The best known form of political Saṁgha is Gaṇa. What I have said so far to prove the existence of the political Saṁgha applies really to Gaṇa. This Gaṇa, as Kātyāyana and Kauṭilya give us to understand, was tribal in character and was confined to the Kshatriya order. It is a pity that no account of its internal constitution has been given in the Arthaśāstras, where we might naturally expect it. Under such circumstances the Buddhist Pāli works and Chapter 107 of the Śāntiparvan of the Mahābhārata are our only source of information. Very little do we know even from this source, but we have to be content even with that little. We have seen that the capital of the Lichchhavis was Vesāli. The preambles of the Jātakas14 or Buddha’s Birth-stories tell us in two places that there were 7707 Lichchhavi kings staying in Vesāli to administer the affairs of the States. This agrees with the statement of Kauṭilya, quoted above, that the members of the Saṁgha were all designated kings. Quite in keeping with this we find the sons of these Lichchhavi kings called Lichchhavi-kumāras or Lichchhavi princes. As kings they were also entitled to coronation. We hear of there having been a special pushkariṇī or tank in Vesāli, the water of which was used to sprinkle there heads while being crowned. The tank was considered very scared, and was, therefore, covered with an iron net so that not even a bird could get through, and a strong guard was set to prevent any one taking water from it.15 It is not, however, clear whether these Lichchhavi kings were crowned all at one time, and, if so, on what occasions. As everyone of the Lichchhavi Saṁgha was a king, the probability is that on the death of any one of them his son who succeeded to his title and property was alone crowned king.
The actual wording used in connection with the scared tank which supplied water for coronation is Vesāli-nagare Gaṇa-rājakulānaṁ abhiseka maṅgala-pokkharaṇi etc.16 Here the phrase Gaṇa-rājakula is important. It shows that the political Saṁgha called Gaṇa was composed of various rājakulas or royal families, and that the heads of these rājakulas constituted the Gaṇa. This receives confirmation also from Kātyāyana, the author of a Smṛiti, who says that kulānāṁtu samūhas=tu Gaṇaḥ sa parikītriitaḥ,17 i.e. a Gaṇa (whether political or otherwise) is an aggregation of families. The account of thepolitical Saṁgha given by Kauṭilya also shows that it consisted of Kulas or families. This is also clear from Chapter 107 of the Śāntiparvan referred to above. The members of a Gaṇa are there said to be jātyā cha sadṛiśāḥ sarve kulena sadṛiśās=tathā, i.e. exact equals of one another in respect of birth and family, and it is expressly stated that if quarrels break out amongst the Kulas, the Elders of the Kulas should by no means remain indifferent, otherwise the Gaṇa will be dissolved.18 The political Saṁgha designated Gaṇa thus presupposes the existence of manifold royal families or clans, and consisted of their heads who were styled kings. But even in a republic of the present day where the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity are being imbibed and assimlated, the executive function has remained to the select few. Such was also the case with the political Saṁgha of Ancient India. We not unfrequently hear of Saṁgha-mukhyas and Gaṇa-mukhyas. They are mentioned not only by Kauṭilya19 but also in the Śāntiparvan. I quote three verses from the latter bearing on the point:
Tasmān = mānayitavyās = te
Gaṇa-mukhyāḥ pradhānataḥ
loka-yātrā samāyattā
bhūyasī teshu pārthiva
Mantra-guptiḥ pradhāneshu
chāraś=ch=āmitra karshaṇa
na Gaṇāḥ kritsnaśo mantraṁ
śrotum=arhanti Bhārata
Gaṇa-mukhyais = tu sambhūya
kāryarṁ Gaṇa-hitaṁ mithaḥ
— Chap. 107, vs. 23-25.
TRANSLATION
“Hence 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.
“The safeguarding of the (secret) State counsels and espionage, O crusher of foes, should remain with the Chiefs only.
“It is not advisable that any Gaṇa, as a whole, should know the (secret) counsels, O Bhārata.
“But the Chiefs of a Gaṇa, having assembled in secret, should do what is for the good of the Gaṇa.”
