Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c20: Chapter XII: Franchise and Citizenship

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c20

Language
English

Chapter XII: Franchise and Citizenship

c20.2

§ 117. In aristocratic republics the basis of franchise was the family, *i.e.*, the Hindu family. This is implied by the Mahā-Bhārata when it says that there is equality in the Gaṇa by family (kula) and by birth (jāti).¹ Equality by birth and family made up the constitutional equality inside the Hindu republic. Every free man in a Saṁgha was equal by his birth, and every family was equal, for political purposes. A passage in the Pāli Canon also takes the Kula as the basis of franchise.² The Buddha preaching to the sons of the Lichchhavis says that high careers open to a *Kula-putta* or cadet of a family were these: he might become consecrated to rulership, might become a Rāshṭrika, or Pettanika, or the Generalissimo, or the President of the Township, (*gāmagāmaṇika*), or the President of the Industrial Guild (*pūgagāmaṇika*). It is meant that all these offices were elective and a Kula-putta was eligible to all these in a Gaṇa-state. A sixth career is added and it is with regard to a Kula-state which we have already noticed above: ‘*Supreme rulership* [*over other rulers*] *by turns*.’³ Kātyāyana the law-giver says that *gaṇa* is the assembly of Kulas.¹ Kula or family was thus the basis of political right and power in aristocracies and in aristocratic democracies. But it could not have been the rule in what the Greeks called democracies. There everybody was equal, of course, by birth. Birth alone must have been the basis of franchise in constitutions like that of the Kaṭhas and the Saubhūtas where even the selection of the 'king' depended upon personal qualification and no one attached any regard to the family, and where the culture of the individual himself was the prime consideration of the State. We find in the Śākya Parliament both young and old assembled; in the Vṛishṇi Saṅgha, father, son, and younger brother, (Kṛishṇa, Pradyumna, Gada) all possessing franchise (§ 197).

c20.3

¹ See Ch. XIV below. Jāti, literally, ‘birth,’ is not caste. There were, as we have seen, all castes amongst the republics. Free birth as opposed to slave birth is probably meant by it. Cf. the Vedic *sujāta*, see below Ch. XXV.

c20.4

² See above, p. 89, n.

c20.5

³ ‘कुलेसु पच्चं काधियच्चं’ । *Aṅguttara Nikāya*, Vol. III, p. 76

c20.6

¹ ^1 **कुलानां हि समूहस्तु गणः संपरिकीर्तितः।** *Vīramitrodaya*, p. 426.

c20.7

§ 118. Pāṇini gives rules to form words denoting the country of origin of a man (IV. 3. 90),² or his present habitation (IV. 3. 89),³ and also to denote *bhakti* which one bears to a particular country, tribe, ruler, or holders of *janapada* (republican rulers).⁴ One of the illustrations given by Patañjali is the community of *Glauchukāyanakas* whom we know to have been a political state from Macedonian writers.⁵ As they owe *bhakti* to Gluchukāyana, they are called the 'Glauchukāyanakas.' Kātyāyana modifying one of the rules of Pāṇini introduces the republican illustrations of the Madras and Vrijis.⁶ One of Madra *bhakti* may be called Madraka and one of Vṛiji *bhakti*, Vṛijika. *Bhakti* in these cases means constitutional allegiance.

c20.8

² ^2 **अभिजनश्च।** ४। ३। ८०॥

c20.9

³ ^3 **सोऽस्य निवासः।** ४। ३। ८९॥

c20.10

⁴ ^4 Pāṇini, IV. 3. 95-100: **भक्तिः ९५॥ अचिलाददेशानाताट्ठन् । ९६॥ महाराजाट्ठञ् । ९७॥ वासुदेवार्जुनाभ्यां वुन् । ९८॥ गोत्रचरणाद्वुञ् । ९९॥ जनपदिनां जनपदवत्सर्वं जनपदेन समानशब्दानां बहुवचने ॥ १००॥** Sūtra 96 distinguishes loyalty from partiality in the use of *bhakti*. Cf. Kāśikā (343); *achitta*, 'non-purpose' or 'non-thoughtfulness' is significant. One's weakness for milk is an '*achitta*' *bhakti*; i.e., political *bhakti* is a considered and rational condition of mind.

c20.11

⁵ ^5 See above, p. 78.

