17.16

³ *IIA.*, p. 121, *Megasthenes*, p. 67.

c17.17

§ 86. The large number of the Gaṇa or Parliament of 5,000 noticed by the Greeks is not without parallel in Indian literature. The Jātakas describe Vaiśālī, the capital of the Lichchhavis as having 7,707 kinglets (rājākas). These rulers were composed of both rich and poor sorts who used to gather in the usual assembly in the House of Law on the call of tocsin. Probably all of them did not attend as they do not do in modern Parliaments.

c17.18

§ 87. Hindu literature calls such aristocratic element of Gaṇa, a *Kula*,¹ (literally, 'family'). The Mahā-Bhārata treats 'the Kulas of rājās' as belonging to the class of gaṇas. The Artha-Śāstra refers to the rāja-kulas 'ruling Kulas' or 'Kulas of rājās' as being of the nature of Saṅghas (Saṅgha-dharmins, p. 328.) The hereditary 'kings' of the Pātalas would come under this description of the Kula-Saṅgha. The Law-books always treat *Kulas* as distinct from *Gaṇas* and both come therein side by side.¹ *Gaṇa*, therefore, pure and simple, had no hereditary principle and technically was of the nature of democracy. Often, there was a mixture of the two, and pure *Kulas* were rare. The distinction was in later times ignored.² The Jainas who founded their religious *Gaṇas* also founded religious *Kulas*.³ This *Kula* however was a misnomer, as the founders were celebates and no hereditary principle could be followed. In pure *Kula* States 'supreme rulership' went by turns to the few families (*Kulesu pachchekādhipachcham*).⁴

c17.19

¹ Asahāya commenting on Nāruda, I. 7, defines *kula* as *controlled or managed by a few people* (कुलानि कतिचित्पुरुषप्रग्टहीतानि). On *gṛihītāni* compare the verb *pra-grah*, 'to hold.'

c17.20

¹ *Vīramitrodaya*, quotations at pp. 11 and 40.

c17.21

² Kātyāyana: कुलानां हि समूहस्तु गणः संपरिकीर्तितः। (*Vīramitrodaya*, p. 426.) "The assembly (or body corporate) of Kulas is called Gaṇa."

c17.22

³ See Paṭṭāvalīs edited by Dr. Hoernle in *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. xx, p. 347.

c17.23

⁴ Aṅguttara-Nikāya, 58. 1 (Vol. III, p. 76). See discussion *infra* § 91.

c17.24

§ 88. We have concluded this brief constitutional survey of these Republics. But let us not part with this chapter of our republican polity without a few words on their general culture. Philostratus in the *Life of Appollonius of Tyana* gives the information that the *Sophoi* of Alexander were the Oxydracae and that in the time of Appollonius (about 40 A. C.) they were regarded as 'rather dabblers in philosophy than philosophers.' It seems that the Kshudrakas in Alexander's time were noted for their philosophic wisdom and were called the wise (Sophai). Similarly the Kaṭhas are famous in Indian literature for their Upanishadic philosophy and Vedic learning. They were followers of the Krishna Yajurveda, their edition of that Veda, the Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, has come down to our times. In Patañjali's time, the Kaṭha recension was the ruling authority, it was recited in every town as he says in his Mahābhāshya.¹ Their law-book, the Kāṭhaka-dharma-sūtra, was also well-known, and is believed to have been the basis of the Vishṇu-smṛiti. Their name in Hindu literature will live as long as the Upanishads live and the Yajurveda lives. Likewise the philosophy of the Vṛishṇi leader and that of his cousin Nemi are national beliefs to the present day. The Śākyas, although they ceased to exist by the fourth century B.C., had bequeathed the greatest religion to the world. Free constitutions seem to have given rise to free philosophies. Philosophy, politics and military training did not combine to develop a non-human type of humanity. The republics were noted for their love of music. Arrian (VI. 3) calls these Indians whom Alexander met, 'lovers of dance and song.'² The musical propensities of the Vṛishṇis are a familiar feature in Sanskrit literature. The Harivaṁśa describes their ball and picnic (Chs. 146—7).³

c17.25

¹ On P., IV. 3. 101.

c17.26

² McCrindle, *I. I. by Alexander*, p. 136. [Every nation regards the singing of every foreign nation as 'wild.' It is true now, it was true 22 centuries ago.]

c17.27

³ R. Mitra, *Indo Aryans*, Vol. I, pp. 430—42.

c17.28

The Arthaśāstra (XI, p. 376) supposes disputation (*kalaha*), on Vidyā and Śilpa ('science' and 'art') to be a wellknown weakness in the republics.

c17.29

§ 89. It has been noticed as in the case of the Sikhs that belief and polity exercise a tremendous influence in moulding the physical features of man. The republican polity of this country is another illustration of this curious law of nature. The Greeks testify to the handsome looks and dignified bearing of the Kshudrakas and Mālavas, the Saubhūtas and the Kaṭhas. The remarks of the Buddha who compared the handsome Lichchhavis to a company of gods⁴ go to prove the same. Kṛishṇa in the Mahā-Bhārata is reported to have alluded to the handsome presence of certain Vṛishṇi leaders as a political asset.¹ It seems that the republicans consciously paid attention to physical culture This the Saubhūtas and the Kaṭhas even enforced by the laws of their constitutions.² The disappearance of that physique in the land of the Lichchhavis which excited the admiration of the Buddha, is parallel to the decline of physique in modern Hellas. Features also seem to be amenable to what Aristotle called the Queen of Sciences.

c17.30

⁴ "Let those of the Bhikkhus who have never seen the Tāvatiṁsa gods, gaze "upon this company of the Lichchhavis, behold this company of the Lichchhavis, "compare this company of the Lichchhavis—even as the company of Tāvatiṁsa gods.'' Oldenberg and Rhys Davids, *S. B. E.*, Vol. XI, p. 32.

c17.31

¹ See appendix A.

c17.32

² See on the Madras, p. 93 *n.*

Linked texts (13)