Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c29: Chapter XXI: Ethnology of the Republics

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c29

Language
English

Chapter XXI: Ethnology of the Republics

c29.2

§ 182. Mr. Vincent Smith in a letter¹ raises the question of the ethnology of the *gaṇas*. As the matter is put in issue by an authority of the position of Mr. Smith, I think it incumbent upon me as the student of the *gaṇas* to discuss it.

c29.3

¹ Dated the 25th November, 1917.

c29.4

Mr. Smith is of opinion that they were of Mongolian origin like the Tibetans. "I believe" [he writes] 'that as late as the "early centuries A.C. the population of India was largely of Tibetan "affinities, snub-nosed people—see the Bharhut and Sānchī sculptures. The Lichchhavis certainly were such, and the customs "of hill-men give the best clue to the working of the *gaṇas*. I "think both Buddha and Mahāvīra were essentially hill-men of "semi-Mongolian type, even if they did adopt Magian features "into their teaching. You may, of course, quote me as you propose "to do."

c29.5

§ 183. There are a few facts which are supposed to lend some strength to this view, and I should deal with them first. Some of the minor republics occupied valleys of the Himalayas. And in the Chumbi valley "an old form of elective government," as brought to light by Mr. E. H. Walsh, prevails. Mr. Smith has referred to Mr. Walsh's descriptions in the Indian Antiquary (1906, p. 290)² Once every three years, according to Mr. Walsh's description, the villagers assemble at a fixed meeting-place and present to the two *Kongdus*, who act jointly representing the two divisions of the valley as heads of the local administration, a list of their elected headmen of the villages. From the list the Kongdus select the names of four persons whom they consider to be the most suitable to be the next Kongdus. Then they throw with three dice, in the name of each of the four persons they have selected, and the two who obtain the highest throw are chosen as the Kongdus for the coming term of three years. This ceremony takes place before an old stone altar sacred to the deity of the locality before which is placed the banner the insignia of the Kongdu's office. The newly elected Kongdus do not enter on office at once. This is done in the eleventh month when another ceremony takes place and an *yak* is sacrificed at the stone altar. The new Kongdus place their hands on the bleeding skin and take an oath on the sacrificed *yak* that they will administer justice even between their own son and the enemy. The Kongdus say that they do not hold their power from the Tibetan government but the local deity; that they originally got the banner from him and have always held their power from him. "The administration" says Mr. Walsh, "is thus theocratic as well as elective."

c29.6

² But the paper of Mr. Walsh was not before him, and the account in the Indian Antiquary may not be strictly accurate being based on a news-paper report.

c29.7

Mr. Vincent Smith, in his note in the Indian Antiquary, opines, "I have now come across an "observation which suggests that tribal cons''titution like that of the Yaudheyas may have been of Tibetan "origin." Again, "for the purpose of illustrating ancient Indian "tribal constitutions this slight abstract of Mr. Walsh's paper "suffices, because no record exists which gives any details of such "constitutions." Nothing like proof on the identification of the Yaudheyas as Tibetans is suggested, and it is hard to see why the Tibetan illustration should serve to fill up the vacuum of Indian details. Because no detail of Indian constitutions was known in 1906, was the gap to be filled up from Tibet? Now as the details are forthcoming, it will be admitted that there is not the slightest resemblance between the ceremony of the Chumbi valley which takes place in the eleventh month of the election of the Kongdus and the republican consecrations given in the Aitareya. Even the states which were near the Himalayas and which received the Vairājya consecration are poles apart from the Chumbi yak-sacrifice. The parliament or *gaṇa* of the Yaudheyas, their *Mantra-dharas*, their *elected President*, have nothing corresponding to them in the *theocratic government* of the Chumbi valley.

