Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s4.30

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"?