Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s5: Judicial Procedure

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c9.s5

Language
English

Judicial Procedure

c9.s5.1

The Licchavian procedure of justice has been a favourite theme of modern historians of the Buddhist republics. A single passage of Buddhaghosa’s Commentary,⁴ first translated by Turnour,⁵ has been used as the sole evidence to reconstruct the judicial procedure practised at Vesālī. Before discussing the views of these scholars, we shall reconstruct the procedure as recorded by the commentator himself.⁶ Buddhaghosa says that it was an ancient custom with the Vajjis (*porāṇam vajjidhammam*) that if a thief (*cora*) was caught he was brought to trial before the justices (*vinicchaya-mahāmattānam denti*). If they decided that he was not a thief (*acoro hoti*), they set him free; but if found guilty, he was turned over to the lawyers (*vohārikānaṁ denti*). If, in turn, they decided that he was not a thief, they let him go; but if they found him guilty they handed him over to the rehearsers of the law maxims (*suttadharās*). When the latter determined that he was not guilty, he was freed; but if proven to the contrary they handed him over to the council of eight clan representatives (*aṭṭhakulikas*). These also had the right either to acquit him or to direct him to the general (*senāpati*). The latter could set the prisoner free if found not guilty, but, if he was convinced of his guilt, he sent the prisoner to the viceroy (*uparājā*). The viceroy, when convinced of his guilt, made him over to the king (*rājā*). If the king decided that the prisoner was truly guilty he consulted the *Book of Precedents* (*paveṇī potthakaṁ vācāpeti*) and inflicted punishment according to his guilt.¹

c9.s5.2

⁴ *Sum. Vil*, ii, p. 519.

c9.s5.3

⁵ *JASB*, vii, 2, December, 1838, pp. 993ff.

c9.s5.4

⁶ Buddhaghosa, *Sum. Vil*, ii, p. 519.

c9.s5.5

¹ For the complete text of the passage see Appx. D, p. 247.

c9.s5.6

Turnour only comments in this connection on the phrase *aṭṭhakulika*, translating it as "the eight castes or tribes". Then he adds, "I can obtain no satisfactory explanation of the nature of the office held by these functionaries. It is inferred to be a judicial institution composed of judges from all the eight castes."² The study of Sanskrit and Pāli was still in its early stages in Turnour's time and he did not always fully understand the exact connotation of even well-known words. Most modern and standard Pāli, Prākrit, and Sanskrit lexicons do not warrant the interpretation of *kula* as meaning "caste" or "tribe". Literally it means "family" and may be used in the sense of a "clan" (*vaṁśa*). Hence it is most unlikely that the "judicial institution" of the *aṭṭhakulikas* was "composed of judges from all the eight castes." This term has already been discussed in detail³ and, to our knowledge, it is not found elsewhere in any Sanskrit, Pāli or Prākrit text.

c9.s5.7

² *Op. cit.*, p. 993 fn.

c9.s5.8

³ See above, pp. 81ff.

c9.s5.9

Smith,⁴ in support of his theory of the Tibetan origins of the Licchavis, relies implicitiy on Turnour's account. Like the later historians, he accepted Turnour's unreliable indication as an absolute truth. Jayaswal also relies mainly on Turnour and makes no criticism of the eight stages of the trial. While discussing the Licchavian safeguards for the liberty of the citizen, he enthusiastically remarks that the "liberty of the citizen was most jealously guarded. A citizen could not be held guilty unless he was considered so by the *Senāpati*, the *Uparājā* and the *Rājā*, separately and without dissent”.¹ He then goes on to enumerate the five earlier stages, giving them modern names—e.g., “Court of Justice,” “Lawyer-Judges,” “Court of Appeal,” “High Court,” “Doctors of the Law,” “Council of Final Appeal,” “Court of Eight,” and finally comments that “if all the Courts held him guilty, the matter was still subject to the decision of the members of the Executive Cabinet mentioned above”.² We do not think modern legal institutions can explain the ancient system of the Vesālians. Moreover, it is inconceivable that such an elaborate system could have ever been put into practice at Vesāli.

c9.s5.10

⁴ *Indian Antiquary*, xxxii, 1903, pp. 233-6.

c9.s5.11

¹ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 46.

c9.s5.12

² *Ibid.*, p. 47.

c9.s5.13

Bhandarkar, in his treatment of the problem, refers to the *Aṭṭha-Kathā* and the *Sumaṅgala Vilāsinī*, but mainly relies on Turnour as he quotes only Turnour’s article.³ Commenting on the *Commentaries* Bhandarkar says that “although composed during the 5th century A.D. they contain some interesting historical details and their account of the judicial administration of the Vajjian kingdom is certainly worth considering.”⁴ Then he gives the eight stages of the procedure of justice. He probably did not consult the original texts, many of which were not published at the time, as he does not give exact references to the Pāli commentaries. Contradicting himself, Bhandarkar also refers to the region as the “Vajjian Kingdom”. The detailed procedure outlined by this scholar, is certainly too elaborate and complicated to have ever been followed in practice at such an early date.

c9.s5.14

³ *Car. Lecs.*, pp. 154-5.

c9.s5.15

⁴ *Loc. cit.*

c9.s5.16

Following the tradition of the earlier scholars, Majumdar⁵ also relies on Turnour for his reconstruction of the procedure. He optimistically and enthusiastically remarks that “the system is chiefly remarkable for the ultra-democratic spirit which characterises it, and is calculated to give us some insight into the principles of administration followed in these ‘non-monarchical’ states”.⁶ Then he outlines the orthodox list of the eight stages of procedure as found in the *Aṭṭhakathā*.⁷ Majumdar’s concluding remark is equally worth quoting for the historical imagination it displays. He states that "the right of the individual was thus safeguarded in a manner that has had probably few parallels in the world. He could be punished only if seven successive tribunals had *unanimously* found him guilty, and he was quite safe if but one of them found him innocent. And it is but fitting that the right of the people should thus be safeguarded in a state where the people governed themselves".¹ It is surprising to find such a recognized scholar putting forth such statements. Buddhaghosa, our only authority, who wrote over 1,000 years later of the Licchavian procedure, cannot be trusted in all the relevant details. There is no basis, as we shall presently show, for holding that the Licchavis definitely followed this procedure.²

c9.s5.17

⁵ *Corporate Life*, pp. 232-33.

