[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968) › c10 # Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c10: Chapter Five: The Videhas Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c10 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c10.s1 Not the Qualified Champions of Aryan Culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s1) — 9 parts - [c10.s2 Early History and Status](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2) — 33 parts - [c10.s3 Name and Etymology](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3) — 83 parts - [c10.s4 Government and Organization](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4) — 65 parts - [c10.s5 Administration of Justice](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s5) — 4 parts - [c10.s6 Another Special Feature of the Republic](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s6) — 4 parts - [c10.s7 Foreign Relations](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s7) — 36 parts ### Chapter Five: The Videhas ### Not the Qualified Champions of Aryan Culture ### [c10.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s1.1) The study of the Videhas presents peculiar problems that do not appear among others republics of the Buddhist period. They are included if not directly mentioned, among the \*Prācyas\* in the ethnological table of the \*Aitareya Brāhmaṇa\*.¹ Unlike the Licchavis who are conspicuously absent in the \*Brāhmaṇa\* literature, the Videhas are mentioned in these sources but do not enjoy the prestige of the Kuru-Pāñcālas. In the \*Brāhmaṇas\* they are closely associated with the Kāśīs, Kośalas, Magadhans and Aṅgas.² All these peoples inhabited the land east of the Ganges-Yamunā confluence to the north and south of the river. This was the home of the oldest Jaina and Buddhist communities lying in or near the tracts into which Agni Vaiśvānara did not cross in the flaming course of his travel over the east.³ ### [c10.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s1.2) ¹ \*Ait. Br.\*, 8, 14. ### [c10.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s1.3) ² \*Loc. cit.\*; \*Gopatha Br.\*, 2, 9; \*Kauś. Up.\*, 4, 1, etc. ### [c10.s1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s1.4) ³ \*Śat. Br.\*, 1, 4, 10ff; Eggeling, \*SBE\*, xii, p. xli, fn. 4; 104 fn.; cf. \*Vedic Index\*, ii, p. 298; Oldenberg, \*Buddha\*, pp. 10-11. ### [c10.s1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s1.5) Manu, probably following the older \*Sūtra\* texts, defines the land of the \*Brahmarṣis\*, whose customs and rites are taken as a model and whose warriors are the bravest, as Kurukṣetra and the territory of the Matsyas, the Pāñcālas and the Śūrasenas.⁴ Thus, the land of the \*Brahmarṣis\* embraces what was set down in the \*Aitareya Brāhmaṇa\* as \*Madhyamadiś\* and the region south of it. But what was regarded in the \*Aitareya\* as west and east, above all the eastern peoples of Kāśī, Kośala, Videha and Magadha, is in Manu also excluded from the land of the \*Brahmarṣis\*.⁵ ### [c10.s1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s1.6) ⁴ \*Manu\*, ii, 19; vii, 193. ### [c10.s1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s1.7) ⁵ Cf. Oldenberg, \*Buddha\*, pp. 393-4. ### [c10.s1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s1.8) Thus we have here a distinction between those stocks who felt themselves to be the "qualified champions of Aryan Culture, and those who were Aryans, it is true, but were not regarded as equally accredited partakers in this culture".⁶ ### [c10.s1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s1.9) ⁶ \*Ibid.\*, p. 394. ### Early History and Status ### [c10.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.1) Some knowledge of the Videhan background is prerequisite to the study of their republican institutions at the time of the Buddha. They were a monarchy during the Brāhmaṇa period¹ and became a republic just before the birth of Buddhism.² The first mention of the Videhas is found in the \*Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa\* which preserves the memory of a time when the sacrificial system, as it flourished on the Sarasvatī, was still a stranger to the land of the Videhas. The same text introduces us to Videgha Māthava, the national hero of the Videhas, who goes eastwards across the Sadānīrā and there establishes their rule. "But Agni Vaiśvānara, who comes from the Sarasvatī, does not accompany him; he cannot burn beyond the Sadānīrā. Hence, in earlier ages no Brāhmaṇas went across the river to the east, for it was a bad land, whereof Agni Vaiśvānara had not tasted. However, eastward of that river many Brāhmaṇas now dwell; ... now it is indeed, a desirable place, for the Brāhmaṇas have made it enjoyable through offerings to the gods".³ ### [c10.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.2) ¹ \*Sat. Br.\*, i, 4, 1, 10ff; Eggeling, \*SBE\*, xii, p. xli, fn. 4; \*Vedic Index\*, ii, p. 298. ### [c10.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.3) ² \*Aṅguttara\*, i, p. 213, iv, pp. 252, 256, 260; \*Vinaya\*, ii, p. 146; \*cf.\* \*DPPN\*, ii, pp. 79, 80; \*PHAI\*, p. 83. ### [c10.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.4) ³ \*Sat. Br.\*, i, 4, 1, 10ff; \*cf.\* Oldenberg, \*Buddha\*, pp. 398ff. ### [c10.s2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.5) The difference between the ancient Vedic land of culture in the west and the east, where there was Aryan land but not yet a long established home of Vaiśvānara, can scarcely be more significantly expressed.⁴ Certainly the boundary between the two tracts here appears to have been already pushed forward a stage farther towards the east. The Kosalas had entered into the community of Vedo-Brāhmaṇic culture earlier than the Videhas.⁵ Quite in accordance with this is the fact that among the names of the stocks not held in full esteem, as though being non-Aryans and at the same time applied as the designation of mixed castes, Vaideha occurs as well as Māgadha.⁶ In Weber's opinion, the Aryan immigrants themselves were not wholly Brāhmaṇized, i.e., not wholly permeated by the culture of the Kuru-Pāñcālas.⁷ The \*Kauśītaka Āraṇyaka\* states that the residence of the Brāhmaṇas in the Magadhan territory was considered something unusual and that such Brāhmaṇas were not respectable.¹ ### [c10.s2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.6) ⁴ \*Cf.