[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) › c11 # Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c11: Chapter Six Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c11 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c11.s1 Political History](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1) — 17 parts ### Chapter Six ### [c11.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.1) If it were not for the birth of Mahāvīra amongst the Nāya-Khattiyas we should probably never have heard of this tribe. It is mainly in connection with the last Tīrthaṅkara of the Jainas and the doctrine of severe asceticism which he expounded that we find a few references to the Nāyas and scanty allusions to their political institutions in the sacred books of the Jainas, the Pāli Canon, Commentaries of these texts and some later epigraphic records. No study of their political institutions has yet been undertaken,¹ but the scattered data collected from these sources do present a fairly cohesive whole, though on some points vaguries arise due to the dearth of material. ### [c11.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.2) ¹ Excepting B.C. Law who treated the subject in general. \*Cf. SKTAI\*, pp. 114-22; \*TAI\*, pp. 243-4. ### [c11.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.3) \*Name and Etymology\* ### [c11.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.4) The name of this clan appears variously in the Prākrit Jaina texts as \*Nāya\*,² \*Nāyae\*,³ \*Nāe\*,⁴ and also \*Nāī\*.⁵ In the Pāli works they figure as \*Nāta\* or \*Nātha\*.⁶ The Sanskrit commentator Jinaprabhamuni refers to them mainly as \*Jñāta\*,⁷ while Hoernle Sanskritizes \*Nāya\* as \*Jñātṛ\*.⁸ The name appears in northern Buddhist texts as \*Jñāti\*.⁹ ### [c11.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.5) ² \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, sec. 18, fn. 3, mss., A, E; secs. 21, 90, 105, 110; \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, i., secs. 66, 69; \*Uttara. Sūtra\*, vi, sec. 17; xxxvi, sec. 267. ### [c11.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.6) ³ \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, secs. 105, 110, fn. 4, mss., B,C. ### [c11.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.7) ⁴ \*Ibid.\*, sec. 110. ### [c11.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.8) ⁵ \*Ibid.\*, sec. 104 (2x); \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, i, sec. 8. ### [c11.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.9) ⁶ \*Aṅguttara\*, iii, p. 74; \*Majjhima\*, i, pp. 92, 371ff; ii, pp. 217ff, 243ff; \*Mahāvagga\*, chap. vi, p. 31; \*Jāt.\*, ii, pp. 262ff.; iii, p. 128; v, p. 246. ### [c11.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.10) ⁷ \*Kalpa Sūtra Comm.\*, on secs. 104, 110; cf. \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, pp. 110-11. ### [c11.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.11) ⁸ \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, ii, tr., p. 4, fn. 8; p. 42, fn. 119; p. 139, fn. 304. ### [c11.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.12) ⁹ \*Mahāvastu\*, i, pp. 253, 257; iii, p. 383. ### [c11.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.13) This name occurs then in at least nine different forms. It is noteworthy that most of our sources for this clan are those in the Jaina Prākrit, the others being mostly corroboratory. In these texts the word \*Nāya\* is most frequently employed to denote the name of the tribe from which the chief contemporary opponent of the Buddha sprang. ### [c11.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.14) The sources are in perfect harmony as to the Nāyas being a Kṣatriya clan. They are often referred to as \*Nāya-Khattiyas\*¹ or \*Jñāta-Kṣatriyas\*,² and very frequently Mahāvīra's father, Siddhārtha, is called a \*khattiya\*. Mahāvīra himself is almost invariably called \*Nātaputta\* or \*Nāthaputta\* in all the Pāli sources, and often in the Jaina Prākrit texts. Reviewing all the sources, we prefer to refer to them by their standard designation as the \*Nāya-Khattiyas\* (Sanskrit \*Jñāta-Kṣatriyas\*).³ ### [c11.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.15) ¹ \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, secs. 21, 25, 26, 104, 105; \*Uvāsagadasāo\* i, secs. 66, 69, etc. ### [c11.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.16) ² Jinaprabhamuni, \*Comm. on Kalpa Sūtra\*, secs. 104, 110, etc. ### [c11.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.17) ³ For brevity and clarity we will refer to them simply as \*Nāyas\*. ### [c11.