c9.s5.18

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 232.

c9.s5.19

⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 233; gives references only to Turnour (fn. 1).

c9.s5.20

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 233.

c9.s5.21

² Law (*TAI*, p. 326); also relies on Turnour but adds nothing new to the subject.

c9.s5.22

In contrast to these scholars, Rhys Davids is much more cautious in his interpretation of the data and he briefly summarises the eight stages of the procedure, wisely remarking, "We hear of no such intermediate officials in the smaller clans; and even among the Vajjians it is not likely that so complicated a procedure was actually followed."³ This view shows a fair and balanced judgement. Prof. Rhys Davids⁴ has also shown that a book of legal precedents is referred to in the *Tuṇḍila Jātaka*⁵ and that the tables of law are mentioned at yet another place.⁶ He later concludes that "it is therefore not improbable that written notes on the subject were actually in use".⁷

c9.s5.23

³ *Buddhist India*, p. 22; and references on that page.

c9.s5.24

⁴ *Loc. cit.*

c9.s5.25

⁵ *Jāt.*, iii, p. 292.

c9.s5.26

⁶ *Jāt.*, v, p. 125.

c9.s5.27

⁷ *Buddhist India*, p. 22.

c9.s5.28

It is not relevant here to give the etymology and meaning⁸ of the terms given by Buddhaghosa in connection with the eight stages of procedure. Yet the fact remains clear that, according to the text and also according to Smith, Jayaswal, Bhandarkar, Majumdar, and others, a prisoner was not only supposed to have been tried in such an elaborate manner and in such an "ultra-democratic spirit", but was actually punished only after he had been deemed guilty "unanimously". We have seen that apart from the *Aṭṭhakathā* two other *Jātakas* also refer to a book of precedents and tables of law. Yet however much our imagination may take flight on this slender evidence, the modern mind cannot possibly be convinced that such a system was practised in Vesālī of the 6th century B.C. It is unthinkable for even the most democratic state of this period to evolve so elaborate and technical a procedure. Moreover, in such circumstances justice would be impossibly protracted and many guilty persons would be acquitted.

c9.s5.29

⁸ For meaning see above, pp. 116-17.

c9.s5.30

We have suggested already that in most cases criminals and questions of property were decided by a "Jury of Eight", members of the Licchavian Council of nine. In order to ensure impartiality and proper justice to the criminal or defendent, the chief *rājā* did not figure on the bench, leaving the remaining eight to decide the case by a simple majority of 5 to 3. In most cases however, unanimity might have been attained. The chief king was probably the highest court of appeal. We have no definite evidence to show the existence of a big court in cases causing great controversy, such as treason or crimes against the republic or its officers. A large court existed at Athens for the trial of such cases, but we cannot say with certainty that a similar one existed at Vesālī, though it is quite probable. "The court which tried Socrates was composed of 501 citizens, and was a subdivision of the largest court of 6,000 citizens, chosen by lot, which dealt with such cases. There was no jury in the modern sense; the decision of the court was that of the majority vote." ¹

c9.s5.31

¹ *Great Dialogues of Plato*, tr. by W. H. D. Rouse, "The Apology," p. 423. For the full defence of Socrates see pp. 423-46.

c9.s5.32

Now the question arises — if Buddhaghosa's statement is not accurate, what was his source? We have seen above that many of the problems connected with the names and origin of the peoples² who had preferred the Buddha's doctrine to that of Mahāvīra, Gosāla or the early Brāhmaṇic practices, had become obscure and the commentator gives its own fantastic interpretations to explain away the difficulties. With regard to his statement about the Vesālian procedure of justice, we can only suggest that Buddhaghosa is recording some early tradition which had arisen as a calculated satire on the Licchavian system of justice, under which many criminals and offenders escaped punishment. The similar passage referring to each member of the assembly as a king, with all the equipment of kingship and an *uparājā*, *senāpati* and *bhaṇḍāgārika*¹ seems also to be of satirical purport. It may be that some humourous and imaginative person started a sarcastic joke against the Licchavian system of justice, which was rather cumbrous and inefficient, and that this spread among the people, passing into the Buddhist tradition after the fall of the Licchavis. By the time of Buddhaghosa it was believed in literally and taken quite seriously. We maintain that there was no factual basis for such an elaborate system, any more than there was for the 7,707 *uparājās*, 7,707 *senāpatis* and the like number of *bhaṇḍāgārikas*.²

c9.s5.33

² *Cf.* above, Licchavis, pp. 85ff; below, Koliyas, pp. 207ff; Videhas, pp. 136ff.

c9.s5.34

¹ Cf. above, pp. 98ff.

c9.s5.35

² Cf. above, pp. 101ff.

c9.s5.36

There may be other explanations for the Vesālian system of justice, but in our opinion a simpler and less technical procedure would be more in keeping with the actual Licchavian practice. In a comparatively small state at this period it seems unlikely that there were different stages of a trial; more probably all cases were decided by the "jury of eight" with the chief king being the final court of appeal. Nor is it improbable that severe cases were tried by a similar court, perhaps of 500,³ formed from the Assembly of 7,707 *rājās*. The complexity of the system according to the Pāli commentary may be a reflection of the interference of the ruler and other functionaries in the decisions of the *aṭṭhakulikas*.

