Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s4: Government and Organization

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s4

Language
English

Government and Organization

c9.s4.1

The Licchavis formed what is constitutionally called a *saṅgha* or a *gaṇa*.⁷ This was a form of government in which neither a single ruler, nor even a few, but a considerable portion of the population was vested with the final power and ultmate authority of the state. The *gaṇa*, as Kātyāyana⁸ and Kauṭilya⁹ give us to understand, was tribal in character and its members were generally considered Kṣatriyas.¹⁰ The question as to who formed the Licchavian *gaṇa* (assembly) at Vesālī, has produced several different theories. All the views rest on the basis of the three following sources which we quote before systematically examining the strong and weak points of the theories based upon them.

c9.s4.2

⁷ *Majjhima*, i, p. 231; *immesam pi hi bho Gotama saṅghānaṁ gaṇānaṁ, seyyatthidaṁ Vajjīnaṁ Mallānaṁ*, etc.; *cf. Cīvaravastu*, iii, pt. 2, p. 5; *Vaiśālī gaṇādhīnā.*

c9.s4.3

⁸ *Vārtikā*, iv, 1, 160.

c9.s4.4

⁹ *Arthaśāstra*, chap. xi, pp. 378-81.

c9.s4.5

¹⁰ *Cf.* Altekar, *State and government*, pp. 112-3.

c9.s4.6

The preamble to the *Ekapanna-Jātaka* states that “in that city [Vesālī] there were always 7,707 kings [*rājās*] to govern the kingdom, and a like number of viceroys [*uparājās*], generals [*senāpatis*] and treasurers [*bhaṇḍāgārikas*].”¹ The preamble to the *Cullakāliṅga-Jātaka* refers to the same tradition when it says that “the Licchavis of the ruling family to the number of 7,707 had their abode at Vesāli. And all of them were given to argument and disputation.”² But the *Mahāvastu* presents yet another picture. This text states that there were “twice 84,000 Licchavi *rājās* residing within the city of Vaiśālī”.³

c9.s4.7

¹ *Jāt.*, i, p. 404.

c9.s4.8

² *Ibid.*, iii, p. 1.

c9.s4.9

³ *Mahāvastu*, i, pp. 256, 271; *cp.* *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 6-7.

c9.s4.10

Twice this last mentioned figure (168,000) certainly seems too large a number for the assembly, but it may suggest that the entire population of the Licchavian capital was more than 7,707. Yet one should not attribute too much weight to such statements, as 84,000 is an oft-quoted number in ancient Indian literature. In our opinion this merely implies that Vesālī was a large city and had many inhabitants. It is difficult to give even an approximate number for the population of Vesālī. When the *Jātaka* author says there were 7,707 kings and a like member of viceroys, generals and treasurers he might be pointing to the entire adult male population of Vesālī.⁴ But again, this may indicate no more than that the city of Vesālī was quite populous.

c9.s4.11

⁴ *Buddhist India*, pp. 18, 33-34.

c9.s4.12

Vesālī was not only the area enclosed within the walls of the city, but also included a wider territory of the suburbs. This is evident from the *Mahāvastu*⁵ and the Jaina sources,⁶ and from Hsüan Tsang.⁷ It suggests a picture not unlike Athens in her heyday or Rome during her Republican period. Athens is said to have had about 40,000 citizens out of a total population of about 400,000,⁸ and Rome “had between 40,000 to 90,000 potential voters at election time during the period from the Second Punic to the Third Macedonian War.”⁹ “A maximum attendance of 4,000 to 10,000 would seem a likely guess, and in practice the number probably was considerably less''.¹ In public-spirited Athens the annual meeting of the *ecclesia* for ostracism required a quorum of 6,000 members out of at least 35,000 men, while an attendance of 5,000 at regular meetings was considered a record in difficult war-time conditions.²

c9.s4.13

⁵ *Mahāvastu*, i, p. 256; *grāmakṣetrosī*.

c9.s4.14

⁶ *Uvāsagadasāo*, i, p. 3; tr. p. 4 fn. 8; *Niryāvalikā*, pp. 19ff.; *cf.* *PHAI*, pp. 119-20.

c9.s4.15

⁷ Watters, *On Yuan Chwang*, ii, p. 83; *cf.* *CAGIM*, pp. 580ff.; Altekar, *Indian Archaeology—A Review*, 1957-8, pp. 10-11; 1958-9, p. 12.

c9.s4.16

⁸ Barker, *op. cit.*, p. 35, fn. 3.

c9.s4.17

⁹ H. H. Scullard, *Roman Politics*, p. 20.

c9.s4.18

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 21.

c9.s4.19

² Thucydides, viii, 72, quoted in Barker, *op. cit.*, pp. 32ff.

c9.s4.20

Keeping our sources in view and also taking note of the more or less contemporary Athens, and the somewhat later Rome, we suggest that the figure of 30,828 (7,707 × 4) of the *Ekapanna-Jātaka* refers to an approximate citizen body (Kṣatriya population) and not to the entire population of the area controlled by the Licchavis. The latter might have been in the region of 200,000-300,000.³ The figure 7,707 probably refers to a fixed number⁴ of people who actually had full political rights and could take their seats in the Vesālian Assembly. Thus, the governing class in the Licchavian republic was, like the Yaudheyas who had 5,000,⁵ fairly large. It was as numerous as the corresponding ruling class in Athens and more numerous than at Rome. They need not necessarily always have attended the Assembly, but enjoyed the right to do so and were individually called *rājās*.⁶ In fact, no single one of these 7,707 *rājās* had great power.⁷ The power rested with the majority, and, as we shall see, it seems that nine councillors carried out the administration and were responsible to the Assembly. Apart from the Licchavi *rājās* and their families, there were artisans, "probably not Licchavis, in each village of the republic, and men of certain special trades of higher standing—the carpenters, smiths, and potters for instance, had villages of their own. So also had the Brāhmaṇas, whose services were in request at every domestic event''.⁸

c9.s4.21

³ *Cp.* Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, pp. 18, 33-4.