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.18) The name is probably connected with \*Jñāti\* which occurs in the \*Ṛg Veda\*,⁴ the \*Atharva Veda\*,⁵ and later Sanskrit in the sense of "kinsman" or "relation." The writers of the \*Vedic Index\* comment that in this sense a \*Jñāti\* is apparently "one who was connected by blood on the father's side, though the passages do not necessarily require the limitation. But the sense follows naturally enough from the patriarchal basis of Vedic society".⁶ However, Böhtlinck and Roth prefer to derive the word \*Jñāti\* from the root \*jan\* rather than from \*jñā\* which in their opinion originally implied nearest acquaintance (\*bekannter\*).⁷ We are unable to decide the root from which the name is derived, but the connection of the root \*jñā\* with \*Jñāta\* appears more probable than that of \*jan\*. However, it seems fairly certain that the word \*Nāya\* (Sanskrit \*Jñāta\*) originally implied "kinsfolk" and that the term was later taken as a proper name for this tribe.⁸ ### [c11.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.19) ⁴ \*ṚV\*, vii, 55, 5; x, 66, 14; 85, 28, etc. ### [c11.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.20) ⁵ \*AV\*, xii, 5, 44. ### [c11.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.21) ⁶ \*Vedic Index\*, i, p. 291; \*cf.\* T. Burrow, \*The Sanskrit Language\*, p. 168. ### [c11.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.22) ⁷ Böhtlinck and Roth, \*Skt. Wörterb.\*, \*s.v.\* \*jñā\*, \*jan\*. ### [c11.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.23) ⁸ \*Cf.\* Monier Williams, \*Skt. -Eng. Dic.\*, \*s.v.\*; \*Pāli-English Dic.\*, \*s.v.\* ### [c11.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.24) Mahāvīra is almost invariably referred to after the name of his clan.⁹ The Sanskrit commentator used the appellation \*Jñātaputra\*, but he is never mentioned in any source as \*Siddhārtha-putra\*. He is referred to as the son of \*Khattiya-Siddhattha\*, but the popular designation of Mahāvīra with the earlier writers is after his clan and not his father. This may be due to the fact that the texts preserving his doctrine were at first orally transmitted and only written long after his death, by which time his clan, which had probably embraced his faith, was of greater renown than his father. The peculiar coincidence of its Pāli equivalent \*Nātaputta\* or \*Nātha-putta\* may be explained by the similar practice of Buddhists who often referred to their own teacher along with his tribal designation—\*Sakka-muni\* (Sanskrit \*Śākya-muni\*), the sage of the Sakyas. ### [c11.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.25) ⁹ \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, sec. 110; \*Ācār. Sūtra\*, i, 7, 8, 12; i, 8, 1, 9; \*Uttarā. Sūtra\*, i, 6, 17; \*Sūtra Kṛtā.\*, i, 1, 2, 27; i, 2, 3, 22, etc. ### [c11.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.26) The Jainas, both the Śvetāmbaras and the Digambaras, state that Mahāvīra was the son of a king Siddhārtha of Kuṇḍapura or Kuṇḍagāma.¹ They would have us believe that Kuṇḍagāma was a large town. But in fact they have misrepresented the matter by a gross exaggeration, just as the Buddhists did with regard to Kapilavatthu.² For Kuṇḍagāma is called, in the \*Ācārāṅga Sūtra\*³ and the \*Uvāsagadasāo\*,⁴ “Kuṇḍapura-Sannivesa” (\*Kuṇḍapura-Saṁnevesāo\*), a term which the commentator interprets as denoting a halting place of caravans or processions.⁵ It must therefore have been a relatively insignificant place of which it is recorded only that it lay in Videha. The texts inform us variously that “Mahāvīra was a Nāya, the son of a Nāya-Khattiya; the moon of the clan of the Nāyas; a Videha, the son of Videhadattā, native of Videha (\*Videha-jacce\*); a prince of Videha (\*Videha-kūmāle\*), who had lived 30 years in Videha when his parents passed away”.⁶ ### [c11.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.27) ¹ \*Sūtra Kṛtā\*, i, 2, 3, 22; \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, secs. 115-16; \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, i, sec. 69. ### [c11.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.28) ² Jacobi, \*Jaina Sūtras\* (SBE, xxii), pt. i, p. x; \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, ii, p. 5 fn. ### [c11.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.29) ³ \*Ācār. Sū.\*, ii, 15, 4. ### [c11.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.30) ⁴ \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, i, sec. 7. ### [c11.