\* Weber, \*Indische Studien\*, ii, pp. 309ff. ### [c10.s2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.7) ⁵ \*Cf.\* \*Vedic Index\*, ii, p. 298. ### [c10.s2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.8) ⁶ \*Manu\*, x, 11; \*Gautama\*, iv, 17; \*cf.\* Oldenberg, \*Buddha\*, p. 399 fn. ### [c10.s2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.9) ⁷ A. Weber, \*His. Ind. Lit.\*, p. 305.; \*cf\* Oldenberg, \*Buddha\*, p. 400fn. ### [c10.s2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.10) ¹ \*Kauś. Ār.\*, 7, 14. ### [c10.s2.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.11) The entire Brāhmaṇic literature emphasizes and attributes sacredness to the Kuru-Pāñcāla region. Although Janaka and his Purohita Yājñavalkya provided intellectual and spiritual leadership for all the paṇḍits of northern India at the time, the \*Brāhmaṇas\* are intent on stressing the debt of Yājñavalkya to his \*guru\* Ilaka Āruṇi of Kuru-Pāñcāla. In this connection Oldenberg makes a valid comparison of the Indian situation with that of the Greeks. He states that considering the wide spread of the Aryan territory and Aryan peoples in India, it is probable that even in the Vedic age a community of culture no longer prevailed throughout this vast tract. Analogies with kindred nations (Aetolians and Ionians; Umbrians, Latins and Oscanns) show this development of separate cultures. Similarly there is a difference between the western stocks of India with their Vedic culture and the eastern peoples who developed themselves more slowly; between the Kuru-Pāñcālas on the one side and the peoples of Kosala, Videha and Magadha on the other. This distinction must be recognized, according to Oldenberg, although the contrast is not so sharp as between the different Greek stocks.² ### [c10.s2.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.12) ² Oldenberg, \*Buddha\*, p. 392. ### [c10.s2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.13) These remarks bring home the point that it was not only because of the Buddha and his doctrine that the easterners were so different from the westerners. Even during the Brāhmaṇa period the Videhas and others had shown a new development which is obvious from a review of the data. The story of Videgha Māthava shows that Videhan culture came from the Brāhmaṇas of the west and that the territory was Aryanized after Kosala. The Videhas, however, later derived some fame and reputation because of the culture of their king, Janaka, who figures in the \*Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad\*.³ Here he is presented as one of the leading patrons of the new doctrine of \*Brahman\*. In the \*Kauśītaka Upaniṣad\* the Videhas are referred to with the Kāśīs as a joint people.⁴ In the list of peoples in the \*Aitareya Brāhmaṇa\*, as we have seen, the Videhas are passed over, probably because they were included with Kośala and Kāśi in the term \*prācyas\*, or "easterners".¹ ### [c10.s2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.14) ³ \*Bṛ. Up.\*, iii, 8, 2; iv, 2, 6; 9, 30; \*cf. Śat. Br.\*, xi, 3, 1, 2, 6; \*Tait. Br.\*, iii, 10, 9, 9, etc. ### [c10.s2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.15) ⁴ \*Kauś. Up.\*, iv, 1. ### [c10.s2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.16) ¹ \*Ait. Br.\*, 8, 14. ### [c10.s2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.17) The \*Yājñavalkya Smṛti\* is careful to point out that the path of \*Dharma\* was revealed by Yājñavalkya, the sage of Mithilā, in that country where the black antelope roams.² This has been explained by the fact that Mithilā (Videha) was not included among the four ancient holy lands of Bhāratavarṣa, it nonetheless acquired sanctity because it was approved of as a pure land by the earlier Dharmaśāstra literature.³ Again, in the \*Śāṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra\* it is recorded that the Kāsi, Kosala and Videha kingdoms had each the same Purohita, Jala Jātūkarṇya.⁴ In another passage of the same text, the relation between the Kosalan king Hiraṇyanābha and the Videhan king Para Āṭnāra is referred to,⁵ while the \*Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa\* speaks of Para Āṭnāra as a Kosalan King and descendant of Hiraṇyanābha.⁶ All these references make it highly probable that close relations existed between Videhas, Kāsis and Kosalans at an early period. ### [c10.s2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.18) ² \*Yājñavalkya Smṛti\*, i, 2. ### [c10.s2.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.19) ³ \*Cf.\* Kane, \*op. cit.\*, ii, pt. i, p. 14; J. K. Mishra, \*A History of Maithilī Literature\*, i, p. 3. ### [c10.s2.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.20) ⁴ \*Śāṅkh. Śt. Sūtra\*, xvi, 29, 5. ### [c10.s2.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.21) ⁵ \*Ibid.\*, xvi, 9, 11-3. ### [c10.s2.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.22) ⁶ \*Śat. Br.\*, xiii, 5, 4, 4. ### [c10.s2.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.23) The \*Pañcaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa\* refers to yet another king of Videha, Nami Sāpya.⁷ In the \*Taittirīya Saṁhitā\* of the \*Yajur Veda\*⁸ and the \*Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā\*,⁹ "cows of Videha" seem to be alluded to.¹⁰ The Videhas also appear in the \*Baudhāyana Śrauta Sūtra\* in the \*Brāhmaṇa\*-like passages of that text.¹¹ ### [c10.s2.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.24) ⁷ \*Pañcav. Br.\*, xxv, 10, 17. ### [c10.s2.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.25) ⁸ \*Tait. Saṁ.\*, ii, 1, 4, 5. ### [c10.s2.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.26) ⁹ \*Kāṭh. Saṁ.\*, xiv, 5. ### [c10.s2.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.27) ¹⁰ Though the commentator merely takes the adjective \*vaidehī\* as "having a splendid body" (\*viśiṣṭhadeha sambandhinī\*), the point of a place name in the expression is not very obvious (\*Vedic Index\*, ii, p. 298). ### [c10.s2.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.28) ¹¹ \*Baud. Śt. Sūtra\*, ii, 5; xxi, 13; \*cf. Vedic Index\*, ii, p. 298. ### [c10.s2.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.29) The Buddhist texts reveal something about the early history of the Videhas as well. According to the \*Mahāgovinda Sutta\*, it was king Reṇu who, with the help of Mahāgovinda Jotipāla, founded the Videhan kingdom.