[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) › c8 # Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c8: Chapter Three: The Vajjian Confederacy Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c8 - **Language:** English ### Chapter Three: The Vajjian Confederacy ### [c8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.2) From the days of Cunningham and Rhys Davids a false idea has persisted regarding the real nature and exact number of the component members of the Vajjian Confederacy. Cunningham asserted that "in the time of Buddha, the Vrijis were divided into several clans, such as the Licchavis, the Vaidehis, the Tirabhuktis, and others, whose names are unknown. The exact number of their clans would appear to have been eight, as criminals were arraigned before the aṭṭhakulaka,¹ or 'eight clans,' which would appear to have been a jury composed of one member from each of the separate divisions of the tribe. Hsüan Tsang mentions that the people of the north called them 'San-fa-shi' ² or Samvajji, that is the 'United Vajjis,'—and the same name is referred to in the long and interesting account of the people of Wajji, which is given by Turnour ³ from the Pāli Chronicles of Ceylon".⁴ We know that the Vajjis were divided into at least two branches—the Licchavis of Vesālī and the Videhas of Mithilā—but there is no contemporary or near-contemporary evidence to support the view that the Tīrabhuktis of Tīrabhukti were a part of the Vajjian Confederacy. The district later known as Tīrabhukti may well have formed part of the territory controlled by the Confederacy, but we have no source which tells us it was called Tīrabhukti in the time of the Buddha or even, as Cunningham would have us believe, that a tribe called Tīrabhuktis existed. ### [c8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.3) ¹ G. Turnour, \*JASB\*, vii, p. 993, and fn. ### [c8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.4) ² S. Beal, \*BRWW\*, ii, p. 77, fn. 100; Watters, \*On Yuan Chwang\*, ii, p. 81, gives "San-fa-chih" (Samvajji), but the Fo-shi-li (Vṛji) does not occur in the \*Life of Hiüen Tsiang\*, tr. Beal. Probably the pilgrim did not actually visit the Vṛji country. \*Cf.\* Watters, \*op. cit.\*, ii, p. 83. ### [c8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.5) ³ Turnour, \*op. cit.\*, p. 992. ### [c8.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.6) ⁴ \*CAGIM\*, p. 512. ### [c8.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.7) The term Tīrabhukti seems, in fact, to be an administrative one and may not be older than the time of the Guptas, who certainly used the word \*bhukti\* in the sense of a province. Hsüan Tsang's reference to the northern people calling these people "Samvajjis" ### [c8.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.8) is too late to be relied upon implicitly.¹ Turnour, in his "Analysis of the Parinibbāna Suttan", refers to them only as "Wajjis" and not as "Samvajjis."² He further says that "the Union of the Wajjian States is stated to have consisted of a confederation of chiefs or princes".³ This should not be taken to support Cunningham's thesis of the "eight clans" forming a confederation. ### [c8.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.9) ¹ Beal, \*BRWW\*, ii, p. 77, fn. 100; Watters, \*op. cit.\*, ii, p. 81. ### [c8.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.10) ² Turnour, \*op. cit.\*, p. 992, and fn. ### [c8.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.11) ³ \*Loc. cit.\*; Turnour mistakenly calls them of the "Lichchawi dynasty" and wrongly identified "Wesāli" with "Allahabad." ### [c8.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.12) Rhys Davids also held the view that "the Vajjians included eight confederate clans, of whom the Licchavis and the Videhans were the most important."⁴ He gives no source for his claim but we presume that he also held this view on the authority of Turnour, who is quoted a few pages earlier.⁵ Legitimate doubt is thus cast upon the possibility of "so complicated a procedure being actually followed" in the Vajjian legal system.⁶ Later scholars have nearly always written of "the eight confederate tribes of the Vajjians" on the basis of Rhys Davids, without noting that the originator of the theory was Cunningham. The theory has been virtually unquestioned. ### [c8.