Lectures on the Ncient History of India - Forgotten Books
236
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
1 -
download
0
Transcript of Lectures on the Ncient History of India - Forgotten Books
L ECTU R ES
O N THE
ANCIENT H ISTO RY O F INDIA
LECTURES
ON THE
NCIENT H ISTO RY OF INDIA
O N THE PERIO D FRO M 650 TO 325 BC .
Delivered in February, 1 918
BY
D. R . BHANDARKAR,M .A .
,
CARMICHAEI. PRO FESSO R O F ANC I E NT INDIAN H ISTO RY AND CULTURECALCUTTA UN IVERSI TY
PUBLISHED BY THE
UNIVERSITY O F CALCUTTA
PR INT ED BY ATULCHANDRA BHATTACHARYYA
{ T TB ! CALCUTTA UN IVERSI TY . PRESS , SENATE HO USE , CALCUTT‘
S IR ASUTO SH MO O KERJ EE SARASVAT I
PR E F A C E
This book contains th e lectures which I
del ivered as Carmichael Professor of th e Calcutta
Universi ty in February,1 9 18. When I came
here to hold th e chai r, I was told that I was to
deliver four lectures embodying some research
work . If my lectures, I thought,were to con
tain nothing but new original work,they could
b e delivered only to a few advanced students of
th e Ancient Indian H istory and would hardly
b e understood by th e people in general . If,on
th e other hand , they were to b e such as would
b e intelligible to th e latter, there was th e danger
of their being more popular than scholarly in
character . W as i t possible , I asked myself , to
realise both th e ends,
to satisfy both th e
classes , -th e scholars and th e people ? After
thinking about th e matter, I came to th e con
elusion that both th e obj ects could b e fulfilled
if I selected a period and delivered my lectures
on it . Perhaps th e most neglec ted period was
th e one which immediately preceded th e rise
of th e Mauryan power , al though it was in some
respects th e most important one . This period
was accordingly chosen and th e lectures deli
vered . How far I have succeeded in interesting
th e specialists and th e laymen in th e subject
matter of these lectures I leave it to them to
determ ine .
Th e most important event of th e period I
have selected , viz:from 6 50 to 3 25 B C,is th e
completion of th e Arvan colonisation of Southern
India . This h as,therefore , become th e theme
of my first lecture . In m v second , I h ave deal t
with th e political history of th e period,th e
characteristic feature of which is th e gradual
evolution of Imperial ism . Shortly before
Buddha,th e Arvan ised India h ad been divided
into sixteen t iny S tates,m ostlv kingships, which
by th e process of centralisation were developed
into four M onarchies when Buddha was l iving,
and these M onarchies,
again , culminated into
Imperialism about a cen turv af ter h is demise .
My Third and Fourth Lectures pertain to th e
Administrative Historv a subj ect which h as not
yet attracted as much a ttention of th e scholars
as it deserves though th e materials even n ow at
our command are enough for th e purpose . Th e
Third Lecture is d ivided into two parts,th e fi rst
of which deals with th e L i terature on H indu
Polity to which we are inde b ted for our know
ledge ol'
this subj ect . This,I am a fraid
,is more
of an esoteric than o f an exoteric character , and
may,there fore
, prove somewhat abstruse to th e
general reader . Th e second part (p . 1 ] t and if . )aims at set ting for th some of th e H indu con
ceptions of M onarchy,and will
,I hope , h e read
wi th some interest . Therein I have attempted
to set forth th e evidence which,if it is impar
tially and dispassionatelv considered , seems to
show that there was a time in th e Ancient
b UU l J U u a v u c u I u cu b u y wa s u U b
absolute and uncontrol led . W e have been so
much accustomed to read and hear of M on arch v
in India as being always and invariably un fet
tered and despotic that th e above conclusion is
apt to appear incredible to many as i t no doubt
was to m e for a long t ime . In th e Fourth
Lecture I have endeavoured to show that
Monarchy was not th e only form of political
government known to India and th e governments
of a more or less popular character such as
oligarchy, aristocracy and democracy were also
flourishing side by side with i t . In this lectureI
' have also endeavoured to give a glimpse into
th e rules and regulations of debate which charac
terised t h e popular assemblies of Ancient India
and have pointed out that they bear a remarkably
close correspondence to those followed by th e
modern civ i lised age .
Th e Bengal is are a loving and lovable people,and many are th e lecturers and teachers of th e
Calcutta University from whom I have received
willing help and suggestions of various kinds.
I t is impossible to mention th e names of them
all here in this short preface . But I must
mention th e name of M r. Narayan Chandra
Banerj i,M .A . ,
for th e invaluable assistance h e
rendered m e in connection wi th mv Lectures on
th e Administrative H istory before h e formallv
became Lecturer of th e Un iversitv . Th e pre
paration of th e Index is solely th e work of mv
pupil M r. N . G . Maj umdar , D.A .
,wh o also
helped m e in revising th e proofs.
It is scarcely necessary for me to add that
th e subject of th e Ancient Indian H istory and
Cul ture is a progressive on e,and with every
additional studv and find of n ew materials some
of th e conclusions previously drawn are likely
to be modified . And,as a matter of fact , as th is
book is reaching its completion , I myself am
aware that I now hold somewhat diff erent views
on one or two matters deal t wi th in these
Lectures. S imilarly,though no effort h as been
spared to ensure accuracy and fullness,I do
not expect th is book to b e by any means
free from defects . But I request my readers
not to play th e role of a cattlelouse described
in th e we l l - kn own San sk rit verse} but rath er
to confine their attent i on to th e good points
only,if there b e any, in these Lectures, and
thus help to carry forward th e torch of research
work to illumine th e dark periods of Ancient
Indian H istory .
