Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c10.s4: Government and Organization

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c10.s4

Language
English

Government and Organization

c10.s4.1

The Videhas are a well-known example of a state which had a monarchical form of government in the Brāhmaṇa period,⁹ but which had become a republic (*saṅgha* or *gaṇa*) at the time of the Buddha.¹ They were then one of the two most important members of the Vajjian Confederacy.² Although they are not mentioned as a separate people in the ethnological list of sixteen great regions (*mahājanapadas*) in the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*,³ the commentary makes it clear that they were included in the term Vajji,⁴ which had a much wider connotation than Licchavi. Most scholars have accepted the fact that the Videhas had a republican form of government during the Buddhist period. There are numerous references to them in the Pāli canon and the Jaina literature, but they are most frequently referred to in the *Jātakas*. They occur here even more frequently than the Buddha’s own people, the Sakyas.⁵ They also figure in the *Arthaśāstra*,⁶ though only insofar as the Licchavikas and the Vṛjikas are referred to, the latter including the Videhas⁷ and other confederate clans living by the title of *rājā*; they are not explicitly mentioned by name in this text.

c10.s4.2

⁹ *Śat. Br.*, i, 4, 1, 10ff; xi, 6, 2, 1, etc.; *Jāt.*, vi, pp. 30ff.

c10.s4.3

¹ *Majjhima*, i, p. 225; *Par. Jot.*, i, pp. 158ff.; *cf. DPPN*, ii, pp. 879-80; *PHAI*, pp. 83ff.

c10.s4.4

² Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 26.

c10.s4.5

³ *Aṅguttara*, i, p. 213; iv, pp. 252, 256, 260; *Mahāvastu*, i, 34.

c10.s4.6

⁴ *Par. Jot.*, i, pp. 158-85.

c10.s4.7

⁵ *Cf. Jāt., General Index*, pp. 40, 50.

c10.s4.8

⁶ *Arthaśāstra*, p. 378.

c10.s4.9

⁷ *Cf.* Pāṇini, iv, 2, 131; Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, pp. 49-50.

c10.s4.10

It seems unlikely that the Videhas had as elaborate a system of government as did their more important neighbours who subdued them, the Licchavis.⁸ It is improbable that they had unlimited authority and independence in their territory. We have suggested that the Videhas were overpowered by the incoming Licchavis who displaced their monarchy after Janaka's dynasty.⁹ Moreover, it was noted that the Licchavis probably stayed at Mithilā for a while before settling down at their new metropolis.¹⁰

c10.s4.11

⁸ *Par. Jot.*, i, pp. 158-85; also *cf.* above, pp. 116ff.

c10.s4.12

⁹ *Majjhima*, i, p. 225; *Par. Jot.*, i, pp. 158-85; *cf. PHAI*, pp. 83-4; See above, p. 147.

c10.s4.13

¹⁰ *Cf.* above, pp. 89ff.

c10.s4.14

The occupation of Mithilā by the republican Licchavis seems to have been the cause of the overthrow of monarchy in Videha and establishment of a republic. The change of constitution at Mithilā cannot be explained if we do not suppose that the Licchavis, before approaching the southern city of Vesālī in Videha, first stayed for a while at Mithilā. We hear of no strife between the Videhan king and the Licchavis. Further, the *Brāhmaṇas* and the *Rāmāyaṇa* tell of Janaka ruling over Mithilā. But in the Buddhist literature we find Videha as a republic and the Vajjian Confederacy, led by the Licchavis, as holding the supreme power in what had been the Videhan kingdom.¹ It is quite likely that the Licchavis seized Videha from some weak king after Janaka without much conflict, and established a republic on the ruins of the old monarchy. Perhaps a prerequisite for establishment of the Licchavian power and republic in Videha was the destruction of hereditary monarchy.

c10.s4.15

¹ *Cp.* Jones, *op. cit.*, pp. 99-133

c10.s4.16

The Licchavis must have realized with political foresight that the Videhan territory could best be administered, at least in the earlier stage of their settlement in northeast India, from the older capital. It was necessary for their undisturbed settlement to first become established at the centre and mould the governmental machinery into their own pattern.

