[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968) › c6 # Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c6: Chapter One: Introduction Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c6 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c6.s1 Previous Works and Our Treatment of the Sources](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1) — 54 parts - [c6.s2 The Interpretation and Definition of the Term Gaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2) — 56 parts ### Chapter One: Introduction ### Previous Works and Our Treatment of the Sources ### [c6.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.1) The detailed study of republican institutions in ancient India has attracted only a few scholars since Rhys Davids. Sixty-five years ago, he first brought to the notice of students the existence of nine republican clans¹ attested to in the Buddhist literature. Before the publication of \*Buddhist India\*, little was known of the republics even during the Buddhist period. Thus, Professor Rhys Davids can aptly be acclaimed the pioneer in this field. However, the conclusions stated in his often-quoted monograph give only a bird’s-eye-view of these republics.² The Sakyas receive comparatively lengthier treatment because, in his opinion, “more details are given, very naturally, of the Sākiya clan than of the others.”³ Thirty-two years later Rhys Davids restated his position briefly in the \*Cambridge History of India\*⁴ with slight improvement. ### [c6.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.2) ¹ T. W. Rhys Davids, \*Buddhist India\*, p. 22. ### [c6.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.3) ² \*Ibid.\*, pp. 17-41. ### [c6.s1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.4) ³ \*Ibid.\*, p. 17. ### [c6.s1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.5) ⁴ \*CHI\*, i, pp. 174-8. ### [c6.s1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.6) Rhys Davids’ work is of great value, but it contains a number of fundamental errors, notably his claim that “the Vajjians included eight Confederate clans,”⁵ and his indiscriminate use of the terms Vajji and Licchavi. Moreover his only sources were the Buddhist texts and he took no account of the Jaina literature, on the basis of which the new name of the Nāyas of Kuṇḍapura⁶ can be added to the list of republican states that flourished at the time of the Buddha and Mahāvīra. ### [c6.s1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.7) ⁵ \*Buddhist India\*, p. 25; \*cf.\* below, chap. iii. ### [c6.s1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.8) ⁶ \*Cf.\* below, chap. vi. ### [c6.s1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.9) Rhys Davids said very little about the republican institutions even of those clans which he treated. At best his work can be adjudged merely as an introduction to these ancient republics. As a pioneer of Pāli studies he had not as much material at his disposal as had the later students of the subject. ### [c6.s1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.10) Dr. K. P. Jayaswal subsequently treated this theme in an article entitled, "An Introduction to Hindu Polity,"¹ which he subsequently expanded into his famous book, \*Hindu Polity\*.² This work covers a period of about 2,000 years and mentions as many as 82 republics.³ However, Jayaswal's \*Hindu Polity\* is tendentious, for it was written at a crucial period of Indian nationalism to prove that India was ready for independence. It is rather a counsel for the defense than a fair assessment of the evidence. ### [c6.s1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.11) ¹ \*Modern Review\*, 1913, pp. 535-41 and 664-8. ### [c6.s1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.12) ² (First edn.), pt. i, pp. 3-179; cp. V.S. Agrawala, \*India as Known to Pāṇini\*, chap. vii. ### [c6.s1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.13) ³ \*Hindu Polity\*, (3rd edn.), Appx. B, pp. 361ff. ### [c6.s1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.14) The next work on the subject was a lecture delivered by Professor D. R. Bhandarkar which added little new and made several mistakes.⁴ Professor R. C. Majumdar corrected Bhandarkar regarding the Sakyan form of government, but committed some serious errors himself.⁵ In some respects Majumdar was even more adventurous than Jayaswal, but his work is an improvement on that of Bhandarkar. ### [c6.s1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.15) ⁴ \*Carmichael Lectures\*, pp. 140ff. ### [c6.s1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.16) ⁵ \*Corporate Life in Ancient India\*, pp. 97ff. ### [c6.s1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.17) Professor A. S. Altekar's book gives a fuller and less biased account of the republics,⁶ and his treatment of the subject appears to be the best amongst Indian historians. Dr. B. C. Law also took up the study of the tribes in ancient India,⁷ but his accounts are of a general nature and they have little that is new or significant to add pertaining to the political institutions of the republican states. The next contribution to the study of republics was a Hindi booklet by Bhagiratha Dube Gautama;⁸ this work is of such a low academic standard that it deserves no detailed criticism.