c9.s5.37

³ 500 Licchavis went out to greet the Buddha, and it was 500 Licchavian *rājās* who hurried to consult with blind Mahāli when Bandhula was violating their sacred *Pokkharaṇī*. This, however, is merely a suggestion.

c9.s5.38

*Foreign Relations*

c9.s5.39

It is obvious from the Jaina sources that the Licchavis were on good terms with the Mallas and the tribal peoples of Kāsi and Kosala.⁴ These four are always referred to as a group in the Prākrit texts. As we have already suggested,⁵ this shows that the Licchavis actually did form a League together with these and other peoples to face common danger during troubled periods. The *Majjhima Nikāya* also attests to the friendly relations existing between the Kosala king Pasenadi and the Licchavis. The former, talking to the Buddha, speaks of the latter as being his friends.⁶ But there were occasional disputes and quarrels among these republics. Bandhula,¹ the Mallian general of the Kosalan kingdom, consented to fulfil his wife's desire to have a bath in the consecration tank of Vesālī which was forbidden to those who were not Licchavian *rājās*. The Licchavian kings attempted to deter him, despite Mahāli's advice to the contrary. It seems that in the end the general got the better of his Licchavian opponents.

c9.s5.40

⁴ *Kalpa Sūtra*, sec. 128; *Niryāvalikā*, ed. Gopani and Chokshi, pp. 19ff.

c9.s5.41

⁵ See above, pp. 81ff.

c9.s5.42

⁶ Aṅgulimāla Sutta, *Majjhima*, ii, p. 101.

c9.s5.43

¹ *Bhaddasāla Jāt.*, iv, pp. 148ff.

c9.s5.44

Their relations with Magadha were normally hostile,² though it seems probable that in the earlier part of Bimbisāra's reign they were not on bad terms. The Magadhan king is reported by the *Cīvaravastu*,³ by the Jaina,⁴ and Tibetan sources⁵ to have had a Vesālian wife. According to the *Cīvaravastu* this marriage involved skirmishes between the two opposing sides.⁶ The tension at Kusinārā over the Buddha's relics also points to the tense relations between these peoples.⁷ Among ancient and tribal peoples of the world there were fights and feuds over shrines, river water, boundaries or cattle, and the Licchavis and their neighbouring republics were no different. However nothing very serious is mentioned about these disagreements. It was mainly with the rising empire of Magadha that the Licchavis, together with other members of the Vajjian Confederacy, had long pitched battles. Otherwise, with states which held common principles of government and a similar political philosophy, there was less room for grave troubles. The minor disputes over tank and river water could just as well have taken place between families or clans within the same republic.

c9.s5.45

² *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 73ff.; *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff.

c9.s5.46

³ *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 11-13.

c9.s5.47

⁴ *Niryāvalikā*, pp. 19ff.

c9.s5.48

⁵ Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 63-4. Bimbisāra married Vāsavī, Gopāla's niece. Ajātasattu was her child.

c9.s5.49

⁶ *Cf. Cīvaravastu*, pp. 11ff.

c9.s5.50

⁷ *Cf. MPS*, pp. 404ff.

c9.s5.51

A study of the foreign relations of the Licchavis reveals that there is no justification here for Kauṭilya's *maṇḍala* theory,⁸ that the central state will be hostile to its neighbour and friendly to the state bordering on the latter. This doctrine of a "natural enemy" and "natural friend" is not supported by the Buddhist and the Jaina texts, at least with regard to the republican and monarchical states of the Buddhist period. It held true only in part, as Magadha was hostile to Vesālī and Kosala to Kapilavatthu. But we do not hear of the Mallas or the Videhas and Nāyas being hostile to the Licchavis and friendly to the Magadhans. Apart from the Mallian Bandhula being the general of the Kosalan army, we do not find the Mallas specifically friendly to the Kosalan king and hostile to the Sakyas, Moriyas and the Licchavis. According to Kauṭilya’s theory they should have been natural enemies, but our sources indicate just the contrary. The cordial relations among the republics led them to form a confederation¹ and to unite against Magadha.

c9.s5.52

⁸ *Arthaśāstra*, chaps. ii, iv, vi and vii; *cf.* P. V. Kane, *History of the Dharma Sāstra, iii*, pp. 216ff; Ghoshal, *History of Ind. Pol. Ideas*, pp. 130ff; Spellman, *op. cit.*, pp. 156-9.

c9.s5.53

¹ *Cf.* above, pp. 81ff.

c9.s5.54

The first positive evidence for the existence of the Licchavis in ancient India comes from unorthodox sources — the Pāli Canon, the *Mahāvastu*, the *Cīvaravastu* and the Jaina scriptures. The earliest important political event for which evidence survives is contained in a tradition preserved in Hsüan Tsang² and discussed by H. C. Raychaudhuri.³ The tradition, whether true or not, records that during the reign of the famous Bimbisāra the Vesālians were audacious enough to invade Magadhan territory across the Ganges. The *Cīvaravastu* not only refers to Bimbisāra’s affair with Āmrapālī, but also records his marriage with the daughter of the Licchavian general Siṁha.⁴ According to the text, both these events involved fighting between the Licchavis and the Magadhan king. The Tibetan sources, analysed by Rockhill,⁵ contain the following epidsode of Bimbisāra and Āmrapālī which occurs in the *Dulva*.⁶

c9.s5.55

² *BRWW*, bk. ix., pp. 166ff.

c9.s5.56

³ *PHAI*, pp. 125-6.

c9.s5.57

⁴ *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 10ff.

c9.s5.58

⁵ Rockhill, *op. cit.*, p. 64; *cp.* *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 9ff.

c9.s5.59

⁶ *Dulva*, iii, pp. 87ff, quoted in Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 64-65.

