Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c28.40

c28.40

It appears that republics were liable to fall victims to intrigues. In aristocratic bodies *personal rivalry and greed of power* were marked out by statesmen like Kauṭilya, as the fit soil for *sowing seeds of dissension*. Varshakāra, a former Chancellor of Magadha, replied to the Buddha, who had said that the Vrijis could not be broken, 'they can only be broken by mutual dissension.' Sources of dissension were not limited to enemy intrigues. As in popular forms of government in all ages, bitter hostilities arose out of discussions in the public assembly. Kṛishṇa in the Mahā-Bhārata talking about his difficulties as leader of the republic says that his heart was roasted by terrible speeches. The Mahā-Bhārata (in Śānti-Parvan, on gaṇas in general) alludes to this sort of unpleasantness and the consequent cessation of discussion on public affairs which lead to final disruption of the whole body.¹ The Buddhist tradition in describing the cause of the temporary discomfiture of the Lichchhavi body-politic against Ajātaśatru, says that the Lichchhavis, owing to disagreement, had ceased to come to the Public Assembly when the tocsin sounded the call.² Then in some cases, the politicians were divided in opposing parties. This feature of the difficulty is put very graphically in the complaint of Kṛishṇa. 'As regard Āhuka and Akrūra, if they are in one's favour, there is no greater misery for that man; if they are not in one's favour, there is no greater misery for him either, I can not elect the party of the either. Between the two I am like a mother of two gamblers staking against each other who cannot wish for the victory of one and the defeat of the other.'³