An outsider like myself h as only to see th e
affairs of th e Calcu tta Un iversitv and b e con
v in ced that th e progress of th e Anclen t H istory
of India or of Sanskrit , Pali and Prakrit studies
is due sole ly to th e sol icitude and encouragement
of one single person,and i t is to this p erson
,
therefore ,that this book h as been dedicated . In
th e dedicatory pages wil l b e found h is portrait,
which,I may add
,was inserted much again st
h is wishes .
D . R . B .
ABBREVIAT IO NS
ASSI
EHI .
Anguttara-Nikaya .
Archaeological Survey of India,
Annual Report .
Archaeological Survey of India,
Reports. By Cunningham .
Anandasram a Sanskrit Series,
Poona.
Archaeological Survey of Son
th ern India .
Bombay Gazet teer .
Bibliotheca Indica .
Bombay Sanskrit and Prakri t
Series.
Bombay Sanskrit Series.
Catalogue of Coins in th e Indian
Museum , Calcutta . By
V . A . Smith .
Corpus Inscriptionum Indi
carum .
Epigraph ia Carnatica . By L .
Rice .
Early H istory of India . Third
Edition . By V . A . Smith .
Epigraph ia Indica .
Gaekwad’
s Orienta l Series.
History of Ancient Sanskrit
Li terature . By F. Max Muller .
Indian Antiquary .
Jatakas.
Journal of th e Bombay Branch
of th e Royal Asiatic Society .
JBO RS. Journal of th e Bihar and Orissa
Research Society .
JRAS . Journal of th e Royal Asiatic
Society of Great Britain and
I reland .
Maj j h ima-Nikaya .
Flt — IVC . Progress Report of th e Arch teo
l ogical Survey , Western
Circle .
Pal i Text Society .
Samyutta -Nikaya .
Sacred Books of th e Buddhists.
Sacred Books of th e East .
Trivandrum Sanskrit Series .
V ienna O riental Journal .
V inaya Pitaka .
Zei tschrift der Deusch en Mor
gelandisch en Gesellschaf’
t .
All references to th e Mahabharata are from
l ’ratapch zmdra Ray’
s edition .
Lecture I .
ARYAN COLONISATION
or SOUTHERN INDIA AND CEYL ON .
I propose to open my first series of lectures
as Carmichae l Professor with th e history of th e
pre-Maurya period , t .e . Of th e period extending
from about 6 50 to 3 25 DC . I t is true that we
do not know much abou t th e political history of
th is period , but pol itical h istory cannot b e th e
whole h istory of any country . Again,i t is th e
adm inistrative, social , relig ious and ethnological
h istory which is of much greater importance
and far transcends political history in point of
human interest and edification . And for th e
constructi on Of this history for th e period we“have selected we have suffic ient materials. W e
have works of th e Sutra period relating both to
Law and Grammar . W e have thus th e
Dh arma-édstras of Baudhayana,Gautama
,
Apastamba and so forth,and th e A sh tecl/tyc
‘
zyz
of Panin i and Katyayan a’
s supplementary“
aphorisms or vertikas on it .‘
Further, i t was
prior to th e rise of th e Mauryas that Buddha
l ived and preached . And there is a general
consensus of Opin ion among scholars that all
th e earlier works of th e Buddhist Pal i canon
Were put together in th e period to which-
we
are confining ourselves. Let us, therefore,
2 LECTURE I .
util ise these materials and try to see h ow India
was socially,religiously and even political ly
from 6 50 to 3 25 B C .
Th e principal characteristic Of th is period is
th e completion of th e colonisation of Southern
India and Ceylon by th e Aryans ; and this forms
th e subj ect Of to-day’s lecture . It is worthy
O f note that th e southern hal f of India was
called Dak sh inapath a,which means ‘Road to
th e South ’
. Already in a Vedic hymn ,lalthough
i t is on e of th e latest,we meet wi th an expres
sion dakslzi/za padt’
t,meaning ‘with southward
foot’,and used with reference to a man who is
expel led to th e south . This cannot of course
denote th e Daks/zim’
tpa /lza or South ern India.
as we understand it,but rather th e country
lyin g b eyond th e world then inhabited by th e
Aryans. I t was in th e Brahmana period,h ow
ever , that they for th e first time seem to havecrossed th e V in dh ya range which separates th e
south from th e north h al f of India . In th eAitareya Brahmana ’
e .g .
,a prince named
Bh ima is designated Vaidarb h a,
‘prince ofVidarb h a
’
This shows that th e A ryan s h ad
come down bel ow th e V indh yas and settled inVidarb ha or western B erars immediately toth e south of this mountain ran ge . Th e sameBrahm ana
‘represents th e sage Visvam itra to
R ig - l'
cda x . 0 1 8. V i i . 3 4 9 .
Vii. 17 - 18 ; a lso m sank /tam ne st-amus e ,a, xv . 26 .
4. LECTURE 1 .
But h e makes no mention of any province to th e
south of th e Narmada except that O f As’
mak a
O ne of th e Oldest works of Pal i
Buddh ist literature, th e Sutz‘a - n ip ata ,
‘speaks of a
Brahman guru called Bavarin as having lef t th e
Kosala coun try and sett led near a village on th e
Godhavari in th e Assaka (Asmaka) territory in
th e Dak k inapath a (Dak sh inapath a) . Th e storytells us that Bavarin sent h is sixteen pupils to paytheir homage to Buddha and confer wi th him . Th e
route by which they proceeded northwards is
also described .