c9.s5.60

After Āmrapālī “became a courtesan, Bimbisāra, King of Magadha, heard of her through Gopāla. He visited her at Vaiśālī, though he was at war with the Licchavis, and remained with her seven days”. This also points to the fact that hostility existed between the Vesālian Licchavis and the Magadhan king.⁷ Whether we accept these stories as true or not, it seems most likely from the *Cīvaravastu's* account and from Ajātasattu's embittered remarks about the Vajjis, as well as from his firm resolve to destroy them,¹ that something really harmful and injurious had been earlier inflicted on the Magadhan king at the hands of the Vajjis, now his avowed enemies.

c9.s5.61

⁷ *Ibid.*, pp. 64-5; *cp.* *Vinaya*, i, p. 268; *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 9ff; *cf.* *DPPN*, i, p. 156.

c9.s5.62

¹ *MPS*, pp. 102ff; *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff.

c9.s5.63

We know from the Pāli and Prākrit sources that there was hostility and subsequent war between the Vajjians and Vedehiputto Ajātasattu. Professor Basham has shown that it was a long and chequered affair and that it may have taken ten or eleven years for Ajātasattu to subdue his foes.² The Buddhist and the Jaina sources give two different stories to account for the reasons that led to mutual hostility and subsequent war and diplomacy. The *Nirayāvalikā*³ contains the account of a splendid rutting elephant who was called "Sprinkler" (*Seyaṇaä*) because he was in the habit of sprinkling bathing ladies of the Magadhan court with water from his trunk. This elephant, together with a priceless necklace that was called *aṭṭhārasavaṅka* because it had curves at 18 points, was given by King Seṇiya (Bimbisāra of the Buddhist texts) to his younger son Vehalla, the governor of Campā.

c9.s5.64

² Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 74; see also *PHAI*, pp. 221ff.

c9.s5.65

³ Ed. Gopani and Chokshi, pp. 19-29; ed. Warren, pp. 25ff.

c9.s5.66

When prince Kūṇiya (Ajātasattu) came to the throne, he was instigated by his covetous wife Paümāvaī to demand the treasures from Vehalla. Fearful for his life and belongings Vehalla fled with them to the court of Ceḍaga, his maternal uncle who was head of the Licchavian republic. Ajātasattu sent his messenger repeatedly, but the negotiations failed. War broke out between Magadha and the Licchavis over the two treasures and a great battle took place. The outcome is not clearly stated in the text, but the battle is said to have been fiercely fought. In it a prince Kāla was killed by Ceḍaga and the forces under his command completely destroyed. It would appear from the death and destruction of Kāla and his contingent at the hands of Ceḍaga that all did not go well for the Magadhan invaders.⁴ We suggest that in the *Rahamusala* battle the Licchavis were victorious and Ajātasattu suffered great humiliation.

c9.s5.67

⁴ *Cf.* Basham, *Ājīvikas*, pp. 68-9.

c9.s5.68

Further light on the war comes from the *Bhagavatī Sūtra*.¹ Two battles are said to have been fought, called *Mahāsilākaṇṭaë* and *Rahamusale* respectively. Kūṇiya is said to have gone out to the *Mahāsilākaṇṭaë* battle only after the engagement had commenced and when he had heard that the fortunes of his armies were declining. Ceḍaga, a mighty archer, shot Kūṇiya's ten brothers on ten successive days. His success seemed assured until, on the eleventh day, the god Indra presented Kūṇiya with a great war-engine which struck down the Licchavis with big stones. At the *Rahamusala* battle, Ceḍaga was again defeated in similar circumstances, after Kūṇiya had received a wonderful chariot armed with a great club from Camara, the Indra of the Asuras.

c9.s5.69

¹ *Bhagavatī Sūtra*, vii, pp. 299ff, 576ff, quoted in Basham, *Ājīvikas*, pp. 69ff, 68-75.

c9.s5.70

A later Jaina source, Jinadāsa's *Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi*,² continues the story. The *gaṇarājās* (heads of the Confederate republics) were demoralized by the two defeats and abandoned Ceḍaga, and returned to their own capitals. Ceḍaga retreated to Vesāli and made preparations for a siege. The city held out for twelve years and was then betrayed by the treachery of the ascetic Kūlavālaya, whose religious merit had formerly protected it. He is reported to have been won over by a beautiful prostitute in the employ of Kūṇiya, persuaded to break his vows and thus to betray the city. Ceḍaga committed suicide by drowning and the surviving Licchavis emigrated to Nepal.³

c9.s5.71

² *Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi*, ii, pp. 172ff; *cf.* Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 70.

c9.s5.72

³ *Abhidhāna Rājendra*, iii, *s.v. Kūlavālaya*.

c9.s5.73

Raychaudhuri⁴ has identified the war of the *Nirayāvalikā Sūtra* with that referred to in the Buddhist sources as having taken place soon after the Buddha's death. The account of the preparations for the war is to be found in the *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*,⁵ and that of the war itself in Buddhaghosa's commentary⁶ on the *Sutta*. Though much of the story is contained in a comparatively late source, the commentator is said to have been a Magadhan and thus may have had access to records or traditions about the earlier history of the region.⁷

c9.s5.74

⁴ *PHAI*, p. 212.

c9.s5.75

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

c9.s5.76

⁶ *Sum. Vil.*, ii, pp. 516ff.

c9.s5.77

⁷ *Cf.* Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 71.