c29.8

§ 185. As to the sculptures, it has never been claimed on behalf of the *gaṇas* that the Sāñchī and *Bharhut* monuments are the products of republican art. The question therefore, strictly speaking is irrelevant. I may, however, express a fear that probably Mr. Smith's conclusion is based on photographs of the reliefs of Sāñchī and Bharhut. The noses have been the pointed target of decay and iconoclasm. Further, many of the figures are meant to represent foreigners and barbarians and evil spirits, and their features have been studiedly made un-Hindu. A good example of this is the representation of *Yakshas* and *Yakshiṇīs* which occur again and again. The Yaksha and Yakshiṇī have been the theme of Indian mythology and folk-lore, poetry and romance, throughout literature. They are always connected with the Himalayas, and treated not only as foreign but also mischievous. Now, if the Himalayan people are represented with snub-nose, credit is due to the artist, but no credit can be given to ethnology which makes the sculptor identical with the sculptured, the virtue with the dreaded evil. The point becomes clearer if we take the life-size female statue discovered at Patna. The Bharhut Yakshiṇī is ugly, heavy and repulsive, while the statue lately discovered is as perfectly Aryan as it could be, with the poetic *tribhanga*, a beautiful nose, small chin and the Aryan head.¹ This is the type which the Jātaka describes² as the statue of motherly woman which decorated royal courts and deceived people in darkness as a living figure. One is the representation of the home type and the other foreign. In Indian art there is a tendency to devote pointed attention to the foreign and queer, as the Hindus do to-day in their national pageants. The man which the Hindu saw every day, namely, one like himself, did not interest the artist and his public so much as the outlandish, the uncommon, the *dwarf*, the *lion-rider*, the *snake-man* and the *snake-woman* the *Yaksha*, the *Abyssinian*, the mischievous alien slave. Incidently when the Sāñchī or Bharhut artist has come to deal with his own kings and queens, women and boys, ascetics and trees, the virtuous elephant, and the surgeon monkey, he has anticipated this ethnological controversy. I venture to challenge any one to show the snubnose or the high cheek bone or any outlandish element in those representations.¹

c29.9

¹ *JBORS.*, 1919, pp. 107; *J.* VI, 432.

c29.10

¹ Some of these reliefs were evidently prepared from designs executed by other hands and it is that what is implied by the expression rūpakamma prepared by the ivory carvers of Vidiśā (वेदसकेहि दंतकारेहि रूपकम्मं कृतं). In such cases the word sculptors as used by me above is not quite suitable. My friend Mr. Panday has drawn my attention to Prof. Grünwedel's conclusion on the subject which runs as follows:— "The different peoples that lived side by side in India were distinguished from one another above all physically; contact with peoples of higher Asia in the time of Aśoka revealed new types, and thus we undoubtedly see an attempt, for instance, to represent foreign nations in the equestrian groups that adorn the Sāñchī gateways. "On the eastern gate, for example, besides mythical foreign peoples two figures are represented riding on horned lions. One of the heads is clearly not of the Aryan type; the woolly negro-like hair and the thick coarse shape of the whole head surprises one; this same figure holds a bunch of grapes in his hand . . . . . The whole series of these figures—those mounted on goats, on dromedaries, on lions—present a distinct contrast to the Hindus riding on elephants . . . . . "The great majority of the other reliefs at Sāñchī present the Hindu type—a long head with full round face, large eyes and thick lips. At Bharhut the same type appears but it is somewhat harsher." *Buddhist Art in India.*, Trans. by Burgess, pp. 33-34. *E. g.*, *Ind. Ant.*, 1900, p. 290.

c29.11

§ 186. With regard to the general suggestion as to the Mongolian basis of India's population "as late as the early centuries A.C.," no amount of "it is possible" or opining can satisfy me or one who reads in the Mahābhāshya that the Brahmin still had fair eyes and fair hair (गौरः पिङ्गलः कपिणकेशः on P., V. 1 115) and who reads in the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa that the Vaiśya was still Sukla or white and who reads in the Dharma-Sāstras that the Sūdra woman was still the 'black beauty' of the land. The republics, as we have seen, had Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaiśyas and Sūdras. The Greeks saw them and admired their physique from their point of view. They could not have praised snub-noses. An ounce of evidence is weighter than tons of theories, be it ethnology or Indology.