c9.s4.22

⁴ Like the Greek aristocracies "of fixed number" of 1,000 as among the Locrians, also at Colophon and at Cyme, and of 600 at Syracuse and at Massalia. *Cf.* Whibley, *op. cit.*, pp. 134ff.

c9.s4.23

⁵ McCrindle, *Alexander's Invasion*, p. 121.

c9.s4.24

⁶ *Lalitavistara*, i, p. 21; *Mahāvastu*, i, pp. 257ff. Quite like the rulers of the "*nobles and the Samiti*" state; *cf.* above, p. 58.

c9.s4.25

⁷ *Loc. cit.* ; also see Altekar, *State and Goverment*, pp. 114ff.; Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 394; D. R. Chanana, *JBRS*, (spl. issue), ii, p. 6.

c9.s4.26

⁸ *Buddhist India*, pp. 20-21.

c9.s4.27

Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, on the authority of the *Jātakas* quoted above, held the view that "every one of these (7,707) Licchavi kings had with him his own viceroy, general and treasurer".¹ He further says that "whether there were as many as 7,707 Licchavi kings ever staying in Vesāli, as the *Jātaka* preambles inform us, is somewhat doubtful. What we may safely infer is that the number of the kings constituting the Licchavi *Gaṇa* was pretty large. It again seems that the Licchavi kings had each his separate principality where he exercised supreme power in certain respects. Except on this supposition it is not intelligible why each should have his own *uparājā*, *senāpati* and *bhaṇḍāgārika*, and act as the magistrate in inflicting punishments."²

c9.s4.28

¹ *Car. Lecs.*, p. 154; also see R. S. Hardy, *A Manual of Buddhism*, p. 235.

c9.s4.29

² Bhandarkar, *Car. Lecs.*, p. 155.

c9.s4.30

It seems incredible that so learned a scholar should rely on the preamble of a *Jātaka* to the extent of accepting the historicity of such a fantastic state of affairs. Moreover, the *Jātaka* itself does not say explicitly that each king had these officers attached to him. Bhandarkar obviously does not think it possible that the *Jātaka* writer might have had a subtle sense of humour. It appears to us that the passage should be taken as a sarcastic remark, based on the fact that each member of the Assembly called himself a *rājā*, and each soldier fancied himself a general. This is corroborated by an equally striking statement about the Licchavis in the *Lalitavistara* that "each one thinks: I am king; I am king".³ The number 7,707, without forgetting the 5,000 of the Yaudheyas,⁴ may with little difficulty be accepted as an approximate or even exact number of the Licchavi kings, but it is simply fantastic to assign a "separate principality to each where he exercised supreme power in certain respects," as Bhandarkar suggested. Moreover, the equally large number of *uparājās*, *senāpatis* and *bhaṇḍāgārikas* is inconceivable. How could the small territory around Vesāli be sliced into 7,707 "separate principalities"?

c9.s4.31

³ i, p. 21; *Bibl. Indica Series*, chap. iii, p. 23; *ekaika eva manyate ahaṁ rājā, aham rājeti*; also see *Mbh.* (Poona Edn.), ii, xiv, 2, Yudhiṣṭhira's remark; *gṛhe gṛhe tu rājānaḥ*.

c9.s4.32

⁴ McCrindle, *Alexander's Invasion*, p. 121; also see Altekar, *State and Government*, p. 112.

c9.s4.33

While Bhandarkar showed too much imagination in his interpretation of this passage, Majumdar did not even think it worth serious consideration. He lightly remarks that "while the number seven thousand seven hundred and seven may be dismissed as a purely conventional one, it may be accepted that the supreme assembly of the state consisted of a pretty large number of members and must, as such, be held to be a popular one."¹ This judgement does not solve the problem any better than that of Bhandarkar. Moreover, it cannot be assumed from the number in question that the Licchavian Assembly was of necessity a "popular one" without qualifications. Majumdar also comments that "this [the number 7,707 of the kings and others] would imply that each member of the Suprême Assembly possessed a full suite of officers requisite for the administration of the State. It would appear, therefore, that each of these members was the head of an administrative unit. In other words, the whole state consisted of a number of administrative units, each of which was a state in miniature by itself, and possessed a complete administrative machinery."² He then compares these "states in miniature" to Athens' division into *demes* after Cleisthenes.³ Majumdar mainly follows Bhandarkar, but is less adventurous than he. Furthermore, his comparison of the Licchavian territory with the Athenian division into ten *demes* is not warranted by the Indian sources and, if we understand him correctly, he hesitantly implies that the Licchavian republic had 7,707 "states in miniature".⁴ Unless the area was far more thickly populated than it is today, which is most unlikely, there was not even one-tenth that number of villages in the entire Licchavian territory. The Licchavian republic, though similar in some aspects to its Athenian counterpart, was certainly not as well-divided and well-organized as the latter, as far as our sources indicate.

c9.s4.34

¹ Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 228.

c9.s4.35

² *Ibid.*, p. 229.

c9.s4.36

³ *Ibid.*, p. 230.

c9.s4.37

⁴ Whereas the Athenian division was concerned with groupings of equal size often cutting across the old tribal populations, there is no evidence of any such division among the Licchavis.

c9.s4.38

B. C. Law states that "it does not appear to have been a completely democratic republic, but an oligarchy, citizenship being confined to members of the confederate clans".⁵ He further says that "what the real number of de facto *rājās* was, we do not know".⁶ That the Licchavian *saṅgha* or *gaṇa* was not "a completely democratic republic, but an oligarchy" is unobjectionable, but how could the "confederate clans" be members of the Licchavian republic? The Licchavis themselves were merely one of the confederate members, albeit the most important of the Vajjian League.