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.31) ⁵ \*Cf.\* Jacobi, \*Jaina Sūtras\*, pt. i, p. x; \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, ii, p. 8 fn. 15. ### [c11.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.32) ⁶ \*Ācār. Sū.\*, ii, 15, 17; \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, sec. 110. ### [c11.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.33) In addition to Kuṇḍagāma, the city of Vesāli is mentioned as the birthplace of Mahāvīra; hence he is sometimes called \*Vesālie\*.⁷ In Jacobi's opinion “Vaiśālika apparently means a native of Vaiśālī, which would be appropriate to Mahāvīra when Kuṇḍagrāma was a suburb of Vaiśālī, just as a native of Turnham Green may be called a Londoner.”⁸ A Buddhist tradition, quoted by Rockhill, says that “there were three districts in Vaiśālī”.⁹ Hoernle thinks that “there may very well have been Vesāli proper, Kuṇḍapura and Vāṇiyagāma, occupying the South-Eastern, North-Eastern, and Western portions of the area of the total city respectively”.¹ Beyond Kuṇḍapura, the text informs us, and further in a north-easterly direction lay the suburb (\*sannivesa\*) of Kollāga, which appears to have been also chiefly inhabited by Khattiyas of Mahāvīra’s Nāya clan.² Also a part of their settlement at Kollāga, but lying outside it, was the Nāya-owned³ \*Caitya\* (\*Ceïya\*) of Dūīpalāsa.⁴ ### [c11.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.34) ⁷ \*Sūtra Kṛtā.\*, i, 2, 3, 22; \*cf.\* \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, ii, p. 4 fn. ### [c11.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.35) ⁸ \*Jaina Sūtras\*, pt. i, p. xi. ### [c11.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.36) ⁹ \*Op. cit.\*, p. 62; \*cp.\* \*Cīvaravastu\*, p. 6. ### [c11.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.37) ¹ \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, tr. ii, p. 4 fn. ### [c11.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.38) ² \*Ibid.\*, i, sec. 7. ### [c11.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.39) ³ \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, sec. 115; \*Ācār. Sū.\*, ii, 15, 22. ### [c11.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.40) ⁴ \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, i, sec. 3. ### [c11.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.41) “It would seem,” believes Hoernle, “that the Jaina tradition which represents Kuṇḍapura as a large town, is quite correct, inasmuch as Kuṇḍapura is taken as the equivalent of Vesālī”.⁵ In the \*Kalpa Sūtra\*,⁶ Kuṇḍapura is described as a city with inner and outer portions (\*nagaram abbhiṁtara-bāhiriyam\*),⁷ i.e., “a large city with suburbs.” In Hoernle’s opinion, this is evidently a description of Vesālī itself.⁸ He does not agree with Jacobi in taking Kuṇḍagāma as a mere “halting place of caravans.” He further postulates that Veśālī consisted of three parts and that it was inhabited by the Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas.⁹ Hoernle may be right in taking Kuṇḍagāma (? modern Basukuṇḍ)¹⁰ to refer to the city of Vesālī as a whole, but only if we put implicit faith in the Jainas’ claim to the greatness and prosperity of Kuṇḍagāma. This, however, does not appear to be the case. The theory of three castes inhabiting three separate parts of Vesālī was later repeated by Mrs. Sinclair Stevenson.¹¹ But there is no positive statement in the texts to this effect. No doubt all these castes were living in Vesālī but there is no reason to believe that each inhabited separate parts of it, except of course that this seems to have been the case in some other ancient Indian cities.¹² ### [c11.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.42) ⁵ \*Ibid.\*, ii, p. 4fn. ### [c11.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.43) ⁶ \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, sec. 100. ### [c11.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.44) ⁷ \*Ibid.\*, ii, p. 5fn. ### [c11.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.45) ⁸ \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, ii, p. 5 fn. ### [c11.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.46) ⁹ \*Loc. cit.\*; based on \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, sec. 22; \*Ācār. Sū.\*, secs. 2, 4, 22; \*cf. CHI\*, i, p. 157. ### [c11.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.47) ¹⁰ \*Archaeological Reports\*, i, pl. xxi; xvi, pl. 11. ### [c11.