c9.s5.78

According to the Pāli records, the war flared up not over a splendid rutting elephant and a priceless neckless, but over an unnamed river port,¹ half of which was in Magadhan territory and half in that of the Licchavis. From the foot of a mountain there descended a very costly and fragrant material.² When Ajātasattu went to claim this strange substance he found that the clever Licchavis had preceded him and had taken it away. It was in order to gain possession of the scent-producing mountain that he planned the war against the Vajjians. The *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta* clearly indicates that his plans were carefully laid.³ Ajātasattu first sent his minister Vassakāra to the Buddha and sought his advice on the outcome of an immediate attack.⁴ Vassakāra visited the Buddha at Gijjhakūṭa near Rājagaha, just before the latter’s journey northwards which terminated with his death at Kusinārā. It is in this context that the Buddha spoke of the seven-fold conditions for the success and prosperity of the Vajjians.⁵ The commentator tells us that it was because of the Buddha's advice that Ajātasattu dropped his plans of immediate attack on the Vajjians and bided his time.⁶ The *Sutta* further states that as the Buddha proceeded northwards, he met once more with the minister Vassakāra. Together with another minister named Sunīdha, Vassakāra was supervising the erection of a fort at Pāṭaligāma.⁷ The Buddha then correctly prophesied the future greatness of the city that would rise on the site.

c9.s5.79

¹ *Sum. Vil.*, ii, p. 516.

c9.s5.80

² *Loc. cit.*

c9.s5.81

³ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff.

c9.s5.82

⁴ *Ibid.*, pp. 72-3.

c9.s5.83

⁵ *Ibid.*, pp. 73-5.

c9.s5.84

⁶ *Sum. Vil.*, ii, p. 522; cf. Basham, *Ājivikas*, pp. 71ff.; Phillips, *op. cit.*, p. 53.

c9.s5.85

⁷ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 86ff.

c9.s5.86

Buddhaghosa completes the story by stating that the Magadhan king, not confident of his strength to overcome the Vajjians, sent the unscrupulous Vassakāra, in the guise of a refugee, to produce discord among the Vajjian kings. Within a period of three years Vassakāra succeeded in his mission to the extent that no two Vajjian nobles would tread the same footpath together. On the ground prepared by his minister for the invasion, Ajātasattu crossed the Ganges and occupied Vesāli with little opposition.⁸

c9.s5.87

⁸ *Sum. Vil.*, ii, pp. 522-4.

c9.s5.88

Apart from two striking parallels, that of the break-up of the Confederation and the betrayal of Vesālī by an agent of Magadha, the two stories have little in common.¹ The similar occurrence of the *gandha-hatthi* of the Jaina and the *gandha-bhaṇḍam* of the Pāli texts perhaps indicates that the author of the *Nirayāvalikā* and Buddhaghosa both worked on the same tradition.² One of the two, however, "probably the latter, had received it in a garbled form. The obscure perfumed material of the Pāli account is less plausible than the tame elephant of the *Nirayāvalikā*, and the latter therefore seems more reliable in this particular."³ In our opinion both stories seem to contain some grain of truth. Although there is a contrary Buddhist tradition which makes Ajātasattu the son of a princess of Kosala,⁴ we know from the Jaina as well as the Buddhist sources that Bimbisāra had a Videhan princess as one of his queens. She was the mother of Ajātasattu and he is always referred to in the Buddhist sources as the "son of the Videhan princess" (*Vehehiputto*). The fact that both traditions agree on this point suggests that it is more likely to be true than the alternative account of Ajātasattu's origin.

c9.s5.89

¹ Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 73; *cf.* *Proc. of Ind. Hist. Cong.*, 1951, pp. 37-41.

c9.s5.90

² Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 72.

c9.s5.91

³ *Ibid.*, p. 73.

c9.s5.92

⁴ *Jāt.*, iii, p. 121.

c9.s5.93

The Jaina sources reveal that Vehalla's mother was a Vesālian princess.⁵ Vehalla is reported to have been leading a luxurious life at Campā, which inspired the jealousy of Ajātasattu's wife. This would show that Vehalla had most probably been appointed as the Governor of Aṅga by his father and that he had a fair share of the royal favour. He may well have had in fact an excellent elephant and a valuable necklace. The necklace may not have been coveted by the new king's wife merely because it was priceless, but also because it had belonged to the late king's chief queen. Such things were often believed to have magical qualities. For reasons unknown, the king preferred to give the necklace to his younger son Vehalla. If we believe that Ajātasattu was a parricide, who had earlier conspired against Bimbisāra, this would justify Bimbisāra's choice of his son Vehalla.

c9.s5.94

⁵ *Nirayāvalikā*, ed. Gopani and Chokshi, pp. 1ff.

c9.s5.95

This might also have been a hint from the aged king as to his choice of successor. The bold refusal of Vehalla to return the treasures shows that the young prince had enough confidence in his strength, while he shrewdly made his way to Vesālī where he was sure to be protected. The story seems to conceal the tradition of a revolt against Ajātasattu on the part of his younger brothers, who were given active support by the Licchavis and used Vesāli as their base. We may well surmise that if the Vajjians had been successful in the war, Vehalla might have been placed on the throne of Magadha. The scented elephant, like the splendid necklace, might have been the symbol of royalty and both such desirable objects might well have been the cause of war. They were not valued intrinsically, but more for their importance as insignia and bringers of power and fortune to the royal house.

c9.s5.96

We are not certain about the exact nature of the "fragrant-material" mentioned by Buddhaghosa. Kauṭilya does mention some such liquids and ores in his discussion on conducting mining operations and manufactures.¹ This fails to explain exactly what the fragrant material was, but nevertheless makes it highly probable that such a valuable substance existed which either oozed from "the slopes of well-known mountains" or was an ore obtainable from the "plains or slopes of mountains." The possession of such a mountain or plain might well have been a bone of contention between two powers, though there are certainly no hills of appreciable size on the banks of the Ganges adjoining Magadha.