c9.s4.39

⁵ *TAI*, p. 321.

c9.s4.40

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 321.

c9.s4.41

Professor Altekar's view that "the Licchavis had a council of 9 though the membership of their Assembly numbered 7,707,"¹ is a fair judgement. It seems obvious from the evidence of contemporary Athens that 7,707 was the number of the Licchavi Khattiyas, all calling themselves *rājās*, who formed the General Assembly. They normally met once a year for important and grave public business.² But usually a much smaller body assembled to attend to the administration, meeting for this in the *santhāgāra*.³ It was a common feature of the republics at the time of the Buddha to have a meeting place like a mote-hall in their capital cities and also in other large towns of the republics.⁴ As the Athenian *ecclesia* met at the *pnyx*,⁵ and the Roman Senate in the *curia*,⁶ so the Licchavian *gaṇa* met in the *santhāgāra*.⁷ It was not only a political centre but, like the Vedic *sabhā*, also the place where religious and social functions of the republic took place.⁸

c9.s4.42

¹ *State and Government*, p. 132; see also *PHAI*, p. 125; *Corporate Life*, p. 232.

c9.s4.43

² See below, pp. 107ff; *cp.* *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 7ff.

c9.s4.44

³ *Majjhima*, i, pp. 228, 457, etc.; *Dīgha*, i, p. 91; ii, p. 164, etc.; *cf.* tr. *Dialogues*, i, p. 113, fn. 2.

c9.s4.45

⁴ *Loc. cit*; *cf.* *Buddhist India*, pp. 19, 20.

c9.s4.46

⁵ Harvey, *op. cit.*, p. 152.

c9.s4.47

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 388; *cf.* Heitland, *op. cit.*, pp. 64ff.

c9.s4.48

⁷ *Majjhima*, i, p. 228.

c9.s4.49

⁸ See above, pp. 40ff; *cp.* Altekar, *State and Governement*, pp. 127-8.

c9.s4.50

At the time of the Buddha this republic was larger in territory than any other. It was almost equal in size to the largest Greek polis of Sparta, which occupied an area of 3,360 square miles.⁹ The 7,707 *rājās* appear to have been the heads of Kṣatriya families¹⁰ residing in and about Vesāli.¹¹ They were all designated *rājās*¹² and their sons were called Licchavi-*kumāras* (princes).¹³ On the basis of the meagre evidence we may suggest that the eldest son of the head of the family usually succeeded his father and was referred to as *uparājā*.¹ If his father, the *rājā*, was ill or unable to attend an assembly, the *uparājā* (viceroy) might have represented him. Thus, it would appear that only part of the adult population, though a large number, had potential political rights and held state offices. Probably the General Assembly normally met once a year during the Licchavis' annual spring season festival.²

c9.s4.51

⁹ Barker, *op. cit.*, p. 27; *cf.* Altekar, *State and Governement*, pp. 121-2, fn. 2.

c9.s4.52

¹⁰ *Cp.* *Majjhima*, i, p. 164, refers to Brāhmaṇa heads of families.

c9.s4.53

¹¹ *Mahāvastu*, i, p. 257.

c9.s4.54

¹² *Lalitavistara*, i, p. 21; Kauṭilya, bk. xi; also see above, p. 58.

c9.s4.55

¹³ Bhandarkar, *Car. Lecs.*, p. 150.

c9.s4.56

¹ *Sūtra Kṛi.*, bk. ii, i, 13.

c9.s4.57

² *Kalpa Sūtra*, sec. 128; *cp.* *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 9-10.

c9.s4.58

It was at annual meetings like this that the Licchavis honoured their elected courtesan Ambapālī.³ This surprising ceremony of electing the most beautiful woman to be the wife of the whole republic must have taken place during the week of the spring season festivities. The length of her career suggests that she was appointed for life. The *Cīvaravastu*⁴ and the Tibetan *Dulva* preserve the interesting tradition as to how she became a courtesan. From a Kadali tree in an *āmra* grove of Mahānāman, a Licchavi of Vesālī "was born a girl, lovely to look upon, perfect in all parts of her body, and he (Mahānāman) called her name Āmrapālī (Amra Skyong-ma). When she was grown up, as there was a law at Vaiśālī by which a perfect woman was not allowed to marry, but was reserved for the pleasures of the people, she became a courtesan."⁵

c9.s4.59

³ *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 16ff; *DPPN*, i, pp. 155-6; Whibley, *op. cit.*, p. 121 notes that the Bacchiadae of Greece met once a year to choose their chief. *Cp.* E.S. Hartland, *Primitive Law* pp. 26. The Yakuts of N.E. Siberia met once each summer.

c9.s4.60

⁴ *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 17ff.

c9.s4.61

⁵ *Dulva*, iii, pp. 87-8, quoted in W. W. Rockhill, *Life of the Buddha*, p. 64.

c9.s4.62

It was probably on this occasion that the *uparājās* whose fathers had died during the year, or had become too old to perform their duties, were given their sacred bath and anointed *rājās*. The auspicious *Pokkharaṇī* was the tank wherein the representatives of the Kṣatriya families of Vesālī were also anointed.⁶ The existence of such a tank has been confirmed by the recent excavations carried out at the site by the late Professor Altekar.⁷ These revealed the "periphery of an ancient tank about half a mile to the northwest of the ruins of the fortified city of Vaiśālī (*rājā Viśāla kā gaḍa*). The site of the tank (now called Kharaunapokhrā) with a length of 1,420 feet and a width of 660 feet is locally believed to represent the ancient ‘Abhiṣeka-Puṣkariṇī’ of the Licchavis in which none but the Licchavi chiefs were allowed to bathe . . .”. The excavations proved that “while no wall existed at the top of the tank-embankment, there had been one, 3 feet 4 inches wide along its slope, very near the present-day water level during the month of March . . .”. “The original tank of the Licchavis might have been a smaller one, which was subsequently enlarged and surrounded by a wall, represented by its present remains, in about the 2nd century B.C. when the Licchavis might have once more become powerful after the fall of the Mauryan Empire.”¹

c9.s4.63

⁶ *Jāt.*, iv, p. 148; *Vesālīnagare gaṇarājakulānaṁ-abhiseka-maṅgala Pokkharaṇī*.