2 First,they went to Patitthana
of th e M ulaka3 coun ti y,then to Mah issati , to
Uj jen i, Gonaddh a,
4 Vedisa and Vanasah vaya ; to
Vs . 976 -7 . Ibid,Vs 10 1 1 -3 .
3 In th e tex t of th e Sutto- n zpci ta ed ited by V . Fausboll, th e
read i ng Agaka is adopted (Vs 977 and th e varian t M u laka
not iced in th e foot notes The re can , however , b e no doubt that Mulakam ust b e th e correc t read ing W e know O f no coun trv of th e nam e
Alaka . Mulaka ,on th e other h and , is wel l -known . Thus i n th e
ce lebrated Nasi k cove i nsc ripti on of'
asish t»h iputra Pulumav i, th e
Mu laka count ry h as been assoc iated w | th Asoka (Asmoka ) , exactly asi t h as been done i n th e Sutta -mpata ( El VIII Th e same coun tryseems to h av e been m ent i oned a s h lnuIika by Varah a in ih ira i n h isBr ikot -smit h ttd (X IV .
Conside ring that Godava r i has b een cal led Godhavari i n th e
Su f ta -n ipr'
t tn , Gonuddlm can ve ry we l l b e taken to stand for ( ionaddaGouardo,
th e place f t om wh ich Potafi j ali, author of th e Mahab h dsh ya ,
ha i led . S i r Ram k rnsh na Bh andm kar h as sh own on t h e authori ty ofth e Ma hab hash ya t hat Sake ta was si tuated on th e road from Gouardoto Pfitaliputrn ( IA . II 76 ) Th is is exactly i n accordance w i th whatth e Sttrta -n ipata says, for Sfl kota ,
accord ing to th e route taken byBa rin
'
s pupi ls was on th e way from Gonaddh n to th e Matgadh a
country . Th e nat i ve place of Patnfi jali was, therefore , i n Ce n tralIndia somewhere between U j ja i n and Bosnagar near Bh i lsa,
ARYAN COLONISAT ION . 5
Kosambi, Saketa and Savatth i (capital of th e
Kosala country ) ; to Setavya, Kapilavatth u
and Kusinara ; to Pava, Vesali (capital of
Magadh a) , and final ly to Pasanaka Ch etiya
W here Buddha then was. Th e description of
this rou te is very important in more than one
ways . In th e first place,i t will b e seen
that Bavarin ’
s settlement was much to th e
south of Patitthana,t. e . Paithan in Nizam ’
s
terri tory , because Patitthana was th e principal
town of th e Mulaka province, to th e south ofwhich was th e ,
As’
mak a country where Bavarin
then was. Secondly,i t is worthy of note that
Bavarin’
s disciples went to North India straigh t
through th e V indhyas . This disproves th e’
theory of some scholars wh o hold that th e .
Arvans were afraid of crossing th e Vindh yas and
went southwards to th e Dek k an by an easterly
detour round th e mountain range .
1 After leaving
Patitthana or Paithan we find th e party reachingMah issati, Mah ishmati, which h as been cor
rectly identified wi th Mandhata on th e Narmadaon th e borders of th e Indore S tate .
2 Evidently,Bavarin
’
s pupilsmust have passed to Mah ish mati ,
to th e other side of th e Vindhyas through
th e Vidarb h a country .
Let us now turn to Panini and th e School of
Grammar that h e founded . W e have seen that
See e 9 . Ea rly H istory of th e Dekkan ( Second Edi tion ) , p 9 .
JRAS .,19 10
,445 -6
6 LECTURE I .
Asmaka is th e only country in th e Dek kan,which
h e mentions. Th e case, however , is different with
Katyayana who wrote aphorisms called W rit/ms
to explain and supplement Panini and wh o h as
been assigned to th e middle of th e 4th century
B .C . Now,to a I’an ini ’s sfi tm j anap ada—sabdat
kslzatrig/ad zz afi ( 1V . 1 . Katyayana adds
a earlika,Pan /lor z dyaag, from which we ob
tain th e form Pandya .
1 If this m‘
irtika h ad
not been made, we should have h ad th e form not
Pandya but Pandava . Again , we have a sfi tm
of Panini , K amb oj al z lu/c ( IV . 1 . which
lays down that th e word Kamboja denotes not
only th e Kamboja c ountry or th e Kamboja tribe
but also th e Kamboja king . But then there
are other words which are exactly like Kamboja
in this respect but wh ich Panin i h as not men
tioned . Katyayana is, therefore , compel led to
supplement th e above sfi tra wi th th e ve’
crtika,
Kdmboj o‘
rdibhyo: l'
ug—vach anmiz
This means that l ike Kamboja th e words Choda,Kadena and Kerala denote each not only th e
1 am not ye t in a pos i t i on to dete rm ine final ly wh et h er th isis a rarnku of Katy fivana or a supp lem en t of Pa tanjali. S i rBam k rish na Bh andark ar I l l ll lS Em ly H i story of th e Dekkan ( p . 7 .
8 n . 3 ) adopts th e forme r v iew,whereas th e te x t of Patafi j ali
'
s
Ma h fib liash yn ,as ed i ted by Ki e lhorn i n th e Bombay Sansk ri t
Series,i ncl i nes on e to th e lat ter view . Even i f th is last proves
ul tim ately to b e th e correc t v iew ,th is i n no way v i t iates my ma i n
concl us ion , because as th o l’ ai ndyas a re re fe rre d to both by Megasth enes
i n h is l adder:and b y Asoka in h is Rock Ed icts the i r imm igrat ion toand se ttlem ent. i n South Ind ia we re com pl e te l ong be fore th e rise of
the Maurya powe r .