¹² The commentator Buddhaghosa also informs us that Videha was colonized by settlers who were brought from \*Pubba\*-Videha by king Mandhātā.¹ In this term we must assume that \*pubba\* implies "former" (\*prācīna\*) rather than "eastern." This is an unmistakable preservation of the Brāhmaṇic tradition, but the foundation of the kingdom is accredited to the kings usually idealized in the Buddhist texts. The commentator, if we can trust his statement, presupposes an older Videha. The sources are not at variance with regard to the fact that the Videhas were not the indigenous people of Videha. The Buddhist tradition in no way contradicts the \*Brāhmaṇa\*, that they came from the west, \*Madhyadeśa\*, and were of the same stock as the Kurus and Pāñcālas. Like the Kosalas, Kāsīs, Magadhans, Aṅgas and Licchavis, etc., they had moved eastwards beyond what was then considered the "home of genuine Brāhmanism."² In this connection one should also take into account the influence of earlier non-Aryan inhabitants of the region on the customs of the Aryans, with whom they no doubt intermarried.³ ### [c10.s2.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.30) ¹² \*Dīgha\*, ii, pp. 230ff; \*cf. DPPN\*, ii, p. 880. ### [c10.s2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.31) ¹ \*Sum. Vil.\*, ii, p. 482; \*Pap. Sūd.\*, i, p. 184. ### [c10.s2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.32) ² Oldenberg, \*Buddha\*, p. 411. ### [c10.s2.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s2.33) ³ Cf. Basham, \*Ājīvikas\*, pp. 4-5. ### Name and Etymology ### [c10.s3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.1) Like the word Licchavi, the words Videha and Mithilā inspired a few etymological interpretations by earlier commentators and writers. Modern writers have either reproduced them and accepted them without comment or criticism or have not touched on the point at all. The word Videha, which is applied to the country, has an obvious connection with Videgha Māthava of the \*Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa\*.⁴ The authors of the \*Vedic Index\* comment that, "Videgha is the name of a man, Māthava, in the \*Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa\*. It is legitimate to assume that it is a name given to him as king of the Videghas or the later Videhas".⁵ From this the word will apply to the people of Videha or the Videhans⁶ and to their king. There are quite a few examples of kings being called Videha of Vedeha.⁷ However, in the \*Māta-Posaka Jātaka\* "Vedeha" is also given as the personal name of the king of Kāsī.⁸ But in most cases it is the title of the kings of Mithilā, the capital of Videha,¹ e.g. Suruci,² Sādhina,³ Somanassa,⁴ Nimi,⁵ and Aṅgati.⁶ Thus it seems that Videha was the name of the people who colonized the region east of Sadānīrā, with their centre at Mithilā, and their rulers were entitled "Videha" or "Vedeha," meaning king or chief of the Videhas. ### [c10.s3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.2) ⁴ \*Śat. Br.\*, i, 4, 1, 10ff. ### [c10.s3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.3) ⁵ \*Vedic Index\*, ii, p. 298. ### [c10.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.4) ⁶ \*Loc. cit.\* ### [c10.s3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.5) ⁷ \*Ibid.\*, pp. 298-9. ### [c10.s3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.6) ⁸ \*Jāt.\*, iv, p. 94. ### [c10.s3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.7) ¹ \*DPPN\*, ii, pp. 922-3. ### [c10.s3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.8) ² \*Jāt.\*, iv, p. 319. ### [c10.s3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.9) ³ \*Ibid.\*, pp. 355-6. ### [c10.s3.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.10) ⁴ \*Ibid.\*, vi, p. 47. ### [c10.s3.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.11) ⁵ \*Ibid.\*, p. 102. ### [c10.s3.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.12) ⁶ \*Ibid.\*, p. 222. ### [c10.s3.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.13) As we have noted before, the Videhas occur quite frequently in the Sanskrit and Pāli texts, after their first mention in the \*Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa\*.⁷ But there are only three etymologies suggested by the ancient writers and none of them is satisfactory. In the \*Taittirīya Saṃhitā\* the word occurs in the sense of "cows of Videha" and the commentator takes the adjective \*Vaidehī\* to mean simply "having a splendid body" (\*viśiṣṭa-deha-sambandhinī\*).⁸ In this context the word would not refer to a place or rather "the point of a place name in this expression is not very obvious."⁹ Buddhaghosa, commenting on the name \*Vedehikā\*, says that "she was called Vedehikā either because she came from a Videhan family or because she was wise."¹⁰ But Vedeha in the sense of wise seems to be very unusual.¹¹ Buddhaghosa explains Ajātasattu's favourite epithet \*Vedehiputto\*, by saying that \*Vedehī\* here means "a wise woman" and not "the Videhan lady."¹² He is convinced of this because elsewhere it is stated that Ajātasattu's mother was the daughter not of a king of Videha, but of a Kosalan king,¹³ and was called Kosalādevi.¹⁴ This interpretation reveals the arduous attempt of the commentator to establish consistency in the Pāli tradition. ### [c10.s3.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.14) ⁷ \*Cf.\* above, pp. 137ff. ### [c10.s3.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.15) ⁸ \*Tait. Saṃ.\*, ii, 1, 4, 5. ### [c10.s3.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.16) ⁹ \*Vedic Index\*, ii, p. 298. ### [c10.s3.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.17) ¹⁰ \*Sum. Vil.\*, i, p. 318. ### [c10.s3.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.18) ¹¹ See below, p. 142. ### [c10.s3.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.19) ¹² \*Sum. Vil.\*, p. 139; \*Pap. Sūd.\*, i, p. 120. ### [c10.s3.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.20) ¹³ \*Jāt.\*, ii, p. 403; iii, p. 121; iv, p. 342; also see above, pp. 123ff. ### [c10.s3.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.21) ¹⁴ \*Ibid.\*, ii, p. 403; cf. \*DPPN\*, ii, p. 923. ### [c10.s3.