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.48) ¹¹ \*Heart of Jainism\*, pp. 21-22. ### [c11.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.49) ¹² \*Cf. Arthaśāstra\*, pp. 55-7. ### [c11.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.50) One fact which is striking in this matter is that mention is made of Mahāvīra’s father as the chief of the Nāya-clan and as a resident in Kollāga. There is apparently a confusion in the sources about the centre of Nāya power, being either in Kuṇḍapura or in Vesālī which was probably not very far from it. It is evident from the \*Uvāsagadasāo\* that Kuṇḍapura lay to the northeast of Vesālī.¹ The traditions of its being a \*sannivesa\*, or a “halting place of caravans,” indicate that it was a relatively insignificant place.² The fact that Mahāvīra was called a Vesālian³ has further complicated the problem of its location. We suggest that Kuṇḍapura, the centre of Nāya power, was different from Vesālī and lay somewhere to the northeast of the latter,⁴ and that when the sources speak of its greatness and prosperity they do not imply Vesālī but refer, in grossly exaggerated terms, to the birthplace of Mahāvīra. When sources speak of the Nāyas as living in Videha they appear to imply the territory of the older Videhas which was later controlled by the Licchavis from their centre at Vesālī. We cannot determine the distance of Kuṇḍapura from Vesālī, but it appears from the context that it was not very far. ### [c11.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.51) ¹ i, sec. 7. ### [c11.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.52) ² \*Cf. Ācār. Sū.\*, ii, 15, 17; \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, sec. 110. ### [c11.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.53) ³ \*Sū. Kṛtā.\*, i, 2, 3, 22. ### [c11.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.54) ⁴ \*Cp. CHI\*, i, p. 157. ### [c11.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.55) It seems likely that Mahāvīra’s father, who was the chief of the Nāyas, was not only connected to Vesālī by the marriage with a Licchavian princess but was also a member of the Vajjian Council of 18. Thus he might have had a residence in Vesālī as well, and Mahāvīra might also have stayed there for sometime. This would give the Jaina writers ground to call him a Vesālian. We do not know how big the Nāya territory actually was, but it seems unlikely that the region occupied by them was very large. We believe that the Nāyas were a small republic occupying a small region around Kuṇḍapura, but we do not know whether or not they had full rights within that territory. The domination of the powerful Licchavis in the Vesālī region would make it improbable if not impossible that the Nāyas should become too conscious of their independence on territory in such close proximity to the political centre of the Licchavis.⁵ ### [c11.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.56) ⁵ See our Map A, for their location. ### [c11.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.57) \*Government and Organization\* ### [c11.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.58) If Kuṇḍapura was scarcely more than a halting place of caravans or a village, it is evident that the sovereign of that place could at best have been a petty chieftain.¹ Indeed, though the Jainas fondly imagine Siddhārtha to have been a powerful monarch and depict his royal state in glowing but typical colours, their statements, if stripped of all rhetorical ornaments, bring out the fact that Siddhārtha was but a mere chief of a small clan. We do not believe that the older texts ever designate him as “the king of Kuṇḍapura or Kuṇḍagāma.” We have thoroughly examined the text of the \*Kalpa Sūtra\* where he is usually mentioned merely as \*Siddhattha-Khattiya\*.² He is referred to as \*Siddhatthe-rāja\* also, but only when the servants of the household address him or when his wife, who is definitely always designated as \*Tisalāe-Khattiyāṇīe\*, speaks to him. In some cases, even when both Siddhārtha and his wife Trisalā are mentioned together, he is called a \*rājā\*, but she is still called by the humbler designation of \*Khattiyāṇīe\*.³ ### [c11.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.59) ¹ Jacobi, \*Jaina Sūtras\*, pt. i, p. xi. ### [c11.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.60) ² Jacobi's text, secs. 21, 26, 28, 30, 47, 59, 65-7, 69, 72, etc. ### [c11.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.61) ³ \*Ibid.\*, secs. 21 (twice), 26, 28 (thrice), 30-3(twice in 32), 47-8, 50, 66, 68-70, 81-2, etc. ### [c11.