Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c12.s3: Geographical Location

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c12.s3

Language: English

Geographical Location

c12.s3.1

Their country is designated as *Malla-Janapada* in the Sanskrit version of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*,¹⁰ and references to Malla- *raṭṭha*,¹ the *Malla-rāṣṭra* of the *Mahābhārata*,² *Malla-bhū* or *Malla-bhūmi*³ and *Malla-gaṇa*⁴ are by no means lacking. It is fairly certain that the territories of the Mallas of Pāvā and those of Kusinārā were divided during the lifetime of the Buddha by a natural frontier, the river Hiraññavatī.⁵ The *Dīgha Nikāya* mentions a river Kakutthā⁶ and Rhys Davids, without comment or criticism, takes this very Kakutthā to be the boundary river which the Buddha crossed going from the territory of the Paveyya-Mallas into that of the Kosināraka-Mallas.⁷ This, however, is a mistake that can be easily corrected by examining the various versions of the text in Sanskrit, Pāli, Tibetan, and Chinese. The account of the last journey of the Buddha is almost the same in all the texts, save for one major disagreement which concerns the name of the river dividing the territories of the Mallas of Pāvā from that of the Mallas of Kusinārā.

c12.s3.2

¹⁰ *MPS*, pp. 252, 264 (*malleṣu janapadeṣu*).

c12.s3.3

¹ *Dīgha*, iii, p. 207; *Jāt.*, v, p. 278; *cf.* *PHAI*, p. 126.

c12.s3.4

² vii, 34; *cf.* *PHAI*, pp. 126ff; Sörensen, *op. cit.*, *s.v.*

c12.s3.5

³ *Cf.* Monier Williams, *Skt.-Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.*

c12.s3.6

⁴ *Majjhima*, i, p. 231; *cf.* *Pāli-Eng. Dic.* (PTS), *s.v.*

c12.s3.7

⁵ *MPS*, p. 292 (Pāli version).

c12.s3.8

⁶ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 129.

c12.s3.9

⁷ *Ibid.*, tr., *Dialogues*, ii, pp. 139-40; *cf.* *PHAI*, pp. 126-7; Hardy, *op. cit.*, p. 356; Bigandet, *Legacy of Burmese Buddhism*, ii, p. 39 (Kakanda); *cp.* Oldenberg, *Buddha*, pp. 200-03.

c12.s3.10

In all the versions of the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta* it is said that there were two rivers which the Buddha and his host of followers crossed between Pāvā and Kusinārā.⁸ None of the Pāli versions name the first river.⁹ At his Master's repeated commands to fetch water from this river, Ānanda thrice gave the same reply—"‘But just now, Lord, about 500 carts have gone over. That water stirred up by the wheels has become shallow and flows foul and turbid. This river Kakutthā, Lord (*ayaṁ bhante Kakutthā nadī*), not far off (*avidūre*), is clear and pleasant, cool and transparent... There the Exalted One may both drink the water and cool his limbs.’"¹⁰ On the other hand, the Sanskrit version and the Tibetan and Chinese versions based on it, not only refer to this river whose water had become undrinkable as Kukustā, but also name the next river, with pure, cool water, as Hiraṇyavatī *nadī*.¹¹ This was the river Kakutthā of the corresponding Pāli version.

c12.s3.11

⁸ *MPS*, p. 266 (Pāli); *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 128-9; tr., *Dialogues*, ii, pp. 139-40.

c12.s3.12

⁹ *Loc. cit.*

c12.s3.13

¹⁰ *Loc. cit.*

c12.s3.14

¹¹ *Loc. cit.*; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 134ff.

c12.s3.15

The sources are certainly confused on this point. Only a few pages later, the Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese versions are confirmed by the Pāli version itself, which makes a contradictory statement to the effect that beyond the river Hiraññavatī stretched the territory of the Kosinārikā-Mallas. In the significant words of the Buddha to Ānanda, he says, "Come Ānanda, to the other bank of the river Hiraññavatī, to the Sāla grove of the Mallas in the Kusinārā garden; there shall we rest."¹ The corresponding Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese versions in this context only state that they had reached Kuśinagari,² though they mention the crossing of the Hiraṇyavatī river earlier. This affects our conclusion little. If we accept the earlier statement of the Pāli texts and Rhys Davids interpretation of it, we are left without the name of the dirty river. But Waldschmidt's text shows that the muddy river was the Kukustā and that which the Buddha crossed to reach the Sāla grove of the Mallas of Kusinārā was the Hiraṇyavatī, agreeing in this with the Buddha's words in the Pāli version.