It is clear from the above passage that a select few were appointed by a Gaṇa from among themselves. They constituted what may be called a Cabinet, and were in charge of the Department of espionage and also of all State affairs of a highly important and confidential character. This agrees with what Bṛihaspati, the author of a Smṛiti, lays down. The verses from his work are:
Sarva-kārye pravīṇāś=cha kartavyāś=cha mahattamāḥ II dvau trayaḥ pañcha vā kāryāḥ samūha-hita-vadiniḥ I kartavyaṁ vachanaṁ teshāṁ grāma-śreṇi-Gaṇ-ādibhiḥ II.20
What these verses tell us is that two, three or five members of a corporate body should he appointed as Mahattamas or Chiefs and their counsels should be carried out by a Gaṇa, craft-guild or village community.
It will be seen from what I have cited that the real executive lay in the hands of the Gaṇa-Mukhyas, who again were not one but many; in other words, power was not centred in one single individual. No single member of the Gaṇa was thus by himself a ruler or Rājan in the proper sense of the term. And this is the reason why Kauṭilya styles them Rāja-śabdin, which means that they were Rājans in name. This receives support from the Lalita-vistara21 which says about the Lichchhavis that ekaika=eva manyate ahaṁ rājā ahaṁ rāj=eti, i.e “eve one thinks: “I am king, I am king”, when none of them singly was.
I have told you before that the preambles of two Jātakas inform us that there were 7707 Lichchhavi kings in Vesāli, the capital of their dominions. One Jātaka further informs us that there were as many Uparājas or viceroys Senāpatis or generals and Bhāṇḍāgārikas treasurers staying with the king at Vesāli. It appears that every one of these Lichchhavi kings had with him his own viceroy general and treasurer. The Aṭṭhakathā and Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, which are commentaries on the Buddhist Pāli Canon works, afford us son interesting glimpses into the manner in which Law was administered by the Lichchhavis or the Vajjīs as they are also called.22 It is true that these commentaries were written about the fifth century A.D., but as they are known to have preserved many interesting historical details of the period when Buddha lived an preached, their account of the judicial administration of the Vajjian kingdom is certainly, worth considering. When a culprit was found, we are told, he was in the first instance sent to an officer called Viniśchaya-Mahāmātra. If he was found guilty, he was transferred to the Vyavahārika, then to the Sūtradhara (rehearser of law-maxim), Ashṭa-kulika (officer appointed over eight kulas23), Senāpati (general), Uparāja (viceroy), and finally to Rājan (king). The Rajan consulted the Paveni-potthaka or “Book of Precedents,” and inflicted a suitable punishment.
Whether there were as many as 7707 Lichchhavi 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 Lichchhavi Gaṇa was pretty large. It again seems that the Lichchhavi 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 Uparāja, Senāpati and Bhaṇḍāgārika, and act as the magistrate in inflicting punishments. Nevertheless, the Gaṇa as a whole had power to kill, burn or exile a man from their vijita or kingdom which meant the aggregate of the principalities of the different kings, as the passage referred to above from the Majjhima-nikāya clearly indicates. The Lichchhavi kings, again, appear to be in the habit of staying not in their petty States but in the capital town, Vesāli, and along with their superior officers, viz. Uparāja, Senāpati and Bhāṇḍāgārika, leaving in their respective principalities their subordinate staff, such as the Viniśchaya-Mahāmātra, Vyavahārika and so forth. In what matters individually in the several states and in what matters conjointly in the whole kingdom the Lichchhavi kings exercis
ed autonomy is not clear. This, however, is certain that their Saṁgha was a federation of the heads of some of the clans constituting the tribe.
