Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c13.s2.36

c13.s2.36

Thus there is little doubt that the Sakyan state was a non-monarchical political community, as Rhys Davids had suggested, and not a monarchical one ruled by a hereditary king, as D. R. Bhandarkar wrongly claimed. The instances quoted support the view of Majumdar, that the "Śākyas like the Licchavis had a *number of rājas*, who were probably members of the supreme assembly ruling over the state".¹⁰ Apart from the Sakyan kings the *Kuṇāla Jātaka* also refers to *uparājās*,¹¹ or viceroys who sallied forth against the Koliyas. This makes it probable that the Sakyan *rājās’* eldest sons were designated *uparājās* like the Licchavian *rājās* and took their seats in the assembly after the deaths of their fathers.¹ Thus the Sakyas appear to present striking similarities with the Licchavis of Vesālī.²