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.22) Buddhaghosa seems to close his eyes to the fact that this almost inseparable epithet of Ajātasattu occurs in most of the books of the Pāli Canon, and like so many similar cognomens is obviously a metronymic. This is undoubtedly an older tradition and more reliable than the later \*Jātaka\* tradition making his mother a Kosalan princess. It may well be that his father, Bimbisāra, had a Kosalan princess for one of his queens,¹ but we object to the commentator's conclusion that Ajātasattu was born of the Kosalan princess. The older tradition, found both in the early Jaina and Buddhist texts,² shows that Ajātasattu's mother was a Videhan lady or a Licchavian princess. Samudra Gupta is always referred to as \*Licchavidauhitra\* from the fact that his mother was a Licchavi princess. \*Gautamīputra\* is another similar name taken by Sātakarṇi from his mother's \*gotra\* name. We assume that the commentator Buddhaghosa himself invented the meaning "wise" to explain away the difficulty, just as he did in deriving the name Licchavi from \*Līna-chavī\*, "thin skin" or "no skin."³ Mayrhofer firmly rejects the possibility of the word being derived from \*vid\*, to know. He states that \*deha\* in the sense of a wall or rampart, is found not only in Vedic Sanskrit but also in all the cognate languages, Avestan, Persian, etc.⁴ Thus, no faith can be put in Buddhaghosa's ingenious interpretation. The word is probably connected with \*deha\*, neaning a "wall" or "rampart around the city." ### [c10.s3.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.23) ¹ \*Jāt.\*, ii, pp. 403ff. ### [c10.s3.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.24) ² \*Cp. Cīvaravastu\*, p. 13; \*cf.\* above, pp. 140ff. ### [c10.s3.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.25) ³ \*Cf.\* above, pp. 85ff. ### [c10.s3.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.26) ⁴ \*Cf.\* Mayrhofer \*Ety. Skt. Dic.\*, \*s.v.\* \*deha\*. ### [c10.s3.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.27) The \*Viṣṇu Purāṇa\*⁵ gives yet another explanation. Vasiṣṭha was annoyed with king Nimi who had engaged the former's antagonist, Gautama, to officiate in his sacrifice. The enraged Vasiṣṭha cursed the king to be \*vi-deha\*, "bodiless," or "deceased." This is also the etymology of the word given by Macdonell,⁶ Monier Williams,⁷ and Apte.⁸ Modern Sanskritists seem to have relied more on the Purāṇic tradition than is necessary. ### [c10.s3.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.28) ⁵ \*Viṣṇu Purāṇa\*, iv, 5, 8; see also \*Purāṇa Index\*, iii, p. 229; Law, \*KCBI\*, p. 142. ### [c10.s3.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.29) ⁶ \*Skt.-Eng. Dic.\*, \*s.v.\* \*videha\*. ### [c10.s3.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.30) ⁷ \*Skt.-Eng. Dic.\*, \*s.v.\* \*videha\*. ### [c10.s3.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.31) ⁸ \*Skt.-Eng. Dic.\*, \*s.v.\* \*videha\*. ### [c10.s3.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.32) These interpretations "having a splendid body," "wise," and "bodiless" are evidently all popular etymologies connected with \*deha\*, "body" or \*vid\*, "to know," and can hardly be the correct derivation of the term. The first is an adjective and, as we have seen, does not precisely apply to a place name.⁹ The connection of the word with "wisdom" is also as dubious as with "body." In fact Videha is probably just a prakritism for Videgha, as we suggest Licchavi is for \*Ṛkṣavin\*. The connection with knowledge might have arisen as a "popular etymology" after Janaka's encouragement of Upaniṣadic wisdom, but it is certainly not correct. The \*Purāṇa\* writer took the word at its face value, a negative compound \*vi\* ("without") \*deha\* ("body"), and in order to justify his ignorance he invented or refurbished the story of Vasiṣṭha's cursing Nimi. No trust can be placed in the story of the Purohita's curse or the king being named in this way. It too stands with Buddhaghosa's derivation of the word Licchavi. ### [c10.s3.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.33) ⁹ Above, p. 139 fn. 10. ### [c10.s3.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.34) The word Videha was thus the title of the king and probably also the name of his people. The word may be connected with \*deha\* which in the \*Ṛg Veda\* means "primarily a wall or rampart around the city,"¹ and for which we may assume an earlier form \*degha\*. Thus our Videhas are connected with walls or ramparts. The prefix \*vi\* could be taken in the privative sense,² meaning a "people without walls or ramparts" or "destroyers of walls and ramparts." The people whom Videgha Māthava led to the east of the river Sadānīrā were certainly the invaders of a foreign land and may well have been reputed for destroying the walls and ramparts of the people whom they attacked. The "destroyer of cities" is a popular epithet of Indra in the \*Ṛg Veda\*. The prefix \*vi\* may also be taken to emphasize the fact that they had walls or ramparts around their own cities. This is less likely however. Few such names, if any, begin with the prefix \*vi\*, though there are common adjectives, \*e.g.\*, \*vibhāga\*, \*virāma\*, \*vijaya\*, \*vinaya\*, etc.³ ### [c10.s3.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.35) ¹ \*Cf.\* Mayrhofer, \*Ety. Skt. Dic.\*, \*s.v.\* \*deha\*. ### [c10.s3.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.36) ² \*Cf.\* Monier Williams, \*Skt.-Eng. Dic.\*, \*s.v.\* \*vi\*. It occurs in this sense in the \*ṚV\*. ### [c10.s3.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.37) ³ In each case \*vi\* emphasizes the sense. I am indebted to my Sanskrit tutor, Mr. J. E. B. Gray for this interpretation and etymology. ### [c10.s3.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.38) There is a late Purāṇic tradition about Mithilā, the capital of the Videhans. The \*Viṣṇu Purāṇa\*⁴ informs us that it was founded by king Nimi's son, Mithi or Mithila, who was churned from the dead body (\*Videha\*) of Nimi after he had been cursed by Vasiṣṭha. The existence of a prince Mithila is attested by other sources also.⁵ This story suggests that the city was founded and named after the region had been colonized by the followers of Videgha Māthava. The city was named after one of his descendants, Mithila. The city was also called Janakapura from the fact that king Janaka ruled there.¹ However, Dr. Subhadra Jha suggests another interpretation. "It is not unreasonable to think," he says, "that Mithilā has some connection with Sanskrit Mitha-together".² He takes this to include "Vaiśāli, Videha and Aṅga," but this does not explain the name. Mithilā is never used in the sense of a confederation of these peoples. ### [c10.s3.