Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c10.s4.24

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.