c10.s4.17

After sometime they may have realized the disadvantages of having their centre in the foothills, when a great kingdom was rising up to the south of the Ganges. Hence, not satisfied with this centre in the mountains, they moved southwards to Vesāli, a town hitherto almost unknown. The sources already noted² indicate that the Vesāli region was then occupied by the Vajjis, who betray their original political importance through the fact that the Confederacy was named after them and that the region around Vesāli was known as *Vṛji-janapada*.³

c10.s4.18

² *Cf.* above, p. 89.

c10.s4.19

³ *Cf.* above, p. 94.

c10.s4.20

It is not improbable that many of the old Videhan aristocracy who had submitted to the Licchavis shifted their residence to the new centre of power at Vesāli.⁴ The Licchavis became most influential as the successors to the old Videhan kingdom. It was in all probability the Licchavian Assembly which held sovereign rights in the former Videhan territory. In such a situation we might expect that a separate Videhan territory existed around Mithilā, restricted to a limited area. Mithilā was now the chief town of a province in the Vajjian territory mainly controlled, at least in foreign relations, by the Licchavis. The Videhan princes, upon moving to Vesāli, might have been given seats in the Assembly. We have already noted that such a movement of Videhan politicians was taking place.¹ Mithilā, and the greatly reduced region of Videha, were no longer administered by a hereditary king, but by a Videhan assembly of the Kṣatriyas, who lived at Mithilā and its surrounding region.² Probably, this assembly governed in the name of the Licchavian Assembly, which had supreme rights.

c10.s4.21

⁴ *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 5ff.

c10.s4.22

¹ *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 5ff; *cf.* above, p. 107.

c10.s4.23

² *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff; *Arthaśāstra*, p. 378. Both refer to Vajjis (Skt. *Vṛji*) which included the Videhans as one of the confederate republics.

c10.s4.24

It is not unlikely that the Licchavis directed the foreign relations of the Videhan republic, but, except for the incidents of the Buddha’s death in the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*, we have no definite statement in the sources as to these details. When the founder of Buddhism died at Kusinārā, certain tribes, all of which appear to have been sovereign peoples, put forth their claims for a share of the relics. The Videhas do not figure among them, while the Licchavis do. The Nāyas of Kuṇḍapura are also absent from the list. This suggests either that the Videhas and the Nāyas were not interested in the Buddha’s doctrine, or that they were not independent of the Licchavis and thus could not put forth a claim on behalf of their republics. The Videhas, being followers of Brāhmaṇic practices,³ may well have been indifferent to the Buddha. However, the *Cūla-Gopālaka Sutta* informs us that Videha was in the Vajjian territory,⁴ and there is no source to our knowledge which contradicts the conclusion that the Videhans were under the control of the Licchavis. Moreover, the *Brahmāyu Sutta*⁵ points towards the process of abandonment of Brāhmaṇic practices and acceptance of Buddhist ones at Mithilā. The conversion at Mithilā of the aged Brāhmaṇa leader Brahmāyu and his followers, at the hands of the Buddha himself, suggests that the Buddhist revolution had begun to bear fruits even at Mithilā, a stronghold of Brāhmaṇic doctrine. In our opinion all these references support our conclusion of Videhan dependence on the Licchavis.

c10.s4.25

³ *Cf.* above, pp. 137ff.

c10.s4.26

⁴ *Majjhima*, i, pp. 225ff.

c10.s4.27

⁵ *Ibid.*, ii, pp. 133ff.

c10.s4.28

As they were members of the Vajjian Confederacy, it seems likely that the Videhans had an assembly, similar to the Licchavis.⁶

c10.s4.29

⁶ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff; *Jāt.*, vi, pp. 35ff, refer to the divine assembly which might indicate that the Videhas also had an assembly. *Cf.* above, pp. 81ff.