c9.s4.64

⁷ *Indian Archaeology* — *A Review*, 1957-8, pp. 10-11; 1958-9, p. 12.

c9.s4.65

¹ Altekar, *Indian Archaeology-A Review*, 1957-8, pp. 10-11; 1958-9, p. 12.

c9.s4.66

The chief officer of the state, the *rājā, par excellence*² was most probably elected during this week of spring festivities. The sources do not definitely say for what period of time the head of the republic was elected. But the idea does emerge that the *rājās* who constituted the Assembly held their seats for life unless they were physically handicapped or found guilty of some serious crime, such as treason. However, it does not seem possible that the chief *rājā* or president was elected for life.

c9.s4.67

² *Jāt.*, i, pp. 504ff.

c9.s4.68

In the *Niryāvalikā Sūtra* of the Jainas,³ *rājā* Ceḍaga is represented as an all-powerful king who is assisted by a council of nine kings when he dealt with Licchavian affairs.⁴ Actually he was one of the nine Licchavian kings who ruled the republic in the name of the Assembly.⁵ The Buddhist works do not even mention Ceḍaga, the king of Vesālī, but they tell us that the governing power of Vesālī was vested in a Senate composed of the nobility and presided over by a king who shared the power with a viceroy, a general-in-chief and a treasurer.⁶ In the Jaina books we also find traces of this “curious government” of the Licchavis.⁷ In the *Niryāvalikā* Ceḍaga consulted “the 18 confederate kings of Kāsi-Kosala, the nine Licchavis and the nine Mallakis” before taking a final decision against the Magadhan king.⁸ Again, on the death of Mahāvīra the 18 confederate kings, mentioned above, instituted a festival commemorating that event,¹ but no separate mention is made of their pretended sovereign Ceḍaga. It is probable that Ceḍaga was simply one of these confederate kings and their peer. Jacobi seems to belittle Ceḍaga’s position, but the emphasis placed upon him in the Jaina texts indicates that at least he headed the Licchavian Council, though no great power was attached to this office. Actual power was vested in the Council of nine. Thus, we may understand why the Buddhists took no notice of him; his influence was not very great and, moreover, was apparently used in the interests of their rivals, the Jainas.²

c9.s4.69

³ Ed. Gopani and Chokshi, pp. 19ff.; *cf.* Basham, *Ājīvikas*, pp. 68ff.

c9.s4.70

⁴ Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 69.

c9.s4.71

⁵ *Jaina Sūtras*, pt. i, p. xii.

c9.s4.72

⁶ See above, pp. 98-100.

c9.s4.73

⁷ *Jaina Sūtras*, pt. i, p. xii.

c9.s4.74

⁸ See below, “Political History”, pp. 123ff.

c9.s4.75

¹ *Kalpa Sūtra*, sec. 128.

c9.s4.76

² *Mahāvastu*, i, pp. 254ff; refers to Tomara representing the difficulties of the Licchavis to the Buddha.

c9.s4.77

The Tibetan tradition also points to the election of the Licchavian chief when it records that “their chief magistrate was called Nāyaka (sde-dpon) and he was elected by the people or rather by the ruling clans of the Licchavis”.³ In our opinion this preserves the authentic tradition that the Licchavi nobles elected a chief from amongst themselves. He was head of the state as well as the supreme judge.⁴ Rhys Davids explains his probable status briefly and clearly: “A single chief—how, and for what period chosen, we do not know—was elected as office holder, presiding over the sessions, and, if no sessions were sitting, over the state. He bore the title of rājā, which must have meant something like the Roman consul or the Greek archon.”⁵

c9.s4.78

³ Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 62.

c9.s4.79

⁴ Hardy, *op. cit.*; “They reigned in turn, each for an appointed time” (p. 236).

c9.s4.80

⁵ *Buddhist India*, p. 19.

c9.s4.81

It is probable that the chief officer of the state, also called a *rājā*, was elected from amongst his fellow *rājās* because of his age,⁶ political wisdom, strength of character, bravery in battle, eloquence in the assembly and general popularity among the citizens.⁷ Normally, for a *rājā* to command such great admiration and affection from his people would imply that he was well into his forties or early fifties. If he was elected at about the age of 40 to 45, he would not have usually acted as chief or president of the republic for more than 10 to 15 years. In the meantime, some new, rising and popular figure must have replaced him in the public eye. The comparatively short life expectancy which we may assume for the Indian of those days,¹ would suggest that the term of office of a Licchavian *rājā* was fairly brief. It should be remembered that while among the most primitive peoples chiefs hold office for life, the period of chieftainship may be comparatively short, in some cases averaging no more than ten years.²

c9.s4.82

⁶ In Greek “aristocracies of heads of the houses”, age enjoyed indirect privilege (Whibley, *op. cit.*, p. 123).

c9.s4.83

⁷ *Cp.* above, pp. 30ff; for the qualifications of a king chosen by the *viś* in the Vedic period.

c9.s4.84

¹ Cf. Oldenberg, *Buddha*, pp. 11ff.

c9.s4.85

² Cf. M. Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard, *African Political Systems*, p. 258.

