Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c6.s2.21

c6.s2.21

Dr. K. P. Jayaswal, on the authority of Pāṇini and the *Majjhima Nikāya* held the view that "*saṁgha* and also *gaṇa* synonymously signified, par excellence, the republics. The republics were the *saṁghas* and *gaṇas* at the same time."³ He further states that "the term *gaṇa* signified the form of government. *Saṁgha* on the other hand, signified the state."⁴ It may be that *gaṇa* and *saṁgha* were used synonymously in the sources,⁵ but we find no evidence to support the inference that they "signified, par excellence, the republics." Secondly, Jayaswal is not on very firm ground when he tries to prove that the *gaṇa* and *saṁgha* were distinctly used, the former signifying the "form of government", and the latter "the state." The Pāṇinian *sūtra*, commented upon by the Bhāṣyakāra⁶ and given as Jayaswal's authority to produce the difference between *saṁgha* and *gaṇa*, refers to the numerical strength of the former, which Patañjali explains as consisting of "five, ten or twenty members."⁷ These members, says Dr. V. S. Agrawala, refer to the executive of the *saṁgha*.⁸ However, the term *gaṇa* occurs neither in this *sūtra* of *Aṣṭādhyāyī*, nor in the commentary on it.⁹ Hence, it would be wrong to take Patañjali's commentary as evidence to support the distinction between the *gaṇa* and *saṁgha*, when the former is not even mentioned in the text.