Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c16: Chapter Eleven: Conclusion

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c16

Language
English

Chapter Eleven: Conclusion

c16.2

In the preceding pages we have traced as far as we can the origin, development, organization, and administration of the republican and quasi-republican institutions in ancient India. Great lacunae and serious uncertainties remain, but the main outlines of the picture may be suggested. Many of the statements below, given in summary form, are themselves hypothetical, and even this outline is largely based on inference.

c16.3

During the early Vedic period there existed, apart from the limited monarchies, at least four different forms of aristocratic government, and there was a more or less gradual development in these constitutions. The *viś*, or the archaic assembly, was the earliest democratic institution of Vedic times, and it was responsible for the “choice”, rather than the “election”, of the head of its political community. The *sabhā*-ruled states were governed by the most influential men of the tribe who possessed supreme authority within their territory. In this type of aristocracy the *sabhā* was the only political institution. The *sabhā-samiti* political communities were more developed and were the most democratic of the Vedic aristocracies. The political communities in which the nobles ruled in conjunction with the *samiti* appear, in point of time, later than the other three varieties. The nobles seem to have developed from the councillors of the *sabhā*-ruled communities, and the *samiti* was primarily a refined and crystallized *viś*. The nobles-*samiti* government marked the last stage in the constitutional development of the Vedic aristocracies, and it provided the transitional phase from which developed the Brāhmaṇic monarchies, thus falling into the pattern of already existing monarchies. Monarchies held the stage during the entire later Vedic or Brāhmaṇic period.

c16.4

It is not unlikely that the northeastern republicans, the Licchavis, Mallas, Sakyas, etc., and probably also the later republics of northwestern India, were offshoots of the early Vedic aristocrats. Their constitutions were an adaptation of those of the latter, some of whom had migrated to the east along the Himālayan foothills, following the tracks of the Videhan national hero.

c16.5

There is no evidence for the suggestion that the word *gaṇa* in the Vedic texts denoted a republic, nor is there any weight in the argument that the *vidatha* was the "earliest folk-assembly" of the Indo-Aryans. On the other hand, there is some evidence to show that *gaṇa* meant a collection or troop, and that the *vidatha* was a local synod responsible mainly for the performance of the religious rites and ceremonies of the settlement.

c16.6

There is no historical basis for the assumption on the part of most noted historians that the Vajjian Confederacy consisted of eight republican states. The sources give no support to this generally accepted theory, but indicate that there was no fixed number of confederates, though there was certainly a League of the Licchavis, Mallas, Videhas and Nāyas with its centre at Vesāli. There is no reason to believe in the complicated system of justice attributed to the Vesālians by Buddhaghosa, any more than there is truth in his statement that the Moriyas of Pipphalivana were an offshoot of the Sakyas. Similarly we have shown the weaknesses in the argument of some scholars that the Sakyas were monarchical and under the control of the Kosalan kings during the Buddha's lifetime.

c16.7

None of the theories attributing a non-Indian home to the Licchavis is satisfactory, and we have endeavoured to show that they were an Indo-Aryan tribe. That these republican states, with one exception, disappeared soon after the death of the Buddha has also been shown.

c16.8

There is sufficient evidence to show that republicanism did not die out altogether in ancient India after the disappearance of the northeastern republics. Republican ideas, attitudes, and practices survived until long after the days of the Buddha and Mahāvīra. The classical historians refer to a number of northwestern republics during the 4th century B.C., and numerous inscriptions and coins from northwest and western India clearly show that such republics flourished, at least until the date when the Allahabad Pillar Inscription of Samudra Gupta was engraved. It is probable that the democratic spirit of the early Vedic aristocracies of the northwest did not completely vanish under the monarchies of the Brāhmaṇic period. This spirit seems to have assumed concrete form again, as soon as the sceptre of strong monarchies wavered. Perhaps those Vedic aristocrats who were not as adventurous and freedom-loving as their northeastern counterparts and did not dare to leave their hearths and homes, but submitted to the rule of a king, later raised their heads again and set up republican states in the Panjab and Sind region. But the republics of the Buddhist period, as such, had disappeared for good, with the sole exception of the Licchavis. They reappeared after about eight hundred years and were to become one of the chief factors in establishing Candra Gupta I on the throne of Pāṭaliputra. But then, in all probability they had adopted a monarchical constitution.

