History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.217

v4.c62.217

vol. XVII p. 264 ff, Cullavagga IV. 9, S. B. E. vol. XX pp. 24-27) was the procedure of the meetings of the oligarchies. The seven conditions (both for the welfare of the Vajjians and the Saṅgha) are set out in the Mahāparinibbāṇa-sutta, chap. I. (S. B. E. vol. XI. pp. 3-8) viz. holding full and frequent public assemblies, meeting together in concord and carrying out undertakings in concord, enacting nothing not already established and abrogating nothing that has been already enacted and acting in accordance with ancient institutions established in former days, honouring and revering and supporting elders and hearkening to their words, not detaining women or girls of their clans by force or abduction, honouring and supporting Vajjian shrines in town or country and not allowing proper offerings and rites to fall into desuetude, protecting and supporting the Arahats among them. On the most important points in connection with a republic or oligarchy we have no information at all, viz. who were entitled to vote, what were the qualifications for membership of the assembly that governed the State, how voting took place, what was the period for which members of the assembly were elected, whether the president was elected for life or a shorter period or was elected at all, what were the powers and procedure of the assembly. Vide Dr. Beni Prasad in 'Hindu Political Theories' p. 158 for criticisms. Rhys Davids (in 'Buddhist India' p. 41) says that according to the Jātakas there were at Vesālī (modern Basadh in the Muzaffarpur District), the capital of the Licchavis, 7707 *rājās* (or chiefs). In the Bhaddasāla-jātaka (Fausböll, vol. IV p. 148) there is a reference to a tank reserved for the bath of the families of the ruling chiefs (*rājās*) of the gaṇa in the city of Vesālī. In the Mahāvastu (ed. by Senart vol. I. p. 271) it is stated that there were twice eighty-four thousand nobles (*rājānā*) among the Licchavis. This explains what Kauṭilya means by 'rājaśabdopajīvinaḥ. These people called 'rājās' were probably the scions of the several branches of the Licchavis, who had in their hands the government and who were not doing manual (or agricultural) work. Vide Government Epigraphic Report for 1899 p. 23 and Indian Historical Quarterly vol. IV p. 652, where it is said that in an inscription from Uttaramallur the extent of land and of Vedic learning required in a candidate for election are specified as also the method of writing on tickets the names of candidates. But such records, even in South India, are very few and refer to village sabhās and there is nothing in the works on dharmaśāstra or arthaśāstra about the methods of election to political assemblies and the qualifications of candidates. Vide Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar's 'Some aspects of Ancient Hindu Polity' (1929) pp. 101–121 for a concise statement of several types of republics in Ancient India.