c10.s4.30

As we have no details regarding the Videhan *saṅgha*, we shall have to depend upon a comparison with the Licchavian institutions. No definite number is given of the members of the Videhan Assembly as we have for the Licchavis. It is likely that their assembly was smaller and that it had also non-Kṣatriya heads of families in it.¹ The monarchs had given special honour to the Brāhmaṇas, and Brāhmaṇas like the learned Brahmāyu might have influenced the assembly as participants or have been influential as "Brāhmaṇa heads of families".² As Mithilā had been a great centre of trade,³ wealthy merchants should have at least exercised considerable influence on the affairs of the republic if they were not members of the assembly. The *Jātakas*⁴ refer to a "crowed of ministers," "Brāhmaṇas," and "wealthy merchants" of Mithilā, which strengthens our suggestion, though these passages ostensibly refer to the days of the earlier monarchy. There must also have been a meeting place such as the *santhāgāra* of the Licchavis, the Mallas and other republics.⁵

c10.s4.31

¹ *Majjhima*, ii, p. 140.

c10.s4.32

² *Ibid.*, ii, pp. 133ff.

c10.s4.33

³ *Petavatthu Commentary*, p. 227; cf. *DPPN*, ii, pp. 879ff.

c10.s4.34

⁴ *Jāt.*, vi, p. 43.

c10.s4.35

⁵ Cf. Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 20.

c10.s4.36

Videha cannot have been a kingdom for more than 150 to 200 years in the pre-Buddhist period, as it is mentioned for the first time in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* (c. 800 B.C.). During this period of approximately 200 years there were probably not more than eight kings, ruling for more or less a quarter century each. The references to Videhan kings in the *Jātakas* run into the thousands. The *Dīgha Nikāya* refers to king Reṇu who founded Mithilā with the help of his steward Mahāgovinda.⁶ The *Majjhima Nikāya*⁷ and the *Jātakas*⁸ refer to Makhādeva and his 84,000 descendants who ruled at the capital of Mithilā. The *Jātakas* also refer to a number of other Videhan kings—Aṅgati,⁹ Ariṭṭhajanaka,¹⁰ Nimi,¹¹ Videha,¹²

c10.s4.37

⁶ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 235.

c10.s4.38

⁷ *Majjhima*, ii, pp. 74ff.

c10.s4.39

⁸ *Jāt.*, i, pp. 137ff; iii, pp. 325ff; vi, pp. 96ff.

c10.s4.40

⁹ *Jāt.*, vi, p. 220.

c10.s4.41

¹⁰ *Ibid.*, p. 30.

c10.s4.42

¹¹ *Ibid.*, p. 330.

c10.s4.43

¹² *Ibid.*, ii, p. 39.

c10.s4.44

Mahājanaka,¹ Sūdhina,² Vedeha,³ Suruci,⁴ etc. The fact that so many Videhan kings are mentioned supports the view that not only were the monarchs themselves called kings, but the members of the assembly governing the republic also called themselves *rājās*. Kauṭilya's communities living by the title of *rājā* also include the Videhas in the Vṛjikas.⁵ It is possible that some of these names of Videhan kings included the non-Aryan chiefs of the region before the arrival of Videgha. Moreover, the humorous remark of the *Lalitavistara*⁶ about the members of the Licchavian Assembly all being called *rājās* might be equally applicable to the Videhas.

c10.s4.45

¹ *Ibid.*, vi, pp. 30ff.

c10.s4.46

² *Ibid.*, iv, p. 355.

c10.s4.47

³ *Ibid.*, vi, p. 330.

c10.s4.48

⁴ *Ibid.*, ii, p. 333.

c10.s4.49

⁵ *Arthaśāstra*, p. 378; *cp*. *Cīvaravastu*, p. 3; *pañcāmātyaśatāni*.

c10.s4.50

⁶ *Lalitavistara*, i, p. 21.