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.62) This can only lead one to conclude that Mahāvīra’s father was merely the chief of his clan. His status was probably no higher than that of the much later taluqdārs and zamindārs. He presumably held office for life and was perhaps assisted in his administration by a small council, the exact number of which cannot be determined. ### [c11.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.63) It may be implied in a statement in the \*Sūtra Kṛtāṅga\* that the Nāyas had, besides their chief, an assembly which the text says “consisted of Nāyas, and sons of Nāyas; warriors and sons of warriors; commanders and sons of commanders; and generals and sons of generals,”⁴ much like that of the Licchavis and others. However, unlike that of the Licchavis, the number constituting the Nāya assembly is unspecified. Although commanders and generals existed among the Licchavis because of their large army and also amongst the army of the Vajjian Confederacy (if at all there was such a separate force), it seems fantastic to hear of commanders and generals amongst the small clan of the Nāyas. A small force for police duties may have existed, as such a body is mentioned in the \*Kalpa Sūtra\*.⁵ The Nāyas may have contributed to the Vajjian army at the time of the war between Ajātasattu and the Vajjians, but it is unlikely, in the light of the sources, that they had commanders, generals and a large standing army. This is yet another example of the gross exaggeration and unreliability of the Jaina sources. Probably the Nāya assembly consisted, like that of their close neighbours the Licchavis, of the heads of the Kṣatriya families. ### [c11.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.64) ⁴ \*Sū. Kṛtā.\*, ii, 1, 13. ### [c11.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.65) ⁵ \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, sec. 102 refers to \*abhada\*, or policemen. ### [c11.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.66) There is no direct mention of an assembly-hall of the Nāyas in the Jaina Canon, but Jinaprabha the commentator refers to one.¹ We know that other republics possessed them, and comparatively small towns had their own \*santhāgāras\*.² So it is probable that the Nāyas also had one. On Licchavi analogy we may assume the existence of a small council which met more frequently than the general assembly, but the sources do not give further detail regarding the Nāya administration of public business or their manner of dispensing justice. ### [c11.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.67) ¹ \*Comm. on the Kalpa Sūtra\*, sec. 105. ### [c11.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.68) ² Rhys Davids, \*Buddhist India\*, p. 19. ### [c11.69](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.69) \*The Vajjis and the Nāyas\* ### [c11.70](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.70) Because of their location near Vesālī, Siddhārtha, then the chief of the Nāyas, was married to Trisalā, the sister of Ceḍaga, chief of the Licchavis.³ Siddhārtha must have been quite influential through this connection. He was thus also indirectly connected by marriage with the Magadhan king Bimbisāra who had married a daughter of the same Ceḍaga.⁴ It would be quite in keeping with the texts if we suggest that the chief of the Nāyas, Siddhārtha in the present case, represented their clan on the Vajjian Council of Eighteen at Vesālī. In the absence of detailed accounts and references to the political influence of the Nāyas, their geographical location near the Vajjian metropolis at Vesālī and their relations with the Licchavis make it most likely that they were a constituent member of the Confederacy. This being the case, one is tempted to conclude that the Nāyas also fought against the Magadhan king in the long war between Magadha and the Vajjians.⁵ However, the sources do not give the Nāyas much importance in political matters. No doubt as the Nāyas were very close associates of the Licchavis and also members of the Vajjian League,⁶ their more powerful neighbours overshadowed them. The Nāyas may have retained internal authority, but left to the Vajjian Council all matters of war and foreign policy. ### [c11.71](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.71) ³ \*Niryāvalikā\*, ed. Gopani and Chokshi, pp. 19ff. ### [c11.72](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.72) ⁴ \*Cf.\* above, pp. 123ff. ### [c11.73](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.73) ⁵ \*Niryāvalikā\*, pp. 19ff; \*cf.