The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c11.22

c11.22

It is almost impossible to form an idea of the powers or procedure of the assembly. It is recorded that when the king of Kosala besieged the capital of the Śākiyas and demanded surrender, they resolved to assemble and deliberate whether they should open the gates. When they assembled they discovered that opinion was divided. But the view of the majority prevailed.¹ We are not told whether it was an *ad hoc* gathering or a regular meeting of the assembly. The Aṭṭhakathâ has it that the tocsin was sounded when the Vaisâlians entered the house of law, which may mean the assembly.² If the Mahâ-Govinda Suttanta faithfully reproduces earthly conditions in its description of the palaver in Sakka’s heaven, it may be inferred that at a clan meeting all sat in a specified order, that the chief laid the business before the assembly and that the recorders noted down the unanimous decisions arrived at.³ It is not, however, possible to assert anything with certainty about procedure at clan meetings. Jayaswal and, following him, some other scholars hold that the detailed procedure of business prescribed by the Buddha for his Saṃgha or monastic order was borrowed by him from political assemblies where it actually prevailed and where, in fact, it was taken for granted. But apart from the fact that the dates of Buddhist works are very uncertain, it has to be noted that nowhere in Buddhist or Jaina literature is there any evidence of any organic connection between the procedure of the monastic order and the political assembly. In the Cullavagga the Buddha is represented as laying down the law himself for monks and nuns. There is little warrant for assuming that the theroy of the monastic order represents the practice of political life.⁴