c9.s5.97

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, p. 82. He speaks of "the liquids which ooze out from pits, caves, slopes or deep excavations of well-known mountains; which have the colour of the fruit of rose-apple (*jambu*), of mango, and of fan palm; which are as yellow as ripe turmeric, sulphurate of arsenic (*hariṭāla*), honeycomb, and vermilion, which are as resplendent as the petals of a lotus, or the feathers of a parrot or a peacock; which are adjacent to any mass of water or shrubs of similar colour; and which are greasy (*cikkaṇa*), transparent (*visāda*), and very heavy are ores of gold (*kāñcanika*)." He also mentions those ores "which are obtained from plains or slopes of mountains; which are either yellow or as red as copper or reddish yellow; which are disjoined and marked with blue lines; which have the colour of black beans (*māśa*), green beans (*mudga*), and sesamum; etc.."

c9.s5.98

Buddhaghosa's story of Vassakāra being offered a post in the Vajjian administration at Vesāli is not plausible.² Though it is by no means impossible that a Brāhmaṇa of his calibre might receive such honour and high position, it seems unlikely in the case of a politician noted for his diplomacy and unscrupulousness. Moreover, we should not forget that the commentator also mentions a group of Vesālians who opposed even Vassakāra's entry into the Vajjian territory across the Ganges.³

c9.s5.99

² *Sum. Vil.*, ii, p. 523.

c9.s5.100

³ *Loc. cit.*

c9.s5.101

The *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta* states that the Buddha miraculously crossed the Ganges with his retinue from Pāṭaligāma¹ and then went on to Koṭigāma.² "*Koṭi*", according to the commentator, signified "end." "At this end, or frontier, *rājā* Mahāpasāda's palace was situated in that village".³ This suggests that Koṭigāma was the frontier post of the Magadhan kingdom.⁴ From Koṭigāma or the frontier town, the Buddha and his company of followers went to "Nādikā, and there, at Nādikā, the Exalted One stayed in their Brick Hall".⁵ According to Buddhaghosa "there were two villages of the same name, one belonging to the Cullapitu and the other to Mahāpitu sons, situated on the shore of the same piece of water".⁶ On the same page of the text, the "*Nādikās*" occur twice in the plural, indicating a clan of that name, and the commentator also supports this interpretation.⁷

c9.s5.102

¹ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 89.

c9.s5.103

² *Ibid.*, p. 90.

c9.s5.104

³ *Sum. Vil.*, ii, p. 542; *Koṭigāmo ti Mahāpanādassa koṭiyaṁ kato gāmo*; also see *Jāt.*, ii, pp. 332ff; *Mahāvaṁsa*, xxxi, pp. 5ff; *Therīgāthā*, i, pp. 287ff.

c9.s5.105

⁴ *Mahāvaṁsa*, ii, p. 4; *Dīpavaṁsa*, iii, p. 7.

c9.s5.106

⁵ *Dīgha*, ii, p. 91.

c9.s5.107

⁶ *Sum. Vil.*, ii, p. 543; *Nādikā ti ekaṁ taḷākaṁ nissāya dvinnaṁ Cullapitu-Mahāpitu puttānaṁ dve gāmā.*

c9.s5.108

⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 543; *Nādike ti ekasmiṁ ñāti-gāmake.*

c9.s5.109

If we take the miraculous element out of the text the plain fact emerges that the Buddha, with his monks, reached Koṭigāma by boat. The commentator states that was the last village or the frontier-post of the Magadhan king. But it would appear from the context that this Koṭigāma was situated between Pāṭaligāma and Nādikāgāma. The latter are the "two villages near the river," or on the bank of the Ganges. Then the Nādikā villages must be placed near or on the north bank of the Ganges opposite Pāṭaligāma and Koṭigāma must be located between the two. The two villages stood on the two banks—the Nādikā villages on the north in Vajjian territory,⁸ and Pāṭaligāma on the south bank in Magadhan territory. But it is possible for Koṭigāma to be located between the two villages only if it was situated on an island between the two streams of the Ganges. We have considerable evidence to prove that at this time there was an island about twelve miles long and four miles wide dividing the Ganges into two streams.⁹

c9.s5.110

⁸ Muzaffarpur District map and *cp.* BDG, iv, p. 15.

c9.s5.111

⁹ Measured on the map of the District of Muzaffarpur, drawn by L.S.S. O'Malley, BDG, the map.

c9.s5.112

The river Ganges flows for 93 miles on the northern border of the District of Patna. The Sona forms its western boundary for 41 miles, entering this district near Mahābalipur and flowing in a northerly direction to its junction with the Ganges.¹ "A little above the junction it is bridged by the East Indian Railway at Koelwār, from which point the river divides into two streams with a fertile island in the middle.''² Moreover, the *Muzaffarpur District Gazetteer* not only shows a big island about twelve miles long (from east to west) and about four miles wide,³ but also locates a police outpost at Raghopur on the island.⁴ Another *Muzaffarpur District Gazetteer*⁵ shows that besides the Raghopur police outpost there is another village on the island, called Paharpur, and that the area covered by these two settlements has a population of over 1,000 per square mile.⁶ The third map of the same gazetteer also locates these two villages on the island.⁷ It further informs us, about this Raghopur *Diara*,⁸ that "this is a huge island in the Gaṅgā. Its banks are low and sloping towards the south and high and steep towards the north due to the cutting action of the water. The lower portions are covered with deep layers of sand and are either left uncultivated, or where the sand is not very deep, cultivated with various curcurbita. The higher portions having less of sand on the top, are fertile''⁹. Moreover, Raghopur is one of the six *thānās* of Hājipur subdivision.¹⁰

c9.s5.113

¹ *Imp. Gaz. of India*, Patna District, pp. 54ff.

c9.s5.114

² *Ibid.*, p. 54. The map attached to the beginning of the volume marks the island.

c9.s5.115

³ *BDG*, iv; see also our map B.

c9.s5.116

⁴ *Loc. cit.*

c9.s5.117

⁵ *Bihar Dist. Gaz.*, "Muzaffarpur."

c9.s5.118

⁶ *Ibid.*, first map at the back, "Population map of Dist. Muzaffarpur."

c9.s5.119

⁷ See our map B.