c12.s3.16

¹ *MPS*, p. 292; *Dīgha*, ii, p. 137.

c12.s3.17

² *Loc. cit.*

c12.s3.18

It seems reasonable that, in the comparatively short distance transversed, only two rivers were crossed, and that the Pāli version has apparently confused the names, wrongly applying the name Kakutthā to the river elsewhere called Hiraññavatī. The Sanskrit version and the Tibetan and Chinese versions based thereon seem to be more authentic in this respect than the Pāli version, which calls the same river by two different names at two different places in the same context.³ In fact the dirty river was called Kakutthā (in the Pāli version) or Kukustā (in the Sanskrit and other versions), and the pure, cool river on the other bank of which lay the Sāla grove of the Kosinārakā-Mallas, was the river Hiraññavatī, the Hiraṇyavatī of the Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese texts. Thus, these sources have preserved the historical fact that the river Hiraṇyavatī demarcated the boundaries between the Mallas of Pāvā and those of Kusinārā.

c12.s3.19

³ See also Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 133-46.

c12.s3.20

It is unfortunate that we are not sure about the outer boundaries of the Mallian territories. Here the sources are meagre and scholars differ with regard to their definite geographical situation. Rhys Davids states that the territory of these independent clans, "if we may trust the Chinese pilgrims, was on the mountain slopes to the east of the Sākiya-land, and to the north of the Vajjian Confederation".¹ Jayaswal suggests another location. "The Mallas," he says, "covered a large area to the south of the Śākyas and the east of the Vṛjis, from the district of Gorakhpur to that of Champaran ...".² He further remarks that "the lower Mallas are called Dakshiṇa Mallas in the *Sabhā-Parvan*, which places the higher Mallas next to Kosala".³ Kusinārā has been identified by Cunningham with the village of Kāsiā in the east of the Gorakhpur district,⁴ and this view has been strengthened by the discovery of a *stūpa* behind the *Nirvāṇa* temple.⁵ Near this village (Kāsiā), a copper plate has been found bearing the inscription "the copper plate of the parinirvāṇa-caitya" (*parinirvāṇa-caitya-tāmrapatra*).⁶ This identification thus appears to be correct, although V. A. Smith would prefer to place Kusinārā in Nepal, beyond the first range of hills.⁷

c12.s3.21

¹ Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 26.

c12.s3.22

² Jayaswal, *op. cit.*, p. 43.

c12.s3.23

³ *Ibid.*, p. 109 fn. 2 based on *Mbh.* (Poona Edn.), *Sabhā P.* chaps. xxx, 3; xxxi, 12; 27, 11.

c12.s3.24

⁴ *CAGIM*, pp. 430-3.

c12.s3.25

⁵ Law, *TAI*, pp. 257ff.

c12.s3.26

⁶ Cf. Law, *loc. cit.*; *PHAI*, pp. 126-7; H. Panday, *JBORS* (1920), vi, pp. 262-5.

c12.s3.27

⁷ Smith, *Early History of India* (4th edn.), p. 167 fn. 5; Smith, *JRAS*, 1902, p. 152.

c12.s3.28

Cunningham identifies Pāvā with modern Padraonā in the Gorakhpur district.⁸ This does not seem philologically possible. It must have been somewhere near Kāsiā, for the sick Buddha could not have travelled very far on foot in so short a time.⁹ Moreover, a section of people inhabiting these parts today still call themselves Mallas and claim to be Kṣatriyas.¹⁰ In H. Panday's opinion, "they tally with the ancient Mallas as they have the title of Mallas; they claim origin from the ancestors of recognized Kṣatriyas; the generality of them do not take consecrations prescribed for the twice born: these are all indicative of a close affinity between the present day Mallas and the Mallas of ancient fame".¹¹

c12.s3.29

⁸ *CAGIM*, pp. 430ff.

