Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s4.33

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.