The most typical examples of this political Saṁgha, as I have said, are the Lichchhavis or Vajjīs and the Mallas. In my second lecture I have said that the former held Videha and parts of Kosala and had their capital at Vesāli which has been identified with Basaṛh in the Muzaffarpur District of Bihar. The capital of the Mallas was Kusināra or Kasiā. Both these tribes have been mentioned by Kauṭilya, but he specifies four others which were similarly Rāja-śabd-opajīvi Saṁghas. These four are Madrakas, Kukuras, Kurus and Pañchālas.24 The Madrakas occupied the country between the Rāvi and the Chenab in the Panjāb.25 What province the Kukuras had occupied is not certain, but most probably they were settled in North Gujarāt.26 The capital of the Kurus was Indraprastha near Delhi, and of the Pañchalās, Kāmpilya identified with Kāmpil between Budaon and Farrukhabad in U. P.27 In another place in his Arthaśāstra, Kauṭilya speaks of the Vṛishṇi Saṁgha also. We have independent evidence also to attest the existence of the Vṛishṇi Saṁgha. At least two coins are known, the legends of which, as clearly read by Mr. A. V. Bergny for the first time, show that they belonged to the Vṛishṇi Gaṇa.28 No doubt need, therefore, be entertained as to the Vṛishṇis being a Gaṇa. There certainly must have been many other tribes which were Gaṇas. Some of these have been noticed by foreign writers along with other Saṁghas. The foreign writers, whose statements can be of any use to us for the period we have selected, must of course be the Greeks who wrote accounts of Alexander’s invasion of India. Let us see whether they make any mention of Saṁghas, and if so, what remarks they offer in regard to their constitution. One tribe in the Panjāb, which was settled on the lower Akesines (Chenab), is designated Abastanoi by Arrian, Sambastai by Diodorus, Sabarcae by Curtius and Sabagrae by Orosius.29 They are identified with the Ambashthas of the Mahābhārata by some30 and with the Śaubhreyas grouped along with the Yaudheyas in the Yaudheya-gaṇa of Pāṇini by others.31 In regard to this people Curtius says that “they were a powerful Indian tribe where the form of government was democratic and not regal.” According to Diodorus “they were a people inferior to none in India either for numbers or for bravery and they dwelt in cities in which the democratic form of government prevailed.” Arrian, again, mentions three tribes, Kathanians, Oxydrakai and Malloi, which he describes as independent republics.32 And in respect of the Malloi, in particular, Arrian tells us that when they submitted to Alexander, they informed him that “they were attached more than any others to freedom and autonomy, and that their freedom they had preserved intact from the time Dionysos came to India until Alexander’s invasion.33 Oxydrakai are of course to be identified with Kshaudrakas and Malloi with Mālavas, which both have been mentioned as Saṁgha tribes by Patañjali.34 Two other Panjāb tribes I will note which have been noticed by Alexander’s historians. When the Macedonian monarch went to Nysa, “the Nysians,” says Arrian, “sent out to him their president, whosename was Akouphis and along with him thirty deputies of their most eminent citizens to entreathim to spare the city……” Alexander “confirmed the inhabitants of Nysa in the enjoyment of their freedom and their own laws: and when he enquired about their laws, he praised them because the government of their state was in the hands of the aristocracy. He moreover requested them to send with him 300 of their horsemen, together with 100 of their best men selected from the governing body, which consisted of 300 members ……when Akouphis heard this, he is said to have smiled at the request, and when Alexander asked him why he laughed, to have replied, ‘How, O King! can a single city is deprived of a hundred of its best men continue to be well-governed?…..’”35 Now, what do we find? We have no less than five tribes and peoples mentioned as being situated in the Panjāb and Sind by the Greek and Macedonian historians of Alexander’s invasion. I do not want to enter into any detailed discussion in this place, but it is enough if I say here that as their form of government is said to be not regal but democratic or aristocratic, these tribes must be looked upon as political Saṁghas. A Greek author at least would not fall into the blunder of calling a government democratic or aristocratic if it was not really so.36