ARYAN COL ONISATION .27
country and th e tribe but also th e king . It wil l
thus b e seen that Choda and Kerala,which are
obviously countries si tuated in Southern India,were known to Katyayan a,
but not to Panini . Of
course, no sane scholar wh o h as studied th e
Asktddhyc‘
ryz will b e so bold as to asser t that
Pan ini was a careless or i gnorant grammarian .
But we have not on e word , but at least three
words, v iz . Pandya,Choda and Kerala,
th e forma
tion of whose forms h as not been explained by
Panini, which any accurate and thorough - gowg
grammarian would have done if they h ad been
known to him . Th e on ly legitimate conclusion
that can ,therefore
,b e drawn is that th e names
of these southern countries were not known to
Panini , or in other words, were not known to th e
Aryans in th e seventh century B . (1,but were
known to them shortly before th e middle of th e
fourth century B . 0 . when Katyayaua lived .
As regards Ceylon orTamraparn i as i t was cal led
in ancient days, i t was cer tainly known to th e
Aryans long before th e rise of th e Maurya power .
It. h as been mentioned not only by As‘oka as
Tan'
abapan i in h is R ock Edict XIII but also as
Taprobane by M egasth enes,1 who
,as most of
you are aware , was th e ambassador sent by
SeleukosNicator of Syria to th e court of Chandragupta
,founder of th e Maurya dynasty and
grand father of As‘
oka . Con temporaneously with
1 IA . VI . 1 29 .
8 LECTURE I .
M egasth enes l ived Kau tilya,wh o in h is A rtka
sastra‘speaks of pearls being found among
other places in th e Tamrapani river , in Pandya
kavataka,and near th e Mahendra m ountain
all si tuated on th e extremity of th e Southern
Peninsula .
Now,th e name of one of these southern king
doms was Choda,which was called Chora in
Tamil and Chola in Telugu . Th e people also
were called b v th e same name . I cannot resist
th e temptation of saying that i t is from this
Choa people that th e Sanskrit word ollom
meaning a th ief h as been derived . An exac tly
analogous instance we have in th e word Dasyu or
Dasa,which original ly denoted th eDah ae people of
th e Caspian Steppes 2 but which even in th e
Vedic period acquired a derogatory sense and
soon after signified “a robber” I f Dasyu thus
originally was th e name of a non -Aryan tribeand used in th e sense of a robber , i t IS perfectly
intel ligible that th e name of another non -Aryan
people , riz . th e Choras,was similarly employed
to express a similar meaning And this seemsto have been th e case
,because th e Vedie terms
p . 7 5 . For th e ri ver see fu rther in th e seque l .It is also referre d to in Asoka ’
s Rock Ed ic t II. Kan tilya's Pandya
k avtl tak a seem s to b e th e sam e as Prin rly awatak a or Pandya - vatab hava
of th e By lm h sm’
n h itc‘
t (HO . 2 and G) . Mahend ra he re seem s to b e th e
most southerly spur of th e Travancore H i l ls (JRAS . , 189 4
l l illeb randt,l'
ed i cch e Myth olog i e, I . 95 ; E. Kulm s Ze i tsch rifl ,
28 . 2 14 .
ARYAN COLONISAT ION . 9
for a thief are taskam ,tayu ,
slaw and p arip au
th in , bu t never ch em ,this word being for th e
first time found in th e Taittiriya Aranyaka1
which is a late work . This conclusion is strength
ened by th e fact that in Latin and Greek also,
there is no word , signifying a thief,” which
correspends to chore in sound .
Th e case, however, was difi eren t in regard to
th e name of th e other ' people,
viz . Pandya .
Katyayana, we have seen , derives it from Pandu .
This shows that th e Pandyaswere an Aryan tribe,
and not an al ien tribe l ike th e Cholas or Choras.
Now, a Greek writer called Pl iny tel ls us a
tradition about these Pandyas, on th e authority
of M egasth en es, that they were descended from
Bandosa,th e only daughter of th e Indian Her
cules, t.e. ,of Krishna . Sh e went away from th e
country of th e Saurasenas, whose principal
towns were M eth ora or Mathura and Cleisob ora
or Krishnapura, and was assigned by h er
father just “that portion of India which lies
southward and extends to th e sea .
” 2 I t is thus
clear that th e Pandyas were connected with th e
north and were an Aryan race . Th e account
given by Megasth en es, however, l ike many tra
ditions of this nature, is to b e regarded as a
combination of both truth and fiction . In th e
first place no authori ty from any epic or Purana
is forthcoming to show that Krish na h ad a
X . 65 .
2 IA . VI 249-50 and
10 LECTURE i .
daughter and of th e name of Pandya. Secondly,though Mathura is connected with th e infancy
of Krishna, h e l ived as a ruler , not at Mathura
but at Dvaraka from where al one h e could send
h is daughter . These are,therefore; th e ele
ments of fiction that got mixed up with th e
immigration of th e Pandyas. What appears to b e
th e truth is that there was a tribe called Pandu
round about M athura,and that when a section
of them went southwards and were settled there,they were called Pandyas. This is clear , I think,from Katyayana
’
s vartika . Fender -dye s ,which
means that th e suffix ya was to b e attached not
to Pandu th e name of th e father of th e Pandavas
but to Pandu, which was th e name of a Ksh a
triya tribe as wel l as of a coun try. Evidently
Pandya denotes th e descendants of th e Pandu
tribe,and must have been so cal led when they
migrated southwards and established themselves
there . Nay, we have got evidence to show
that there was a t ribe cal led Pandu . Ptolemy,wh o wrote geography of India about A .D. 1 50 ,
speaks not only of th e kingdom of Pandion or
Pandya but also of th e country of th ePandoouoi
in th e Punjab .