c12.s3.30

⁹ Cf. *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 125ff; H. Panday, *op. cit.*, p. 263.

c12.s3.31

¹⁰ H. Panday, *loc. cit.*; Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 51.

c12.s3.32

¹¹ H. Panday, *op. cit.*, p. 264.

c12.s3.33

Thus, the ancient Mallas should be located in the Gorakhpur district. They inhabited the land between the Licchavis of Vesālī and that of the Sakyas of Kapilavatthu, the Moriyas and Koliyas, to the east of the Kosalans, whose territory it probably was during the Brāhmaṇic period.¹ Kusinārā was not far to the south-east of Kapilavatthu, nor was Pāvā far from Vesāli.² To the south of the Mallas lay the territory of the Kālāmas of Kesaputta and the Ganges, and to the north lay the Himālayan hills bordering on their land.³ But at the present stage of our knowledge, their exact boundaries connot be ascertained.

c12.s3.34

¹ Cf. Political History, below, pp. 181ff.

c12.s3.35

² *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff; Pandey, *op. cit.*, pp. 141-2 and his map of the political divisions of Bihar in the 6th century B.C.

c12.s3.36

³ Cf. our map A; *cf. DPPN*, ii, p. 454.

c12.s3.37

The *Majjhima Nikāya*,⁴ *Arthaśāstra* ⁵ and other texts clearly show that the Mallas had a *saṅgha* or a republican form of government. Buddhaghosa also comments that the chief Mallas administered the state in turn and those who were free from such duties engaged in trade, sometimes undertaking long caravan journeys.⁶ The *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* also records the Buddha's enumeration of different assemblies, while in the Malla territory, and a specific reference occurs to *Khattiya-parisam* (*Kṣatriya-pariṣadaṁ*).⁷

c12.s3.38

⁴ i, p. 231.

c12.s3.39

⁵ xi, p. 376.

c12.s3.40

⁶ *Sum. Vil.*, ii, p. 569; cf. *DPPN*, ii, p. 454.

c12.s3.41

⁷ *MPS*, p. 234.

c12.s3.42

There is yet another very significant passage in the same text which points to the fact that the Malla heads of families constituted their assembly. When Ānanda was about to introduce the Mallians who had arrived at the scene with their families and retinue, after receiving the news of the Buddha's approaching death in their Assembly hall, he (Ānanda) thought that if he presented the Mallas of Kusinārā one by one the entire night would pass away. Therefore he decided, "Let me, now, cause the Mallas of Kusinārā to stand in groups, each family in a group, and so present them . . . saying—'Lord'! a Malla of such and such a name, with his children, his wives, his retinue and his friends, humbly bows down to the feet of the Exalted One.'"⁸

c12.s3.43

⁸ *Ibid.*, pp. 364-6.

c12.s3.44

This strongly suggests that the Mallas had an assembly consisting of the heads of families of the tribe, all of whom would be Kṣatriyas of the Vaśiṣṭha-*gotra*. They were all called *rājās* as were the Licchavis, or in Kauṭilya’s terms they “lived by the title of *rājā*”.¹ After the death of a certain member of the assembly, perhaps his eldest son took his father’s seat and he was probably initiated into the assembly after a ceremony at the *Makuṭa-bandhana*.² The *Makuṭa bandhana* appears, from its name, to have had some political significance for the ruling Mallas of Kusinārā apart from being a shrine. The Paveyya-Mallas ³ might also have had such a place for anointing the new members into the assembly.

c12.s3.45

¹ *Sum. Vil.*, iii, p. 971; *Arthaśāstra*, xi, pp. 376ff; *Cf.* Basham, *Wonder that was India*, p. 33.

c12.s3.46

² *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 163ff.

c12.s3.47

³ *DPPN*, ii, pp. 453.