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.39) ⁴ \*Viṣṇu Purāṇa\*, iv, 5, 8ff.; \*cf.\* B. C. Law, \*KCBI\*, p. 142; \*SKTAI\*, pp. 131ff. ### [c10.s3.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.40) ⁵ \*Viṣṇu Purāṇa\*, iv, 5, 8ff.; Vālmīki, \*Rāmāyaṇa\*, Bāla Kāṇḍa, 71, 4ff; Kālidāsa, \*Raghuvaṁśa\*, xi, 32ff. ### [c10.s3.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.41) ¹ Vālmīkī, \*loc. cit.\* ### [c10.s3.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.42) ² Y. Mishra, \*IHQ\*, xxxv, pt. 2, 1959, p. 161. ### [c10.s3.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.43) It is clear from the \*Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa\*, that the river Sadānīrā formed the western boundary of Videha and separated it from Kosala, but there is no absolute certainty about the identification of the river.³ However, most scholars now believe that it was the Gaṇḍak.⁴ The same text⁵ gives us other boundaries, the Kauśiki (Kosi) to the east, the Ganges to the south and the Himālayas to the north.⁶ This boundary seems only an approximation and it seems to refer to what was the Videhan kingdom before the establishment of the republic. During or just before the lifetime of the Buddha it ceased to be a kingdom and became a part of the Vajjian Confederacy.⁷ As we have seen, it was the territory of the republican Licchavis which lay along the northern bank of the Ganges, while the Videhan republic lay further north, along the foothills of the Himālayas or what is now the Nepalese Terāi. The eastern and western boundaries of the Videhan territory were probably the same even during its republican period. But the Kosalan kingdom no longer bordered on its west and the Mallas appear to have occupied the tract along the Sadānīrā.⁸ ### [c10.s3.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.44) ³ \*Sat. Br.\*, i, 4, 1, 10ff.; \*Mbh.\*, Bhīṣma Parva, 10, 23-4. ### [c10.s3.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.45) ⁴ \*CAGIM\*, p. 718; \*Vedic Index\*, ii, p. 299; Rhys Davids, \*Buddhist India\*, pp. 26, 37; Oldenberg, \*Buddha\*, pp. 398-9; \*DPPN\*, ii, p. 880; Law, \*SKTAI\*, p. 131; Pandey, \*op. cit.\*, p. 135; \*CHI\*, i, pp. 122, 309, etc. ### [c10.s3.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.46) ⁵ \*Sat. Br.\*, i, 4, 1; cf. \*CAGIM\*, p. 718; \*DPPN\*, ii, p. 880; Pandey, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 262ff. ### [c10.s3.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.47) ⁶ \*Bṛhad Viṣṇu Purāṇa\* gives the same boundaries and adds that it extended 24 \*yojanas\* eastwest and 16 \*yojanas\* north-south. \*Cf.\* V. Mishra, \*op. cit.\* pp. 151ff. ### [c10.s3.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.48) ⁷ \*Cf.\* above, pp. 81ff. ### [c10.s3.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.49) ⁸ \*Cf.\* Cunningham's map xi, pp. 444-5 (in \*CAGIM\*); Basham, \*Ājīvikas\*, map at the end of the book. ### [c10.s3.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.50) Mithilā was the capital of Videha,¹ and it was there that Janaka ruled and Yājñavalkya disputed on the concepts of \*Ātman\* and \*Brahman\*. The size of Mithilā is frequently given as seven leagues, or about 50 miles in circumference.² Some historians maintain that Mithilā was the name of both the country and the capital,³ but the evidence for this view is very late. We believe that Mithilā applied only to the capital and Videha to the whole country.⁴ The use of the appellation Mithilā for the whole country is attested only in mediaeval times, and it was used along with Tirabhukti, or Tirhut, until the last century. Grierson made the name Mithilā famous again by naming the vernacular language of the region Maithili. ### [c10.s3.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.51) ¹ \*Dīgha\*, ii, p. 235; \*Mahāvastu\*, iii, pp. 208-9; \*Jāt.\*, iii, p. 365; iv, p. 315; vi, p. 246; cf. \*CHI\*, i, p. 173; Rhys Davids, \*Buddhist India\*, p. 37. ### [c10.s3.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.52) ² \*Dīgha\*, ii, p. 235; \*Jāt.\*, iii, p. 365; iv, p. 315; vi, pp. 246, etc.; cf. Rhys Davids, \*Buddhist India\*, p. 37; \*CHI\*, i, pp. 160, 173, etc. ### [c10.s3.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.53) ³ \*CAGIM\*, p. 718; Pandey, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 262-3. ### [c10.s3.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.54) ⁴ Cf. Monier Williams, \*op. cit.\*, \*s.v.\* Videha. ### [c10.s3.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.55) The older Videha covered almost the same region as did later Tirabhukti or modern Tirhut,⁵ and Mithilā has been identified with Janakpur, a small town within the Nepal border, north of which the Muzaffarpur and Darbhangā districts meet.⁶ The Videhan territory comprised the areas today indicated by north Bihar, the Terāi and the south-eastern portion of the kingdom of Nepal inclusive of the lower ranges of hills.⁷ According to M.S. Pandey, the joint territory of the Videhas and the Licchavis did not extend over 1,500 to 1,800 miles in circuit.⁸ We accept this location of the Videhan territory during its republican career, as proposed by scholars, with the qualification that it must be regarded only as a probable approximation not disproved by conflicting evidence. ### [c10.s3.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.56) ⁵ \*CAGIM\* p. 718; Pandey, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 135ff; Y. Mishra, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 151ff. ### [c10.s3.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.57) ⁶ \*Loc. cit.\* ### [c10.s3.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.58) ⁷ Y. Mishra, \*op. cit.\*, p. 151; also \*Pāli-Eng. Dic.\*, (PTS), pp. 156-7. ### [c10.s3.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.59) ⁸ \*Op. cit.\*, p. 136; Rao, \*op. cit.\*, p. 269; also see our map A. ### [c10.s3.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.60) \*The Videhas and the Licchavis\* ### [c10.s3.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.61) In the treatment of scholars, the Videhans have been overshadowed by the Licchavis.⁹ The one major exception is B.C. Law. In his first book he gives a summary account of the Videhas, mainly dealing with the monarchical period.