c9.s4.86

However, in some cases a strong, worthy and popular president might well have continued in his office for a longer period of time covering some 25 to 30 years, but this would be unusual. In the more democratic Athens, Cleisthenes, the founder of that democracy, is said to have governed for 31 years,³ but such a long period of office was not the general rule. In our opinion it is unlikely that the elected head of the Licchavian *gaṇa* held office for more than 10 to 15 years, except in very exceptional circumstances. The case with the *uparājā* would be similar. But the change in the office of the *bhaṇḍāgārika* might have been less frequent as at that time it would have been difficult to find an experienced and expert treasurer. We do have definite evidence from a Buddhist Sanskrit text, the *Cīvaravastu*, that the *senāpati* was appointed for life.⁴ No difficulties seem to have arisen from the life-tenure of the general similar to the events at Rome leading to the Civil Wars. The admiration won by the general during the successful anti-Magadhan campaigns does not seem to have made the assembly fearful of the power he could wield after the immediate threat was over. The Civil Wars in Rome which witnessed the downfall of the Republic were directly caused by the struggles between the all-powerful generals who had been too long retained in office because of this very quality of efficiency in the battlefield.

c9.s4.87

³ Harvey, *op. cit.*, p. 108.

c9.s4.88

⁴ *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 9-10. Khaṇḍa's predecessor, Khaṇḍa, and Siṁha were appointed generals for life.

c9.s4.89

The opening chapter of the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta* states that the Buddha commented on the seven-fold conditions of the Licchavis.⁵ It would appear that ideally they "held full and frequent public assemblies," that they met "together in concord," and "rose in concord" and carried out their undertakings in concord, and that these institutions of the Licchavis were well-established and "ancient." They were encouraged to revere and support their "elders" (*theras*), and to hold it as a point of duty to hearken to their words. It would also seem from the same text that the Licchavis instructed their successors, the *uparājās* (viceroys), in the art of government and encouraged them to maintain the traditional system of government. They might all have been required to serve an apprenticeship before they were formally anointed at the *Pokkharaṇī*. Before taking their rightful place in the council, it is possible that they had no voting rights unless they represented their leader or were formally announced as *rājās*.

c9.s4.90

⁵ *MPS*, pp. 102ff.; *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff.

c9.s4.91

If the Buddhist sources are significant leads as to the number of the General Assembly, the four chief officers, the adult population and the population of the *gaṇa* at large, the Jaina texts present strong evidence that there was also a smaller body which carried out the public business in the name of the Assembly. The four chief officers, (the *rājā*, the *uparājā*, the *senāpati* and the *bhaṇḍāgārika*), of the *Jātakas* and the oft-quoted formula of the *nava Lecchaī gaṇarāyas* of the Jainas,¹ combine to produce the conclusion that the Licchavian council actually consisted of nine *rājās*. Probably the *rājā* or the chief king was elected by the Assembly and the eight councillors elected by the eight Licchavian clans whose existence is indicated in the Pāli sources.²

c9.s4.92

¹ *Kalpa Sūtra*, p. 65; *Niryāvalikā*, ed. Warren, pp. 26-8; *SBE*, xxii, pt. i, p. 266.

c9.s4.93

² It is not certain from the contexts of the Jaina formula whether the phrase "nine Licchavis, nine Mallakis and 18 *gaṇarājās* of Kāsī and Kosala" was intended to be exclusive or inclusive of Ceḍaga, the Licchavi *rājā*. But the phrase *aṭṭhakulikā* in the Pāli suggests the latter; *cf.* p. 81.

c9.s4.94

Although great power is attributed to Ceḍagarāya in the *Niryāvalikā*, he was actually no more than head of the state and was elected by the Assembly to carry out public business with the help of the other eight Licchavian kings. Besides Tomara, the *Bhaddasāla Jātaka* refers to the blind Mahāli whom the Licchavian kings rushed to consult when they heard that Bandhula the Mallian was violating their sacred tank.³ This suggests that even at that time Mahāli was an important adviser of the Assembly.⁴ Before he lost his eyesight he might have been the chief of the Assembly. Ceḍaga, Tomara and Mahāli, appear to have been influential within a short span of time.¹ Could it be that they were successive chiefs or presidents of the Licchavian *gaṇa*? It seems obvious that the chief of the republic with the eight other *rājās* formed the council of the Licchavis.² It is probably this body of nine *rājās* which, according to the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*, met fairly frequently and discussed public business.³ The famous words of the Buddha encouraging frequent and harmonious meetings may not have been intended to apply to the full Assembly. If it was as large as we have suggested, frequent meetings of so large a body might be calculated to interfere with the military, social, and economic life of a community living in such conditions as prevailed in the ancient world.

c9.s4.95

³ *Jāt.*, iv, p. 149.

c9.s4.96

⁴ *Dhammapada*, p. 219; Mahāli is called *Mahā-Licchavi*.

c9.s4.97

¹ While the *Cīvaravastu* seems to imply that Mahānāma was the chief of the Licchavi *gaṇa*.

c9.s4.98

² Also see *PHAI*, p. 125.

c9.s4.99

³ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff.

c9.s4.100

Buddhaghosa records a tradition about the judicial procedure of the Licchavis. A criminal, after examination by lesser bodies, if not discharged, was made over to the *aṭṭha-kulikas* by the *suttadharas*. And the former, if convinced of his guilt, handed him over to the *senāpati*.⁴ We have seen earlier that the term *aṭṭha-kulika* has been given undue importance and has been misunderstood.⁵ However, it throws some light on the matter of the Licchavian Council. It may well be that the *aṭṭha-kulikas* are the council of nine referred to in the Jaina sources in its judicial function. Possibly when a prisoner was tried the chief *rājā* did not act as a member of the jury. Thus these eight, the *aṭṭhakulikas* of Buddhaghosa, tried judicial cases.