c12.s3.48

Allusions to the seven fold conditions of prosperity of the Vajjians, expounded by the Buddha, are probably equally applicable to the Mallas, as they were a neighbouring people not much less influential in the League than the Licchavis. On the same analogy, it is likely that each branch of the Mallas had an assembly and a council, and that the latter, but not the former, met fairly frequently, carrying out the public administration of the republic.⁴ As we have more evidence for the Kusinārian branch, we only discuss them here; we assume that the Mallas of Pāvā had more or less similar institutions.

c12.s3.49

⁴ *Cf.* above, Licchavis, pp. 111ff; *cp.* Majumdar *et. al.*, *HCIP*, ii, chap. xvii.

c12.s3.50

When sent by the Buddha to inform the Mallas of Kusinārā of his approaching death, Ānanda found them in session in their assembly-hall, engaged in some public business.⁵ When Ānanda went yet again to inform them that the Buddha had passed away, they were deliberating in the same assembly-hall about the funeral ceremony of the Exalted One.⁶ From the context it appears that it was the General Assembly of the Kosinārakas which was in session, as they are reported to have been afflicted and grieved at this loss, along with their sons, daughters and wives. It is, however, not possible that all their sons, daughters and wives participated in the deliberations of the assembly. Probably after hearing of the Buddha’s death in the assembly-hall, they went to their respective homes and told their families. It was at this time that all grieved. There is no definite evidence as to the exact number of the members who constituted the General Assembly, but it is not impossible that they had a large assembly, all the members of which seldom attended the meetings. From the Jaina tradition¹ it appears that they had a much smaller body which carried out the decisions of the assembly. This council met frequently and in practice was the sovereign body of the republic.

c12.s3.51

⁵ *MPS*, p. 362.

c12.s3.52

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 406; *Dīgha*, ii, p. 159.

c12.s3.53

¹ *Nirayāvalikā*, ed. Warren, pp. 27ff; *Kalpa Sūtra*, sec. 128.

c12.s3.54

The Jaina texts give us reason to believe that the council of the Mallas consisted of nine members (*nava-Mallaī*).² It was the Council of 18 (*nava-Mallaī* and *nava-Lecchaī*) which was consulted by Ceḍaga when Kuṇīya-Ajātasattu was harassing the confederates.³ Again, at the death of the Nigantha Nāyaputta, it was the Council of nine Mallas and nine Licchavis who instituted the festival of lights to mark the passing away of Mahāvīra.⁴ This suggests that in the Vajjian Council the Mallas and the Licchavis had equal representation. But as we have seen, the Videhas⁵ and probably also the Nāyas⁶ were represented in this council, and at the death of the Buddha "eight Malla chiefs" (*aṭṭha Mallapāmokhā*)⁷ intended to bear his corpse. Yet more significant is a following passage in which only "four Malla chiefs" (*cattaro Mallapāmokhā*) proceeded to set fire to the funeral pyre of the Exalted One.⁸ This text suggests that the Mallas had a council of either eight or four.

c12.s3.55

² *Loc. cit.*

c12.s3.56

³ *Cf.* above, pp. 124ff.

c12.s3.57

⁴ *Kalpa Sūtra*, sec. 128.

c12.s3.58

⁵ *Cf.* above, pp. 81ff.

c12.s3.59

⁶ See below, pp. 165ff.

c12.s3.60

⁷ *MPS*, p. 414; *Dīgha*, ii, p. 160.

c12.s3.61

⁸ *MPS*, p. 424; *Dīgha*, ii, p. 163.

c12.s3.62

The figure of nine Mallas given in the Jaina texts, who formed with the nine Licchavis the Vajjian Council of 18, may be accepted only insofar as it refers to the council of nine Malla chiefs from both the Pāvā and Kusinārā branches. If we take the eight Mallian chiefs who lifted the dead body of the Buddha to be different from the four chieftains who set fire to the pyre, we could conclude that it was the smaller body of four chiefs who formed the council, as they performed the more important function. But both sets of chiefs are called *Mallapāmokhās* in the text. In Professor Aḷtekar's opinion, "the Malla state . . . had an executive of four members only, all of whom are known to have taken a prominent part at the funeral of the Buddha."⁹ This seems probable, but it is by no means certain.