\* \*CHI\*, i, p. 157. ### [c11.74](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.74) ⁶ \*Cf.\* above, pp. 81ff. ### [c11.75](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.75) This seems probable from the fact that the Nāya-Khattiyas did not claim a share in the relics of the Buddha as did the neighbouring independent republics of the Licchavis, Mallas, Koliyas and Sakyas, along with the Magadhan king.¹ The passages in question seem to indicate the existence of sovereign rights of particular states, which claimed their share on the ground that the Buddha was a Kṣatriya and so were they. Thus why should the Nāyas not have made their claim if they were independent? The fact that the Nāyas of Kuṇḍapura, like the Videhas of Mithilā, made no such claim suggests that they played second fiddle to the more powerful Licchavis. Their status appears similar to that of some of the provinces of Italy which were subject to the Roman Republic. ### [c11.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.76) ¹ \*MPS\*, pp. 432-42; \*Dīgha\*, ii, pp. 164ff. The Licchavis and the Mallas, keen followers of the Buddha, instituted a Festival of Lights to honour Mahāvīra's death. ### [c11.77](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.77) In our opinion, both the Nāyas and the Videhas were represented in the Vajjian Council, but the Nāyas, though a smaller clan than the Videhas, had the advantage of a geographical situation which was nearer to the Vajjian metropolis. This would tend to justify their presence in the Council of Eighteen. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Ceḍaga would have married his sister to the chief of a completely insignificant clan. Although small in size his position in the Council would have made Siddhārtha eligible to marry into the family of the head of the Vajjian Confederacy. ### Political History ### [c11.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.1) According to the \*Ācārāṅga Sūtra\*, Mahāvīra’s parents were worshippers of Pārśva,² and in Hoernle’s opinion, “with them probably the whole clan of Nāya-Kshattriyas were followers of the tenets of Pārshwanātha.”³ The \*Kalpa Sūtra\* also gives an account of Pārśva who is often referred to in the text as \*Purisānīya\* or the “favourite of the people.”⁴ The Jaina tradition puts the date of Mahāvīra’s predecessor Pārśva, whose cult Mahāvīra reformed, about 250 years before the latter.⁵ The Nāyas being the followers of Pārśva and later of Mahāvīra kept up a religious establishment (\*ceïya\*) for their accomodation on periodical visits with their disciples to Kuṇḍapura or Vesāli.¹ We may doubt the accuracy of the tradition with regard to Pārśva's early date, but it seems fairly certain that the Nāyas, before Mahāvīra, had been followers of Pārśva² and that he was a historical figure. This inevitably shows that despite the absence of any mention of the Nāyas in the Vedic literature, they existed well before the time of Mahāvīra. ### [c11.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.2) ² \*Ācār. Sū.\*, ii, 15, 16. ### [c11.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.3) ³ \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, ii, p. 6 fn. 8. ### [c11.s1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.4) ⁴ \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, secs. 149-69. ### [c11.s1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.5) ⁵ Cf. Hoernle, in \*Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics\*, i, p. 265. ### [c11.s1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.6) ¹ \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, ii, p. 6. ### [c11.s1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.7) ² \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, vi, sec. 179, p. 104. ### [c11.s1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.8) The antiquity of the Nāyas can be pushed back even further by a careful study of the \*Uvāsagadasāo\*. This text gives an account of the religious profession of Jaina lay disciples (\*Uvāsagas\*). It is set out in ten lectures (\*adhyayanas\*). At the end of each lecture, save one, it is stated that "he will attain perfection in the Great-Videha Country" (\*Mahāvidehe vāse sijjhihië\*).³ In the \*Ācārāṅga Sūtra\* the same formula is repeated in connection with Mahāvīra's parents.⁴ Yet in the following section Mahāvīra is called a "Videha, son of Videhadattā, a native of Videha, a prince of Videha who lived 30 years amongst the Videhas".