Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c13.s1.14

c13.s1.14

The claim of Malalasekera, which is also supported by Jayaswal ¹ and H. C. Raychaudhuri ² in addition to Watters, cannot, however, be lightly dismissed, though none of the scholars mentioned has investigated the question thoroughly. The passages quoted above appear to show that the Sakyas were subordinate to Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, and that they probably "rendered to him homage and respectful salutation." However, if the sources are examined closely, the position of the Sakyas emerges clearly as that of an independent people who were not completely subordinate to the king of Kosala. They might well have been afraid of his power, just as the Licchavis, Mallas, Videhas and Nāyas were probably afraid of the ambitious monarch Ajātasattu of Magadha. That the Sakyas were independent is shown by their presence at Kusinārā at the last scene of the Buddha's life. They claimed a share of the relics on the grounds that the deceased was a Sakyan, the pride of the Sakyans.³ That the Nāyas and the Videhas who were republican peoples did not claim a share suggests that the Licchavis, the most powerful confederate of the Vajjian League, had supreme control over their territories. If the Videhas and the Nāyas were absolutely independent there seems to be no reason that could possibly have stopped them from that claim, save of course that they may not have cared for the Buddha, which even minor clans like the Koliyas of Rāmagāma, the Bulis of Allakappa and the Moriyas of Pipphalivana advanced.⁴ This indicates that the Sakyas, like the Mallas, were technically independent and not legally subordinate to the Kosalan king.