2 These Pandoouoi can b e no
other than th e people Pandu . Again, Varab a
W e also m ee t wi th sim i lar taddh tta forms in later h istory .
Thus we h ave i nstances of early t ribes be i ng cal led C hal ukya,Kadamba and so forth
,whose descendants late r on came to b e ca l led
Chalukya , Ki damba and so onIA . , X III . 33 1 and 3 49 .
1 2 LECTURE I .
or Mathura. But th e story of th e migrat ions
of this enterprising Aryan tribe does not-
end
here . W e have to note that there is a th ird
M atura in Ceylon , and also a fourth Madura
in th e Eastern Archipelago .
1 Th e natural
conclusion is that th e Pandyas did not rest
satisfied with occupying th e extremest southern
part of th e peninsula, but went farther south
ward and colonised Ceylon also . For,
as
j ust stated,th e Pandyas no doubt appear to
have come from Mathura, th e capl tal of th e
Saurasena country as told by M egasth enes,
because this alone can explai n why they gave
th e name Mathura to th e capital of their new
kingdom situated at th e south end of India.
And th e fact that we have another Mathura in
Ceylon shows that th e Pandyas alone could go
there and have a third capital of this name .
Besides,as th e Pandyas occupied th e southern
extremity of India,i t was they wh o could natu
rally b e expected to go and settle themselves in
Ceylon . But they seem to have gone there,not from th e Madura but from th e Tinnevel ly
District . I have told you that th e ancient
name of Ceylon was Tamraparn i, b ut we have
to remember that '
l‘z‘
tmraparn i was th e name ofo
a river also . This doubtless is th e presen t river
Ca l dwe l l , Gm mmm of th e Ib u t’ idiu n La nguages, Intr0 . ,p . 16 .
Mahab h arata l l l . Tha t th e Pdudyas he l d th e MaduraDist ri c t is qu ite ce rta i n , be cause i t was th e terri tory imm ed iate lyround about Madh nrd, the i r cap i ta l . That th ey he l d a l so th e T i nnevel ly
A RYAN‘
COLON ISAT I ON . 1 3
Tamraparni in th e Tinnevelly Distric t . Sch olars
have no doubt tac itly admitted that there was a
connection somehow between this river and
C eylon , but this connection can b e rendered
intel ligible only on th e supposition that th e
Tinnevel ly District was cal led Tamraparni after
th e river,j ust as S indhu or S ind was after th e
river S indhu or Indus. In that case it is in telli
gib le that when th e Pandyas went to Ceylon,
they named it Tamraparni after th e country
they left . Again ,coming as they did from th e
Tinnevel ly Distric t they would natural ly land
in th e north -western part of th e Island. And
it is quite in keeping wi th this supposition th at
we find th e ancient civil ised and populous dis
triet of Ceylon,th e so- cal led Kalah located, not
in th e south,east or n orth -east, but north -west
part of th e Island.
1
Let us now see h ow th e Aryan colonisation
of Southern India must have been accomplished .
W e know that when th e Aryans migrated in
ancient times from Afghanistan and Punjab toth e diff erent parts of Northern India, they did
Distri ct is clear from W hat Ptolemy an d th e author of th e Periplus tel lus about th e Pandya k i ngdom ( IA . , XIII . Northwards the i r ruleseems to have extended as far as th e h igh lands i n th e neighbourhoodof th e Coim batore gap . Its western boundary was formed by th esouthern range of th e Ghats. That th e A ryans h ad occupied th e
T innevel ly Distri ct at th is t im e is ev iden t from th e fac t that we havehere not on ly the sacred river Tam i-aparn i but also th e sacred placeAgastya-tirth a— both m ent ioned i n th e Mahabharata .
Jou r . Ceylon Br. R A . Soc. ,VII. 57 if .
1 4 LECTURE I .
so under t h e leadersh ip of th e Kshatriya tribes,and h en ce their n ew settlements were calledafter th e names of those tribes . A curious
legend in this connection is worth quoting from
th e Satapath a-Brahmana, from which i t would
appear that when th e Aryans pushed forward
to th e east of th e Sarasvati, they were led by
Math ava th e Videgh a,and h is priest . 1 They
went at first as far east as th e Sadan ira wh ich
formed th e boundary between Kes'
ala and
Videh a and'
wh ich therefore corresponds to th e
Li tt le Gandak of th e present day.
2 For some
t ime they did not venture to cross this river .
They did h owever cross it , and, at th e time when
! th e Satapath a-Brahmana was composed , were
settled to th e east of it in a province called
Videh a no doubt after th e name of th e tribe to
which th e king Math ava bel onged . Nay, we
have g ot Panini’
s authority to th at effect ; thus,
according to him ,Pafichalanmn nivr
‘
rso fana
p adah Paiiclzalali , t.e . th e word Paschalah
denotes th e country or kingdom which th e
Kshatriya tribe I’afichala occupied . What h appened in North India must have happened in
South India also . I have al ready referred to
th e tribe Pandu wh o were settled in th e
southernmost part of India and after whom i t
was cal led Pandya . This was certainly a
SBE X II. Intro . x l i seq 10 4 seq .