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.13) ⁴ Rhys Davids, \*Buddhist India\*, pp. 25-6. ### [c8.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.14) ⁵ \*Ibid.\*, p. 22. ### [c8.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.15) ⁶ \*Loc. cit.\* ### [c8.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.16) Following Rhys Davids, almost all scholars have held the view, as if unquestionable, that the Vajjian Confederacy consisted of eight confederate clans. We mention only two of the most recent works; that of Drs. S. B. Chaudhuri⁷ and M. S. Pandey.⁸ The former states that "the Videhas along with the Licchavis, the Jñātṛkas, the Ugras, the Bhaggas and others were some of the constituent confederate clans (aṣṭakula), \[of\] the Vajjis."⁹ We find no evidence whatsoever for the inclusion of "the Ugras, the Bhaggas and others" in the Vajjian Confederacy. This is an obvious attempt to find enough names to make up the traditional number of eight. Dr. Pandey, on the authority of H. C. Raychaudhuri,¹⁰ also made the "Vajjian Confederacy consist of eight members of which the Licchavis were most important, and Videhas also being one of them.”¹ Again following Raychaudhuri,² he states that the Vajjis might also have been a tribe like the Licchavis and the Videhas. The suggestion is probable and we are inclined to suggest the same thing, yet there is no positive evidence to support this claim. ### [c8.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.17) ⁷ S. B. Chaudhuri, \*Ethnic Settlements in Ancient India\*, pp. 164-5; see also B. C. Law, \*TAI\*, p. 239; \*KCBI\*, pp. 4, 60. ### [c8.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.18) ⁸ M. S. Pandey, \*Historical Geography and Topography of Bihar\*, pp. 140-1. ### [c8.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.19) ⁹ Chaudhuri, \*Ethnic Settlements\*, pp. 164-5. ### [c8.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.20) ¹⁰ H. C. Raychaudhuri, \*PHAI\*, p. 118; and fn. ### [c8.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.21) ¹ Pandey, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 140-1. ### [c8.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.22) ² \*Ibid.\*, pp. 119-20. ### [c8.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.23) We have found that the Vajjis are more frequently mentioned than the Licchavis in the Buddhist Canon and the Sanskrit literature while there is no mention at all of the Vajjis in the Jaina literature, but only of the Licchavis.³ These references to the Vajjis suggest that they were also an independent tribe like the other two known tribes of the Confederacy. They may have been the most powerful tribe in the region later occupied by the Licchavis. In the Sanskrit version of the \*Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra\* we find \*vṛjiṣu janapadeṣu\* mentioned at least six times.⁴ This might suggest that the region which the Confederacy occupied was also named after the Vajjis. Parallels to this can be suggested from China being named after the Chins, Germany after the Germani, France after the Franks, Britain after the Britons. These geographical names persisted long after the tribes had lost their identity, and the areas covered by the names expanded in the course of time. ### [c8.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.24) ³ \*Abhidhāna Rājendra\*, \*s.v.\* Licchaï. ### [c8.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.25) ⁴ \*MPS\*, pp. 162, 172, 178, 190, 202 and 228. ### [c8.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.26) In our opinion the theory of the confederating clans of the Vajjians being eight is false and the ancient sources do not contradict this conclusion. Buddhaghosa is the only source on which the theory is based.⁵ He refers to the \*aṭṭhakulikas\* of the Vajjis as one of the legal tribunals of Vesāli. It in no way follows that the eight component \*kulas\* of this tribunal were tribes. \*Kula\* has rather the sense of clan or family group and if these were tribes one would rather expect \*jana\*. The \*aṭṭhakulikas\* seem more likely to have been a body composed of the heads of eight leading families of Vesāli than of eight confederate tribes. We have not been able to trace the occurrence of the compound \*aṭṭhakulika\* in any Pāli, Sanskrit or Prākrit sources except the single reference in Buddhaghosa’s \*Sumaṅgala Vilāsinī\*. This is surely an inadequate basis for the generally held theory of the eight tribes of the Vajjian Confederacy. ### [c8.