History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.211
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.211
- Language
- English
v4.c62.211.1
Hereditary monarchy was the norm of government in ancient and medieval India. Kauṭilya expressly states (I. 17 at end) that the practice to make the eldest son the king is honoured except in the case of a calamity. At or about the time of Buddha and a few centuries thereafter there were a few oligarchies or (as some scholars prefer to call them) republics. But our Dharmaśāstra or Arthaśāstra authorities contain rather very meagre references to them. The Mahābhārata in Śānti 107 furnishes the following data about gaṇarājyas (government by groups): Internal dissensions are the root of the ruin of *gaṇas*; it is very difficult to keep lines of policy secret when there are many (when the government is that of many, i. e. an oligarchy or a republic); all members of the gaṇa in their entirety do not deserve to hear the line of policy decided upon, but the chief persons among the gaṇas should meet together and arrange among themselves to secure the welfare of the whole gaṇa; if disputes that arise among the families (or clans) are connived at by the heads of the clan, the ruin of the clan takes place which leads on to dissensions among the whole group (gaṇa). Danger from internal dissensions must be guarded against (in the case of *gaṇarājya*), external dangers are not serious (in the case of gaṇarājya). All members of the gaṇa are equal by birth and family, but they are not equal in energy, intelligence, bodily appearance and wealth.
v4.c62.211.2
By their enemies gaṇas are broken by means of internal dissensions and bribes; therefore the greatest safety of gaṇas lies in union¹¹⁷. In these words the author of the Mahābhārata unerringly puts his finger on the weak spots of the rule of many viz. secrecy cannot be kept, there is corruption due to greed and jealousy, which bring about their downfall. In another place (Śānti 81) the Mahābhārata refers to the *saṅgha* of the Vṛṣṇis, of whom Kṛṣṇa was the president, and the great truth that the ruin of saṅghas is brought about by internal dissensions and corruption and it hits off the qualities required in the wise leader of the saṅgha to be four viz. sagacity, forbearance, self-control and giving up the acquisitive spirit. The words *saṅgha* and *gaṇa* are employed as synonyms in the Mahābhārata. Pāṇini (III. 3.86) states that *saṅgha* means gaṇa. Patañjali in his Mahābhāṣya (vol. II. p. 356) states that *saṅgha*, *samūha* and *samudāya* mean the same thing. Pāṇini knows two kinds of saṅghas viz. *āyudhajīvin* (who practised the profession of arms) and those that were not so and further he also indicates that in the Vāhīka country saṅghas included¹¹⁸ brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and others (vide V. 3. 114). He names the saṅghas of Vṛkas, Trigartas, Yaudheyas, Parśus (V. 3.115-117) as *āyudhajīvin*. Kātyāyana by his *vārtika* ‘kṣatriyādekarājāt saṅghapratiṣedhārtham’ on Pāṇini IV. 1.168 shows that saṅgha was differentiated from monarchy. Acc. to Kauṭilya (p.
v4.c62.211.3
53 above) the saṅgha of the Vṛṣṇis perished when it came in conflict with Dvaipāyana. In another place Kauṭilya says that (in some cases) the kingdom may be ruled by a clan, for the confederacy¹¹⁹ of a clan is invincible, it is free from the calamity of a kingless State and therefore exists on the earth very long. Kauṭilya devotes one section (Adhikaraṇa XI) to the dealings of the ambitious king with saṅghas. There he states that securing the saṅgha on one’s side is far better than securing an army or allies and makes the most interesting remark¹²⁰ that the corporation of the kṣatriyas and others in the countries of Kāmbhoja and Surāṣṭra practise *vārtā* (husbandry and trade) and the profession of arms, while those of the Licchivikas, Vṛjikas, Mallakas, Madrakas, Kukuras, Kurus and Pāñcālas live on the title of *rājan* applied to them (i. e. they are not cultivators of the soil and soldiers, but are only chiefs or nobles). What Kauṭilya means by 'vārtā-śastropa-jīvinaḥ' appears to be that they were agriculturists ordinarily but were ready with their swords to defend their country when occasion required. Kauṭilya then describes in detail without any scruples how the conqueror may by various subterfuges cause dissensions among the members of the saṅgha and its leader or leaders (*saṅgha-mukhya*). In VIII. 3 Kauṭilya remarks that dissension becomes particularly rife owing to gambling among saṅghas and noble clans that have the saṅgha constitution and they are destroyed.
