History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.218

v4.c62.218

Another important question is whether in monarchical states there were popular assemblies of elected representatives or, in modern language, Parliaments. The words 'sabhā' and 'samiti' require consideration in this connection. In Ṛg. I. 91.20 Soma is said to confer a son who is *sādanya*, *vidathya* and *sabheya*, from which it follows that *sabhā* is in some respects different from 'vidatha'. In Ṛg. II. 24. 13 a vipra (a priest or composer of hymns) is said to be *sabheya* 'clever or eminent in a sabhā'. In Ṛg. X. 34. 6 'sabhā'¹²² appears to mean a gambling hall. In Vāj. S. XXX. 6 *sabhācara* seems to mean only 'sabhāsad', a member of a judicial tribunal, while in XXX. 18 the sabhāsthāṇu is given up to Āskanda in the symbolic Puruṣamedha. In the Vāj. S. XVI. 24 there is an obeisance to *sabhās* and *sabhāpatis* (presidents of sabhās). In Atharvaveda VII. 12. 1 'sabhā' and 'samiti' are said to be the two daughters of Prajāpati, from which it may by argued that they were very similar but somewhat different. In Atharvaveda XV. 9. 2 also *sabhā* and *samiti* are separately mentioned. In Tai. Br. III. 7.4. the word sabhāpāla occurs and sabhā is explained as 'gambling-hall' by Sāyaṇa. In Ṛg. X. 97. 6 and Vāj. S. XII. 80 it is said 'that *vipra* is said to be a doctor (bhiṣak) in whom medicinal herbs come together as nobles (rājānaḥ) in a *samiti* (meeting or battle)'. In Ṛg. X. 191. 3 the word 'samiti' seems to mean no more than a meeting or meeting place. In Atharvaveda V.19.15¹²³ we have 'the assembly (samiti) does not suit him (or is not won over by him) who harasses a brāhmaṇa'. In the Chāndogya Up. (V. 3. 1) Śvetaketu is said to have repaired to the assembly (*samiti*) of the Pañcāla country, where the king Pravāhaṇa Jaivali asked him five questions which the former could not answer and then he approached the next morning the king who was in his *sabhā*. Here it seems that both words are applied to the same assembly. It is impossible to say how the *sabhā* or *samiti* was constituted in the Vedic period. All that we can say is that it was an assembly of people to which the king, learned men and others went. It is extremely doubtful whether it was an elective body. Probably it was an *ad hoc* assembly of such people as cared to be present. K. P. Jayaswal (in ‘Hindu Polity’ part I p. 11) holds that ‘samiti’ in the vedic age was the national assembly of the whole people, that it was the king’s duty to attend it (*ibid.* p. 12) and that ‘sabhā’ was the standing and stationary body of selected men working under the authority of the samiti (*ibid.* p. 18)’. This is all conjectural, as Jayaswal himself admits ‘the *sabhā* was certainly related to the *samiti*, but its exact relationship is not deducible from the data available’ (*ibid.* p. 18).