c9.s4.101

⁴ *Sum. Vil.*, ii, p. 519.

c9.s4.102

⁵ See above, pp. 81ff.

c9.s4.103

There was no complete division among the legislative, executive and judicial functions within the Assembly, which is the hall-mark of modern democracies. Neither did the assembly of the early Germans have such division. It "selected" the chiefs and the generals and it tried judicial cases.⁶ No doubt the position of the Licchavian Assembly was similar. In practice all these functions would usually be carried out by this council of nine who had to answer for their actions to the Assembly.

c9.s4.104

⁶ For details see Tacitus, *Germania*, chaps. 11, 12, pp. 279-81; Altekar, *State and Government*, p. 127; Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 119, etc.; *cp.* Hartland, *op. cit.*, p. 137.

c9.s4.105

Further evidence for the existence of a small inner council within the republic, apart from the Pāli and Prākrit sources, comes from the Sanskrit works. *Sangha-mukhyas* and *gaṇa-mukhyas* are often mentioned not only by Kauṭilya,¹ but also in the *Śānti Parva*.² In the latter source, Bhīṣma, advising Yudhiṣṭhira the Just, says: “They that are the chiefs of the *gaṇa* should be especially honoured. The affairs of the kingdom, O King, depend to a great extent upon them.”³

c9.s4.106

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, p. 377.

c9.s4.107

² *Mbh. Śānti Parva* (Poona edn.), chap. 108, verses 6ff.

c9.s4.108

³ *Mbh. Śānti Parva* (Poona edn.), 108, 6.

c9.s4.109

It is also clear from the study of the *Arthaśāstra*⁴ and the *Śānti Parva* that great importance was placed on the manner in which meetings of the councils were to be conducted. Note how serious is Bhīṣma on this point: “It is not advisible that the republic [*gaṇa*] as a whole should know the [secret] counsels. But the chiefs of a republic [*gaṇamukhyāḥ*], having assembled in secret, should do what is for the good of the republic [*gaṇa-hitam*].”⁵

c9.s4.110

⁴ *Arthaśāstra*, pp. 26-9.

c9.s4.111

⁵ *Mbh. Śānti Parva* (Poona edn.), 108, 24-5.

c9.s4.112

It is then a fair conclusion that the Licchavian Assembly consisted of the 7,707 *rājās* and that they elected from amongst themselves one to be their president or head of the state for a period of time. He was assisted by a council of eight (excluding the *rājā*), and wielded supreme power in the republic in the name of the Assembly. The latter was too large a body to administer the republic itself. No doubt this small body of nine, which made the plans and policies of the Licchavian republic, had to seek the approval of the Assembly of 7,707 on important matters. This Council would also have prepared the agenda for the Annual General Assembly, the consecration of the *uparājās*, and other important functions and may have made arrangements for filling vacant posts and ranks caused by accident or death.⁶ The council of the nine Licchavi *rājās* functioned much like the Athenian *boule* and the Roman magistracy. The powers, functions and procedure of the Licchavian Assembly and its council become clearer if we note what Tacitus said of a similar people in this respect. He says of the Germani that “on small matters the chiefs consult; on larger questions the community; but with this limitation, that even the subjects, the decision of which rests with the people, are first handled by the chiefs. They meet, unless there be some unforeseen and sudden emergency, on the days set apart—when the moon ... is new or full: they regard this as the most auspicious herald for the transcation of business.”

c9.s4.113

⁶ *Cf. Cīvaravastu*, pp. 9ff.

c9.s4.114

Under normal conditions the Licchavian council must have smoothly carried out the task of administration without calling emergency meetings of the Assembly. But it is impossible to think of an idle Assembly when their republic was constantly under the clouds of war with their southern neighbour, the Kingdom of Magadha. We would think that during the long struggle between the Vajjians and the Magadhans both the Council and Assembly met frequently, with the Council consulting more often. The continuous state of emergency and war must have increased the importance of the measures of the Licchavian Assembly much as the Roman Senate increased in power and prestige during the period of the Punic Wars and the subsequent campaigns in Greece and the East.

c9.s4.115

During this exciting period the Assembly would be the supreme authority in all spheres of government, while the Council of nine merely translated the wishes and the commands of the former into action. Although we have said before that the "frequent assemblies" mentioned in the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta* referred to the meetings of the council, this would be true only during times of peace. When Ajātasattu was bent upon the "utter ruin" of the Vajjian Confederation, the General Assembly of the Licchavis must have held its meetings more frequently than once a year. The council would have also met often during such a perilous period. Perhaps this would be valid for all republics of this period.

c9.s4.116

The Licchavis' political organization appears to have been fairly rigid as the Buddhist and the Jaina writers speak chiefly of the Kṣatriyas forming the government in the republic. Vassakāra, the Magadhan minister, was allowed a judgeship at Vesāli. The *Cīvaravastu* informs us of a chief minister of Videha, named Khaṇḍa, who resigned his office because his colleagues became jealous of his abilities. He then chose to settle in Vesāli in preference to other monarchical capitals and was soon appointed the *senāpati* of the republican army.¹ The Tibetan tradition tells us of a certain Sakala (Dum-bu), a minister from Videha, who also had to flee because of the jealousy of other ministers. He came to Vesālī and “soon became a prominent citizen in Vaiśālī, and after a while he was elected Nāyaka.”² These instances indicate that some prominent Brāhmaṇas and probably also Vaiśyas, were allowed full political rights and were appointed to high positions. But these were exceptions for exceptionally brilliant men rather than the rule. If a non-citizen had any complaints or grievances he would have been allowed to approach the Assembly or the Council directly. In the monarchies of later periods we hear of ordinary men approaching kings with their grievances. Nevertheless, it seems quite obvious from our sources that the Licchavis were no exception³ to the fact that non-Kṣatriyas had no politcal rights in these republics. In his comment on the “communities living by the title of *rājā*,”⁴ Kauṭilya strengthens this view. This practice of the Kṣatriyas alone wielding political power at Vesālī has a Roman counterpart in the sole rule of the Patricians in early Republican times, before the Plebeans achieved similar rights long after the foundation of the Republic in 509 B.C.⁵

c9.s4.117

¹ *Germania*, chap. 11, p. 279. For a more or less similar system, see Tallensis in Fortes and Evans-Pritchard, *op. cit.*, pp. 252ff.