Our account of the political Saṁgha will not, I am afraid, be complete unless I say a few words about Kula, its corporate unit. Kula, you are aware, denotes a clan or group of families. In the Aṇguttara-Nikāya37 we have a passage in which Buddha distinguishes between the different kinds of rulers. In the concluding portion of it we are told that one class of rulers was Pūga-gāmaṇikas or, as the commentator explains it, Gaṇa-jeṭṭhaks, i.e. Elders of a Gaṇa, and that another class of rulers was Ye vā pana Kulesu pachchek-ādhipachchaṁ kārenti, i.e. those who severally exercise autonomy (ādhipatyam) over the Kulas or clans. Perhaps a most typical example of this kind of rule is furnished by the Śākya clan to which Buddha himself belonged. This clan had spread itself over a number of towns. The chief town, of course, was Kapilavastu. But there were other townships belonging to the Śākyas, such as Chātuma, Sāmagāma, Khomadussa, Devadaha and so forth.38 There are no grounds to suppose that an office-holder was appointed by the Śākyas from time to time as Prof. Rhys Davids has said.39 The Pāli Canon speaks only once of a king of the Śākyas. This king that they mention is Bhaddiya,40 and the words used are Bhaddiyo Sakya-rājā Sakyānaṁ rajjam kāreti. The word here employed is rājā, who, in the period when Buddha lived, was not elected but hereditary, and was not a mere president but a ruler. If Bhaddiya had really been a periodic office-holder, he would have been designated not Rājā, but Mukhya or Grāmaṇī. We must not suppose that the king of the Śākyas was merely the chief of a clan, and had no sovereignty over any people outside his clan. In the villages and towns held by the Śākyas, there were, besides the Śākyas, artisans and men of special higher trades such as the carpenters, smiths and potters who had villages of their own. There were Brāhmaṇs also whose services were requisitioned at every domestic event and who had their settlements in the Śākya country.41 The Śākya chief was, therefore, not only the chief of his clan but was a veritable ruler or Rājā. This is also proved by the fact that Bhaddiya speaks of his being protected by a body guard wherever he went and also of his Nagara and Janapada—the capital town and kingdom—exactly the terms technical to the political administration. This is the Kulādhipatya alluded to by Buddha which denotes not merely chiefship of a clan but also sovereignty over the territory occupied by the clan.
Let us now pause here for a while and try to digest the mass of information we have collected about the political Saṁgha. One kind of this Saṁgha, viz. Gaṇa, I have repeatedly told you, was a tribal organisation. But if you suppose that its sovereignty was confined merely to the tribe, nothing can be more erroneous. When a Gaṇa-Saṁgha is spoken of as having a vijita or kingdom and as having power to burn, kill or exile a man as we have seen above, there can be no question about sovereignty being vested in this body. The fact that there were Uparājas, Senāpatis, Bhāṇḍāgārika and so forth connected with the Saṁgha completely confirms our conclusion, and clearly establishes its political character. The lowest political unit seems to be the Kula whose sovereignty is described as Kulāhipatya. It denotes not simply the domination of a Chief over his clan but also and principally his supremacy over the territory occupied by that clan. According to the Aryan social structure, every family (Kuṭumba) or household (Gṛiha) had its head who was designated Kuṭumbin or Gṛihapati. The group more extensive than the family was the Kula or clan which also had its head. This formation seems to have been common at least to the first three grades of the Hindu Society, the Brāhmaṇas, Kshatriyas and Vaiśyas. But then the functions of each grade had become differentiated and specialised long before the period we have selected, and we know that the duty of the Kshatriya order was primarily to rule. Two kinds of authority had the Kshatriyas therefore to exercise—one over their Kula and Gṛiha or Kuṭumba in common with the oth
er classes of the Hindu Society and the other over the terrify which they conquered and occupied as Kshatriyas. A Kshatriya Gṛihapati or Kuṭumbin we do not hear of as having ever become a ruler. It is the head of a Kshatriya Kula or clan that attains to sovereignty. The reason is not very difficult to understand. A territory that is to be ruled over has to be conquered, and for a territory to be conquered a sufficiently large band of fighting men is necessary. No members of a single Kshatriya family (Kuṭumba or Gṛiha) can ever be expected by themselves to acquire any strip of territory. It is only a Kula or clan, which, because it consists of a great many households, and consequently a large number of fighters, that can be reasonably expected to conquer any tract of land. This was the case with the Śākyas whom I have cited as an instance of Kula sovereignty. They were a clan, a branch of the Ikshvāku tribe. The province seized by them was called Śākya country after thom and was governed by one ruler, and we know that it was occupied not by the Śākyas alone but also by the Brāhmaṇs, artisans and traders.