c29.12

§ 187. The Lichchhavis whose form of republican government was noticed by orientalists in the first instance, attracted much attention and curiosity, and gave rise to various speculations. Mr. Vincent Smith wrote a short paper on "Tibetan affinities of the Lichchhavis."¹ This paper is referred to in successive editions of Mr. V. Smith's History, and has been often taken by others as having established its thesis.

c29.13

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, 1903, pp. 233-36.

c29.14

Mr. Smith bases his theory, firstly, on an alleged custom of exposure by the Lichchhavis of dead human bodies, a custom which he says also prevails in Tibet; and, secondly, on judicial procedure of the Lichchhavis which he thinks has a very close resemblance with the procedure followed in Tibet. An examination of the two data shows that the exposure of the dead as "the usage of the Lichchhavis of Vaiśālī" "in ancient times"² has existence only in mistaken imagination, and further that there is not even a remote resemblance in the two judicial procedures.

c29.15

² *Early History of India*, 3rd ed. p. 155.

c29.16

Mr. Smith relies on a Chinese legend saying that the Buddha at Vaiśālī observed a cemetery under a clump of trees and had the cemetery described to him by Rishis: "In that place, the "corpses of men are exposed to be devoured by the birds; and "there also they collect and pile up the white bones of dead persons, "as you perceive; they burn corpses there also and preserve the "bones in heaps. They hang dead bodies also from the trees; "there are others buried there, such as have been slain and put "to death by their relatives, dreading lest they should come to "life again; whilst others are left there upon the ground that they "may return, if possible, to their former homes."¹ Now this, is the passage (I have quoted it in full) upon which the whole theory of the exposure of the dead is based and on the basis of which Mr. Smith has considered the Lichchhavis to have been of Tibetan origin. The passage is from a legend in China of about 1,000 years later than the time of the Buddha, and as such it is worthless as a piece of historical evidence for contemporary details. But the passage, however, as it stands, is innocent. To one acquainted with the standard dramas of Sanskrit literature and the social and religious customs of the orthodox Hindus as they have prevailed, the passage connotes differently, in its natural way. A typical *Śmaśāna*, 'cremation ground,' is what is described. In some cases, as it is enjoined in the Dharma Sāstra a dead body cannot be burnt but has to be either buried or exposed, or in the language of Manu, "to be thrown in the forest like a log of wood"² (and for that I hope no one including orientalists would dare to call the author of the Mānava Code a Tibetan or Pārsī). Dramas and fictions in Sanskrit are full of allusions to men being executed at the *Śmaśāna* and people hanging themselves by a tree in the *Śmaśāna* grounds. The practice of laying the dead body in hope of recovery is observed even to-day.

c29.17

² Manu, Ch. V, verse 69.

c29.18

§ 188. As to the alleged '*close resemblance*' which according to Mr. Smith 'is impossible not to perceive' in the matter of the two criminal procedures, I quote in the footnote¹ the whole passage about the two procedures in Mr. Smith's own words. A mere comparison by both lawyers and laymen would show that it is impossible 'to perceive' the alleged 'resemblance.' I may here refer the reader to the interpretation of the Lichchhavi procedure given above and its comparison with the procedure

c29.19

¹ Beal, *Romantic Legend of Śakya Buddha*, p. 159.

c29.20

¹ Turnour, the authority of Mr. Smith on the Lichchhavi procedure, says thus: 'On this point, the *At-thakathā* contains this note. "In aforatime, the Wajjian rulers on a person being brought and presented to them, thus charged 'this is a malefactor' without at once deciding 'he is a malefactor,' dispose the Country, that one of the three punishments mentioned in the decision may be approved;