¹⁰ In his next book, Law records only one important fact about the Videhas, that they were a member of the Vajjian Confederacy.¹ In his final book the legends about the Videhas are reviewed rather uncritically.² On the whole, Law’s account gives much valuable information about the earlier period of Videhan history, but his account contains little about political institutions, for which evidence is virtually lacking. Moreover, it seems that Law was not very interested in the republican period of this important people. ### [c10.s3.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.62) ⁹ Majumdar, \*Corporate Life\*, p. 324, only mentions them once. For others see proceeding pages. ### [c10.s3.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.63) ¹⁰ \*KCBI\*, pp. 141-61. ### [c10.s3.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.64) ¹ \*SKTAI\*, pp. 131-49. ### [c10.s3.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.65) ² \*TAI\*, pp. 235-42. ### [c10.s3.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.66) Undoubtedly the Videhas were a young republic at the time of the Buddha, but they formed an important part of the Vajjian Confederacy and merit better treatment. That they were as important and powerful as the Licchavis³ is of course doubtful. However, the fact cannot be dismissed that they were one of the most important constituent members of the League and were probably most similar to the Licchavis in their political institutions. A recent work states that in the 6th century B.C., after the League was established, “the fate of both these regions \[Videha and Vesālī\] was joined together and their history is almost the same”.⁴ It is difficult to follow this line of argument because in this case too much emphasis has been placed on the Confederacy. The League was probably nothing more than a temporary device,⁵ and the Videhans must have retained their freedom at least in internal affairs and especially in their capital of Mithilā. Not only may there have been a constitutional change in Videha, from monarchy to republic, but there may also have been a considerable change because of the arrival of the Licchavis. ### [c10.s3.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.67) ³ Rhys Davids, \*Buddhist India\*, p. 26.; \*cp.\* below, p. 157. ### [c10.s3.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.68) ⁴ Pandey, \*op. cit.\*, p. 138. ### [c10.s3.69](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.69) ⁵ Altekar, \*State and Goverment\*, pp. 136ff. ### [c10.s3.70](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.70) Bhandarkar mentions the Videhas only once, as a member of the Vajjian Confederacy.⁶ Similarly, Majumdar refers to them once,⁷ and treats only of the Licchavian institutions in detail, perhaps implying that the same applied to the Videhans. Jayaswal also mentions them occasionally,⁸ and interprets Kauṭilya’s \*Vṛjika\* as referring to the Videhas alone.⁹ Altekar also mentions them several times and regards them, along with the Sakyas, the Mallas and the Licchavis, as comparatively larger republics than the Bhaggas, the Bulis, the Koliyas and the Moriyas.¹ Then he comments merely that “the confederation of the Licchavis and the Videhas had executive body of 18”.² We know that the Videhas were a large republic but there is no direct evidence to support the statement that the Licchavis and the Videhas had such a joint executive body. The Jaina sources indicate 18 (or 36) as being the number of the council of the Vajjian confederacy.³ It seems that Altekar mistakenly applies this figure to the Licchavi-Videha Confederation, as he gives no source to support his claim. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the Licchavis and the Videhas formed a political alliance apart from their common membership of the Vajjian Confederacy.⁴ H. C. Raychaudhuri also makes mention of the Videhas and comments: “As in Rome, so in Videha, the overthrow of the monarchy was followed by the rise of a republic—the Vajjian Confederacy.”⁵ Here again, the emphasis is on the Confederacy. The fact, of their changing from monarchy to republic however, was pointed out for the first time by Rhys Davids, the earliest champion of the republics which flourished at the time of the Buddha.⁶ ### [c10.s3.71](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.71) ⁶ \*Car. Lecs.\*, p. 156. ### [c10.s3.72](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.72) ⁷ \*Corporate Life\*, p. 324. ### [c10.s3.73](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.73) ⁸ \*Ibid.\*, p. 49. ### [c10.s3.74](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.74) ⁹ \*Hindu Polity\*, pp. 34 fn., 40-50, 229. ### [c10.s3.75](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.75) ¹ \*State and Government\*, pp. 121ff. ### [c10.s3.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.76) ² \*Ibid.\*, p. 132. ### [c10.s3.77](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.77) ³ \*Cf.\* above, pp. 81ff. ### [c10.s3.78](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.78) ⁴ See above, pp. 81ff, for other members of the Confederacy. ### [c10.s3.79](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.79) ⁵ \*PHAI\*, pp. 83-4. ### [c10.s3.80](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.80) ⁶ \*Buddhist India\*, p. 26. ### [c10.s3.81](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.81) It is reported in the Pāli commentary, \*Paramattha-Jotikā\*, that the Licchavis, who succeeded Janaka’s dynasty as the strongest political power in north Bihar, were the offspring of a queen of Kāsi.⁷ This passage indicates the great influence the Licchavis exercised on the Videhas during the republican period and, as we have seen earlier, points towards a later belief that the royal family of Kāsi had close relations with the Videhas and the Licchavis of Vesāli.⁸ ### [c10.s3.82](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.82) ⁷ \*Par. Jot.\*, pp. 158-85; also \*cf.\* above, pp. 85ff. ### [c10.s3.83](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s3.83) ⁸ \*Cf. PHAI\*, p. 84. ### Government and Organization ### [c10.s4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.2) ⁹ \*Śat. Br.\*, i, 4, 1, 10ff; xi, 6, 2, 1, etc.; \*Jāt.\*, vi, pp. 30ff. ### [c10.s4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.4) ² Rhys Davids, \*Buddhist India\*, p. 26. ### [c10.s4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.5) ³ \*Aṅguttara\*, i, p. 213; iv, pp. 252, 256, 260; \*Mahāvastu\*, i, 34. ### [c10.s4.