Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c15.s2.t2: Form of Government

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c15.s2.t2

Language
English

Form of Government

c15.s2.t2.1

There is no reference to the Bulis in the *Aṅguttara*, the *Saṁyutta*, and the *Majjhima Nikāya*, or any other Buddhist text. Only in the *Dīgha Nikāya* do they receive a mere mention.⁸ Not even the elaborate and legendary *Jātakas* refer to either the Bulis or to their town. The *Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā* gives an account of the *Allakappa-raṭṭha* and a king referred to as *Allakappa-rājā*.⁹ But there seems little truth in this last account. Allakappa can hardly be the proper name of the king. Probably it was a title by which the chief ruler of the Allakappa country was called, as the king of the Videhas was referred to as Videha,¹ and that of the Koliyas was called Koliya-*rājā*.² Moreover, if the government of the Allakappa country had been monarchical, the messenger who was sent to Kusinārā to claim their share in the relics of the Buddha would have spoken as an envoy of the Bulian king with proper titles, as did the ambassador from the Magadhan king.³

c15.s2.t2.2

⁸ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 165ff; *MPS*, pp. 434ff; Rockhill pp. 145ff.

c15.s2.t2.3

⁹ i, pp. 161ff.

c15.s2.t2.4

¹ ^1 *Cf.* above, pp. 147ff.

c15.s2.t2.5

² ^2 *Cf.* above, pp. 213ff.

c15.s2.t2.6

³ ^3 *MPS*, p. 434.

c15.s2.t2.7

In the account of the sharing of the relics of the Buddha, the striking similarity in the manner of the claim advanced by the Bulis to that of other republican peoples makes it highly probable that the Bulis had a republican organization. The text reads that "the Bulis of Allakappa heard the news that the Exalted One had passed away at Kusinārā. And the Bulis of Allakappa [not the king of the Bulis] sent a messenger to the Mallas, saying, 'The Exalted One was a Khattiya and so are we. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Exalted One. Over the remains of the Exalted One will we put up a sacred cairn, and in their honour will we celebrate a feast'."⁴

c15.s2.t2.8

⁴ ^4 *Dīgha*, ii, p. 165.

c15.s2.t2.9

That the Bulis claimed such a share is confirmed from other versions of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* in Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese.⁵ In this respect they are better documented than the Brāhmaṇas of Veṭhadīpa. The location of the latter, according to the Pāli version, remains vague, as we do not know of any island of that name.⁶

c15.s2.t2.10

⁵ ^5 *MPS*, p. 434.

c15.s2.t2.11

⁶ ^6 *Cf.* Appx. E, pp. 248-49.

c15.s2.t2.12

*Government and Organization*

c15.s2.t2.13

The combined testimony of the *Dīgha Nikāya*, the *Buddhavaṁsa*,⁷ and the *Dhammapada Commentary* shows that the Bulis had no king in the sense that the Magadhans and the Kosalans had. On the other hand, they had a chief or president, like the other republics probably chosen for life, who was assisted by a council and an assembly. We have no positive evidence for the existence of the council. That an assembly existed at Allakappa, however, can be inferred from the *Dīgha Nikāya*.¹ It is beyond doubt that the messenger sent to Kusinārā, if not sent by a king, was sent by important Bulians who must have formed such administrative bodies as a council and an assembly. Smaller republics, like the Nāyas and the Koliyas, had such institutions, and the case of the Bulis of Allakappa was probably the same.

c15.s2.t2.14

⁷ ^7 Chap. xxviii, 2.

c15.s2.t2.15

¹ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 165ff.

c15.s2.t2.16

According to the *Dhammapada Commentary*, the extent of Allakapparaṭṭha was only ten leagues, as was the Veṭhadīparaṭṭha, or more accurately the Droṇagrāma settlement of the Dhūmragotra Brāhmaṇas,² ruled by Veṭhadīpaka *rājā*.³ We believe that the kings of Allakappa and Veṭhadīpa-Droṇagrāma were no more than chiefs, and, in the case of the former at least, only the head of a republic. This was also the case with the Koliyarājā of the Koliyas.⁴ The same source further informs us of the intimate relations that existed between the two tribes. This would suggest that the two territories were near each other,⁵ thus revealing the weakness of Kauṭilya's *maṇḍala* theory, according to which they should have been natural enemies.⁶

c15.s2.t2.17

² *Cf.* below, pp. 248-49, Appx. E.

c15.s2.t2.18

³ *Dhammapadaṭṭha*, i, p. 161.

c15.s2.t2.19

⁴ *Cf.* above, pp. 213ff.

c15.s2.t2.20

⁵ *Dhammapadaṭṭha*, i, p. 161ff; *PHAI*, p. 193.

c15.s2.t2.21

⁶ *Cf.* above, pp. 123ff.

c15.s2.t2.22

We have no evidence regarding their internal administration and relations with other tribes. Nor can anything be said about the true nature of their relations with the Veṭhadīpaka -Droṇagrāmakas. Like the Koliyas and the Sakyas they might have been normally on good terms, with occasional disputes and feuds. Probably both the Bulis and the Veṭhadīpaka-Droṇagrāmakas were followers of the Buddha, and hence they obtained a mention in the Buddhist sources.

Linked texts (4)