⁵ The constant emphasis on Mahā-Videha and Videha suggests, to our mind, that in spite of the Licchavi newcomers and their establishment of power at Vesāli, the Jainas still called the whole territory to the north of the Ganges by its much older name, Mahā-Videha. The Nāyas occupied a region in Mahā-Videha, and thought of themselves as Videhas. They probably came from the Madhyadeśa along with the Videhas.⁶ ### [c11.s1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.9) ³ \*Ibid.\*, i, secs. 90, 125, 144, 154, 162, 230, 266, 274, 277; Appx. p. 40. ### [c11.s1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.10) ⁴ \*Ācār. Sū.\*, ii, 15, 16. ### [c11.s1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.11) ⁵ \*Ibid.\*, ii, 15, 17. ### [c11.s1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.12) ⁶ Cf. above, pp. 60ff. ### [c11.s1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.13) The Nāyas are directly mentioned in the Buddhist Pāli works in connection with the \*Nigantha Nātaputta\*.⁷ The northern traditions in Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese sources also make mention of the \*Nirgrantha Jñātaputra\*⁸ but mainly in connection with the chief opponents of the Buddha at the time. Buddhist sources do not enlighten us further on the political history of the Nāyas. The Jaina Prākrit texts, as already noted, also mention the Nāyas and occasionally allude to their republican or quasi-republican institutions. ### [c11.s1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.14) ⁷ \*Aṅguttara\*, iii, p. 74; \*Majjhima\*, i, p. 56. ### [c11.s1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.15) ⁸ Cf. Rockhill. \*op. cit.\*, pp. 79, 96, 104, 259, etc. ### [c11.s1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.16) It is a fair inference that the Nāyas were also defeated along with other Vajjian Confederates and later assimilated in the Magadhan population. We do not hear of them as a political entity after the break-up of the Vajjian Confederation, and the region lying along the north of the Ganges to the foothills of Himālayas must certainly have been finally annexed during the reign of the first Mauryan emperor. No source gives us any further help in writing the political history of the Nāyas. The histories of Jainism and its founder have been written,¹ but in the present state of our knowledge we are unable to give a full-length political history of the clan which gave India one of her greatest sons. ### [c11.s1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11.s1.17) ¹ \*CHI\*, i, pp. 150-57; S. Stevenson, \*Heart of Jainism\*; B. C. Law, \*Mahāvīra: His Life and Teachings\*; Hoernle, in \*Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics\*, \*Mahāvīra\* and Jainism, etc. ## Linked texts (17) - [Āyāraṃga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.anga.1.2.15) — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Mahāparinibbānasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.digha.16.6.22.1) — Pāli - [Sūyagaḍa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.anga.2.2.1) — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Satipaṭṭhānasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.majjhima.10.2.1) — Pāli - [Abhiṇhapaccavekkhitabbaṭhānasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.anguttara.5.57.7.1) — Pāli - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.7.55.5) — Sanskrit - [Atharvavedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.atharva.12.5.44) — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit - [Jātaka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.khuddaka.jataka) — Pāli - [Mahāvagga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.vp.khandhaka.mahavagga) — Pāli - [Mahāvastu](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.avadana.mahavastu) — Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Uttarajjhayaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.mula.2) — Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Cīvaravastu](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.mulasarvastivada.vinayavastu.civara) — Sanskrit - [Kalpasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.cheda.1.kalpasutra) — Bhadrabāhu, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Majjhimanikāya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.majjhima) — Pāli - [Aṅguttaranikāya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.anguttara) — Pāli - [Uvāsagadasāo](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.anga.7) — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c11) · Pramāṇa