c9.s5.120

⁸ '*Diara*'—formation of soil due to deposits of clay by the river. *Bihar Dist. Gaz.*, p. 298.

c9.s5.121

⁹ *Ibid.*, p. 7; also see pp. 20, 24, 26, 51.

c9.s5.122

¹⁰ *Ibid.*, p. 222.

c9.s5.123

The evidence provided by these gazetteers strengthens the historicity of the Buddhist commentator's story of a disputed port held in common¹¹ and existing as a constant source of friction between the two rival powers.¹² This island might well have produced some "fragrant material.'' At the first opportunity the Vajjis crossed the northern stream, collected whatever valuables there were at the frontier post of Koṭigāma on the island, and made their way back to Vesāli. This infuriated Ajātasattu and he made plans "to root out, destroy, and utterly ruin the Vajjians." Thus, the causes given for the war by the Buddhist commentator are quite plausible in the light of the evidence discussed above.

c9.s5.124

¹¹ *Sum. Vil.*, ii, p. 542.

c9.s5.125

¹² Island is marked in all maps of *Imp. Gaz. of India*, as well as in *BDG*; Hindi map by J. B. Tassin; also in *CAGIM*, map xi.

c9.s5.126

[Figure: MAP B KOṬIGĀMA – The island in the Ganges]

c9.s5.127

Apart from the reasons given in the sources we suggest that Ajātasattu might be expected to have been hostile to the Vajjians, as they had occupied what had been the Videhan kingdom. He might have been interested in Videha because his mother was a Videhan princess.¹ All the accounts suggest that he was an ambitious empire-builder and his campaign against the Vajjians was probably carried out chiefly for territorial gain. We are reminded of the conflict of the Samnites, Etruscans and Gauls with the rising power of Rome.

c9.s5.128

¹ *Cf.* above, pp. 89ff. Ajātasattu is reported to have fought for the Kāsī village against Pasenadi. *Cf. Majjhima*, ii, p. 116.

c9.s5.129

However, both the Jaina and Buddhist accounts show that the Vesālians were at first stronger than the Magadhans. In the Jaina story, Ajātasattu decided to go to war with them only after all his negotiations had failed. According to Jaina tradition, he sent his envoy to them not less than three times.¹ In the Buddhist story the commentator says that Ajātasattu bided his time on the advice of the Buddha.² It was only through diplomacy and intrigues that the Vajjians could be overcome, and that too required a period of over a decade.

c9.s5.130

¹ *Cf.* *Nirayāvalikā*, ed. Gopani, pp. 19ff.

c9.s5.131

² *Cf.* above, p. 126.

c9.s5.132

The *Mahāparinibbāna Sutta*³ pays an eloquent tribute to the merits of the Vajjian political institutions, to their firm resolve to defend their system of government, and to their social customs and economic prosperity. The statement in this text, in the light of other references, suggests that the war of Ajātasattu and the Vajjians was not merely a contest between two rival states for the purpose of expansion and annexation. It also involved a keen “tug-of-war” between two different systems of government, between two sets of principles, in short between two political philosophies. It may be compared to the struggle between King Philip of Macedon and the neighbouring republics of Thebes and Athens.⁴ The Indian Philip, assisted by his Brāhmaṇa minister, was determined to “utterly destroy the Vajjians”.

c9.s5.133

³ *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72ff.

c9.s5.134

⁴ Harvey, *op. cit.*, p. 322.

c9.s5.135

In the attempt to discover the origins of this war we may carry our search into the realm of psychology and suggest reasons for the ambivalent monarch’s deeper attitude towards the Confederation. It was not merely a political situation brought about by his own frustrating military failures. The seeds of his deep-rooted hatred were probably sown in his heart while he was still a youth. His father, either in the battlefield⁵ or in his relations with Ambapālī,⁶ had suffered great humiliation at the hands of the Vajjis. This, it may be suggested, stuck in the mind of Ajātasattu and he vowed to avenge what he considered to be also a humiliation to the kingdom. This would partly explain his firm resolve to annihilate the Vajjians. Moreover, there may also have been some jealousy in king Ajātasattu’s mind, caused by their belief in different political philosophies.

c9.s5.136

⁵ See above, pp. 121ff; *Cīvaravastu*, pp. 11ff.

c9.s5.137

⁶ Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 64ff.

c9.s5.138

A liberal and strong republican confederacy like that of the Vajjians, in close proximity, was not only a great obstacle to his ambition of empire-building, but also constituted a real threat to the security of his own state. Assessing all the circumstances, he attempted to undermine his rivals and finally broke upon them with the full power of his arms and vengeful policy. This brings to mind Sparta’s resentment of Athens’ greater freedom of thought and military strength. The ruthless massacre of the Sakyas by Viḍūḍabha,¹ and the utter ruin of the Vajjis by Ajātasattu has, in our opinion, deep psychological and philosophical factors among its causes, apart from the purely political or diplomatic reasons and material gains.

c9.s5.139

¹ *Cf.* below, pp. 203 on Sakyas.

c9.s5.140

Ajātasattu was eventually successful in defeating the Vajjians, but it took him several years, and even then he failed to carry out his threats to “root out, destroy, and utterly ruin the Vajjis”.² That they survived long after Ajātasattu’s victory is evident from a statement in the *Kalpa Sūtra* to the effect that the nine kings of the Lichavis instituted a festival in the memory of Mahāvīra’s great decease.³ This implies that they were still influential at the time of his death, and could not have been completely overthrown by Ajātasattu-Kūṇiya.⁴ This statement is of course only valid on the assumption that Mahāvīra survived the Buddha and died in 468-7 B.C. This theory is accepted by most scholars, but the strongest Jaina tradition points to 528 as the date of Mahāvīra’s death.⁵ Professor Basham believes that “we must assume that Ajātasattu did not carry out his threats, but that the chiefs of the Vajjis were merely reduced to subordination, and allowed a degree of local autonomy”.⁶

c9.s5.141

² *Dīgha*, ii, pp. 72-3; cf. Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 75.