v4.c62.211.4
From about the 5th or 6th century A. D. the oligarchic States or Republics became rare and gradually disappeared. We get further data about these gaṇarājyas from Buddhist works, Greek sources (like the fragments of Megasthenes), coins and inscriptions. Rudradāman (in Junāgadh Inscription of 150 A. D.) boasts that he had uprooted the Yaudheyas who had become puffed up and unbending on account of the title of heroes (*vīra*) that was prominently applied to them among all kṣatriyas¹²¹ (E. I. vol. VIII. at p. 44). Samudragupta (in the first half of the 4th century A. D.) subjugated the Yaudheyas, Mālavas, Ārjunāyanas &c. In Gupta Inscriptions No. 58 p. 251 there is mention of a *mahārāja-mahāsenāpati* who was made their leader by the Yaudheya-gaṇa. The Bṛhatsaṁhitā in several places refers to the Yaudheyas and Ārjunāyanas (e. g. 4.25; 5.40, 67, 75; 14.25 and 28; 16.21; 17.19) and speaks of Yaudheya-nṛpa in 9.11. Vide Rapson's 'Indian coins' pp. 11 and 15 and Plate II, nos. 13-15 and Plate III, no. 20 for the coins of the Yaudheyas and Ārjunāyanas. Arrian writes in 'Indika' (tr. by MacCrindle IX. p. 208, ed. of 1926) 'from Dionysus to Sandrakottos the Indians counted 153 kings and a period of 6042 years, but among them a republic was thrice established'. MacCrindle's 'Invasion of India' (p. 121) speaks of an aristocratic government on the Hyphasis or Beas.
v4.c62.211.5
The Greek writers describing the invasion of Alexander speak of the democracies of the Oxydrakai (Kṣudrakas), Malloi (the Mālavas), the Siboi (Śibis), Sambastai (the Ambaṣṭhas) and several others. Vide K. P. Jayaswal's 'Hindu Polity' part I. chap. VIII (pp. 63-79) for Hindu Republics mentioned in Greek writings. Rhys Davids in 'Buddhist India' pp. 19 ff. summarizes the data about Indian republics derived from Buddhist works. On p. 22 he gives the names of eleven republican clans with their capitals, some of which like the Śākyas (of Kapilavastu), the Mallas (of Kusinārā and Pāvā), the Videhas (of Mithilā) and Licchavis (of Vesāli) are well-known. Rhys Davids states (p. 19) that the administrative and judicial business of the Śākyas was carried on in a mote-hall (saṇṭhāgāra) at Kapilavastu, that a single chief was chosen (but how and for what period is not known) who presided over the sessions and (when no sessions were being held) also over the State, that he bore the title of *rājā*. He mentions that at one time Buddha's cousin Bhaddiya was *rājā* and that in another passage Buddha's father Śuddhodana is styled *rājā*. He further points out (p. 26) that the Vajjians had eight confederate clans of which the Licchavis and the Videhas were the most important. K. P. Jayaswal in 'Hindu Polity' part 1 pp.
v4.c62.211.6
25-165 brings together all the data about Hindu oligarchies (or republics as he calls them) and his work deserves the serious attention of all those who are interested in the study of ancient Indian political institutions, though here and there one cannot approve of his interpretations and theories. To take only one example, he holds that the procedure prescribed by Buddha for the deliberations of the *saṅgha* in the Mahāparinibbāṇa-sutta was borrowed from the procedure followed by the republics in their deliberations and therefore he describes the procedure of the Buddhist *saṅgha* in great detail ('Hindu Polity,' part I chap. XI pp. 103-117). Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar also (in 'Some Aspects of Ancient Hindu Polity' pp. 121-125) adopts this theory. This to say the least is a gratuitous assumption. The mere fact that Buddha told the prime minister of Ajātaśatru, king of Magadha, who contemplated attacking the Vajjian confederacy, that the latter would not decline but prosper as long as they observed seven conditions and the fact that those very seven conditions were prescribed by the Buddha for the welfare of the saṅgha do not lead on to the further inference that the procedure followed by the monks in the deliberations of the meeting of the saṅgha (which is set out in such passages as the Mahāvagga IX. 3, S.B.E.