JRAS 190 73 11 6 44 .
ARYAN ‘COLONI SAT ION .
Kshatriya tribe . Again, we have a passage in
Kautilya’
s A rt/lasc’
tshw,viz . Dangle /aye mim e
B koj alt [came—wt B rahmana -Icanyam z ab/Limany
J
amt—mas: sa- bandhu- rash lro vinam
’
ise (a Bhoja
known as Dandakya or king of Dandaka,mak
ing a lascivou'
s attempt on a Brahman girl ,perished along with h is relations and kingdom . )
1
Bhoja was,of course
,th e name of a Kshatriya
tribe,as we know from th e M ahabharata and
Harivamsa .
2 And a prince of this tribe is here
said to have been a ruler of Dandaka, which is
another name for M aharashtra .
3 As all th e
incidents which Kautilya mentions along with
that of Dandakya Bhoja took place long before
h is time and’
as h e himself was, we know ,
th e
prime-minister of Chandragupta’
, founder of th e
Maurya dynasty, and consequently lived . at
th e close of th e fourth century B .C .,it
‘ap
pears that th e Bhojas must have taken posses
sion of Maharashtra,at least in th e fifth
Century i f not earlier . I have already
told you that th e Buddhist work Suttan ip atd
speaks of Patitthana or Paithan in Nizam’
s
Dominions. But there was an older
Patitthana or Pratish thana on th e confluence
of th e Ganges and th e Jumna, wh ich was th e
1 Kau tili yafit Arth aéc‘
zsirafii ( Bibl iotheca Sanskrits— No p . 1 1 .
Mahabharata,I . II . 14 . 6
, VI . 9 . 40 ; Harivafitéa,
3 R . G . Bh an darkar, Early H istory of th e Dekkan , p . 4 .
16 LECTURE i .
capital of Aila Pururavas.
‘ Th e practice of
naming th e younger town after th e older one
is universal , and is wel l -known even in th e
colonies of European nations. I have already
quoted you an instance from India,viz . of
Mathura . And Pratish thana is but another in
stance . It thus seems that on th e bank of th e
Godavari we h ad a colony from th e country of
of which th e older Pratish thana was th e capital ,and i t is probable that we h ad here a colony
of th e Aila tribe .
2 Even as late as th e third
century A .D. ,we find North Indian Aryan
tribes or families going southwards and settling
themselves somewhere i n Southern India . A
Buddhist stap a h as been discovered at Jagayyapeta in th e Kistna District, Madras. W e have
got here at least three inscriptions of this
period which refer themselves to th e reign of
th e king Madhariputra Sri -V irapurush adatta
of th e Ik sh vaku family 3 This indicates that
th e Kistna and adj oining Districts were held
in th e third century AD . by th e Iksh vak us,‘
W i lson , Vishnu-Purdna ,III. 237 ; Vclr i'amort aszyam (BSPS.
p . 41 be l ieved to b e presen t Jhusi opposi te A l lahabad fort .In th e Mahabharata are m ent ioned both Ailavan'iéa ( I . 94.
65 ) and A i la-v améyas ( II . 14 . A i las are m ent ioned also in th eI’ uranas.
Lilders,L ist of Brfi h mi Inscrip t i ons etc
, Nos . 1202 -4 .
I t is not at all unl ikely that Madhariputra Sri -Virapurush adattawas a prince of De ksh ina-Kosala wh ich i n th e th i rd century AD . may
have extended as far as th e east c oast . W e know tha t U t tara-Kosala,
w i t h its capi tal of Si k e ta or Avodhya, was ruled over by th e Iksh vakus,
ARYAN COLONISATION . 1 7
who certainly must have come from th e north .
W e know tha t Rama, th e hero of th e
Ramayana, belonged to th e Ik sh vak u race . So
did Buddha, th e founder of Buddhism . Th e
Ik sh vak us are also mentioned in th e Puranas
as a historical royal dynasty ruling in North
India . Th e Ik sh vakus of th e K istna District
must,therefore, have come from th e n orth .
I t is true that th e Aryan civilisation was
thus to a certain extent spread over Southern
India through conquest . But this cannot b e
th e whole cause . Causes of a pacific and more
important nature must also have Operated . W e
are so much accustomed to hear about th e
enterprising and prosylitising spirit of th e
Buddhist and Jaina monk s that we are apt to
think that Brahmanism h ad never shown anymissionary zeal . Is this, however, a fact ? Did
not th e Brahmans or at any rate any of th e
hymn - composing fam i l ies put forth any mis
sionary effort and help in th e dissemination of
th e Aryan culture ? I cannot help thinking
that th e ancien t Rishis were not mere passive
inert thinkers,but were active though not
aggressive propagators of their faith ? Tradi
and i t seems that when th e Ik sh vak us spread them se l ves sou thwards,
the i r n ew prov ince also was cal led R osa la, daksh ina be i ng a lso appl iedto i t t o d isti ngu ish i t from the i r orig i na l terri tory wh ich thereforebecam e U ttara-Kosala . (Deksh ina Kosala was certai n ly wel l -knownin th e fourth century A .D. , as i t is m ent ioned in th e A l lahabad pi l larinscript i on of Sam udragupta an d incl uded i n Dak sh inapath a .
1 8 LECTURE 1 .
tion,
narrated in th e Mahabharata and
Ramayana, says that it was th e Brahman sage
Agastya who first crossed th e Vindhya range
and led th e way to th e Aryan immigration .