c12.s3.63

⁹ Altekar, *State and Government*, p. 132.

c12.s3.64

If we assume that these four were among the nine Mallas of the Jainas, the corresponding council at Pāvā must have consisted of five. But all these hypotheses are extremely speculative since, as we have seen, it is by no means certain that the Jaina formula is strictly accurate, and other tribes may have been represented.¹

c12.s3.65

¹ *Cf.* above, p. 177.

c12.s3.66

The sources are silent about the length of the term of office. Like other members of the Vajjian Confederacy, they probably held their offices for life. Usually the meetings of their assembly and council took place in the assembly-hall (*santhāgāra*) built in the centre of the town.² Both branches of the Mallas had their own *santhāgāras*. When the Buddha arrived at Pāvā, the Mallas invited him to inaugurate their assembly-hall named Ubbhaṭaka (so-called because of its height, according to the commentator), which had not long been built.³ As we have already mentioned, the Mallas of Kusinārā had their own assembly-hall wherein Ānanda twice found them in session. The remains of the Buddha were also honoured in this hall for seven days after the cremation. It was in the same assembly-hall that the envoys of Magadha, Vesālī, Kapilavatthu, Allakappa, Rāmagāma, Pāvā, and Pipphalivana were received when they arrived at Kusinārā to claim their shares in the relics of the Buddha.⁴

c12.s3.67

² *MPS*, p. 420; *Dīgha*, ii, p. 164; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 145.

c12.s3.68

³ *Dīgha*, iii, pp. 207ff.

c12.s3.69

⁴ *Ibid.*, ii, pp. 164-6.

c12.s3.70

*Foreign Relations*

c12.s3.71

The Mallas had sovereign rights in their territory, and also had the power to exile or punish those who deserved it, as did the Magadhan King Ajātasattu, King Pasenadi of Kosala, and the Licchavis of Vesālī.⁵ But they were no longer a single political unit at the time of the Buddha, as we have already seen.⁶ This must have been due to trouble amongst the Mallas themselves, which probably could not be settled except by dividing the territory into two.⁷ The two branches of the Mallas do not appear to have had very cordial relations. A Buddhist tradition preserved in the Tibetan *Dulva* indicates that after the Buddha's death the Mallas of Pāvā were first to arrive at Kusinārā with their troops, and the words in which they advanced their claim to the relics were rude and uncordial, if not inimical.¹ Usually, however, the two branches seem to have lived in peace with each other.

c12.s3.72

⁵ *Majjhima*, i, p. 231.

c12.s3.73

⁶ *Loc. cit.*; *Arthaśāstra*, xi, p. 376.

c12.s3.74

⁷ *Cp.* Majumdar, *et. al.*, *HCIP*, ii, pp. 7-8.

c12.s3.75

¹ *Cf.* Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 145. "If you give us a portion, it is well, but if you will not give it, we will carry it off by force."

c12.s3.76

The fact that the Mallas were members of the Vajjian League suggests that they were on friendly terms with the Licchavis, the Videhas and the Nāyas. But there was some tension at times between the Mallas and the Licchavis, as is apparent from the story of *Mallarājaputta* Bandhula, who with his wife violated the *Abhisekha-pokkharaṇī* of the Licchavis. This involved some fighting.² The same *Jātaka* informs us that although a Malla,³ Bandhula was the general of the Kosalan forces. It was probably due to his own capability and his education at Takṣaśilā that he commanded such a high position in Kosala. This fact might also throw light on the Jaina belief that the Mallas, along with the Licchavis, were the *gaṇarājās* of Kāsi-Kosala. No disputes between the Kosalan kingdom and the Mallian republics are recorded, but this does not prove that the two had no quarrels.

c12.s3.77

² *Jāt.*, iv, pp. 148ff.

c12.s3.78

³ Incidently his wife is named Mallikā.