As the chief of a Kshatriya clan becomes the ruler of the country conquered and occupied by them, the sovereignty must confine itself to the family of that chief. Such a Kshatriya clan is eka-rāja, i.e. with Sovereign One, as Kātyāyana calls it. But we have instances of Kshatriya clans, originally of monarchical constitution, becoming aristocracies. I have already informed you that the Kurus and Pañchālas are mentioned by Kauṭilya as rāja-śabd-opajīvi Saṁghas. But the Jātakas and early Pāli literature clearly give us to understand that they were not Saṁgha but eka-rāja Kshatriya clans i.e. clans each governed by one ruler. This means that in the sixth and fifth centuries before Christ, Kurus and Pānchālas were monarchical clans but became non-monarchical in the fourth century when Kauṭilya lived. We know that members of the royal family were often given a share in the administration of a country, and in proportion as this share would become less and less formal, would the state organisation lose the form of absolute monarchy and approach that of an oligarchy.42 The chief feature of a Gaṇa, as we have seen, is its division into Kulas. In other words, the political power lay in the hands, not of the whole people but of a few families who constituted the Gaṇa. This characteristic can apply, not to a democracy but to an oligarchy into which alone a monarchy can glide when it becomes a Gaṇa. And we know that this characteristic was possessed by the political Saṁghas mentioned by Kauṭilya. We shall not, therefore, be far from right, if we consider the Kuru and Pañchāla Saṁghas as instances of the Oligarchic form of Government. A third instance is furnished by the Yaudheyas and in a curious manner. We have already seen that they have been mentioned by Pāṇini as an ayūdha-jīvi Saṁgha. But, on the other hand, it must be remembered that from his Sūtra IV. 1. 178 it is clear that they were an eka-rāja Kshatriya tribe even in Pāṇini’s time. It may seem strange how a tribe, which is once described as an āyudha-jīvi Saṁgha, could be said to be a monarchical tribe. But really there is no discrepancy here, because firstly, an āyudha-jīvi Saṁgha bears no political character at all. Secondly, such a Saṁgha need not include all the members af the tribe. We can, therefore, very well suppose that there were some Yaudheyas who did not come under this Saṁgha and that politically they were a Kshatriya tribe of the monarchical type in Pāṇini’s time, but about the beginning of the Christian era at any rate they seem to have acquired the nature of a political Saṁgha. This is indicated by the issue of their coinage which ranges between 50 and 350 A.D.43 Like the Mālavas they style themselves Gaṇa on their money. So they were a Gaṇa, a political Saṁgha, when they struck these coins. It thus seems that from about the middle of the first century A.D. onwards they rid themselves of their monarchical constitution, and were settled down as a political Saṁgha. This is proved beyond all doubt also by a stone inscription found at Bijayagaḍh near Byānā in the Bharatpur State.44 Unfortunately it is only a fragment of an inscription. But what is preserved is enough to show that it is a record of a personage who was Mahārāja and Mahā senāpati and also a leader (puraskṛita) of the Yaudheya Gaṇa. The title Mahārāja and the word gaṇa show that in the year 371 A.D.—the date of the inscription—the Yaudheyas were a rāja-śabd-opajīvi Saṁgha. The personage in question was thus one of the Gaṇa-mukhyas. What is worthy of note here is that although he was a Mahārāja, he was Maha senāpati. And how could he have been so except on the supposition that before he or his forefather became a Mahārāja, i.e. a member of the Gaṇa, he was Senāpati of the royal family of the Yaudheya tribe? The term which denoted ‘a general’ in the Gupta period is Daṇḍa-nāyaka or Balādhikṛita. The word senāpati had long before this time become a hereditary title. This is, therefore, the third instance of a monarchical tribe becoming oligarchic.
Lectures on the Ancient History of India Page 12