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.6) ⁴ \*Par. Jot.\*, i, pp. 158-85. ### [c10.s4.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.7) ⁵ \*Cf. Jāt., General Index\*, pp. 40, 50. ### [c10.s4.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.8) ⁶ \*Arthaśāstra\*, p. 378. ### [c10.s4.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.9) ⁷ \*Cf.\* Pāṇini, iv, 2, 131; Jayaswal, \*Hindu Polity\*, pp. 49-50. ### [c10.s4.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.11) ⁸ \*Par. Jot.\*, i, pp. 158-85; also \*cf.\* above, pp. 116ff. ### [c10.s4.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.13) ¹⁰ \*Cf.\* above, pp. 89ff. ### [c10.s4.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.15) ¹ \*Cp.\* Jones, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 99-133 ### [c10.s4.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.18) ² \*Cf.\* above, p. 89. ### [c10.s4.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.19) ³ \*Cf.\* above, p. 94. ### [c10.s4.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.21) ⁴ \*Cīvaravastu\*, pp. 5ff. ### [c10.s4.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.22) ¹ \*Cīvaravastu\*, pp. 5ff; \*cf.\* above, p. 107. ### [c10.s4.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.25) ³ \*Cf.\* above, pp. 137ff. ### [c10.s4.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.26) ⁴ \*Majjhima\*, i, pp. 225ff. ### [c10.s4.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.27) ⁵ \*Ibid.\*, ii, pp. 133ff. ### [c10.s4.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.31) ¹ \*Majjhima\*, ii, p. 140. ### [c10.s4.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.32) ² \*Ibid.\*, ii, pp. 133ff. ### [c10.s4.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.33) ³ \*Petavatthu Commentary\*, p. 227; cf. \*DPPN\*, ii, pp. 879ff. ### [c10.s4.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.34) ⁴ \*Jāt.\*, vi, p. 43. ### [c10.s4.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.35) ⁵ Cf. Rhys Davids, \*Buddhist India\*, p. 20. ### [c10.s4.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.37) ⁶ \*Dīgha\*, ii, p. 235. ### [c10.s4.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.38) ⁷ \*Majjhima\*, ii, pp. 74ff. ### [c10.s4.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.39) ⁸ \*Jāt.\*, i, pp. 137ff; iii, pp. 325ff; vi, pp. 96ff. ### [c10.s4.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.40) ⁹ \*Jāt.\*, vi, p. 220. ### [c10.s4.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.41) ¹⁰ \*Ibid.\*, p. 30. ### [c10.s4.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.42) ¹¹ \*Ibid.\*, p. 330. ### [c10.s4.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.43) ¹² \*Ibid.\*, ii, p. 39. ### [c10.s4.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.45) ¹ \*Ibid.\*, vi, pp. 30ff. ### [c10.s4.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.46) ² \*Ibid.\*, iv, p. 355. ### [c10.s4.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.47) ³ \*Ibid.\*, vi, p. 330. ### [c10.s4.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.48) ⁴ \*Ibid.\*, ii, p. 333. ### [c10.s4.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.49) ⁵ \*Arthaśāstra\*, p. 378; \*cp\*. \*Cīvaravastu\*, p. 3; \*pañcāmātyaśatāni\*. ### [c10.s4.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.50) ⁶ \*Lalitavistara\*, i, p. 21. ### [c10.s4.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.52) ⁷ \*Jāt.\*, iii, p. 365; iv, p. 316. ### [c10.s4.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.53) ⁸ \*Jāt.\*, vi, p. 221; iv, p. 316. ### [c10.s4.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.54) ⁹ \*Dīgha\*, ii, pp. 72ff; \*cf\*. above, pp. 111ff. ### [c10.s4.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.56) ¹⁰ \*State and Government\*, p. 132. ### [c10.s4.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.57) ¹ \*Jāt.\*, vi, p. 221. King and three \*mahāmattas\*, Vijaya, Sunāma and Alāta. ### [c10.s4.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.59) ² \*Ibid.\*, vi, pp. 220ff. ### [c10.s4.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.61) ³ \*Jāt.\*, vi, pp. 30ff. ### [c10.s4.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.62) ⁴ \*Ibid.\*, vi, pp. 225ff. ### [c10.s4.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.64) ¹ \*Ibid.\*, vi, p. 333, refers to 4 councillors of King Vedeha. ### [c10.s4.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s4.65) ² \*Cp.\* Jones, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 99ff. ### Administration of Justice ### [c10.s5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s5.1) The \*Mahājanaka Jātaka\* informs us that the king, after joining the Buddhist \*saṅgha\*, handed over the power of the state to his commander (\*senāpati\*), who was to administer justice with the help of his chief judges.³ Moreover, the \*Mahānārada-Kassapa Jātaka\*⁴ also informs us that the king was assisted in the administration of justice by a council. These references, with the help of the Licchavian analogy and the fact that the Videhans were members of the Vajjian League, all combine to show that the council of the Videhans also tried judicial cases and inflicted punishment according to precedent.⁵ However, we lack the information with which to treat the Videhan procedure of justice in detail. There is no reason to believe that they had a system of justice in anyway resembling that ascribed by Buddhaghosa to the Vajjis, which, if it has any factual basis, must apply to the Licchavis rather than to other members of the confederacy. ### [c10.s5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s5.2) ³ \*Jāt.\*, vi, p. 45. ### [c10.s5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s5.3) ⁴ \*Ibid.\*, p. 230. ### [c10.s5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s5.4) ⁵ \*Cp.\* above, pp. 116ff, Licchavian justice. ### Another Special Feature of the Republic ### [c10.s6.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s6.1) An unusual feature of the Videhan republic appears to have been that the most beautiful woman of the \*gaṇa\* was not allowed to lead a normal married life. A woman such as Piṅgalā, possessed of surpassing beauty, charm, and accomplishments in dance and music, was chosen to be the courtesan of the republic. The Videhans had a troop of the "most beautiful dancing girls, panegyrists and musical instrument players".