Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c23.15

c23.15

§ 127. Again, in view of the above conclusion, take the tradition of the Purāṇas that **Yaudheya and Madra**, two cadets of a monarchical house in the Middle Country, went out to the Punjab and founded states called after their names. This Purāṇic history is in full agreement with known facts: corporate institutions were named after founders. The Madras and the Yaudheyas thus were not tribes, but states and artificial, 'political tribes,' like the artificial, religious Śākya-putras. It was the state in these two cases which gave the name to the citizens, a name which was artificially tribal, or in modern phraseology a name which denoted Political Nationality as opposed to what we may call tribal nationality. In the light of this discussion, we can understand the remark of the ancient grammarian (probably Vyāḍi) quoted by Patañjali: '**Kshudraka-Mālavas are not *gotra* names**,'¹ *i.e.*, family names.) Like the Madras and Yaudheyas these were political nations, members of states called after two personal names. We have the additional evidence of Pāṇini that martial states had men of all castes not one *gotra* or tribe. The Arājaka democracy also, according to the Mahā-Bhārata, was not based on tribal but legal and communal basis. (Many more of the republics had originated like the Yaudheya and Madra, Mālava and Kshudraka, under purely non-tribal conditions.) The later states (Ch. XVIII) like Śālankāyana, Arjunāyana and Pushyamitra bearing personal names and names of recent origin further illustrate the practice.