Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c15.s4.t2: Geographical Location

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c15.s4.t2

Language
English

Geographical Location

c15.s4.t2.1

The Dālbhyas who appear in the *Ṛg Veda* are referred to as settled on the banks of the Gomati,⁶ which Raychaudhuri suggests might be the Gumti which flows between the Ganges and the Ghāgrā.⁷ But it seems strange that the Ṛg Vedic text should refer to such an eastern river. Even the Ganges is referred to only a few times in the *Ṛg Veda*. In Monier Williams' opinion, the Gomati referred to in some hymns fell into the Indus.⁸ It was probably in that region that the Keśins of the *Ṛg Veda* were settled. Probably during the later Vedic period they moved to the Pāñcāla region, from where a branch of them moved further eastwards and settled at Kesaputta, sometime before the days of the Buddha.

c15.s4.t2.2

⁶ *ṚV*, v, 61.

c15.s4.t2.3

⁷ *PHAI*, p. 193.

c15.s4.t2.4

⁸ *ṚV*, viii, 24, 30; x, 75, 10; *cf.* Monier Williams, *Skt. - Eng. Dic., s.v.* Gomatī under go.

c15.s4.t2.5

The chief town of the Kālāmas, Kesaputta, is referred to as a *nigama* of the Kosalan kingdom in the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*.¹ Then we could locate Kesaputta *nigama* of the Kālāmas somewhere between the territory bounded by the river Gomatī to the west, and the river Ghāgrā to the northeast, with the Ganges to the south. Kesaputta may have been anywhere in this region south of the Moriyas or of the Mallas. We prefer to locate the Kālāmas to the south of the Mallas, below the river Ghāgrā, to the north of the Ganges and northeast of Banaras,² as such a location is consistent with Kesaputta’s being a Kosalan township. It would place them just on the borders of the other republican communities which seem to have occupied a large territory, bounded on the west by the directly governed part of the Kosalan kingdom.³ The exact location of the Kālāmas cannot be ascertained, owing to the lack of data.

c15.s4.t2.6

¹ *Aṅguttara*, i, p. 188.

c15.s4.t2.7

² *Cf. CAGIM*, map xi, pp. 444-5.

c15.s4.t2.8

³ *Cf.* our map A.

c15.s4.t2.9

*Status and Government*

c15.s4.t2.10

The *Aṅguttara Nikāya* and its commentary are the only known sources which allude to the status of the Kālāmas and indicate that they had a republican form of government. The former text says that once the Buddha, while touring amongst the Kālāmas and accompanied by a great body of monks, stayed “at the *nigama* of the Kālāmas, named Kesaputta”.⁴ In general, *nigama* ⁵ seems to imply a settlement somewhat smaller than a *nagara* or *pura*,⁶ and the use of this term indicates that they were quite a small people, perhaps not much more than a thousand families. In Malalasekera’s opinion Kālāma was probably the name of a *gotra* or family.⁷ This evidence would show that the region occupied by them was limited to the countryside around their town. As they are placed in the Kosalan country by the text, there is no doubt that they were under the supervision of the Kosalan king, as the Bhaggas were under king Udayana.

c15.s4.t2.11

⁴ *Aṅguttara*, i, p. 188.

c15.s4.t2.12

⁵ *Cp. nigama-sabhā, Ep. Ind.*, viii, p. 82; xv, p. 263; *cf.* Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, pp. 144-7.

c15.s4.t2.13

⁶ *Cf. Mahāvastu*, iii, p. 102; tr., iii, p. 101 fn. 1; *cp.*, I. B. Horner, *The Book of the Discipline*, iv, p. 379, fn. 6.

c15.s4.t2.14

⁷ *DPPN*, i, p. 581.

c15.s4.t2.15

Raychaudhuri, on the authority of a passage in the *Saṁyutta Nikāya* where Pasenadi, the king of Kosala, is spoken of as ruling at the head of a group of five *rājās*,¹ suggested that the ruler of the Kālāmas of Kesaputta was one of them.² But the difficulty in accepting such a view is very great; neither the *Aṅguttara Nikāya* nor the commentary refers to a king of the Kālāmas.³ On the other hand, when the Buddha preached at Kesaputta, he referred to the Kālāmas always in the plural, and when he was directly talking to them he addressed them only as Kālāmas. Moreover, the Kālāmas were too small a tribe to be represented on the council of five which Pasenadi headed. We do not know of any such representative body of tribes in the monarchies from our sources, though in the republican confederation of the Vajjians such a principle was followed more or less. Raychaudhuri’s claim that such a council existed in Kosala is extremely dubious and we reject it on the grounds that there is no other evidence that representation on a tribal basis was a feature of ancient Indian monarchies. Morever, even if this was the case in Kosala, the Kālāmas were too insignificant a people to figure in the royal council of five; and finally they had no king as such. The reference cited by Raychaudhuri presumably implies a group of five tributary kings or vassals.

c15.s4.t2.16

¹ *Saṁyutta*, i, p. 155.

c15.s4.t2.17

² *Cf. PHAI*, p. 99; H. C. Raychaudhuri, *Indian, Culture*, ii, p. 808.

c15.s4.t2.18

³ *Aṅguttara*, i, pp. 188ff; *Man. Pūr.*, i, pp. 418ff.

c15.s4.t2.19

Jayaswal and Bhandarkar have both discussed the question of *nigama*, and the latter has given it a great deal of attention.⁴ We do not agree with either in all their views, but agree insofar as the Kālāmas ruled their town through government by discussion. The commentary says that the Kālāmas were Khattiyas.⁵ Probably the Kālāma-Khattiya elders formed an assembly which chose a few members who carried out the administration of the town. The process of government should have been fairly simple, probably simpler than the present Indian *tahsīl* town municipalities. There was probably a *santhāgāra* at Kesaputta which was the political, social and religious centre of the *nigama* community, and probably the simple local judicial cases were also tried in this town hall.⁶

c15.s4.t2.20

⁴ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 244; Bhandarkar, *Car. Lecs.*, pp. 174-8.

c15.s4.t2.21

⁵ *Man. Pūr.*, i, p. 418.

c15.s4.t2.22

⁶ *Cf.* Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 20; *CHI*, i, p. 177.

c15.s4.t2.23

There are only a few scattered references to the Kālāmas, to their famous philosopher Āḷāra, the teacher of the Buddha before the latter attained *Sambodhi*, and to Bharaṇḍu the Kālāma, once a co-disciple of the Buddha.¹ We do not know if the Kālāmas retained the independence of their *nigama* for long after Pasenadi died.² The fact that they did not claim a share in the relics of the Buddha suggests that soon after Viḍūḍabha captured the throne from his father, he annexed the territory of the Kālāmas of Kesaputta to the directly-governed Kosalan kingdom. But it is not improbable that they were indifferent towards Buddhism; if they were in fact connected with the Keśins of the *Brāhmaṇa* literature it is likely that they would be more sympathetic towards Brāhmaṇism. The only early source mentioning the Kālāmas is the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*. Their not being mentioned in the *Jātakas* suggests that they no longer existed as an ethnic *nigama* after the death of Pasenadi.

c15.s4.t2.24

¹ *Aṅguttara*, i, pp. 276ff; *Man. Pūr.*, i, pp. 458ff; cf. *DPPN*, i, p. 296; ii, p. 363.

c15.s4.t2.25

² Cf. *PHAI*, p. 99; Law, *TAI*, p. 289.

Linked texts (7)