‘
When Rama began h is southward march and
was at Pafich avati , A gastya was already to th e
south of th e Vindhyas and was staying in a
hermitage about two yoj cmas from it . This i s
not all . W e find him evermore penetrating
far ther and farther into th e hitherto unknown
south , and civi l isin g th e Dravidians. Nay, th is
is admitted by th e Tamil people themselves.
They make Agastya th e founder of their lan
guage and l iterature and cal l him by way of
eminence th e Tamirmmzi or Tam ilian sage .
They still point to a mountain in th e Tinnevelly
District , which is commonly cal led by th e
English Agastier, Agastya ’
s hill Agastya
being supposed to h ave final ly retired thither
from th e world after civilising th e Dravidians.
” 2
I am not unaware that these are legends. I t
is however, a mistake to suppose that legends
teach us nothin g historical . It may very well
b e doubted whether Agastya as h e figures in
these legends is a historical personal ity . But
a man is certain ly lack ing th e historical sense
if h e cannot read in these legends th e historical
truth th at Rishis took a most prom inent but
i Ma habharata ,III. 104 ; Ramayana III. 1 1 . 85 .
Ca l dwe l l,Gramma r of th e Dm mdaan Languages, 1n tr0 .
, 10 1 , 1 19 .
20 LECTURE I .
learn , there were many Brahmananchorites wholived in hermitages at different places and per
formed their sacrifices before Rama penetrated
Dandakaranya and commenced h is career of con
quest . There was an aboriginal tribe cal led th e
Rakshasas who disturbed th e sacrifices and
devoured th e hermits and thus placed themselves
in hostile opposition to th e Brahmanical institu
t ions. On th e other hand , under th e designation
of Vanaras, we have got another class of abori
gines, who al l ied themselves to th e Brahmans
and embraced their form of religious worship .
Even among th e Rakshasas we know we h ad an
exception in Vibh ish ana,brother of Ravana,
who is said to b e mo ta R akshasa-ch eskfl talz} not
behaving himself l ike a Rakshasa . This was th e
state of things in Southern India when Rama
came there This clearly shows that th e Rishis
were always to th e forefront in th e work of
colonising Southern India and introducing
Aryan civ ilisation . Amongst them Agastya was
th e only Rishi , who fought wi th th e Rakshasas
and killed them . Th e other Rishis,like true
m issionaries, never resorted to th e practice of
retal iation , though they bel ieved rightly or
wrongly that they h ad th e power of ridding them
selves of their enemy . O n e of them distinctly
says to Rama Kamam tap e lz-prab/zavena sak td
han tum s isac/Lardn ch ira’
iry’
itam7m oh -echch /Lamas
Rdmduana , 1 1 1 . 17 . 22 .
AR'
YAN COLONISATION. 21
tap ah k handayitumvayam“I t is true that by th e
power of our austeri ties we could at will slay
these goblins but we are unwilling to nullify
(th e merit -of ) our austerit ies.
” 1 And i t was
simply because through genuine m issionary
spirit th e Rishis refused to practice retaliation
that Rama, l ike a true Kshatriya,intervened and
waged war with th e Rakshasas . This h igh noble
spiri t of th e ancient Rishis, manifested in
their mixing with th e aborigines and civilising
them,is not seen from th e Ramayana only . I t
may also b e seen from th e story of th e fifty of
Vis'
vam itra’
s sons,mentioned in th e Aitareya
Brahmana and referred to at th e beg inning of
this lecture . They strongly disapproved of h is
adoption of Sunahs‘epa, and were for that reason
cursed by Vis'
vam itra to live on th e borders of
th e Aryan settlements. And their progeny, we
are told , are th e Andhras, Pundras, Saharas and
so forth . I f we read th e legend aright , it clearly
indicates that even th e scions of such an i llus
trious hymn - composing family as that of
Vis’
vam itra migrated southward boldly, and what
is more,married and mixed freely with th e
aborigines , with th e obj ect of diffusing Aryan
culture amongst them .
But by what routes did th e Aryans penetrate
South India PThis question we have now to con
sider . Th e main route,I think , is th e reverse
1 I bid . ,111 . 10 .
2 2 LECTURE 1 .
of th e on e by which Bavarin ’
s pupils went to
Magadh a from As’
maka . Th is was described ashort time ago. Th e Aryan route thus seems
to have lain through th e Avanti country,th e
southernmost town of which was Mah issati or
Mandhata on th e Narmada, from where th e
Aryans crossed th e Vindh yas and penetrated
Southern India . They began by colonising
Vidarb h a from which they proceeded southwards
first to th e Mulaka territory wi th its principal
town Patitthana or Paithan and from there to th e
As’
maka country . By what route farther south
ward they immigrated is not clear , but th e
find-spots of As’
oka ’
s inscriptions perhaps afford
a clue . O n e copy of h is M inor Rock Edicts h as
been found at Maski in th e Lingsugur Taluq of
th e Raichur District , N izam’
s Dominions, 1 and
three more far ther southward , in th e Chitaldrug
District of th e Mysore State .
2 A f ew Jaina
cave inscriptions have come to ligh t also in th e
Madura District 3 and appear to belong to th e
second century B C . and possibly earlier . As
Asoka’
s edicts and these cave inscriptions are in
Pal i, these certainly were th e districts colonised
by th e Arvans. Th e Aryans thus seem to
to have gone south from th e As’
maka terri tory
through th e modern Raichur and Chitaldrug
Hyderabad Arch aeolog ica l Series, No . I , p . 1 .