c9.s5.142

³ *Kalpa Sūtra*, i, p. 123; tr. *SBE*, xxii, p. 266.

c9.s5.143

⁴ *Cf.* Basham, *Ājīvikas*, pp. 74-5.

c9.s5.144

⁵ *Ibid.*, pp. 75ff.; *CHI*, i, p. 155; *Kalpa Sūtra*, p. 9.

c9.s5.145

⁶ Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 75; *cp.* Y. Mishra’s account of the war for which he largely relies on Prof. Basham’s paper read at the Jaipur Indian History Congress, 1951. There still are noteworthy differences between his and my interpretations; *op. cit.* pp. 256-63.

c9.s5.146

Apart from the literary sources, we have some archaeological evidence to show that the Licchavis survived Ajātasattu’s attack for centuries. Altekar reports on the excavations carried out on the site of ancient Vesāli and says that the smaller tank of the Licchavis was “enlarged and surrounded by a wall, represented by its present remains, in about second century B.C. when the Licchavis might have once more become powerful after the downfall of the Maurya Empire”.¹ This is also indicated by the finds of “cast coins and terra-cotta figurines stylistically assignable to the Śuṅga period. The three periods allocated to the development in the ramparts of Vaiśālī attest their existence during the first century B.C.”.²

c9.s5.147

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

c9.s5.148

² ^2 *Loc. cit.*

c9.s5.149

A tradition remembered by both Theravāda and Mahāyāna sources shows that Ajātasattu was not able to subdue the Vajjians, even during the last days of the *Thera* Ānanda’s life. The latter thought, “If I should die here [in the Bamboo grove], King Ajātaśatru and the Vṛjians being on bad terms with each other, the Licchavis of Vaiśālī would not get a portion of [my] relics. If I should pass away in Vaiśālī, they would not relinquish [a portion to Ajātaśatru]. I will pass away in the middle of the Ganges river.”³ And it is in the middle of the Ganges that Ānanda is recorded to have died.

c9.s5.150

³ ^3 Rockhill, *op. cit.*, pp. 164-5.

c9.s5.151

That the Licchavis survived is also attested to by Pāṇini, who refers to them both as Vṛjis and Licchavis.⁴ Kauṭilya refers to their survival when he mentions them along with other “communities living by the title of *rājās*” (*rājaśabdopajīvinaḥ*), by both designations (Vṛjis and Lichhavis).⁵ Kauṭilya also speaks of the matchless military strength and enviable concord of the republican peoples.⁶ But a century or two later, the great Hindu lawgiver, Manu, brands only the Licchavis as *Vrāṭya-Kṣatriyas* and makes no mention of the Vṛjis.⁷ It is over a century before the Licchavis next appear, and for the last time, in the Gupta records.⁸ The marriage of Candra Gupta I to the Licchavi princess Kumāradevī is commemorated by the Gupta gold coins⁹ and Samudra Gupta’s much-loved epithet *Licchavi-dauhitra* found in almost all the earlier Gupta inscriptions.¹ This not only proves their survival but accords to them a place of honour during the golden period of ancient India. The Gupta seals and ornaments found in the remains of Vesāli and the rise of a Licchavi dynasty in Nepal indicate that the chief component of the Vajjian Confederacy retained its individuality for some 900 years after their war with, and defeat by, Ajātasattu.²

c9.s5.152

⁴ ^4 *Aṣṭādhyāyī*, iv, 2, 131; v, 3, 115.

c9.s5.153

⁵ ^5 *Arthaśāstra*, p. 376.

c9.s5.154

⁶ ^6 *Ibid.*, pp. 376ff.

c9.s5.155

⁷ ^7 Manu, x, 22; Fa-hien also refers only to the Licchavis, and not the Vṛjis (Legge, *Travels of Fa-Hien*, pp. 71-2).

c9.s5.156

⁸ ^8 Hüsan Tsang referred to them both but as separate kingdoms; *cf.* Watters, *On Yuan-Chwang*, ii, p. 81.

c9.s5.157

⁹ ^9 D. C. Sircar, *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 253-4; *cp.* Allan, *Coins of Gupta Dynasties*, pp. 8ff.

c9.s5.158

¹ Fleet, *CII*, iii, pp. 8, 27, 43, 50, 53, etc; *cf.* pp. 135, 323.

c9.s5.159

² Basham, *Ājīvikas*, p. 75; Altekar, *Indian Archaeology—A Review*, 1957-8, pp. 10-11; 1958-9, p. 12.

c9.s5.160

Significantly, however, the name Vajji (Sanskrit Vṛji) was entirely forgotten.³ Even the later *Purāṇas* have not registered the name. The Vedic and Purāṇic writers seem to have vied with each other to organize this cloak of silence around a very popular memory amongst the heretics. It is possible that these important people were ignored in the orthodox texts because of their addiction to heresy, and for this very reason gained popularity in the traditions of the Buddhists and Jainas. The disappearance of the name Vajji is also probably due to the fact that the Vajjian Confederacy, as distinct from the Licchavian republic, never recovered after Ajātasattu destroyed it. The Vṛjis are referred to by the *Arthaśāstra* for the last time and later authors apparently did not even know that the Vajjian Confederacy had ever existed.⁴

c9.s5.161

³ Though H. Panday says that "the Sajīs of modern times inhabiting the same region as our Vajjīs may be the descendants of the ancient Vajjīs". *Cf.* *JBORS*, vi, 1920, p. 260.

c9.s5.162

⁴ However, Y. Mishra's account of Vaiśālī terminates soon after their war with Ajātasattu, *op. cit.*, pp. 262-3.

Linked texts (18)