⁹ ### [c6.s1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.18) ⁶ \*State and Government in Ancient India\*, chap. vi, pp. 109ff. ### [c6.s1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.19) ⁷ \*Kṣatriya Clans in Buddhist India\*; \*Some Kṣatriya Tribes in Ancient India\*; \*Tribes in Ancient India\*. ### [c6.s1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.20) ⁸ \*Bhārata ke prācīna gaṇarājya\*. ### [c6.s1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.21) ⁹ A sample statement will suffice to show Gautama's approach to the subject. "...there were republican states in early India also, in which administration was carried out for the public-good, by the people themselves. That government was not based on fear or punishment, but on love. Its authority was on the hearts \[of the people\] and not on \[their\] body, wealth and land..." (\*ibid.\*, p. 2). ### [c6.s1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.22) Recently, Professor C. V. R. Rao published an article on the "Ancient Indian Republics,"¹⁰ in which he mainly summarizes the research of earlier scholars but shows none of the weaknesses of those who wrote in the wave of enthusiastic nationalism. Professor Rao does not make any original point and believes in Jayaswal's dictum that the republics "definitely came into existence in the post-Vedic period." ### [c6.s1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.23) ¹⁰ \*Modern Review\*, Oct., 1959, 106, pp. 273-86. ### [c6.s1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.24) The most recent book which purports to describe the political ideas and institutions of both ancient India and Greece comes from the pen of Professor Krishna Prasanna Mukerji.¹ This work was written with the purpose of showing that the political institutions of the ancient Hindus, if not superior, were definitely as good as those of the Greeks.² Professor Mukerji also touches on the "democracies" and republican states but adds little new and mainly follows the earlier nationalist historians. Mukerji usually undervalues the importance of the Greek political philosophers and the Greek achievements in republican institutions.³ ### [c6.s1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.25) ¹ \*Ancient Political Experiences\*, pp. 18-28, 85-91. ### [c6.s1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.26) ² \*Ibid.\*, pp. 1-6. ### [c6.s1.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.27) ³ \*Cp.\* A. H. M. Jones, \*Athenian Democracy\*, chap. iii, iv; J. A. O. Larsen, \*Representative Government in Greek and Roman History\*, pp. 1-46. ### [c6.s1.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.28) None of these works has even hinted⁴ that there existed different forms of aristocratic government or quasi-republican political communities in Vedic India besides the generally acknowledged monarchies. We have found evidence for the existence of such institutions in Vedic India not so much by the discovery of new sources as by a new approach and more systematic handling and careful analysis of the \*Vedas\*. The same method enables us to throw new light on the relationship between the \*sabhā\* and the \*samiti\*. It reveals that in a special variety of the Vedic aristocracies—where both these institutions existed side by side—the former was a comparatively small council chiefly composed of the most influential members of the community, whereas the latter was a bigger assembly consisting of the heads of families of the tribe.⁵ ### [c6.s1.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.29) ⁴ Except that of R. C. Majumdar who states that, "although some passages in the Vedic literature seem to imply the existence of oligarchic or republican clans, we cannot come to any definite conclusion on this point" (\*History and Culture of the Indian People\*, ii, pp. 330-1). ### [c6.s1.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.30) ⁵ \*Cf.\* below, chap. ii. ### [c6.s1.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.31) In the chapter on "Non-Monarchical Governments in Vedic India" we have also examined the controversial question of the \*vidatha\*, which recently has been made much of by Professor R. S. ### [c6.s1.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.32) Sharma. We have endeavoured to show that the \*vidatha\* had no political connotation at all and that it was not a political institution even on a local basis.¹ ### [c6.s1.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.33) ¹ J. P. Sharma, \*JRAS\* (April), 1965, pp. 43-56; below, pp. 62ff. ### [c6.s1.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.34) In this monograph we have further attempted, by an examination of the better-known sources and by the use of material derived from sources hitherto untapped in this connection, to provide a more detailed and thorough study of the republican institutions of the Vedic aristocracies. We have included our findings on the name and etymology, origin and location, government and organization, judicial procedure, foreign relations and political history of each republican state that flourished at the time of the Buddha and Mahāvīra. ### [c6.s1.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.35) While we may claim to have added something to the works of Rhys Davids, Jayaswal, Majumdar, Altekar, and the other authorities, the account presented here, based mainly on the passing references in the Vedic, Buddhist and Jaina sacred literature, is of necessity fragmentary and not always definite. This is mainly due to the nature of the sources which were composed by the adherents of different religious sects, and are biased in favour of their own creeds and followers. This must have led to exaggerations and perhaps to deliberately false statements. An Indologist, whether writing on religion or philosophy, sociology or history, is sometimes faced with contradictions in the sources themselves. This being the case, we have frequently been compelled to state the conclusions in provisional or hypothetical terms. Although in this and in other respects our picture of the rise, development, organization, administration and decline of the republics is still lamentably defective, we trust that our work will serve to clarify some points and to act as a catalyst for further research on this most significant aspect of early Indian polity. ### [c6.s1.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.36) The main evidence for the early Vedic aristocracies comes from the \*Ṛg Veda\*, the \*Atharva Veda\* and some of the \*Brāhmaṇas\* and \*Upaniṣads\*. However, the \*Yajur\* and \*Sāma Vedas\* and the majority of the \*Brāhmaṇas\* reveal very little about the subject. Most of the data utilized in this work has been exploited by other scholars, but the approach to the Vedic sources presented here gives an entirely different picture of the political scene. The material which alludes to "elective monarchy," \*sabhā\* and \*samiti\*, has been thoroughly examined, and the existence and interrelationship of these political institutions is discussed. It seems most likely that the occurrence of one institution in certain \*maṇḍalas\* and hymns of the \*Ṛg Veda\* and the absence of the other point to their relative age and origin. For example, the frequent mention of the \*viś\* in connection with the election of the king and the absence of mention of the \*samiti\* in this context indicates that the king was elected by the \*viś\*, or heads of the political community, and that the \*samiti\* had nothing to do with it, as was strongly advocated by Dr. K. P. Jayaswal.¹ Similarly, the occurrence of the \*samiti\* in the later \*maṇḍalas\* of the \*Ṛg\* and \*Atharva Vedas\*, and the fewer mentions of the \*viś\* in the same texts, suggest that the \*samiti\* was of comparatively later origin. Possibly it developed from the archaic \*viś\* body and crystallized into a distinct popular political institution during the period when the later \*maṇḍalas\* of the \*Ṛg\* and \*Atharva Vedas\* were composed.² ### [c6.s1.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.37) ¹ \*Cf.\* below, pp. 15ff. ### [c6.s1.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.38) ² \*Cf.\* below, pp. 42ff. ### [c6.s1.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.39) This analytic and unorthodox approach to the interpretation of the Vedic data gives an altogether different result which is probably more convincing and satisfactory than that which has been achieved heretofore. Similarly, investigations into the \*Brāhmaṇas\* and \*Upaniṣads\* reveal that during the period of their composition monarchy had become virtually the universal form of government. The aristocratic or quasi-republican types of government were extinct or at least did not flourish in the Kurukṣetra region where the bulk of Brāhmaṇic literature was composed. It is not unlikely that some of the early Vedic aristocracies had become monarchies while others moved eastward in order to retain their individual freedom and principles of popular government. ### [c6.s1.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.40) The main evidence for the northeastern republics of the post-Vedic period (c. 600-480 B.C.) is provided by the Pāli canon of the southern Buddhists, Sanskrit Buddhist texts, the sacred literature of the Jainas, the \*Mahābhārata\*, and secular treatises like the \*Arthaśāstra\* of Kauṭilya and the \*Aṣṭādhyāyī\* of Pāṇini. A few archaeological reports, some inscriptions, and seals also assist in explaining the workings of their constitutions. ### [c6.s1.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.41) For the Vedic peoples, the sacrifice was the pivot around which the entire world revolved. They had no sense of history.³ The Buddhists and Jainas were so busy propagating their own doctrines and condemning those of their opponents that they had little time or thought for writing histories of states or biographies of politicians. In India no political biography is known to have appeared before the reign of Harṣavardhana in the 7th century A.D., and before Kalhaṇa's \*Rājātaraṅgiṇī\* India had nothing to match Thucydides or Xenophon, Herodotus or Livy, Cicero or Plutarch. Indians of today feel pride in the \*ṛṣi\*-composers of the Vedic hymns and the Upaniṣadic philosophers, and in historical figures like the Buddha and Aśoka. But the fact remains that at least until the mediaeval period their ideas of historical writing were in the main unscientific. This judgement, of course, is not wholly true of Ceylon, where the Buddhist tradition preserved a stronger historical sense. ### [c6.s1.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.42) ³ \*Cf.\* Pargiter, \*JRAS\*, 1913, p. 904. ### [c6.s1.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.43) Thus, the chief evidence for even the republics of the post-Vedic period must be obtained from religious texts. The Pāli canon records numerous contemporary events other than those connected with the Buddha. There are many descriptions of political and social events, such as the war between the Vajjis and Ajātasattu, including the intrigues of his minister Vassakāra, the fortifying of Pāṭaligāma for defensive purposes, and finally, the subjugation of the Vajjis. These are some of the important historical events recorded in the Pāli texts. In connection with the historical references in the \*Mahāparinibbāna Sutta\*, Dr. A. K. Warder aptly observes that "the records are circumstantial and realistic and purport to be eye-witness accounts of the events. It seems, we must accept the conclusion that some such eye-witness reports, at least, formed the model for this apparently unique style of literature, though we know that later on forgeries in the same style were produced in order to give currency to new doctrines."¹ ### [c6.s1.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.44) ¹ C. H. Philips, ed., \*Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon\*, p. 47. ### [c6.s1.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.45) The Buddhists seem to have had a better historical sense than the Hindus and their attitude to contemporary events is on the whole fairly balanced.² They are also far more reliable and enlightening than the Jainas regarding their geographical details of the eastern peoples. This is evident from the account of the last journey of the Buddha from Pāṭaligāma to Kusinārā, recorded in the \*Mahāparinibbāna Sutta\*. The text has preserved significant details pertaining to the northern boundary of the Magadhan kingdom, the position of the Vajjian land, the names of the states travelled over, and their boundaries. The Jaina texts, on the contrary, contain jumbled and confused geographical data even about the Nāyas, the clan of Mahāvīra, and their chief town Kuṇḍapura. Moreover, they throw no light on the geographical position of their republican territories. ### [c6.s1.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.46) ² Philips, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 46ff; Pargiter, \*op. cit.\*, p. 904. ### [c6.s1.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.47) While in general the accounts of the Sanskrit Buddhist literature are more elaborate and embroidered than that of the Pāli versions, they occasionally do preserve traditions more accurately than the Pāli¹ or provide data not to be found in the latter texts.² ### [c6.s1.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.48) ¹ \*Cf.\* below, pp. 171ff. ### [c6.s1.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.49) ² \*Cf.\* below, Appx. E, pp. 248-9. ### [c6.s1.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.50) The Jaina Prākrit sources naturally give more details about the republic from which the apostle of their faith hailed—the Nāyas. They also give invaluable information pertaining to the Vajji-Magadhan war, the names and number of republics constituting the Vajjian Confederacy, etc. However, on the whole, they are less reliable and informative than the Buddhist texts regarding the geography of the republican region. ### [c6.s1.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.51) The later \*Jātakas\* and the commentaries of Buddhaghosa also contain some useful information about the republican peoples. The \*Jātakas\* inform us of the number of the Licchavian assembly, the diplomatic relations between the Sakyas, Kosalans, Koliyas, Mallas and Licchavis, and some important historical events like the Sakya-Kosala and Sakya-Koliya wars. Buddhaghosa's voluminous commentaries on the \*Tripiṭaka\* give interesting, and at times also valuable, details about the name of the Licchavis and the Moriyas, the ethnic relationship of the latter with the Mauryan dynasty, and significant details about the causes of war between the Vajjian Confederacy and the Magadhan monarch. ### [c6.s1.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.52) Apart from those indigeneous sources, we have also examined the evidence provided by other republican peoples of the ancient world, such as the Greeks, Romans, Germans and Icelanders, and in the course of this work have drawn parallels and contrasts between Indian republican institutions and those which prevailed elsewhere. We have also endeavoured to explain certain features of ancient Indian republican institutions with the aid of anthropological studies of chieftainless tribes, where such studies have proved valuable for the subject. These two factors, we believe, have helped us much to understand the administration and organization of early Indian republics. ### [c6.s1.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.53) All the relevant data has been handled and interpreted with as much objectivity and dispassion as possible. We have been constantly aware of the limitations of this work and have firmly kept to the subject. When other topics such as the questions of name, etymology, origin, etc., are discussed, it is because they provide the necessary historical context within which lies the proper appreciation and correct understanding of these republican institutions. ### [c6.s1.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s1.54) The more important passages from the sources have been translated or paraphrased in the course of our work. We have included the romanized originals of relevant \*pādas\*, passages or phrases in the footnotes, whether in Sanskrit, Pāli or Prākrit. The system followed in the transliteration for the Sanskrit passages is orthodox. The romanization of Pāli passages is that of the Pāli Text Society, except for the sign ŋ used for \*anusvāra\* in the Pāli texts, which has been regularly replaced by ṁ. In all transliterations, \*anusvāra\*, when occurring within the word before any of the \*sparśa\* consonants, has usually been expressed by the appropriate nasal letter. Any irregularity found in this system is unintentional. ### The Interpretation and Definition of the Term Gaṇa ### [c6.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.1) While the early Vedic texts support the existence of different kinds of non-monarchical governments, they fail to register the technical term by which these republican or quasi-republican political communities could be described constitutionally. The word \*gaṇa\*, which denoted a republic in the post-Vedic period, occurs for the first time in the Vedic texts,¹ chiefly in association with the Maruts and Ādityas, and has been interpreted as a "technical word for the republic" by Professor R. S. Sharma.² In most of the cases the \*gaṇas\* of the Maruts and Ādityas are connected with war and the spoils obtained by fighting were distributed equally among those who formed the \*gaṇa\*.³ Most authorities derive the word from the root \*gaṇ\*, meaning "to count" or "to reckon," and explain that the noun \*gaṇa\* literally means "a flock" or a "troop."¹ Keeping in view the connection of the Vedic \*gaṇa\* with war and spoils in the Vedic texts, it may appropriately be rendered as "troop" or "multitude," and the interpretation of "republic" is not warranted.² If the \*gaṇa\* had the technical sense of a republican state, it would be expected to occur in association with the four forms of non-monarchical government which we discuss a little later. As in the \*Ṛg Veda\* the word has no implicit or explicit sense of a type of government, and as it does not figure in association with different types of aristocracies, we differ from Professor Sharma's interpretation. ### [c6.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.2) ¹ \*ṚV\*, i, 14,3; 64,12; ii, 23,1; iii, 32,2; iv, 35,3; 50,5; v, 52, 13-4; 53,10; 56,1; 58, 1,2; vi, 16,24; vii, 9,5; 58,1; viii, 94,12; ix, 96,17; x, 36,7; 77,1; \*AV\*, iv, 13,4; xiii, 4,8; xix, 13,4, xx, 88,5, etc. ### [c6.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.3) ² \*Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India\*, p. 81; \*cf.\* pp. 81-93. ### [c6.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.4) ³ \*ṚV\*, v, 79,5; x, 34,12; \*AV\*, iii, 30, 5-6, etc. ### [c6.s2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.5) ¹ Cf. Monier Williams, \*Skt.-Eng. Dic.\*, \*s.v. gaṇa\*, flock, troop or multitude; Böhtlinck and Roth, \*Skt. Wörterb.\*, \*s.v. gaṇa\*, \*Schaar\*, \*Reide\*; V.S. Apte, \*Skt.-Eng. Dic.\*, \*s.v.\*; M. Mayrhofer, \*Ety. Skt. Dic.\*, \*s.v. gaṇaḥ\*, \*Schar\*, \*Reide\*, \*Menge\*. ### [c6.s2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.6) ² Prof. Sharma himself derives the word from \*gaṇ\*, but he further argues that "although literally the term \*gaṇa\* does not mean a tribe but an artificial collection of people not necessarily belonging to the same tribe, it appears that in most cases in the Vedic literature this term is used in the sense of a tribal organization" (\*op. cit.\*, p. 82). ### [c6.s2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.7) The terms \*gaṇa\* and \*saṅgha\*, with reference to the republican form of government, do not occur until after the 6th century B.C.³ They then appear for the first time in the \*Ācārāṅga Sūtra\*,⁴ \*Avadāna Śataka\*,⁵ \*Mahāvagga\*,⁶ \*Aṣṭādhyāyī\*,⁷ \*Arthaśāstra\*,⁸ etc., and in the last 65 years several Indologists have endeavoured to bring out the constitutional significance of these terms. Professor Rhys Davids defines them as "republics with either complete or modified independence,"⁹ but while discussing the Sakyas, the Vajjians, the Mallas, etc., he refers to them merely as "clans."¹⁰ Even more surprising is the absence of the terms \*gaṇa\* and \*saṅgha\* from his monumental work on the Buddhist period. ### [c6.s2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.8) ³ U. N. Ghoshal, \*History of Indian Political Ideas\*, p. 76. ### [c6.s2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.9) ⁴ \*Ācār. Sū.\*, i, 3, 160. ### [c6.s2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.10) ⁵ \*Avadāna\*, 88, ii, p. 103. ### [c6.s2.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.11) ⁶ \*Mahāvagga\*, ix, 4. ### [c6.s2.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.12) ⁷ Pāṇini, iii, 3, 36, 42, 86; v, 3, 114; \*cf.\* V. S. Agrawala, \*op. cit.\*, chap. vii. ### [c6.s2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.13) ⁸ Kauṭilya, bk. xi, pp. 376ff. ### [c6.s2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.14) ⁹ Rhys Davids, \*Buddhist India\*, p. 2. ### [c6.s2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.15) ¹⁰ \*Ibid.\*, pp. 17ff. ### [c6.s2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.16) In the years 1914-16 a great controversy raged about the term \*gaṇa\*, which J. F. Fleet translated merely as "tribe."¹¹ F. W. Thomas, supporting Jayaswal, interpreted it as meaning a "republican or oligarchic constitution."¹² He explained the \*gaṇa\* as "a sort of council representing the powerful families in the state."¹ Since then most scholars have accepted the fact that in the post-Vedic period the term denoted, beyond all doubt, a republican form of government. However, according to Professor R. C. Majumdar, the \*gaṇas\* "denoted, in general, merely corporations of particular kinds."² Majumdar is correct to a large extent, but his definition is vague and one does not get from it a clear idea as to precisely what the \*gaṇa\* meant in early constitutional terminology. ### [c6.s2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.17) ¹¹ Cf. Fleet, \*JRAS\*, 1914, pp. 745-7; 1915, pp. 138-40, 802-4; \*cp.\* 1913, pp. 995-8. ### [c6.s2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.18) ¹² Thomas, \*JRAS\*, 1914, p. 413. ### [c6.s2.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.19) ¹ \*JRAS\*, 1914, p. 1012; \*cf.\* pp. 1010-13; 1915, pp. 533-5; 1916, pp. 162-6. ### [c6.s2.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.20) ² R. C. Majumdar, \*Corporate Life\*, p. 138. ### [c6.s2.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.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. ### [c6.s2.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.22) ³ Jayaswal, \*Hindu Polity\*, p. 28. ### [c6.s2.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.23) ⁴ \*Loc. cit.\* Pāṇini, iii, 3, 76. ### [c6.s2.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.24) ⁵ \*Cf.\* \*MPS\*, pp. 112ff; \*Majjhima\*, i, p. 231; Pāṇini, iii, 3, 76. ### [c6.s2.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.25) ⁶ Patañjali on Pāṇini, v, 1, 59. ### [c6.s2.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.26) ⁷ \*Loc. cit.\*, \*pañcakaḥ saṁghaḥ daśakaḥ saṁghaḥ\*, etc. ### [c6.s2.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.27) ⁸ V.S. Agrawala, \*op. cit.\*, p. 431. ### [c6.s2.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.28) ⁹ \*Cf.\* Pathak and Chitrao, \*Mahābhāṣyaśabdakośaḥ\*, \*s.v.\* \*gaṇa\*. ### [c6.s2.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.29) Professor A. S. Altekar asserted that the "\*gaṇa\* had a definite constitutional meaning and denoted a form of government, where the power was vested not in one person, but in a \*gaṇa\* or group of people. \*Saṅgha\* was another term used precisely in the same sense, because it was sharply distinguished from monarchy.”¹ Although a great improvement on earlier attempts, this definition is still vague and, quite like the previous ones, is not definite in bringing out the full constitutional significance of the terms \*gaṇa\* and \*saṅgha\*. ### [c6.s2.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.30) ¹ Altekar, \*State and Government\*, pp. 109-10. ### [c6.s2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.31) Professor K. P. Mukerji argued that “the Indian \*gaṇarājyas\* were republics in no worse sense than that in which the much vaunted democracies of Greece were republics, because in both sovereign power was vested in a large central assembly.”² Professor Mukerji’s remark is too superficial and tends to underestimate the marvelous achievements of the Greeks in democracy.³ ### [c6.s2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.32) ² Mukerji, \*op. cit.\*, p. 23. ### [c6.s2.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.33) ³ \*Cp.\* Jones, \*op. cit.\* pp. 41-72, 99-133; A. Zimmern, \*The Greek Commonwealth\*, pp. 139ff; T. R. Glover, \*Democracy in the Ancient World\*, pp. 49ff. ### [c6.s2.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.34) It is a serious mistake on the part of the student of ancient political institutions to interpret ancient terms, concepts, and institutions in a modern context. Jayaswal, Bhandarkar, Majumdar, and to some extent Altekar as well, have been guilty of imposing twentieth-century democratic ideas and institutions on early Indian polity. They seem to start with a purpose which was, no doubt, a natural reaction to the criticism of the nineteenth-century imperialist writers who underrated Indian achievements and various aspects of her past culture, as well as being based on the presupposition that if Greece and Rome had democratic institutions ancient India should have had them also. ### [c6.s2.