c9.s4.118

² Cf. *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 10ff.

c9.s4.119

³ See above, pp. 104-5.

c9.s4.120

⁴ Altekar, *State and Government*, p. 135.

c9.s4.121

⁵ Buddhaghosa, *Sum. Vil.*, ii, pp. 522-4.

c9.s4.122

¹ *Cīvaravastu*, p. 9.

c9.s4.123

² Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 63ff. The Tibetan tradition appears to have been based on the *Cīvaravastu*.

c9.s4.124

³ *Cf.* Altekar, *State and Government*, pp. 114ff.

c9.s4.125

⁴ *Arthaśāstra*, p. 378.

c9.s4.126

⁵ Livy, Bk. ii, 1, 1ff. (pp. 219ff).

c9.s4.127

There was no need for elections to be held for the General Assembly as the 7,707 were the heads of the Kṣatriya ruling families.⁶ Aristotle also mentions such a form of government as having existed at Massalia, Istros, Heraclea and Cnidus. It was called the “aristocracy of heads of houses,” and it is probable that the Opuntian Locrians had a similar system.⁷ In Altekar’s view the 7,707 probably represented the original families of the Kṣatriya settlers who had colonized the Muzaffarpur district. “The leaders of the colonizing families claimed and enjoyed the privilege of royal coronation and royal title”.⁸ The Council of nine, as we have suggested, was elected. Although the *Vinaya* texts ¹ give us a detailed and elaborate account of elections, procedure, etc., in the Buddhist *saṅgha*, this is apparently idealized and was not regularly followed in practice as far as the republics were concerned. Probably the procedure of the Licchavi Assembly was far more simple than the texts would have us believe.

c9.s4.128

⁶ *Jāt.*, iv, p. 148; *Vesālinagare gaṇarājakulānam*; also *cp.* the Greek oligarchies “of fixed number” of 1, 000 or 600 (Whibley, *op. cit.*, pp. 134ff.).

c9.s4.129

⁷ Aristotle, *Politics*, viii, 6, 130, 504 and 12; *cf.* Whibley, *op. cit.*, pp. 122ff.

c9.s4.130

⁸ Altekar, *State and Government*, p. 114.

c9.s4.131

¹ *Mahāvagga*, secs., ix; *Cūllavagga*, secs., iv, xi, xii.

c9.s4.132

All the meetings were probably called by the sounding of a drum.² "When the assembly drum was heard," says Malalasekera, following Buddhaghosa, "all left other duties and assembled immediately in the *Santhāgārasālā*." ³ The Licchavis might have had what is called in the Buddhist text a regulator of seats (*āsana-paññāpaka*)⁴ whose duty was to make seating arrangements for the members of the Assembly. Probably he was elected by the Assembly of 7,707 either by drawing lots or by casting votes. The text also speaks of the *salākās*,⁵ chips or fragments of wood rather corresponding to the modern voting paper. The technical term for the vote was *chaṇḍa*, which meant free choice.⁶ There was also a collector of these chips, the *salākā-gāhāpaka*,⁷ who was elected to this post because of his recognized honesty and proven impartiality. The five qualifications prescribed for this office—"one who does not walk in partiality, . . . in malice, . . . in folly, . . . in fear and one who knows what votes have been taken and what have not been taken",⁸—indicate that he was an important officer. His consent was sought as to whether or not he would be willing to accept the post. Then his proposer sought the approval of the *saṅgha*. Those who were in favour kept silent, while those against spoke and probably put forward another candidate.⁹ A quorum was required and a sort of officer, called the *gaṇa-pūraka*,¹⁰ helped to complete the quorum and was responsible for ensuring its presence. The context suggests that this was not a permanent office, but merely a name given to a member of the Assembly who volunteered his services or was appointed by the Council to inform members of the Assembly that some business was to be transacted in the Assembly hall. It may be that at trials a certain quorum was also required before the case could be heard and punishment inflicted by the jury.¹ The *Mahāvagga* further informs us that absentees could also vote.² All the issues and differences of opinion were settled by the vote of a majority, *yebhuyyasikā*.³

c9.s4.133

² *Vinaya*, i, p. 56.

c9.s4.134

³ *Vinaya*, i, p. 233; *Sum. Vil.*, ii, pp. 517ff; *cf. DPPN*, ii, p. 781; *Dīgha tr. Dialogues*, i, p. 113 fn. 2.

c9.s4.135

⁴ *Cūllavagga*, secs. xii, 2, 8; iv, 4ff; *cf. Vinaya, tr. SBE*, xx, p. 408 fn; *Vinaga*, ii, p305.

c9.s4.136

⁵ *Cūllavagga*, secs. vi, 2, 2.

c9.s4.137

⁶ *Cf.* Rhys Davids and Stede, *Pāli-Eng. Dic.*; Altekar, *State and Government*, p. 132.

c9.s4.138

⁷ *Cūllavagga*, secs, iv, 9ff; *cf. Vinaya, tr. SBE*, xx, pp. 25ff.

c9.s4.139

⁸ *Cūllavagga*, sec. vi, 9.