c29.21

of him accordingly. They surrender him to the *Winichchhiyāmāhāmattā* (chief judicial officers). Having examined him, if they conceive "this man is not a culprit," they release him. If they decide "this is a malefactor" without awarding any penalty, they transfer him to the *Wohārikā* (learned in the customs or laws). They also having investigated the matter, discharge him, if he be innocent; but if he be guilty, there are certain officers called *Suttadhārā* (maintainers of the *suttas*) to whom they transfer him. They also inquire into the matter and discharge him, if he be innocent; but if guilty, they transfer him to the *Aṭṭhakulakā*. They also having observed the same procedure, transfer him to the *Senāpati* (chief minister), he again to the *Uparājā* (sub-king); the *Uparājā* to the *rājā*. The *rājā* enquiring into the matter, if he be innocent, releases him, but if he be guilty, he causes the *Pavenipotthaka* (book of precedents or usages) to be propounded. There it is written, 'to him by whom such a crime is committed, such a punishment is awarded.' The *rājā* having measured the culprit's offense by that standard, pronounces a suitable sentence. [*JASB.*, 1838, I. 993—4].

c29.22

On this Mr. V. Smith observes:

c29.23

"The stages in this complicated procedure are eight in number, namely:— 1 Arrest and production of prisoner before the 'rulers;' 2 Enquiry by the *Winichchhiya mahāmattā*. 3 Do. do. *Wohārikā* 4 Do. do. *Suttadharā*; 5 Do. do. *Aṭṭhakulakā*; 6 Production before the *Senāpati*; 7 Do. do. *Uparājā*. 8 Final judgment by the *Rājā*, who is bound to follow fixed written rules in awarding the penalty.

c29.24

"The stages in the Tibetan procedure, as described by Babu Sarat Chandra Das, (*Proc. ASB.* 1894, p. 5) are exactly similar:—

c29.25

1. The accused person is arrested, and sent to the lock-up;
2. He is watched, treated kindly, and mildly interrogated;
3. He is subjected to a mild but minute interrogation called *Jusdi* and his answers are noted down;
4. He is examined more strictly and whipped at intervals; this is called *Tchra-di*;
5. If he makes any kind of confession, true or false, he is subjected to further prolonged examination, repeated whippings, and cruel tortures of various kinds;
6. If the case is serious and the Government becomes a party, he is taken to the Kalons or Ministers' Court;
7. This Court suggests to the *Gyal-tshab* (Regent), which is the highest Court of of the gaṇa as mentioned in the Mahā-Bhārata.¹ The Lichchhavi procedure was based on rules which were normally common to gaṇas.

c29.26

¹ See above pp. 123-4, 130.

c29.27

There are circumstances which when taken into consideration, leave no doubt as to the Hindu nationality of the Lichchhavis. Both the Videhas and the Lichchhavis had a common national designation 'the Vrijis.' In other words, they were two branches of the same nation. No one responsible will venture to suggest that the Videhas were also Tibetans. The very colonization of Northern Bihar by the Vedic Videhas is recorded.² If the Videhas were pure Hindus, a centre of Upanishad philosophy and orthodox theology, the Lichchhavis who were a ramification of the same nation could not have been barbarians. The Lichchhavis were at Vaiśālī. And the Purāṇas as we have seen connect the Vaiśālas like the Videhas with a well known Aryan dynasty. They were not 'unanointed' rulers, a term applied by Hindu writers to barbarians settled in India. The Aṅguttara Nikāya contemplates the Lichchhavi rulers to be "anointed" rulers, *i.e.*, *abhishikta*; like any other Kshattriya rulers. The Jātaka mentions the celebrated lake which was jealously guarded and in which the gaṇa (republican) rulers obtained their *Abhisheka*.³ The Buddhist literature unanimously treats them as good Kshatriyas.

c29.28

² *Śatapatha*, I. 4. 1. 10, ff.

c29.29

³ Ante p. 51 n.

c29.30

§ 189. Their name according to the rules of grammar is a derivative of the word *Lichchhu*, *i.e.*, the followers or descendants of Lichchhu which in Sanskrit would be *Likshu*. *Liksha* means a mark and *Likshu* is connected with it. The name might have originated on account of some feature-

c29.31

3. The sentence may be mitigated, commuted or revised by the *Dalai Lama* only. The Regent has no power to do more than select one of the three punishments suggested by the Court of Ministers." V. Smith, *Ind. Ant.* 1903, p. 235.

