Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c15.s3.t2: Status and Government

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c15.s3.t2

Language
English

Status and Government

c15.s3.t2.1

There are a number of references to the Bhaggas of Suṁsumāragiri in connection with the visits of the Buddha in the early part of his career.⁵ Bhagga appears to be the name of both the people and the land they occupied,⁶ including their capital town Suṁsumāragiri with its surrounding region. Some of the *Vinaya* rules for the monks were laid down there,⁷ and there are other scattered references to the Bhaggas and their country.¹ The *Majjhima Nikāya* also contains at least three *suttas* that were delivered at Suṁsumāra Hill.² The *Dhonasākha Jātaka* was also narrated at the Bhaggan capital.³ Moreover, there are a few references to them in the *Saṁyutta Nikāya*⁴ and other sources.⁵

c15.s3.t2.2

⁵ *Aṅguttara*, ii, p. 61; iii, pp. 295-7; iv, pp. 85, 228ff; v, pp. 228-9, 232; *Majjhima*, ii, p. 91; etc.; *cf.* *DPPN*, ii, p. 1172.

c15.s3.t2.3

⁶ *Majjhima*, ii, p. 91; *Jāt.*, iii, p. 157; *cf.* *DPPN*, ii, p. 345.

c15.s3.t2.4

⁷ *Vinaya*, v, p. 145.

c15.s3.t2.5

¹ *Ibid.*, ii, pp. 127; iv, pp. 115, 198.

c15.s3.t2.6

² *Majjhima*, i, pp. 95ff, 323ff; ii, pp. 91ff.

c15.s3.t2.7

³ *Jāt.*, iii, pp. 157ff.

c15.s3.t2.8

⁴ *Saṁyutta*, iii, p. 1; iv, p. 116.

c15.s3.t2.9

⁵ *Pap. Sūd.*, i, p. 292; *Sārattha.*, ii p. 181. *Dhammapadaṭṭha.*, iii, pp. 137ff.

c15.s3.t2.10

Most of the sources mentioned above merely strengthen the evidence for the existence of the Bhaggas and their chief town Suṁsumāragiri at the time of the Buddha, without giving much information about their political institutions. Yet one significant fact emerges from the study of the Bhaggas, that they had no hereditary kings, like the Vatsas, the Kosalans and the Magadhans. This suggests that they were a non-minarchical community like the Bulis, Moriyas, Koliyas, etc. However, they were not one of the claimants for the remains of the Buddha at his death. Hence, the Bhaggas might not have been absolutely free, other possible alternatives are that they were either too far away and had not heard the news, or that they were not very sympathetic to Buddhism. The mention in the *Majjhima Nikāya*,⁶ the *Vinaya Piṭaka*,⁷ and the *Dhonasākha Jātaka*⁸ of the Vatsan prince Bodhi's having a palace called Koṅkaṇḍa built for himself at Suṁsumāragiri could suggest the control and influence of the Vatsan king on the Bhaggas.

c15.s3.t2.11

⁶ *Majjhima*, ii, pp. 91ff; *cf.* *Pap. Sūd.*, ii, p. 739.

c15.s3.t2.12

⁷ *Vinaya*, ii, p. 127; iii, p. 199.

c15.s3.t2.13

⁸ *Jāt.*, iii, p. 157.

c15.s3.t2.14

The *Jātaka* tells us that the architect who built this palace was blinded so that he could not build another like it.⁹ The *Dhammapada* Commentary, however, dramatically narrates that the architect had been warned of this by Bodhi's friend, and that he escaped on a magic bird.¹⁰ We do not believe that there is any truth in either version, which contains a widespread theme in folk tradition, or that such a magnificant palace even existed at Suṁsumāragiri. But the significant point, attested by almost all the sources, is that a Vatsan prince lived at the Bhaggan capital, apparently as a viceroy of his father. The texts do not explicitly state this, but the fact that the prince lived there, and erected a building at the Bhaggan capital, would strongly suggest that the Bhaggas were not free—at least in their external affairs and foreign policy. It is possible then that they were a republican tribe with modified independence.

c15.s3.t2.15

⁹ *Ibid.*, pp. 157-8.

c15.s3.t2.16

¹⁰ *Dhammapadaṭṭha.*, iii, pp. 134ff.

c15.s3.t2.17

As usual the commentaries give a fanciful etymology of the chief city of the Bhaggas. They state that it was so called because when it was being built a crocodile (*suṁsumāra*) made a noise in a lake nearby.¹ The late *Apadāna* mentions the Bhaggas with the Kārushas in a list of tribes.² This throws no light on the republican institutions of this political community, but does show that the Bhaggas were remembered as a separate ethnic group. Later generations may have remembered this tribe, because of its internal independence and republican institutions, even though it was subordinate to the Vatsan king.

c15.s3.t2.18

¹ *Pap. Sūd.*, i, p. 292; *Sārattha.*, ii, p. 181.

c15.s3.t2.19

² *Apadāna*, ii, p. 359.

c15.s3.t2.20

We know nothing of their assembly and the council, but we presume that they had such bodies like the other republican tribes of the time. Nothing is known of their administration of public business and dispensation of justice. Probably they appointed a chief who presided over the Bhaggan assembly and carried out the administration of the republic with the help of a few Bhagga elders. It is likely that they did not retain their freedom long and fell to the King of the Vatsas, as did the Sakyas to the Kosalan king. We hear of no incidents or quarrels of the Bhaggas with neighbouring peoples. This may be because they had already been assimilated into the kingdom of Udayana, as the Buddha visited Suṁsumāragiri only in the early years of his preaching career. But possibly they lost freedom during the reign of Udayana's successor for, as we have shown, from the distribution of the Buddha's relics we cannot disprove that they were independent at the time. (However, as an independent republican tribe, the Bhaggas vanished from the map of India about the time the Buddha breathed his last.)

Linked texts (13)