c12.s3.79

We have already discussed the eastward migrations of the Licchavis and their occupation of what had been the kingdom of Janaka during the Brāhmaṇa period.⁴ We also noted that Videgha Māthava led his people across the Sadānīrā to the east, and that the river appears to have divided the territories of Kosala and Videha. The Mallas, like the Licchavis and the Sakyas, were a new people in the region.⁵ It is feasible to suggest that, along with the Licchavis or a little earlier, the Mallas also moved towards the south from the Himālayan foothills and occupied parts of what had been Kosalan territory during the Brāhmaṇic period. In the Buddhist texts we find the Mallas occupying a tract of land between the Videhas of Mithilā and the Kosalan kingdom.⁶ It may be that Bandhula, a Malla of Kusinārā, offered his services to Kosala with a view to keeping the Kosalan king on good terms with the Mallas. The *Bhaddasāla Jātaka* further informs us that after the general had been treacherously killed along with his sons by King Pasenadi, the latter appointed Bandhula’s sister’s son, Dīgha-Kārāyana, as the commander of his armies. This man later betrayed the king to avenge his uncle and offered the royal insignia to Viḍūḍabha. Pasenadi fled and subsequently died outside the gates of Rājagaha.¹ The story points not only to the close relations between the republic and the kingdom, but also to the political intrigues going on between the two. That Mallikā after her husband Bandhula’s death, is allowed to go to her home at Kusinārā, and that her sister-in-law’s son is appointed to the place of her late husband² should not necessarily be interpreted literally. It might suggest that some Mallians, in order to avenge the death of Bandhula, allied themselves with Viḍūḍabha against king Pasenadi and the alliance achieved its purpose in Viḍūḍabha’s accession to power and Pasenadi’s death.³ We know of no source which might indicate that the Mallas were ever controlled by the king of Kosala. On the other hand, the *Majjhima Nikāya*⁴ shows that the Mallas were sovereign within their territories, as was the Kosalan king Pasenadi.

c12.s3.80

⁴ *Cf.* above, pp. 89ff.

c12.s3.81

⁵ The Malloi people, whom Alexander encountered in the Panjab, are generally identified with the Mālavas of later Indian sources, but in fact the name is closer to Malla. It is possible that those western Mallas were the original stock, from which the eastern Mallas broke off.

c12.s3.82

⁶ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff; *cf. CAGIM*, map xi, pp. 444-5; Basham, *Ājīvikas*, map.

c12.s3.83

¹ *Jāt.*, iv, pp. 150ff.

c12.s3.84

² *Jāt.*, iv, p. 151.

c12.s3.85

³ There is yet another possibility, that the traditions of Bandhula and Kārāyana have some connection with Malla in the meaning of wrestler, as they served as mercenaries outside their tribe.

c12.s3.86

⁴ i, p. 231.

c12.s3.87

The *Nirayāvalikā* and other Jaina sources inform us that king Ceḍaga of Vesālī, who was the head of the Vajjian Confederacy, deliberated with the Mallian and the Licchavian *gaṇarājās* before the fight between the Magadhan king and the Vajjian Confederacy took place.⁵ Thus, the Mallas were hostile to the Magadhan king and fought against him with other confederates of the Vajjian League.⁶ But eventually they were defeated at the hands of Kuṇiya-Ajātasattu and as a result lost much of their power, at least in external affairs. Jinadāsa’s *Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi* tells us a somewhat different story. The chieftains of the confederate armies, demoralized by two defeats, abandoned Ceḍaga and returned to their own cities.⁷

c12.s3.88

⁵ *Cf.* above, pp. 124ff.

c12.s3.89

⁶ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff; *cf.* above, pp. 127ff.

c12.s3.90

⁷ *Āvaśyaka Cūrṇī*, ii, pp. 172ff; *cf.* Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 70.

c12.s3.91

However, after its break-up by Ajātasattu the Vajjian Confederacy virtually disappeared as a political force.¹ The republics like that of the Mallas were probably left to govern their own affairs, but they had little political importance after this long, drawn-out war.²

c12.s3.92

¹ Bhandarkar, *Car. Lecs.*, p. 79.

c12.s3.93

² Basham, *Ājīvikas*, pp. 69-74.

Linked texts (6)

Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra — Sanskrit
Kalpasūtra — Bhadrabāhu, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit
Majjhimanikāya — Pāli
Nirayāvaliyāo — Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit