Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c7: Chapter Two: Non-Monarchical Governments in Vedic India

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c7

Language
English

Chapter Two: Non-Monarchical Governments in Vedic India

c7.2

Though monarchy was the usual form of government in Vedic India, there can be no doubt that there were some non-monarchical or aristocratic governments as well. A persistent and false tendency is noticeable in the attention which Jayaswal,¹ Majumdar,² Altekar,³ Shama Sastri ⁴ and others ⁵ have given to the *sabhā*, the *samiti* and the role that the people, or rather the heads of the families, played in "electing" one of their fellow men to the kingship or chieftaincy of the tribe.⁶

c7.3

¹ *Hindu Polity*, pp. 12ff.

c7.4

² *Corporate Life*, pp. 97ff.

c7.5

³ *State and Government*, pp. 8off, 109ff.

c7.6

⁴ *Evolution of Indian Polity*, pp. 1ff.

c7.7

⁵ D. R. Bhandarkar, *Some Aspects of Ancient Hindu Polity*; R. S. Sharma, *Pol. Ideas and Inst.*, pp. 63ff.

c7.8

⁶ *vidatha* was not a political institution; *cf.* below, pp. 62ff.

c7.9

However, a careful study of the Vedic texts not only attests to the existence of republican elements in the Vedic polity, but also points to the significant fact, hitherto unnoticed, that these institutions, existing in some case individually and in others jointly, indicated special forms of non-monarchical or aristocratic governments. We shall attempt to show that some of the tribes or "political communities" ⁷ had a king who was appointed, rather than elected, for life by the elders of the tribe or political community, while others were governed by a *sabhā* or an aristocratic oligarchy. The sources further inform us that some tribes had both a *sabhā* or council, and a *samiti* or an assembly, while some appear to have had an assembly (*samiti*) and an unspecified number of kings (*rājānaḥ*). Thus, apart from the hereditary monarchy which appears to have been the most widespread form of government in the early Vedic period, and is virtually the only form recorded during the Brāhmaṇa period, we find what seem to be traces of at least four different types of aristocratic government through which a number of Vedic peoples carried out the administration of their political communities.

c7.10

⁷ I. Schapera, *Government and Politics in Tribal Society*, p. 218. He uses the phrase to mean "anybody of people who have laws, rulers or government in common." *Cf.* Lucy Mair, *Primitive Government*, pp. 14ff.

c7.11

The Vedic people were primarily a cattle-raising, farming and hunting community, and according to a great classical scholar “an agricultural population” is “the best material for democracy.”¹ Glover continues his thesis: “. . . there is no difficulty in forming a democracy where the mass of the people live by agriculture or tending cattle. Being poor they have no leisure, and therefore do not often attend the assembly; and not having the necessaries of life, they are always at work and do not covet the prosperity of others. Indeed, they find their employment pleasanter than the cares of government, or office where no great gains can be made out of them.”² The implication of this statement is that, while the mass of the people might be technically free citizens, with full rights, the actual government would be in the hands of a small, comparatively leisured elite.³

c7.12

¹ ^1 T. R. Glover, *op. cit.*, p. 35.

c7.13

² ^2 *Ibid.*, p. 35.

c7.14

³ ^3 *Cp.* John Beattie’s remark on the Nyoro chief: “A ruler—at least in the conditions of a tribal African kingdom—cannot keep all his power to himself, but must give some of it away; this is one of the major limitations on political authority” (*Bunyoro, an African Kingdom*, p. 28); *cf.*, Lucy Mair, *op. cit.*, pp. 139ff.

c7.15

Some historians have emphasized the point that the invading Aryans needed a strong king who could lead successful expeditions against the indigenous Indians and help his people acquire new land and homes.⁴ No doubt a strong general was a great necessity in such a situation, but such a general could not fight successfully without the active support of all the male adults of the tribe. As great a king-commander as Alexander could not accomplish his ambition of the conquest of India up to the eastern ocean without the support of his armies.⁵ Under such circumstances, the active support of all able-bodied members of the community would be needed in the battle field and at least most elders would have wished to know and discuss the plans for battle and further movements. When the existence of an entire people was threatened each would devote the best of his abilities to preserving the freedom of himself and his fellow tribesmen.

c7.16

⁴ ^4 *Cf. Vedic Index*, ii, p. 210; W. Stubbs, *Constitutional History of England*, i, pp. 59ff.

c7.17

⁵ ^5 McCrindle, *Alexander’s Invasion*, pp. 1-39, 75-87, 163-5, etc.

c7.18

There were cases in ancient Greece when the invading peoples established not monarchies, but aristocracies. In such conditions government was in the hands of a few of the conquerors, while other states were governed by oligarchies, consisting sometimes of as many as a thousand members, who deliberated on affairs, but delegated their authority in day-to-day administration to a small council.¹ It seems that some Aryan peoples, like the Greeks, established forms of aristocratic or oligarchic government in India while others formed what might, for want of a better term, be called "limited monarchies."

c7.19

¹ *Cf.* L. Whibley, *op. cit.*, p. 166.

c7.20

The Vedic literature does not provide any specific evidence to suggest the evolution of political institutions or the development of different forms of constitution, but this does not disprove such a development. Greek and Latin literature contains considerable data which has helped classical historians of political institutions to establish more or less accurately the origin and development of monarchy and its relation with aristocracy and democracy in Greece and Rome.² "Sparta was the one state of the Greek world which had maintained a steady tradition of unbroken continuity in its government: in other cities there had been a development which had almost everywhere followed the same order, from monarchy to aristocracy, from aristocracy to tyranny, from tyranny to democracy."³

c7.21

² Ernest Barker, *Greek Political Theory*, pp. 1-18.

c7.22

³ *Ibid.*, p. 3; *cf.* A.H. Greenidge, *Greek Constitutional History*, pp. 12ff; Beattie, *op. cit.*, pp. 28ff.

c7.23

Similar attempts to establish a unified theory about the development of Indian political institutions and forms of constitution are beset with great difficulties.⁴ The Vedic literature reveals different forms of government existing almost simultaneously in the Vedic period. If we might make any statements about the evolution of different constitutions in Vedic India on the basis of such precarious evidence, we would hypothetically suggest that, apart from hereditary kings, some Vedic political communities "selected" one of their members for the chieftainship of the tribe.⁵ After some time, in the same communities, kingship vanished and an aristocracy represented by the *sabhā* became the governing power of the tribe.¹ In others, however, the *sabhā* and the *samiti* shared power, though the chief power would appear to have been in the hands of the former, which was composed of the best, richest, and strongest men of the community. This stage is reflected in some of the hymns of the *Atharva Veda* where the *sabhā* and the *samiti* both occur together.²

c7.24

⁴ We ignore the attempt of R. Shama Sastri (*op. cit.*, pp. xff) which is too fantastic to need detailed criticism.

c7.25

⁵ *Cf.* below, pp. 19ff.

c7.26

¹ *Cf.* below, pp. 32ff.

c7.27

² *Cf.* below, pp. 42ff.

c7.28

There appears to have been another development of the old tribal governments where the king was selected by the heads of families. In some of these, instead of one king being selected, several kings or nobles appear to have held the supreme authority without any formal consent of the qualified citizens. They ruled the tribe in conjunction with the *samiti* which appears to have represented various families of the community.³ These seem the two most obvious stages in the development of non-monarchical institutions vaguely noticeable from our sources. A first stage would be when the chief was selected or consented to by the heads of families, and a second stage when such communities adopted three different kinds of constitutions. After the second stage of development, during the Brāhmaṇa period, most of the non-monarchical communities also fell into line with the old hereditary monarchies and hereditary monarchy ultimately became the universal form of government.⁴

c7.29

³ *Cf.* below, pp. 48ff.

c7.30

⁴ For the Buddhist republics, *cf.* pp. 85ff.

c7.31

There is yet another possibility, more preferable, that these four different forms of government marked four successive stages of constitutional development in the non-monarchical communities. In the beginning the king was chosen by the heads of those families which formed the *viś*, showing the earliest stage in the career of the non-hereditary tribes. After some time, during the Ṛg Vedic period, the practice of choosing the king was discontinued and leading men of the political community composed the *sabhā* which constituted the government. The third stage of political development was marked when the body composed of the heads of families of the *viś* crystallized into the *samiti* and the *sabhā*, and both these latter bodies ruled the tribe. During the fourth stage the *sabhā* appears to have changed its character. Instead of the members of the *sabhā* being called *sabhyas*, councillors, they began to be called *rājās*, nobles, while the *samiti* continued the same, thus accounting for the references to these two institutions in the same context. After this, one strong and powerful man from among the nobles rose higher in position than the rest and became the guardian of the community. His fellow nobles no longer shared as much power as they had in the earlier stage when the chief was merely *primus inter pares*. The leader then became the most powerful chief, unchallenged to the extent of appointing his own son to succeed him in office. The *samiti* also changed its role and became a king's council, renamed the *pariṣad*. Thus the "republican" communities more and more approximated to the monarchical ones already existing beside them and the process was virtually completed in the later Vedic period.

c7.32

*Government with a Ruler Chosen by the Viś*

c7.33

There are about a dozen passages in the Vedic literature which indicate that in the early Vedic period kingship was not hereditary in some political communities, but each king governed with the consent of the heads of families. Unfortunately, these references have been exploited by a number of noted historians to prove that in these tribal governments kingship was "elective" and not selective. We quote below the verses, mainly from the *Ṛg Veda* and the *Atharva Veda*, which have been utilized by Bloomfield, Jayaswal, Weber, Majumdar, Zimmer, Shama Sastri and others to support their theories:

c7.34

1. Like people [*viśaḥ*] who choose [*vṛṇānā*] their ruler, they have with fear turned away from Vṛtra.¹
2. Be with us; I have chosen thee: stand steadfast and immovable. Let all the people wish for thee: let not thy kingship fall away.²
Be even here; fall not away; be like a mountain unmoved.
Stand steadfast here like Indra's self, and hold the kingship (*rāṣṭra*) in thy grasp.³
Firm is the sky and firm the earth, and steadfast also are these hills.

c7.35

¹ *ṚV*, x, 124, 8; *tā I viśo na rājānaṁ vṛṇānā*; cp. *ṚV*, x, 174. All the following translations are our own, unless otherwise noted.

c7.36

² *Ibid.*, x, 173, 1; *viśastvā sarvā vāñchantu*; also at *AV*, vi, 87, 1.

c7.37

³ *ṚV*, x, 173, 2; also at *AV*, vi, 87, 2.

c7.38

Steadfast is all this living world, and steadfast is this king of men.¹
Let us think of Soma constantly, with constant sacrificial gift.
And then may Indra make the people (*viśaḥ*) bring tribute to thee alone.²

c7.39

¹ *ṚV*, x, 173, 4; also at *AV*, vi, 88, 1.

c7.40

² *ṚV*, 6.

c7.41

3. Be all the quarters likeminded, concordant; let the assembly (*samitiḥ*) here suit you who are fixed.³
4. Unto thee hath come the kingdom; with splendour rise forward;

c7.42

³ *AV*, vi, 88, 3.

c7.43

as lord of the people (*viśāmpatir*), sole king, bear thou rule;
let all the directions call thee, O King become thou here one for waiting on, for homage.⁴
Thee let the people choose unto kingship, thee these five divine directions;
rest at the summit of royalty, at the pinnacle;
from thence, formidable, share out good things to us.⁵

c7.44

⁴ *Ibid.*, iii, 4, 1.

c7.45

⁵ *Ibid.*, 2.

c7.46

5. They that are clever chariot-makers, that are skillful smiths—subject to me, do thou, O Parṇa!, make all people *janān*] turn towards [me].⁶

c7.47

⁶ *Ibid.*, iii, 5, 6.

c7.48

They that are kings, king-makers, that are charioteers and troopleaders—subject to me, do thou, O Parṇa!—⁷

c7.49

⁷ *Ibid.*, 7; see *Dīgha* (PTS edn.), II, pp. 233ff.

c7.50

6. A tiger, upon the tiger’s [skin], do thou stride out unto the quarters, let all the people [*viśas*] want thee, the waters of heaven, rich in milk.⁸
7. Increase, O Indra, this *kṣatriya* for me;

c7.51

⁸ *AV*, iv, 8, 4.

c7.52

make thou this man sole chief of peoples [*viśām*]; unman all his enemies;
make them subject to him in the contests for preeminence.⁹
Let this man be richest lord of riches;
let this king be people’s lord of people [*viśām viśpati*].
In him, O Indra, put great splendours; destitute of splendour make thou his foe.¹⁰
I join thee Indra who gives superiority, by whom men conquer, Thou art not conquered,
Who shall make thee sole chief of the people (*janānām*), also uppermost of kings descended from Manu.¹¹

c7.53

⁹ *AV*, iv, 22, 1.

c7.54

¹⁰ *Ibid.*, 3; *cp.* *Kauśī. Br.*, 14, 24ff.

c7.55

¹¹ *AV*, iv, 22, 5.

c7.56

Of lion-aspect, do thou devour all the people [*viśo*];
of tiger-aspect, do thou beat down the foes;
sole chief, having Indra as companion, having conquered,
seize thou on the enjoyments of them that pay the foe.¹
8. At his direction, O gods, be there light, sun, fire, and also gold;
be his rivals [*sapatnā*] inferior to him;
to the highest firmament make this man ascend.
With what highest worship, O Jātavedas, thou didst bring together draughts for Indra, therewith, O Agni, do thou increase this man here;
set him in supremacy [*śraiṣṭhya*] over his fellows (*sajātānām*).²
I take to myself their sacrifice and splendour, their abundance of wealth and their intents [*citta*], O Agni, be his rivals inferior to him;
to the highest firmament make this man ascend.³

c7.57

¹ *Ibid.*, 7.

c7.58

² *Ibid.*, i, 9, 2-3.

c7.59

³ *Ibid.*, 4; also *Kauśī. Br.*, 84, 16, 17.

c7.60

Apart from the passages quoted above, there are at least two hymns in the *Atharva Veda* which have been taken to indicate that kings were sometimes banished from their realms and afterwards recalled to be reelected and installed in their previous position:

c7.61

9. For the waters let King Varuṇa call thee;
let Soma call thee for these people [*viśi*];
becoming a falcon, fly unto these people.⁴
Let the falcon lead hither from far the one to be called living exiled in others' territory;
the two Aśvins make the path for thee easy to tread upon;
stay together about this man, ye his fellows.⁵
Let thine opponents call thee; thy friends have chosen thee;
Indra and Agni, and all the gods have maintained for thee security among the people [*viśi*].⁶
Whatever fellow disputes thy call, and whatever outsider—making him go away, O Indra, then do thou reinstate this man here.⁷
10. Run forth hither from the furthest distance;
propitious to thee be heaven and earth both; King Varuṇa here sayth this thus;
he here has called thee; do thou come to this place.
Like a human Indra, go thou away;

c7.62

⁴ *AV*, iii, 3, 3.

c7.63

⁵ *Ibid.*, 4; *ta imam sajātā abhisaṁ-viśadhvam*.

c7.64

⁶ *Ibid.*, 5.

c7.65

⁷ *Ibid.*, 6.

c7.66

for thou hast concurred in concord with men;
he here has called thee in his own station;
he shall sacrifice to the gods, and he shall arrange the people (*viśaḥ*).¹

c7.67

¹ *AV*, iii, 4, 5-6.

c7.68

Jayaswal uses a verse from the *Atharva Veda* to show that "the king was elected for his whole life".

c7.69

11. Rule here a mighty benevolent [king] up to the tenth decade of thy life.²

c7.70

² *Hindu Polity*, p. 189; *AV*, iii, 4, 7.

c7.71

Jayaswal uses another verse from the same hymn to prove that the king was expected to secure material prosperity to the people:

c7.72

12. Fix thy mind upon the bestowal of wealth.
Then do thou, mighty, distribute wealth amongst us.³

c7.73

³ *Hindu Polity*, p. 190; *AV*, iii, 4, 4.

c7.74

These are the passages, *in toto*, on which rests the theory that the kingship was sometimes elective in early India.

c7.75

Before discussing Jayaswal's view on the election of early Indian kings, let us consider two other points which he raises in connection with the origin of monarchy, its relation to other forms of constitution, and the significance of the derivation of the term *rājan*. "The word *rājan* and its original *rāṭ* literally mean a ruler. They are connected with the Latin *rex*. But Hindu political theorists have given them a philosophic derivation. King is called *rājā* because his duty is 'to please' (*rañj*) the people by maintaining good government. . . . Both orthodox and heterodox branches of the race had adopted it. It was a national interpretation and a national theory of Constitution."⁴ We agree with Jayaswal in equating the Sanskrit *rājan* with the Latin *rex*, and derive it from the root *rāj* ((*rājati, te*), "to rule" or "to shine."⁵ But the "philosophic" and "national interpretation" given to the term, deriving *rājan* from the root *rañj*, "to please", is of later origin and hence cannot be accepted as relevant to the period.

c7.76

⁴ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 183.

c7.77

⁵ Cf., Monier Williams, *op. cit.*, *s.v.* *rāj*; *rañj*; also below, p. 48fn. 3.

c7.78

In discussing the origin of monarchy, Jayaswal depends on the statement of Megasthenes⁶ and tries to support it from the Ṛg Vedic evidence. He states that "monarchy was the earliest form of organized government in India. This is supported by the Rig-Veda where Monarchy is the normal and the only form of government known."¹ We have already discussed this question at length,² and here it will suffice to note that Jayaswal forgets that he himself has used at least one hymn from the *Ṛg Veda* in support of his election theory.³

c7.79

⁶ McCrindle, *Megasthenes and Arrian*, p. 200.

c7.80

¹ *Hindu Polity*, p. 183.

c7.81

² See above, pp. 15ff.

c7.82

³ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 186; the hymn used is *ṚV*, x, 173 (see his fn.).

c7.83

Jayaswal is not only a keen supporter of the election theory, but also insists that the *samiti* elected the king. He says that "the king was elected by the people assembled in the *samiti*. The people assembled are said to elect him to rulership unanimously. The *samiti* appoints him. He is asked to hold the state."⁴ Out of the nine passages employed in support of his statement, only one has *dhruvāya te samitiḥ kalpatāmiha*, which he renders "and for firmness the assembly here creates (appoints) you".⁵ The word *viś*, in connection with a word for choosing or desiring (*vṛṇānā* and *vāñchantu*), is found as many as six times in the same passages.⁶ In fact, there is hardly any hymn quoted above which does not refer to the *viś* as either wanting the king or choosing him. Even in the hymn in which the *samiti* occurs, we also have the term *viś* in the opening verse.⁷ On this basis we firmly reject the role of the *samiti* in establishing a man in kingship.

c7.84

⁴ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 186.

c7.85

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 187.

c7.86

⁶ *ṚV*, x, 124, 8; 173, 1; *AV*, vi, 87, 1; iii, 4, 2; 3, 5; iv, 8, 4.

c7.87

⁷ *AV*, vi, 88, 1; *dhruvo rājā viśāmayam*. In *ṚV*, x, 173, 1, 4, 6. The *samiti* does not figure and the term *viś* occurs at least three times.

c7.88

Moreover, the word *vṛṇatām*, from the root *vṛ* (*vṛṇoti*, —*ṇute*) has been taken to mean "to elect" by all supporters of the election theory. In the *Ṛg Veda* and the *Atharva Veda* it means "to choose", or "to select".⁸ This root might also be rendered as "to elect", but it depends on the context in which it is found. It might mean "to elect" if in a given passage we had evidence of two or more candidates contesting for the chieftancy of the political community. But no reference to anything like an electoral contest is to be found anywhere in the Vedic literature. No evidence is put forth by this school of historians to show that the people elected one candidate and rejected the other. The sources do suggest that the people, or rather the heads of the families, chose the king. If they approved a king unanimously, presumably by acclamation, this would hardly be an election in the modern sense.

c7.89

⁸ Monier Williams, *op. cit.*, *s.v. vṛ*.

c7.90

Zimmer’s main argument for the election theory is based on *tā īṁ viśo na rājānaṁ vṛṇānā*, which he translates as “wie die Gaue sich den König küren.”¹ We agree with Zimmer that here the allusion might be to “the people (viśo) electing (*vṛṇānā*) their king,” but in no single passage quoted above is there mention of a particular rival for the same post. In fact, throughout the vast range of Vedic literature there is no allusion to another candidate. Therefore, the verb *vṛṇānā* here, in the historical context, will mean merely “to choose” or “to select,” though the verse can be rendered for literary purposes also as, “like the people electing their king.” However, to look for an actual political election in this verse would be stretching the imagination too far. The passage, like the others mentioned above, only indicates that the king owed his position to the consent of the important members of the political community, and not to the entire adult population.

c7.91

¹ *RV*, x, 124, 8; *cf.* Zimmer, *Altindisches Leben*, pp. 162ff.

c7.92

Another passage used by Weber to support this view comes from the *Atharva Veda*—*tvāṁ viśo vṛṇatāṁ rājyāya*.² It also contains a verb derived from the much discussed root *vṛ*. It is not clear that this implies that the people played a decisive role in establishing a man in kingship, at least in the constitutional sense. The same can be said of Weber’s comments on another Atharvan hymn.³

c7.93

² *AV*, iii, 4, 2; *cf.* A. Weber, *Indische Studien*, xvii, p. 190.

c7.94

³ Weber, *ibid.*, pp. 188ff.

c7.95

Bloomfield’s support for this theory comes mainly from those Atharvan hymns where the people (*viś*) are said to be “wanting” or “desiring” the king (*vāñchantu*), and from the fact that this office is associated with verbs derived from the root *vṛ*.⁴ We do not dispute that these words are literally incapable of being rendered as referring to the people electing the king, but our main objection is that there is no other evidence for such elections.⁵ However, it is clear that in such tribes, at that time at least, the kings were not hereditary. They were accepted or consented to by the chief members of the tribe, as Geldner suggested.⁶

c7.96

⁴ *AV*, tr. M. Bloomfield, p. 330.

c7.97

⁵ Above, pp. 22ff.

c7.98

⁶ *Cf.* Comments on *RV*, x, 124, 8; 173; *cf.*, *Vedische Studien*, ii, 303; A. A. Macdonell, *History of Sanskrit Literature*, p. 158.

c7.99

Majumdar, who mainly follows Zimmer in his interpretations of the Ṛg Vedic hymns, believes that the role of the people in establishing kings was continued down to the 8th century A.D.¹ Concerning the elections of Rūdradāman (c. A.D. 130), Harṣavardhana (c. A.D. 606) and Gopāla (c. A.D. 750), we agree entirely with Altekar when he comments that "it is no doubt true that Rūdradāman and Gopāla are expressly described as being elected to the kingship by their people;² but these statements occur in panegyric documents composed by their court poets and cannot be taken too seriously."³ Majumdar's view, like that of Jayaswal, has no solid ground, but we shall consider below the question of who formed the *viś* in choosing the king.

c7.100

¹ *Corporate Life*, pp. 79-113.

c7.101

² Junāgaḍ Inscription, *EI*, iv, p. 2.

c7.102

³ *State and Government*, p. 83; cf. pp. 80-4.

c7.103

Shama Sastri argues that at first a leader was occasionally elected to execute some given expedition, but that this did not "seem to have answered their purpose after they settled themselves in the country." This statement, together with his belief that the people "felt the need for the election of a permanent chief to be at their head and carry on the internal administration of their settlements,"⁴ does not correspond with the sources. The only thing these suggest is that in some tribal governments kings occupied the chiefship not because their fathers had been kings, but because they were put there by the important members of their community.

c7.104

⁴ Shama Sastri, *op. cit.*, pp. 25ff.

c7.105

Another weak point of the election theory lies in the two hymns of the *Atharva Veda* which refer to the restoration and reinstallation of banished kings.⁵ If this political community had the practice of electing their king, they would have found some other candidates worthy of the post if the former king was deposed. The fact that they recalled the banished king unmistakably supports his selection, and rejects his election. The traditions preserved in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*,⁶ the *Arthaśāstra*⁷ and the *Mahābhārata*⁸ and the legend of the first king Mahāsammata, "consented to by all," of the Buddhist texts⁹, refer to this kind of selection or choice as we have indicated, and not to election as such. Almost all the dynasties subsequent to 600 B.C. passed on the crown on the hereditary principle.¹

c7.106

⁵ *AV*, iii, 3, 4-6; 4, 5-6.

c7.107

⁶ *Ait. Br.*, i, 14.

c7.108

⁷ *Arthaśāstra*, i, 13.

c7.109

⁸ *Mbh.* (Poona edn.), *Śānti Parva*, chap. 67, 2ff; 11-38.

c7.110

⁹ *Mahāvaṁsa*, chap. ii; *Jāt.*, i, pp. 395, 470; v, p. 187, etc.

c7.111

¹ Altekar, *State and Government*, p. 84.

c7.112

This can be clearly realized when we notice that the very idea of the election of the king appeared totally strange to the 12th century historian Kalhaṇa. He writes that when the Utpala dynasty came to an end in Kashmir in A.D. 939, one Kamalavardhana managed to get effective control of the government. Instead of crowning himself king immediately, he asked the Brāhmaṇas of the capital to elect somebody to the kingship, thinking they would naturally support his claim. Kalhaṇa then says that it was the most foolish procedure that could ever have been thought of, comparable to the conduct of a person who, not accepting the love offer of a woman of exceptional beauty coming herself to his house, infatuated and begging to be accepted, sends for her the next day to inquire whether she would come. In this particular case the Brāhmaṇas went on discussing the question for days, without coming to a decision. In the meanwhile, another claimant to the throne, Śūravarman, more forcefully pressed his claims and occupied the capital; the Brāhmaṇas then hastened to anoint him king.²

c7.113

² *Rājatarangiṇī*, vii, 773ff.; *cf.* Altekar, *State and Government*, p. 84 and fn. 3.

c7.114

Some significant outlines of the constitution of this type of governmental organization emerge from the Vedic passages and the points discussed above. Moreover, the characteristics of such a tribal government can be summarized and exemplified from parallels found in Greek and Roman institutions as they flourished during Homeric times and during the regal period of Rome, respectively.

c7.115

In this type of political community the ruler was not hereditary, but "chosen by the *viś*." ³ In the passages quoted above, the word *viś* occurs as many as seventeen times in connection with choosing the king or being the king of the *viś*, whereas in one passage ⁴ we have the expression *janānām rājā*. Here *jana* probably stands for *viś*. *Samiti*, as we have seen, only occurs once in connection with appointing or creating (*kalpatām*) the king. Even in this verse, this meaning is emphasized only by Jayaswal, whereas Whitney takes *kalpatām* in the sense of "suiting," and translates it as "let the gathering (*samiti*) here suit (*kḷp*) thee (who art) fixed”.¹ If taken in this light, the *samiti* has nothing to do with the choice of the king, though the fact that it existed is above suspicion. Moreover, this passage might well apply to another type of tribal government with kings and *samiti* ruling jointly.²

c7.116

³ As the Germani chose their chiefs; *cf.* Tacitus, *Germania*, chap. 13; *cp.* C. Drekmeier, *Kingship and Community in Early India*, pp. 19-20.

c7.117

⁴ *AV*, iv, 22, 5.

c7.118

¹ *AV*, (HOS edn.), vii, p. 346 on *AV*, vi, 88, 3.

c7.119

² *Cf.* below, pp. 48ff.

c7.120

Thus, it was the *viś* which chose the king. But *viś* in the early Vedic texts literally means a “community,” “tribe,” “race,” or in the plural “subjects,” “people,”³ and as such the evidence must mean that the people of a tribe chose their king. However, it does not seem feasible that the entire adult population participated in this choice. In a patriarchal society the father, as the head of the family, was the qualified member of the community who could take part in the deliberations of the public business. One Ṛg Vedic hymn seems to support this view: “Our eldest brother or kinsman, the leader, speaks out.”⁴ And the following verse of the same hymn alludes to the choice of the god Agni as a priest for the sacrifice.⁵ The context might suggest that the eldest brother (*jyeṣṭha bhrātā*), the leader (*prathamo*), was the head of the family, probably in a case where the father is not alive. Moreover, the family headship held by the eldest man of the family was probably such a common feature of Vedic society that the composers of the hymns did not think it worth mentioning, though it appears to have been indirectly alluded to in a number of hymns where mention is made of the eldest (*jyeṣṭha* and *prathama*).⁶

c7.121

³ Monier Williams, *op. cit.*, *s.v.* *viś*; *cp.* K.C. Mishra, *JBRS*, 1958, xliv, pts. iii-iv, pp. 204ff.

c7.122

⁴ *RV*, x, 11, 2; *bhrātā no jyeṣṭha prathamo vi vocati.*

c7.123

⁵ *Ibid.*, 3.

c7.124

⁶ *RV*, x, 11, 2; 71, 1; 78, 2; vi, 15, 15; viii, 70, 1; ii, 38, 5; iv, 2, 15; 33, 5; i, 100, 4. Sometimes they are referred to in plural number; *cf.* V. Bandhu, *ṚV Word-Index*, *s.v.*; V. Bandhu, *AV Alph. Index*, *s.v.*

c7.125

Describing the Greek aristocracy based on conquest, Whibley comments:

c7.126

A special form of aristocracy, in which also the ruling class owned the best land of the state, was that arising from the conquest of one race by another invading race. . . . The conquerors as a whole constitute a class superior to the conquered, of whom some are reduced to serfdom, while others occupy a more favourable position. This special division of classes is typical of the aristocracy of conquest. We find this aristo-

c7.127

cracy, on more or less uniform plan, not only in the Dorian States of the Peloponnesus, in Crete, and to a certain extent in Thera, but also in Thessaly: while both in Boeotia and Elis the ruling class owed their position to the right of conquest.¹

c7.128

¹ Whibley, *op. cit.*, p. 117.

c7.129

Whibley further divides these aristocracies into two classes. In some all members of the conquering race were equally privileged; in others there existed "differences of rank within the circle of the conquerors, which gave to some families a superiority over the rest".²

c7.130

² *Ibid.*, p. 117.

c7.131

We believe that in the Vedic political communities such a distinction of rank existed and only the leading families, which might have been fairly numerous, actually took part in the choice of the king. These people were invaders like their Greek counterparts. In some Greek states all members of the conquering race had equal rights. In India, however, we find an elite that exercised the governmental authority without a king and ruled through the important leaders of the *sabhā*, thus forming a different type of government.³ (We do not know if the term *viś* can be interpreted as technically applying to the heads of families of a political community who were vested with the full rights of citizenship and were entitled to participate in the choice of the king. It is possible that not all such qualified citizens actually attended the choice-meeting or consent-ceremony.) The condition of society reflected in Homer's *Iliad* seems to be similar to that of such states.

c7.132

³ See below, pp. 32ff.

c7.133

Of the manner and procedure of choice we know almost nothing from the Vedic sources. In the Greek assembly, the manner of showing approval or dissent was by shouting.⁴ The Germans, at the time Tacitus wrote, expressed their approval by the clamour of their weapons which they proudly carried with them.⁵ Freeman says of the Homeric assembly that "there is no formal reckoning of votes; but I suspect that any formal reckoning of votes is a refinement belonging to a much later stage of political life. To shout or to clash the arms is the primitive way of declaring assent."⁶ That the Vedic assembly expressed their approval by observing silence in the manner of the Buddhist *Saṅgha*, though not impossible, does not seem probable in the light of the general attitude of the period as reflected in the *Ṛg Veda*.

c7.134

⁴ Cf. Whibley, *op. cit.*, p. 165.

c7.135

⁵ *Germania*, chap. 11. p. 281.

c7.136

⁶ E. A. Freeman, *Comparative Politics*, p. 206.

c7.137

Though the Sanskrit *jana* appears to be the linguistic counterpart of the Greek *genos* and Latin *gens*, we agree with Keith when he equates the Sanskrit *viś* with the Iranian *vīs* and believes it to be "a real parallel to the Latin *gens* and the Greek *genos*."¹ Thus, the "body of *viś*" in its constitutional sense would correspond to the Greek *gerousia* or the council of elders, which is applied in the Homeric poems to the councillors of the king.² Greenidge equates this Greek institution with its Roman counterpart. He says, "as the Latin word *patres* applied to the Roman senate was probably derived from *patres-familias*, so γέροντες may mean 'heads of families,' the elders of the tribe. The councillors of Sparta preserved this name into historic times, and it can be proved that the γερονδία of that state ever continued to represent the noble clans of the community".³

c7.138

¹ *CHI*, i, p. 91.

c7.139

² Greenidge, *op. cit.*, p. 13.

c7.140

³ *Loc. cit.*; cf. W. E. Heitland, *Roman Republic*, i, pp. 33-7.

c7.141

The constitution of the Greek *gerontes* and the Roman *patres-familias* highly favours our view that the *viś* in its political aspect was a body composed of the heads of families of the political community. Such a similarity of composition in the institutions of the early Indo-European peoples is not surprising. But the position and function of the three bodies appear to be widely different. In Homeric Greece the king consulted the *gerousia* of his own accord and to an extent also following the tribal custom, but he did not owe his position to it. In Rome the *patres-familias*, or representatives of the burgesses, elected the *rex* who, after his election to kingship, became "the supreme judge, the high-priest, and the commander-in-chief in war." In T. M. Taylor's opinion "he was a simple Roman burgess chosen by his peers to fill the position of their leader; but after election they owed him allegiance just as much as if he ruled by right of divine descent. He held in his hands the full *Imperium* or Command of the State, both in peace and war; the power that had made him king *could not constitutionally depose him if he abused his trust*;⁴ he was supreme for life and there were no legal checks upon his powers of administration.”¹ On the contrary the Indian *viś* reserved the right to banish a king. The reasons for banishment are not clear from the texts and even after his appointment he was not “the supreme judge, the high-priest,” though he probably was the commander of the armies.

c7.142

⁴ Our italics.

c7.143

¹ T. M. Taylor, *op. cit.*, pp. 7ff.

c7.144

From the above discussion it is apparent that all heads of families did not necessarily participate in the choice of the king though they may have been theoretically authorized to do so. Secondly, numerous important men represented the *viś* of the tribe and wielded the real authority. It was no doubt they who delegated the ruling power to one of their leaders. Moreover, there are five passages in the *Atharva Veda*, one of which has been already pointed out by Jayaswal,² which indicate that the ruler in such political communities was “appointed for life.” The speaker of the following citations is a king:

c7.145

² *Hindu Polity*, p. 187; *AV*, iii, 4,7.

c7.146

“The *Parṇa*, (amulet) Soma’s formidable power, hath come, given by Indra, governed by Varuṇa; may I, shining greatly, wear it (the amulet) in order to live the full length of life for a hundred autumns (*śataśāradāya*).”³ The following three verses are also to the same effect: “Splendour set thou in my body, power, force, vigour, strength; unto Indra-like action, unto heroism, unto life of a hundred autumn’s do I accept thee [*Parṇa*].”⁴ “Unto refreshment thee [the amulet], unto strength thee, unto force, unto power thee, unto prosperity thee do I carry about, unto wearing of royalty for a hundred autumns (*śataśāradāya*).”⁵ The last verse supporting the king’s life-tenure of office is as follows: “Thee [the amulet] with the seasons, with them of the seasons; thee unto life-time, unto splendour; with the brilliancy of the year—with that we make [thee] cheek by jowl.”⁶

c7.147

³ *AV*, iii, 5, 4.

c7.148

⁴ *Ibid.*, xix, 37, 2; *prati gṛhṇāmi śataśāradāya*.

c7.149

⁵ *Ibid.*, xix, 37, 3; *abhibhūyāya tvā rāṣṭr bhṛtyāya paryūhāmi śataśāradāya*.

c7.150

⁶ *AV*, xix, 37, 4; unto life-time, *bhūtasya*; *cf.* *AV*, vii, 35.

c7.151

The five passages quoted above not only refer to the appointment of the king for life, like the life-tenure of the Roman *rex*, but also point towards the qualities which this accepted hero of the tribe was supposed to possess. References to his “power, force, vigour, strength and heroism” cannot be unduly emphasized.’⁷

c7.152

⁷ *AV* xix, 37, 2, 3, 4; iii, 5, 4; *Sāma Veda*, iv, 11, 4, 1, etc.

c7.153

These tribes, like others in a similar situation in the ancient world and some contemporary tribes, prized physical strength and successful leadership in warfare as the highest virtue. According to Tacitus, this quality won the greatest admiration for a leader among the early Germans.¹ The Nuers of Sudan esteem courage as "the highest virtue and skill in fighting the most necessary accomplishment."² These examples can be multiplied from the early history of Greece and Rome and other tribes of that time.

c7.154

¹ *Germania*, chap. 13ff, pp. 283ff.

c7.155

² Cf. E. E. Evans-Pritchard, *The Nuer of the South Sudan*, pp. 291, 256ff, etc.

c7.156

In such a political community where the people reserved for themselves the supreme right to delegate the leadership of the tribe to a suitable candidate, they would also have looked for the quality of oratory in their prospective ruler. Furthermore, the great love of the Vedic people for chariot-racing³ and dice contests⁴ indicates that skill in such contests may also have been a factor in being chosen for the kingship. This is supported by many later legends which look back to the period and it is probably this which later led to the formal prescription of dicing and racing during the *rājasūya* ceremony of a hereditary king.⁵

c7.157

³ *RV*, ii, 27, 12; 31, 7; iv, 45; i, 12, 22; viii, 69, 15-16, etc.; *cf.* Bandhu, *RV Word-Index*, pp. 438-40.

c7.158

⁴ *RV*, i, 41, 9; 112, 24; x, 27, 17; 34, 6; 7, 13. etc.; *cf.* Bandhu *RV Word-Index*, p. 4.

c7.159

⁵ *Śat. Br.*, v, 1, 1, 12ff; *Tait. Br.*, i, 7, 3ff; *Ait. Br.*, viii, 15ff, etc.

c7.160

This man would naturally have shared their religious beliefs and must have shown enthusiasm in performing rites and rituals to win the favour and blessing of the gods. Apart from such considerations, another factor that would have been important in the leadership of the community was that after his successful expeditions and raids on hostile tribes, the leader apportioned the spoils fairly among his fellow men. The fact that he thus enriched the tribe would have been greatly in his favour.⁶ At this period we do not find any definite traces, however, of caste and the superiority of the Kṣatriyas in military and governmental affairs.

c7.161

⁶ *AV*, iii, 4, 4-5.

c7.162

The restoration hymns reveal another factor which appears primary from the actual administrative point of view. We have noticed that at least in some cases the chosen kings could be banished from their territories. However, it seems doubtful if any real territorial sense was possessed by these Vedic peoples, although Schapera, on the basis of his anthropological studies, "has shown that the smallest and simplest 'political communities' have their recognized territory."¹ Though the term *viś* does not appear to have had a territorial connotation during the Vedic period, these political communities no doubt had their specific territory, the boundaries of which must have been constantly shifting. It was most probably to beyond the recognized tribal lands that a king was banished.

c7.163

¹ *Cf.* Mair, *op. cit.*, p. 14.

c7.164

From the fact of the banishment of a king,² one question comes to mind: who ruled over the political community in his absence? We have no evidence that the institution of the *interrex* existed in Vedic India. However, it seems obvious that the king was assisted in the matter of administration by some leading men of the tribe, before his banishment. Though we have no direct mention of such a small body of councillors, it can be inferred from the situation and the actual needs of administration that such a council should have existed. Of course, the exact number of such a council cannot be determined.

c7.165

² *AV*, iii, 3, 3-5; *Tait. Saṁ.*, ii, 3, 1.

c7.166

*Government of the Sabhā*

c7.167

The second type of non-monarchical tribal government, we suggest, was that in which the *sabhā*, or an aristocratic council, wielded the supreme power.³ This variety can be understood as a mixture of aristocratic and oligarchic elements. These political communities, unlike the first type of tribal government,⁴ had no king; and further unlike another variety to be discussed below,⁵ had no *samiti* or tribal assembly. Our main evidence to support the claim that in some political communities only the *sabhā* existed, comes from the *Ṛg Veda*. In the older *maṇḍalas* of the text the term *sabhā* occurs at least three times,⁶ while it appears twice each in the first¹ and the tenth,² and once in the eighth *maṇḍala*.³ Altogether there are eight references to the institution of the *sabhā* and not once does the *sabhā* have a role in selecting the king.⁴ In fact, in *Ṛg Veda* the word *rājan* is not found in the context of the *sabhā*. This suggests that tribes thus governed had presidents called *sabhāpatis*.

c7.168

³ *Cp.* Zimmer, *op. cit.*, p. 172, takes the *sabhā* to mean a "village assembly"; *cf.* Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, pp. 117ff.; *cp.* F. F. A. Hillebrandt, *Vedische Mythologie*, ii, p. 124 fn. 6, who does not see the distinction between the *sabhā* and the *samiti*; *cf.* *Vedic Index*, ii, pp. 430ff.

c7.169

⁴ See above, pp. 19ff.

c7.170

⁵ See below, pp. 42ff.

c7.171

⁶ *ṚV*, ii, 24, 13; iv, 2,5; vi, 28, 6.

c7.172

¹ *Ibid.*, i, 91, 20; 167, 3.

c7.173

² *Ibid.*, x, 34, 6; 71, 10.

c7.174

³ *Ibid.*, viii, 4, 9.

c7.175

⁴ *Ibid.*, i, 91, 20; 167, 3; ii, 24, 13; iv, 2, 5; vi, 28, 6; viii, 4, 9; x, 34, 6; 71, 10.

c7.176

The word *samiti* does occur in the *Ṛg Veda*, but only in the first, ninth and tenth *maṇḍalas* which are accepted by almost all Indologists as compositions of a slightly later period than the "family *maṇḍalas*" (Books ii-vii).⁵ It is indeed noteworthy that, even in these *maṇḍalas* where both the *sabhā* and the *samiti* occur, not once do they figure together in the same hymn, let alone in the same verse. This analysis of the Ṛg Vedic hymns indicates that the political communities which had *sabhās* had no *samitis*, at least during the Ṛg Vedic period. Moreover, it is significant that the *sabhā*-ruled tribes appear, in point of time, to have been a little earlier than those where the *samiti* existed.

c7.177

⁵ *Ibid.*, i, 95, 8; ix, 92, 6; x, 11, 8; 97, 6; 166, 4; 191, 3.

c7.178

This conclusion is further confirmed by a close examination of the Atharvan hymns. In the *Atharva Veda*, there are altogether seventeen mentions of the *sabhā*,⁶ of which in at least five hymns the *samiti* does not figure at all,⁷ whereas in two hymns the *sabhā*⁸ and the *samiti*⁹ both occur, but in different verses. We believe that at least the five hymns in which *sabhā* alone appears refer to the *sabhā*-ruled governments of the Vedic period. Those passages in which *sabhā* and *samiti* both occur we interpret as referring to another variety of non-monarchical political community, where both the *sabhā*, the council, and the *samiti*, the assembly, ruled. This type of constitution we shall consider in the next section.

c7.179

⁶ *AV*, iii, 29, 1; iv, 21, 6; v, 31, 6; vii, 13, 1-2; 39, 4; viii, 10, 8-9; ix, 11, 6; xii, 1, 56; xv, 9,2-3; xix, 55, 5.

c7.180

⁷ *Ibid.*, iii, 29, 1; iv,21, 6; v, 31, 6; vii, 39,4; xix, 55, 5.

c7.181

⁸ *Ibid.*, vii, 13, 2; viii, 10, 8-9.

c7.182

⁹ *Ibid.*, vii, 13,1; viii, 10, 10-11.

c7.183

There is further evidence to support the existence of the *sabhā* and the emphasis put by the later sources on its judicial functions is of considerable import. The *Vājasaneyī Saṁhitā* has at least six mentions of the *sabhā* and its derivatives—*sabhya*, *sabhāsad*, *sabhāpati*, *sabhācara* and *sabhāsthāṇu*.¹ The *Maitrāyaṇī*² and *Taittirīya*³ *Saṁhitās* also refer to the *sabhya*, *sabhā* and *sabhāsad*. The *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* and the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa* refer to the *sabhā* at least nine times;⁴ the *Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā*,⁵ the *Kauśītakī Brāhmaṇa*⁶ and the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*⁷ also make mention of the *sabhā*, *sabhāpati*, and the *sabhāsad*. There are numerous references to the *sabhā* in later literature, but in these places the term means the council of the king and his palace or hall of justice. There may have been *sabhās* in the monarchical tribal governments also, but here we are concerned only with those political communities which were non-monarchical and where the *sabhā* was the supreme and only political institution.

c7.184

¹ *Vāj. Saṁ.*, iii, 45; xx, 17; xvi, 24; xxx, 6; 18.

c7.185

² *Mait. Saṁ.*, i, 6, 11; iv, 7, 4.

c7.186

³ *Tait. Saṁ.*, ix, 5, 3, 2; iii, 4, 8, 6.

c7.187

⁴ *Śat. Br.*, ii, 3, 2, 3; iii, 3, 4, 15; v, 31, 1, 10; *Tait. Br.*, i, 1, 10, 3-6; i, 2, 1, 26; iii, 4, 2, 1; iii, 4, 16, 1.

c7.188

⁵ *Kāṭh. Saṁ.*, viii, 7; xvii, 13, etc.

c7.189

⁶ *Kauśī. Br.*, vii, 9.

c7.190

⁷ *Chān. Up.*, v, 3, 6; viii, 14, 1.

c7.191

An examination of all the occurrences reveals that the mentions of the *sabhā* as a "council" are slightly fewer than the references to the *sabhya* or *sabhyāḥ*, *sabhācara* and *sabhāga* (members of the council or councillors), *sabhāsads* and the *sabhāpati*. There are a few references which indicate that the word *sabhā* might refer to the "council-hall,"⁸ which was also a centre for playing dice.⁹ Thus, the Vedic *sabhā* was to a large extent the forerunner of the *saṇthāgāra* of the republics of the Buddhist texts.¹⁰ The term was used in a sense similar to the later *darbār*, implying both the council and the council-hall. But the Mughal *darbār* was composed of the courtiers who advised the emperor when he chose to consult with them, whereas the Vedic *sabhā*, in this type of republic, was the supreme political authority of the tribe.

c7.192

⁸ *ṚV*, viii, 4, 9; *AV*, xix, 55, 5; *Chān. Up.*, viii, 14, 1; v, 3, 6.

c7.193

⁹ *ṚV*, x, 34, 6; *AV*, vii, 13, 2; v, 31, 6; xii, 3,46; *Vāj. Saṁ.*, xxx, 18; *Tait. Br.*, iii, 4, 16, 1.

c7.194

¹⁰ Cf. below, p. 103.

c7.195

Our contention that the *sabhā* was a "council" composed only of the important men of the tribe and not of all the heads of the families, as was the case in the political communities where the king was chosen by the *viś*, rests mainly on the frequent occurrences of words like *sabheya* (worthy of the *sabhā* or council), *sabhya* (member of the *sabhā*), *sabhāga* (one going to or into the *sabhā*), or *sabhācara* (one either going to or moving in the *sabhā*) and *sabhāvān* (a member of the *sabhā* or one worthy of the *sabhā*). Some references to the *sabhāsads*,¹ or those who sit at a council or are “assessors” in court, and to the *sabhāpati*,² the “president” of the *sabhā*, further enlighten us regarding the officers of the *sabhā*. The mention of the *sabhāsāha*,³ one superior or eminent in the *sabhā*, and of his friends taking pride in him, points either to his being a good debater or to his being elected to some office such as that of the *sabhāsad* or the *sabhāpati*.

c7.196

¹ *Mait. Saṁ.*, i, 6, 11; *Kāṭh. Saṁ.*, vii, 7; *Tait. Br.*, i, 2, 1, 26; *Ait. Br.*, 21, 14, etc.

c7.197

² *Vāj. Saṁ.*, xvi, 24; *Tait. Saṁ.*, iv, 5, 3, 2.

c7.198

³ *ṚV*, x, 71, 10; *sarve nandanti yaśasāgatena sabhāsāhena sakhyā sakhāyaḥ*.

c7.199

There is considerable data to prove that in order to be a member of the *sabhā* or to hold an important office in the government one had to have some distinction, whether in warfare, debating and eloquence, learning, or property in grain and cattle. The emphasis put on strength, valour, courage and firmness in the Vedic hymns is quite obvious. “Sing to your Agni with each song, at every sacrifice, *for strength*. Come let us praise the *wise* and ever-lasting God, even as a well-beloved friend. To the *son of strength*, in battle may he be our help and *strengthener*, yea, be the *protector* of our lives *great hero*, *give us strength*, *most youthful*, *possessing wealth*, send us thy bounties; the *charioteer*, *of earthly wealth*, *bring plenteous food*, make wealth easy to be found; *a flawless skin*, in glory *equal to the gods*, look upon us in the fight, etc.”⁴ These are the attributes and qualities prayed for and praised in the gods. Naturally these qualities were to be looked for in the members of the *sabhā*.

c7.200

⁴ *ṚV*, vi, 48; our italics.

c7.201

That the people honoured and heeded those who could protect their cows, fields and homes from enemies is clear from another hymn of the *Ṛg Veda*.⁵ The strength of the kine was glorified in their councils (*sabhāsu*).⁶ This verse is further repeated in the *Atharva Veda*⁷ and probably implies that the man who possessed the largest number of cattle spoke loudest in the *sabhā*. It is undoubtedly indicative of an element of aristocracy or oligarchy of wealth. "Indra, thy friend is fair of form or handsome [*surūpa*], and rich in horses [*aśvi*], chariots [*rathī*] and kine [*gomān*]. He evermore hath food and wealth, and always radiant, he goes to the council [*sabhām*]."¹ Another hymn indicates that learned men also attended the *sabhā* and through their wisdom gained wealth in the form of either worldly possessions or more probably of fame and glory.² Polite and refined speech was referred to as *sabhāvatī*, from the manners and etiquette of the *sabhā*.³

First 200 of 584 passages. Read on

Linked texts (24)