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.35) The bulk of historical literature produced with this attitude in mind may be justifiable in the context of the times, but only if one accepts academic historical research as a tool for fostering patriotism and igniting revolutions in order to achieve national independence. However, an unbiased and methodical historical monograph of true scholarship cannot be produced with the purpose of proving that India has always been tyrannically ruled by “oriental despots”, and therefore still deserves to be governed by a superior power; neither can it be written to extol an almost perfect form of democracy that Āryavarta knew centuries ago when Britons were still living in caves, and thus prove that India is worthy of self-government. This feeling of patriotism has influenced almost all Indian historians writing on ancient Indian republican institutions to the extent that it has prevented them from appreciating the democratic and oligarchic experiments carried out in Greece and Rome. To this school of Indian historians the Athenian and Roman democracies were of the same type, whereas the study of any text-book would show that there was a world of difference between the two.¹ Athens in the 5th century had the most refined form of democracy possible in ancient times,² and Rome knew no true democracy, at best it had an oligarchy.³ ### [c6.s2.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.36) ¹ ^1 \*Cf.\* Larsen, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 1-46; L. Whibley, \*Greek Oligarchies\*, pp. 83ff; Glover, \*op. cit.\* ### [c6.s2.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.37) ² ^2 Glover, \*op. cit.\*, chap. iii, "The Age of Pericles", pp. 49ff. ### [c6.s2.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.38) ³ ^3 Larsen, \*op. cit.\*, p. 4. "In Rome ...democracy had much less chance because the votes were always taken by voting units and this made it possible to favour certain elements in the population. Thus, propertied classes were favoured in the Comitia Centuriata." \*Cp.\* T. M. Taylor, \*A Constitutional and Political History of Rome\*, p. 229. ### [c6.s2.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.39) The works of nationalist historians contain constitutional terms like parliament, bicameral legislature, popular democracy, proportional representation, executive, cabinet, popular assembly, prime minister, portfolios, chancellor of the exchequer, etc.⁴ These are a few of the inaccurate and annoying terms frequently employed by noted historians to describe the political institutions of the "Hindu period." Our investigations suggest that none of these terms can be applicable even to the most successful experiments of democracy carried out in Athens,⁵ far less to the Indian, Roman or German republics. ### [c6.s2.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.40) ⁴ ^4 \*Cf.\* Jayaswal, \*Hindu Polity\*, pp. 72ff; Bhandarkar, \*Car. Lecs.\*, pp. 151ff; Altekar, \*State and Government\*, pp. 134ff, 377ff; K. P. Mukerji, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 18-28. ### [c6.s2.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.41) ⁵ ^5 \*Cf.\* Zimmern, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 160ff. ### [c6.s2.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.42) Keeping these points in view, and depending entirely on the early literary, inscriptional and numismatic evidence, our observations lead us to suggest that the \*gaṇa\* or the \*saṅgha\* was a republican or quasi-republican form of government in which the supreme power of the state was vested in a considerable portion of the population so qualified only on account of their birth, property or merit.⁶ The supreme power was exercised by a few of these \*rājās\*, elected from amongst themselves and more or less responsible to the qualified body, who deliberated and took, in consultation with the latter, decisions that were binding on the entire population within their territory. The rulers derived their power, not from an individual, human or divine, above them, but from the qualified multitude, below. In short, it was a "government by discussion."¹ ### [c6.s2.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.43) ⁶ ^6 \*Cp.\* Taylor, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 41ff. ### [c6.s2.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.44) ¹ \*Cp.\* Larsen, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 5ff. ### [c6.s2.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.45) Our analysis of the Vedic texts reveals that there were at least four different forms of "government by discussion" in the early Vedic period (c. 1500 to c. 1000 B.C.).² On the other hand, the evidence of the Buddhist and Jaina texts, Pāṇini's \*Aṣṭādhyāyī\* and Kauṭilya's \*Arthaśāstra\*, combine to attest to the existence of a number of republican states³ (from c. 600 to c. 480 B.C.).