c20.12

⁶ ^6 On Pāṇini IV. 3. 100, **सर्वत्रैषा प्रकृतिविप्रतीकार्थम् ॥ १॥ तत्र मद्रवृज्योर्वृञ् ॥ १॥** Patañjali; **माद्री भक्तिरस्य माद्रो वा भक्तिरस्य मद्रक इत्येव यथा स्यात् वार्जी भक्तिरस्य वार्जो वा भक्तिरस्य वृजिक इत्येव यथा स्यात्।** *Mahābhāshya*, Vol. II, pp. 314-15.

c20.13

*Bhakti* literally means 'sharing,' 'exclusion,' and secondarily 'attachment.' Separate rules to denote territorial and political *bhakti* over and above the rules to denote the country of origin or domicile of a man, suggest the idea of an artificial citizenship. By sharing Madra- or Vṛiji-*bhakti* one would be called *Madrka* or *Vrijika*. A Vṛijika therefore might not have been a born Vṛiji, and a Madraka, a born Madra. It has to be noticed that Kauṭilya, in mentioning the king-consul republics, uses the form Vṛijika and Madrka. The Jaina Sūtra also uses the forms Malla k[i] and Lechchhavi[ka]. The 'Vrijikas' included Vrijis and non-Vrijis owning a common Vriji allegiance, which might include people originally conquered by the Vrijis or people voluntarily amalgamated with the Vrijis.

c20.14

It is thus evident that the republics extended citizenship to outsiders. This will explain the enormous territorial and communal growth of the Mālavas and the Yaudheyas who covered vast expanses of land in later centuries.

c20.15

Orientalists, both Indian and European, have based an argument on वासुदेवार्जुनाभ्यां वुन् (IV. 3. 98) of Pāṇini. It has been argued that the Sūtra establishes the worship of Vāsudeva in and before the time of Pāṇini. But the context shows that no religious *bhakti* is meant. Pāṇini uses the term in the sense of political or constitutional allegiance. Take for instance, the *bhakti* owed to the holders-of-*janapadas* in IV. 3. 100. These holders-of-*janapadas* were certainly not worshipped. Take again, the preceding Sūtra, IV. 3. 97, where *bhakti* to 'Mahārāja' is stated. Now nobody would contend that Mahārāja, either a man or a country, was worshipped. Then we have to take into consideration the previous Sūtras where place of origin (अभिजन) as opposed to domicile (निवास) in connexion with the highlands, Sindhu and Takshaśilā and Salātura, etc., is discussed. There is not a trace of religious *bhakti* (devotion). Again, scholars have taken note of Vāsudeva while Arjuna who is placed along with Vāsudeva in the same Sūtra has been ignored. There is no evidence that Arjuna was deified. *Bhakti* to these two Kshatriyas is the political *bhakti*. The party loyal to Vāsudeva and the party loyal to Arjuna must have been well-known in literature like the *varga* of Vāsudeva mentioned by Kātyāyana (Kielhorn. Vol. II., p. 295). Patañjali is perplexed as to why a separate Sūtra वासुदेवार्जुनाभ्यां वुन् should have been given when there was a Sūtra coming (IV. 3. 99) which gave the same formation in case of allegiance to a Kshatriya (ruler)-name.: "गोत्रक्षत्रियाख्येभ्यो बहुलं वुञ् (४.३.८८) इत्येव सिद्धम्। न ह्यस्ति विशेषो वासुदेवशब्दाद्वुनो वा वुञो वा। तदेव रूपं स एव स्वरः। इदं तर्हि प्रयोजनं वासुदेवशब्दस्य पूर्वनिपातं वक्ष्यामीति। अथवा नैषा क्षत्रियाख्या। संज्ञैषा तत्रभवतः।" Patañjali here understands Pāṇini's IV. 3. 98 to refer to *bhakti* owed to these two as Kshatriyas (rulers) and not as deities. The cause of Patañjali's perplexity seems to be a confusion which arose by treating a Vārttika of Kātyāyana, viz., गोत्रक्षत्रियाख्येभ्यो बहुलं वुञ्, as a Sūtra of Pāṇini. As a matter of fact गोत्रक्षत्रियाख्येभ्यो बहुलं वुञ् is given as a Vārttika (No. 18) to Pāṇini, IV. 2. 104 (Kielhorn, p. 296). The same rule could not be both a Vārttika of Kātyāyana and a Sūtra of Pāṇini. It has already come as a Vārttika, and by treating it as a Vārttika the sense becomes clear. Kātyāyana completes Pāṇini by giving a general rule on allegiance owed to well-known Kshattriya rulers).

Linked texts (3)