c29.32

marks. The name Lakshmaṇa is a similar instance. *Lachchhu* in Bihar and the Doab is a very common name to-day denoting the same thing. A man born with some prominent black or blue mark on his person easily acquires the name.

c29.33

§ 190. The Mallas, neighbours of the Lichchhavis, are styled Vāsiśhṭhas in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta,¹ and Vasiśhṭha is a well-known Aryan *gotra* name. The Mahāparinibbāna Sutta is not the work of crafty Brahmins of the type reputed to concoct Aryan geneologies for barbarian rulers.

c29.34

¹ *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*, V. 19.

c29.35

§ 191. There is some discussion about the origin of the Śākyas also. Now the testimony of the Pāli authorities is unanimous that the Śākyas were a branch of the Aikshvākas. This is admitted by the adverse side, the Purāṇas, which place the Buddha, his father and his son, in the Ikshvāku house. Contemporaries of the Buddha amongst whom was Ajāta-Śatru, king of Magadha, claim him as a Kshatriya.² As we have seen in the history of the formation of new republics and the Purāṇic detail about the Yaudheyas and Madras, the state-community was called after the leader. We find the same origin of the Śākya Community given by the Buddha himself.³ That history of origin agrees with the ascertained history of similar republican foundations. That history therefore should be accepted—that a cadet of an Aikshvāka king founded the Śākyan republic christened after his name.

c29.36

² *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*, V. 24.

c29.37

³ *Ambaṭṭha Sutta*, 16.

c29.38

§ 192. The tradition of an ancient and obsolete custom of sister-marriage amongst the Śākyas had misled some scholars into theories of race-origins. Such ancient and once living custom or law is accepted by the Vedic literature to have existed in the orthodox race. Buddhist tradition also does not limit it to the Śākyas. It extends it to the Ikshvāku royal dynasty and the Ikshvākus were not new comers; they were never desacramented. They are as ancient as the Vedas. If the Ikshvākus were Aryan, their offshoot the Sākyas cannot be otherwise.

c29.39

§ 193. The evidence of the Greeks who actually saw many Indian republicans is as decisive as any other fact. They describe the handsome looks and tall stature of the Punjab and Sind republicans. Snub-nose of the Himalayan Mongoloid could have never been described as a handsome feature by the Greeks, who, I think, must be taken as good judges in these matters. Nor could the stature of the Himalayan be mistaken by the Greeks to be majestic. The very description proves perfect and pure Aryan type of the Hindu. All these republicans are expressly mentioned by them as Indian.

c29.40

§ 194. The names of the republicans are another internal evidence of their Hindu origin. The Kathaians or the Kathas are a Vedic people to whom the Kaṭha recension of the Yajur-Veda and the Kaṭha Upanishad owed their origin. The Madras are not simply known to Vedic literature but are known as a home of orthodoxy where men like Śvetaketu went for post-graduate studies in sacrifices. There is a definite history of the origin of the Yaudheyas and Madras as noticed above. The 'Kshatriyas' were *par excellence* Kshatriyas. The Vṛishṇis are not only Kshatriyas but sacred Kshatriyas, the Vedic Satvats Yadus. As to the names like the Ārjunāyanas, and the Śālaṅkāyanas, etc., the names are proof positive of orthodox origins. The rules of Pāṇini stamp the formation with orthodoxy.

c29.41

§ 195. Orthodoxy has, so to say, anticipated the controversy and has already set its seal on the orthodox origin of these republics. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa describes the Vedic rituals with which the republican Madras,

c29.42

the Satvats, the Kurus, and others were consecrated to political rule, and with which the constitutions Bhaujya and the Svārājya in the west and south-west and Vairājya by the side of the Himalayas received sanction.

c29.43

§ 196. Whatever the race-origins of a particular republican community, the system was Indian and orthodox Indian. It goes back to the time of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa and earlier. That democratic and republican states were experiments of the Hindus themselves, who at times had been regal and in turn republican, is further proved by what Megathenes saw and learnt in the country twenty-two centuries before (§ 18).

Linked texts (13)