c10.s4.51

As earlier stated, we are unable to determine the exact number of the people who composed the Videhan Assembly. The mention of 84,000 descendants of king Makhādeva cannot be even taken to indicate the number of qualified citizens in the entire republic, as republican Videha was much smaller in size than the realm of the Licchavis. The total population might have been about 84,000 to 100,000. The *Gandhāra Jātaka* refers to Videha as including 16,000 villages.⁷ This is too large a number, for not even 600 villages could be found in north Tirhut today. The figure of 16,000 may be an old scribal error for 6,000 perhaps signifying the number of people who held farmlands in the republic and who were entitled to exercise political rights. These 6,000 may indicate the entire Kṣatriya families at Mithilā and the surrounding region of Videha, from which a number of heads of the families were chosen or automatically became members of the assembly, after the Licchavian fashion.⁸ The assembly probably did not meet more often than once a year and it was the council which convened frequently, as referred to in the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*.⁹

c10.s4.52

⁷ *Jāt.*, iii, p. 365; iv, p. 316.

c10.s4.53

⁸ *Jāt.*, vi, p. 221; iv, p. 316.

c10.s4.54

⁹ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff; *cf*. above, pp. 111ff.

c10.s4.55

Altekar has suggested that the council of the Videhas consisted of nine *rājās*, similar to the Licchavian body.¹⁰ There is no direct evidence either to support this or any other number for the Videhan council. Yet, considering the size and importance of the Videhans at this period, it does not seem likely that their council was as large as that of the Licchavis. The *Mahānārada-Kassapa Jātaka* lends support to the view that the Videhas had a council of four.¹ But this is a suggestion and may apply to the earlier monarchical era. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the Videhas, apart from the assembly, had a council which consisted of a few members.

c10.s4.56

¹⁰ *State and Government*, p. 132.

c10.s4.57

¹ *Jāt.*, vi, p. 221. King and three *mahāmattas*, Vijaya, Sunāma and Alāta.

c10.s4.58

The references to Videha in the *Jātakas* are ambiguous, because it is not clear whether they refer to monarchy or the republic. A *Jātaka*² refers to a king of Videha and seven main officers. *Uparājā* Ariṭṭhajanaka was a viceroy during his father Mahājanaka's reign, before he himself became a king. Prince Polajanaka was a viceroy. We further hear of the general (*senāpati*), the treasurer (*bhaṇḍāgārika*), the keeper of the umbrella, the swordbearer and the family chaplain. They all are reported to have been put to a test by princess Sivalī, who had been entrusted with the right to choose a proper person to be the king of Videha, after Ariṭṭhajanaka died without a son to succeed him. This *Jātaka* has muddled the two traditions—the Brāhmaṇic tradition of Videha having been a kingdom and the Buddhist tradition of its being a republic with a king chosen by the assembly. Out of these seven officers only four appear to be public officers, the *rājā*, *uparājā*, *senāpati* and *bhaṇḍāgārika*, while the others were apparently the personal servants and attendants of the king.

c10.s4.59

² *Ibid.*, vi, pp. 220ff.

c10.s4.60

The *Mahājanaka Jātaka*³ also attests to the fact that the king was chosen by a qualified body of citizens. There may have been requisite qualifications for the candidate who became the *gaṇa-mukhya*, the chief or president of the republic. He was a Kṣatriya,⁴ claiming the backing of his clan and some influential people as his support, along with the necessary qualities of personal leadership, strength, eloquence and popularity.

c10.s4.61

³ *Jāt.*, vi, pp. 30ff.

c10.s4.62

⁴ *Ibid.*, vi, pp. 225ff.

c10.s4.63

Though the source, as we have seen, is very ambiguous, it is possible that three councillors and the king composed the council of the Videhans.¹ It is this body which was responsible for the public business of the republic and which recommended measures of importance to the assembly of the Videhan *rājās*. They also received the envoys of other states and decided upon matters of significance in the name of the assembly, which probably had to approve such measures. Most likely, in practice the council held the supreme power of the republic, under the supervision of the Licchavis, but in theory it was the assembly in which the ultimate authority of the internal administration of the *gaṇa* was vested. It was to this larger body that the council was responsible for its conduct in administration. In external affairs the Videhan council would have been superseded by the Licchavian council.²

c10.s4.64

¹ *Ibid.*, vi, p. 333, refers to 4 councillors of King Vedeha.

c10.s4.65

² *Cp.* Jones, *op. cit.*, pp. 99ff.

Linked texts (12)