c16.9

'Did free institutions fail because there was too much monarchy, or was there too much monarchy because free institutions had failed?' This is the question asked by Larsen in connection with the fall of the Greek and Roman republics. In his opinion, Roman history to a considerable extent favours the latter suggestion.¹ However, our study of Indian history does not provide a straight answer to this question. For about 500 years of the early Vedic period republican institutions and monarchies flourished side by side. There is no evidence to show that monarchies defeated the aristocracies in that period, though there is ground for the view that the nobles-*samiti* aristocracy would tend to give rise to monarchy because an individual noble could acquire highest power and prestige within the college of rulers.

c16.10

¹ Larsen, *op. cit.*, p. 161.

c16.11

The emphasis on the person of the king and the divinity attributed to him in the *Brāhmaṇa* texts manifest the preference of the age for strong individual rulers. The concept of *varṇāśrama* and the king's supreme duty to preserve this *dharma* was gaining ground, and reveals the spirit of the times. In fact the entire Vedic literature is so full of respect for the *rājās* that a non-specialist would hardly believe that there were any republics in the Vedic period. The *ṛṣi*-composers of the texts designated the gods as *rājās* and *samrāṭs*, perhaps with the view to enhancing the peoples' reverence for their earthly rulers. The Brāhmaṇic writers are unanimously ill-disposed towards the republicans, and the Licchavis, Sakyas, Mallas, etc., are never even mentioned in their voluminous texts. This would tend to show that at least during the Brāhmaṇic period republican institutions failed because there was "too much monarchy".

c16.12

There is yet another interpretation, which we prefer, that not all the republicans submitted to the change, but that some of them moved eastwards in order to preserve their political system. This manifests itself in the republican institutions that flourished during the Buddhist period. At the same time, it is not unreasonable to suggest that some of the tribes of the old school, though they submitted to the monarchies of the Brāhmaṇic period, reverted back to their original constitutions as soon as the monarchies in power wavered in the post-Vedic period. This would explain the background of the republican peoples who are mentioned by the classical historians. Alexander's historians mention more republican than monarchical governments in the northwest during the 4th century B.C. Later inscriptional and numismatic evidence further attests to the existence of republican communities at least up to 385 A.D. (the date of the Allahabad Pillar Inscription). From this comes the evident fact that both republics and monarchies existed simultaneously.

c16.13

In the northeast of India also the republicans occupied a vast area between the Himālayas in the north, the Ganges and the Magadhan kingdom in the south, Kāsi-Kosala in the west, and in the east as far as the Aryan civilization had penetrated. There was indeed pressure from kings such as Ajātasattu of Magadha and Viḍūḍabha of Kosala, but it is doubtful that the republics fell solely because of the aggressive actions of these ambitious kings. The mighty army of Magadha could not subdue the Vajjian Confederacy by the sheer force of their arms, even in a decade, but had also to resort to diplomacy, to sowing seeds of dissension. Through their clever, deceitful and unscrupulous politician Vassakāra, who did not hesitate to employ the meanest tricks, the Magadhans achieved the downfall of the powerful League which could not be defeated in the battlefield. The success of Vassakāra is evidence, not so much of the triumph of ministerial diplomacy, but rather as a sad commentary on the inherent weaknesses of the republican system.

c16.14

The Sakyas and Koliyas also did not fall easy prey to the ruthless Viḍūḍabha, and it is certain that it took the Kosalan king several years before he almost completely destroyed the republic which had given India one of her noblest sons.

c16.15

The inherent weaknesses of republicanism, clearly noticed by Kauṭilya and the compilers of the *Mahābhārata*, were also chief factors leading to the downfall of the republics. Perhaps an even more important factor in their downfall than the aggression of the monarchies, was the discord among the administrators of the republics themselves. Thus, their disappearance may be primarily attributed to the discord and disharmony among the republicans, and the comparatively lengthy process of decision-making and putting it into effect. The imperialist actions of monarchies may be viewed as a secondary cause.