¹ According to the \*Gandhāra Jātaka\*,² Videha had not only 16,000 villages with well-filled store-houses, but also 16,000 dancing girls. Thus, it would appear that, whatever the number of villages, each village and town had its dancing girl or courtesan. She should have been the most beautiful woman of the village or town. The sources indicate that they also had what appears to have been a sort of beauty competition for the selection of the most beautiful woman of the whole \*gaṇa\*. A later source, \*Bhaviṣyata Purāṇa\*,³ informs us that Piṅgalā was the courtesan of the Videhans of Mithilā. She is said to have spent her life as a public woman. It is not unlikely that such women had some political influence in the Videhan republic. ### [c10.s6.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s6.2) ¹ \*Jāt.\*, vi, p. 43. ### [c10.s6.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s6.3) ² \*Ibid.\*, iii, p. 365; iv, p. 316. ### [c10.s6.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s6.4) ³ \*Bhaviṣyat Purāṇa\*, xi, 8, 22-44; \*cf.\* \*Purāṇa Index\*, ii, p. 325; \*cp.\* Ambapālī above, pp. 104ff. ### Foreign Relations ### [c10.s7.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s7.1) During the Brāhmaṇa period the Videhas had close relations with Magadha, Kāsī and Kosala, as has already been noticed.⁴ But at the time of the Buddha, after the seizure of their kingdom by the Licchavis, they had become members of the Vajjian Confederacy. The very fact of the replacement of their kingdom by a new form of government put them in a special relationship with the Licchavis. This may be the reason that they had a different status in the Confederacy from that of the neighbouring republics of the Mallas of Pāvā and Kusinārā. Their not claiming a part of the relics of the Buddha at Kusinārā, along with the Licchavis of Vesālī, the Mallas of Pāvā and Kusinārā, the Sakyas of Kapilavatthu, etc.,⁵ confirms the view that the Videhan republic had no sovereign rights. The others claimed shares of the relics and later built \*stūpas\* in their capital towns to enshrine them. The Mallas, though constituent members of the Confederation, did not loose their sovereign rights to the Licchavis, as the latter did not conquer the former. ### [c10.s7.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10.s7.2) ⁴ Above, p. 137; \*cf.\* \*Vedic Index\*, ii, pp. 298ff; \*DPPN\*, ii, pp. 922ff. _First 200 of 242 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10)_ ## Linked texts (41) - [Śatapathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.satapatha.1.4) — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.2.19) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Jātaka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.khuddaka.jataka.406) — Pāli - [Śāṅkhāyanaśrautasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.srauta.sankhayana.16.29.5) — Śāṅkhāyana, Sanskrit - [Aṣṭādhyāyī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.astadhyayi.4.2.131) — Pāṇini, Sanskrit - [Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.kausitaki.4.1) — Sanskrit - [Aitareyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.aitreya.8.14) — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit - [Cullavagga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.vp.khandhaka.cullavagga.6.1.1.1) — Pāli - [Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.taittiriya.3.10.9.9) — Sanskrit - [Yājñavalkyasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.yajnavalkya.1.2) — Yājñavalkya, Sanskrit - [Gautamadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.gautama.4.17) — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit - [Uposathasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.anguttara.3.70.28.1) — Pāli - [Vitthatūposathasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.anguttara.8.42.2.1) — Pāli - [Visākhāsutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.anguttara.8.43.1.1) — Pāli - [Bojjhasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.anguttara.8.45.2.1) — Pāli - [Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.brhadaranyaka.3.8.2) — Sanskrit - [Bhāgavatapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.bhagavata) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Baudhāyanaśrautasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.srauta.baudhayana) — Baudhāyana, Sanskrit - [Mahāvastu](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.avadana.mahavastu) — Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Taittirīyasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.krsnayajur*taittiriya) — Sanskrit - [Mahāparinibbānasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.digha.16) — Pāli - [Bhaviṣyapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.bhavisya) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Kāṭhakasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.krsnayajur*kathaka) — Sanskrit - [Mahāgovindasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.digha.19) — Pāli - [Pañcaviṃśabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.pancavimsa) — Sanskrit - [Cīvaravastu](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.mulasarvastivada.vinayavastu.civara) — Sanskrit - [Dīghanikāya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.digha) — Pāli - [Kalpasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.cheda.1.kalpasutra) — Bhadrabāhu, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Raghuvaṃśa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.rama.raghuvamsa) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Majjhimanikāya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.majjhima) — Pāli - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg) — Sanskrit - [Brāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana) — Sanskrit - [Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.cii) - [Aṅguttaranikāya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.anguttara) — Pāli - [Viṣṇupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.visnu) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Nirayāvaliyāo](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.upanga.8) — Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Bṛhadviṣṇupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.upa.vaisnava.brhadvisnupurana) — Sanskrit - [Gopathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.gopatha) — Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c10) · Pramāṇa