c9.s4.140

⁹ *Loc. cit.*

c9.s4.141

¹⁰ *Mahāvagga*, iii, 6, 23, 26; *Vinaya, tr. SBE*, xiii, pp. 307ff; Bhandarkar, *Car. Lecs.*, pp. 180ff; Altekar, *State and Government*, p. 132.

c9.s4.142

¹ *Loc. cit.*

c9.s4.143

² *Ibid.*, ii, 23; *cf.* *Vinaya*, tr. *SBE*, xiii, p. 277fn.

c9.s4.144

³ *Cūllavagga*, Khaṇḍ. iv, 9; *cf.* *SBE*, xx, pp. 24-6 fns.

c9.s4.145

If we are to believe, as seems reasonable, that the constitution of the Buddhist *saṅgha* was modelled on that of the Licchavis,⁴ it would appear that the latter had at least three officers—the *āsana-paññāpaka*, the *salākā-gāhāpaka*, and the *gaṇa-pūraka*. On the same analogy, the first announced that elections had to take place for the chief *rājā*, or the president. Names were put forward and the *salākās* distributed. The *gaṇa-pūraka* counted those attending and determined whether or not the quorum was filled.

c9.s4.146

⁴ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 76ff; *cf.* *DPPN*, ii, p. 781.

c9.s4.147

Probably nominations of names for the other eight posts of the council were invited separately, one to be elected for each of the eight clans of the Licchavis.⁵ It is not unlikely that the election for the council took place amongst the kings of each clan independently of the other clans. The voters in all probability were only those members of the clan who sat at the Assembly of 7,707 and were called *rājās*, and it seems feasible to suggest that the councillors could only be chosen from among their number. It also seems likely that all the elections took place in the *santhāgāra* and that the procedure of election was the same as for the election of the chief *rājā*. These eight councillors formed a jury of eight called the *aṭṭhakulikas*⁶ which dispensed justice. After the election of the successful candidates, it is likely that they were honoured with a traditional ceremonial bath and anointment in the *Pokkharaṇī* and thus solemnly consecrated. This ceremony, as we have seen above,⁷ probably took place during the spring festival. After the formalities each assumed his office and began the task of administration in conjunction with the Assembly.

c9.s4.148

⁵ *Cp.* above, pp. 81ff.

c9.s4.149

⁶ *Cf.* below, pp. 116ff.

c9.s4.150

⁷ *Cf.* above, pp. 104ff.

c9.s4.151

This republican people had its own territory, and the Licchavian Assembly was the sovereign power of the state. They could exile or kill anybody deserving of such punishment within their jurisdiction, just as the kings of Kosala and Magadha could within their respective kingdoms.¹ It is explicitly mentioned in the *Majjhima Nikāya* that "these *saṅghas* and *gaṇas* like that of the Vajjians and the Mallas had full sovereign rights, like Pasenadi had in Kosala, and Ajātasattu had in Magadha".² If the Vajjis and the Mallas had sovereign rights in their territories, the Licchavian republic also had such rights within its domain.

c9.s4.152

¹ *Majjhima*, i, p. 215.

c9.s4.153

² *Loc. cit.*

c9.s4.154

The Licchavis had a strong army which constituted a real threat to the rising power of Magadha.³ When the army of the Confederation was not engaged in its joint attempt to keep at bay and defeat the Magadhan forces, the Licchavian soldiers probably retired to their farms and cultivated the land or amused themselves at the metropolis. The Roman soldiers acted in a similar manner at the end of a campaign, before the Marian army reforms at the end of the 2nd century B.C. The Licchavis, like the Koliyas, may have had a special body of peons or police apart from this army of the republic.⁴ There may have been no restriction as to the Kṣatriyas becoming the peons or policemen, but it would appear that the ruling families did not take part in this lower form of service. In our opinion, however, it was mainly from the artisan classes that this police force was recruited. Besides the Council of nine there were probably other committees which were especially concerned with and dealt with particular departments.

c9.s4.155

³ *Niryāvalikā*, pp. 19ff; *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff.

c9.s4.156

⁴ *Cf.* below, p. 215.

c9.s4.157

There was no place for women in the Licchavian Assembly as in the Vedic *sabhā* and the *samiti*. The Athenian *ecclesia* and the Roman Senate had no women members either. The *Aṅguttara Nikāya* provides evidence for this in a dialogue between the Buddha and Ānanda, the great champion of the Bhikkhuṇīs. The disciple solicits his master to allow women to join the *saṅgha* and asks, "Why is it, sire, that women do not sit in public assemblies or embark on business?”¹ Apart from this we have no other Buddhist or Jaina text to enlighten us on this point. But we know of no source that contradicts our conclusion that women did not participate in the political assemblies. Thus the Licchavis were more backward in this respect than the militant Spartans and Germans. In Sparta “women enjoyed a position of more equality with men, and greater independence and authority than at Athens. The wife at Sparta was not merely a housekeeper, but an active member of the state, expected to interest herself in the welfare of her country”.² Likewise, the Germans also “conceived a certain uncanny and prophetic sense in women. They neither scorned to consult them nor slighted their answers”.³ We do hear of some great women in Indian monarchies, but the sources say nothing as to the actual role and position of women in Licchavian politics. However, we can say with some certainty that they had no citizenship rights at Vesāli. They were mainly housewives, after the Indian custom, though Ambapālī might give a different impression. But it is not certain whether or not a wealthy and independent courtesan such as she did influence some assembly members in political matters. Women did play a considerable part in social life, but we have no evidence that they openly did so in politics.

c9.s4.158

¹ *Aṅguttara*, ii, p. 82; tr. ii, p. 92, fn. 2.

c9.s4.159

² Harvey, *op. cit.*, p. 405.

c9.s4.160

³ Tacitus, *Germania*, chap. 8, p. 277.

Linked texts (19)