⁴ The classical historians record yet a larger number of republics and aristocracies which Alexander faced in various parts of north-western India, Panjab and Sind during the latter half of the 4th century B.C.,⁵ while the \*Mahābhārata\*, and certain coins⁶ and inscriptions prove that republics flourished in western India even later. The mention of some republican ethnic groups in the Allahabad Pillar Inscription of Samudra Gupta⁷ appears to show that these republics had somehow managed to retain their system of government even during the reign of the mightiest Gupta conqueror, just as in Greece republicanism and federal government outlived Alexander the Great.⁸ ### [c6.s2.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.46) ² See below, pp. 15ff; \*cp.\* G. Landtman, \*Origin of the Inequality of the Social Classes\*, pp. 309-16. ### [c6.s2.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.47) ³ \*Cp.\* C. V. R. Rao, \*Modern Review\*, Oct. 1959, 106, pp. 276-86. ### [c6.s2.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.48) ⁴ \*Cf.\* A. L. Basham, \*History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas\*, pp. 67-105. ### [c6.s2.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.49) ⁵ \*Cf.\* J. W. McCrindle, \*Ancient India, Its Invasion by Alexander the Great\*. ### [c6.s2.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.50) ⁶ \*Cf.\* J. Allan, \*Catalogue of the Coins of Ancient India\*; V. A. Smith, \*Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum\*, i. ### [c6.s2.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.51) ⁷ Fleet, \*CII\*, iii, p. 8, line 22, \*Mālava-Ārjunāyana-Yaudheya, Mādraka-Ābhīras-Prārjuna-Sanakānīka-Kāka-Kharaparika-ādibhiścha. . .\* ### [c6.s2.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.52) ⁸ \*Cf.\* Larsen, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 158ff. ### [c6.s2.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.53) Thus, the inscriptions and numismatic data suggest that it was not at the hands of the powerful Indian kings like Rūdradāman and Samudra Gupta that the western republics suffered their fatal blow, but rather that it was partly because of some inherent weakness of Indian republicanism,⁹ and partly due to foreign rulers like Toramāṇa and Mihirakula.¹⁰ ### [c6.s2.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.54) ⁹ \*Cf.\* below, Conclusion, pp. 237ff. ### [c6.s2.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.55) ¹⁰ For details of these two kings, \*cf.\* Fleet, \*CII\*, iii, Introduction, pp. 10-12. ### [c6.s2.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6.s2.56) Ideally, all these republics should have been treated in one volume and we started our research with this in mind. But there is enough to be said about these republics to fill two books of reasonable size. Therefore, we have confined ourselves to the governments by discussion in the early Vedic and the Buddhist periods alone. The subject matter of our study, then is: the problems connected with the constitutional development of Vedic institutions, the question whether or not the Vedic monarchy was elective, the manner in which the Vedic aristocracies were organized, the relationship between the Vedic and the northeastern republics, the controversial issue whether or not the \*vidatha\* was the earliest folk-assembly of the Indo-Aryans, the method by which the northeastern republics were administered, the constant struggle that went on between the republicanists and the monarchists, what wrought the fall of the republics, and some other allied topics of historical importance. ## Linked texts (16) - [Aṣṭādhyāyī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.astadhyayi.3.3.36) — Pāṇini, Sanskrit - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.1.14.3) — Sanskrit - [Atharvavedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.atharva.4.13.4) — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit - [Āyāraṃga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.anga.1.1.3) — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Cūḷasaccakasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.majjhima.35.12.1) — Pāli - [Mahāvagga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.vp.khandhaka.mahavagga) — Pāli - [Rājataraṅgiṇī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.kashmir.rajatarangini) — Kalhaṇa, Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Mahāparinibbānasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.digha.16) — Pāli - [Avadānaśataka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.avadana.avadanasataka) — Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Veda](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda) — Sanskrit - [Licchavi](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.nepal.licchavi) - [Brāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana) — Sanskrit - [Sāmavedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.sama) — Sanskrit - [Upaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad) — Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c6) · Pramāṇa