c16.16

Another significant point which has impressed us very strongly in this connection, is that most of the states of antiquity which evolved republican institutions appear to have inhabited unfavourable geographical terrain, e.g., hilly regions, marshy lands, forests, etc. Athens was built on a hill, Rome was founded on seven hills, the Sakyas, Licchavis, Mallas, etc., all inhabited comparatively difficult regions. So did the Yaudheyas, Mālavas and Kṣūdrakas of the northwest of India. Among the German tribal republics the Chattis had their settlement in a forested, hilly region, and the case was similar with the Chaudi and Suebi Confederacy which occupied the marshy, forested and hilly Suebian land. It seems that their difficult geographical location and harsh climate inspired in all these peoples a martial zeal and democratic spirit unsurpassed by that of the docile subjects of monarchies.

c16.17

While their geographical location and climate made them more adventurous and better fighting men, it also inculcated in the republican citizens and leaders a false pride in their individual importance which could be exploited against their own interests as was most certainly the case with the Vajjians. Each member of the assembly was called a *rājā*, but none had the individual power to mould the decisions of the assembly. It is probable that some councillors or leaders of the republic either wished to rise above the rest and become virtual rulers, as was the case in the nobles-*samiti* aristocracies of the Vedic period, or that some preferred to betray the republic for their selfish interests, thus becoming lieutenants of a king. The latter could offer these betrayers substantial rewards either in the form of material gains or by entrusting them with important state offices,¹ which they could not expect while the republic continued and prospered. Personal ambition and party politics will also be remembered for the part they played in the downfall of the Roman and Athenian republics.

c16.18

¹ *E.g.* Bandhula. *Cf.* above, pp. 179ff.

c16.19

In addition, most of the republics in the ancient world, and particularly the Indian republics, had a clan origin and clan loyalty.

c16.20

There were occasional feuds amongst the republics themselves; though they were of minor importance they nonetheless weakened the republican position. To this we would attribute the fall of the Sakyas and Koliyas. If, on the other hand, all the republics of the time could have mustered their forces together against Magadha or Kosala, the monarchies would have had no chance to get the better of the republican federation.

c16.21

The area covered by each republic was comparatively small, and in those more difficult times geography led to isolation, as means of communication were rare and bad. The trend of the time was towards stronger monarchies. The Magadhan kingdom was expanding at the cost of its neighbours, and Aṅga had already been annexed. Similar was the case with Kosala, which had gained control over Kāsī, though about 200 years earlier the growth of the republican states had been at the cost of monarchies. Circumstances in northeastern India were not favourable for the prosperity of republicanism after the time of the Buddha, though this by no means implies that the Buddha's presence was the cause of republican prosperity.

c16.22

We have brought to a close our study of the Vedic aristocracies and the Buddhist republics. In both constitutions we may notice the application of the same principles; both believed in the "unwisdom of the multitude,"¹ in the justice and necessity of limiting privileges to comparatively few, and in letting them rule the rest of the population as subjects excluded from the rights of citizenship. Both had the same scheme of government in which the mean was struck between the single dominion of a tyrant and the sovereignty of a large assembly, by the creation of a council, where a few able men, acting in concert, were to direct the policy and administer the state.

c16.23

¹ Whibley, *op. cit.*, p. 187.

c16.24

At this point we must conclude our study of republican institutions in the India of the *Vedas* and the Buddha. We hope our efforts have been successful in presenting a clear historical survey which reveals some new facts relevant to this often vague and misunderstood topic. Our work has entailed a thorough re-examination and reinterpretation of the relevant texts. Yet often the ancient works have failed us and it has been necessary to formulate hypotheses in order to fill in the gaps and to present a more coherent study of these ancient republican institutions. With time, perhaps, these gaps may also be filled in by solid additions to the range of our historical knowledge of Ancient India.

Linked texts (3)