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.27) ⁵ \*Sum. Vil.\*, ii, p. 519; \*cf.\* \*DPPN\*, ii, p. 813, fn. 1. ### [c8.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.28) Moreover, the Jaina traditions, while confirming the existence of a confederation of some kind, in no way confirm its consisting of eight tribes, but suggest a much larger combination. The Jaina \*Kalpa Sūtra\* refers to a set combination of the Mallas, the Licchavis and the \*gaṇarājās\* of Kāsi-Kosala.¹ This formula, which is also to be found in other Jaina sources,² is not altogether clear, but seems to mean "the nine Mallas, the nine Licchavis, indeed the eighteen tribal chiefs of Kāsi-Kosala." Whether the total is 36 or 18 (the 18 chiefs of the last phrase being the total of the Mallas and Licchavis in the previous phrases), it is certainly not eight and gives no support to the accepted theory. Though the Jaina scriptures have admittedly been subject to interpolation and emendation, they seem certainly closer to the period they represent than does Budhaghosa, who in any case nowhere states that the Vajjian Confederacy consisted of eight confederated tribes. ### [c8.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.29) ¹ \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, p. 65; \*nava mallaī nava lecchaī kāsīkosalasya aṭṭhārasa vi gaṇa-rāyāṇo\*. Jacobi's text is used throughout, if not noted otherwise. ### [c8.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.30) ² \*Niryāvalikā\*, Warren, ed., pp. 27-8; the same formula occurs at least four times. ### [c8.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.31) We believe that there was no fixed number of Confederates of the Vajjian League. In conclusion, on the authority of the evidence, we propose that the sources prove the inclusion of the following tribes in the Confederation—the Licchavis of Vesālī,³ the Videhas of Mithilā,⁴ the Nāyas of Kuṇḍapura,⁵ the Mallas of Pāvā and Kusinārā⁶ and the Vajjis. We shall give our reasons for this in discussing the history of each tribe. ### [c8.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.32) ³ \*Dīgha\*, (PTS ed. used), ii, pp. 164ff.; \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, p. 65; \*Niryāvalikā\*, pp. 27-8; cf. below, pp. 86ff. ### [c8.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.33) ⁴ \*Niryāvalikā\*, pp. 27-8; \*Kalpa Sūtra\*, p. 65; cf. below, pp. 136ff. ### [c8.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.34) ⁵ \*Sūtra Kṛt.\*, i, p. 2; iii, p. 22; \*Uvāsagadasāo\*, i, sec. 69; see below, pp. 159ff. ### [c8.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.35) ⁶ \*Niryāvalikā\*, pp. 19ff; \*Dīgha\*, ii, pp. 164ff; cf. below, pp. 169ff. ### [c8.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.36) Apart from these tribes, we have no evidence that other republics were included in the Vajjian Confederation, but the Jaina formula can be interpreted to prove that some Kāsi-Kosalans were also connected with the Vajjian Confederacy. It is not improbable that some Kāsi-Kosalan chiefs threw in their lot with the Confederacy after Viḍūḍabha came to power, but their association would not have lasted long, as Ajātasattu soon destroyed the Confederacy itself.⁷ ### [c8.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8.37) ⁷ Also, see Y. Mishra, \*An Early History of Vaiśālī\*, pp. 103-23 for a different interpretation of the Confederation. Cf. below, pp. 85ff., for details of each confederate republic. ## Linked texts (6) - [Mahāparinibbānasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.digha.16) — Pāli - [Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.agama.mahaparinirvanasutra) — Sanskrit - [Sūyagaḍa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.anga.2) — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Dīghanikāya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.digha) — Pāli - [Kalpasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.cheda.1.kalpasutra) — Bhadrabāhu, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Uvāsagadasāo](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.anga.7) — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.sharma-1968.c8) · Pramāṇa