2 EC . ,Vol . XI. p . 2
3 Ann ua l Report on Ep igraphy for th e year end ing 81 | t March19 12 , p . 57 .
ARYAN COLON ISAT ION . 23l
Distr ic ts , from where they must have gone to
th e Madura District which was original ly in
th e Pandya kingdom . This seems to agree wi th
th e tradition of their immigration preserved
among th e Tamil Brahmans. These Brahmans
have a section called Brih ach ch arana which
means th e Great Immigrat ion , and must refer
to a large southward movement 1 . They are
subdiv ided into Mazh nadu and Molagu . Th e
Mazh nadu sub - section is further div ided into
Kandra-man ik kam ,Mangudi and Sath ia
-manga
lam etc. ,all villages along th e Western Ghats
sh owing that in their southward movement
they clung to th e highlands and peopled th e
skirts of th e present province of M ysore and
th e Coimbatore and Madura Districts a con
elusion which agrees with that j ust drawn from
th e fi nd-spots of th e As’
oka and Cave Inscriptions
in Southern India .
Another route by which th e Aryans seem to
have gone to South India was by th e sea . They
appear to have sai led from th e Indus to
Kach ch h a,and from there by sea-coastto Sura
sh tra or Kath iawarufrom Kathiawar to Bh aruka
cheb b a or modern Breach , and from B harukach
chha to Supparaka or Separa in th e ThanaDistrict
of th e Bombay Presidency . Baudhayana,th e
author of a Dharmasastm quotes a verse from
th e Bhallavin School of Law, which tel ls us
IA .
, 19 12 , 2 3 1 2 .
24 LECTURE I .
that th e inhabitants of S indhu , Sauv ira and
Surash tra l ike those of th e Dek k an were of
m ixed origin . This shows that th e Aryans
h ad begun colonising those parts. Towards
th e end of th e peri od we have selected they
seem to have advanced as far south as Sopara.
But as already stated they must have gone by
th e sea- route, because i t is quite clear that no
mention is traceable of any inland countries or
towns between th e sea- coast and th e Dek kan .
Now,wherever in India and Ceylon th e
Aryans penetrated , th ey introduced not only
their civilisation , t.e . thei r rel igion , culture and
and social organisation , but also imposed their
language on th e aborigines. I t is scarcely
necessary for m e to expatiate on th e former
point,for i t is an indisputable fact that th e
H indu civilisation that we see everywhere in
India or Ceylon is essentially Aryan . You
know about i t as much and as wel l as I do.
This point , therefore , calls for no remarks. In
regard to th e Arvan language, however, I cannot
do better than quote th e following opinion of
S ir George Grierson , an eminent l inguist of
th e present day.
“When an Aryan tongue,
”
It wi l l b e stated furthe r on i n th e tex t that no less than threeBuddh ist stitpas have been found i n th e K ist na Dist r ict w i th qu ite a
num be r of Pal i i nscript ions sh ow i ng that th e Aryans h ad colon ised thatpa rt . Th e quest ion a r ises from where d i d th e Aryans go there ; The ym ust have gone e i th e r from Kal inga or Aémaka
, m ost probably fromth e lat ter . See note on p . 40 be l ow.
ARYAN COLON I SAT ION . 25
says h e,“comes into contact with an uncivilized
aboriginal one, it is invariably th e latter which
goes to th e wall . Th e Aryan does not attempt
to speak it,and th e necessities of in tercourse
compelled th e aborigine to use a broken ‘pigeon ’
form of th e language of a superior civilisation .
As generations pass this mixed jargon moreand more approximates to its model
,and in
process of time th e old aboriginal language is
forgotten and dies a natural death .
” 1 I com
pletely endorse this view of S ir George Grierson
except in on e respect . This exception , you
will at once see, is th e Dravidian languages
which are at present spoken in Southern India.
I t is, indeed , strange h ow th e Aryan , fai led to
supplant th e Dravidian , speech in this part of
India,though it most successfully did in Nor
thera India,where I have no doubt th e Dravidi
an tongue prevailed before th e advent of th e
Aryans . This wil l b e seen from th e fact that“B rahui , th e language of th e mountaineers in
th e Kh ansh ip of Kelat in Beluch istan ,contains
not only some Dravidian words, but a consider
able infusion of distinctively Dravidian forms
and idioms” 2 Th e discovery of this Dravidian
element in a language spoken beyond th e Indus
tends to show that th e Dravidians, like th e
Aryans,th e S cythians, and so forth , must have
1 Imperial Gazetteer of India, Vol . I . pp . 3 5 1 -2 .
Caldwel l , Gramma r of th e Dravidian Languages, In t ro . pp . 43 -4 .
26 LECTURE I .
entered India by th e north -western route . I t
is also a wel l -known fact,accepted by all scho
lars, that there are many Sanskrit words, which
are really Dravidian , and Kittel , in h is Kanna
da-English Dictionary, gives a long list of
them . But in compiling this l ist h e seems to
have drawn exclusively upon classical Sanskrit,which was never a 671223 7s or spoken language .
At least on e Dravidian word,howe ver , is known
from th e Vedi c l iterature, which is admitted to
b e composed in th e language actually spoken
by th e people . Th e word I mean is magfaclzi
which occurs in th e Ch handogya-Upanishad
in th e passage M atack i - hateshu Kurusku
(“
iii/leg it set/ta, j ag/aya Ushastir z lza
ib/zya-
grame p radrc‘
lnaka uvc'
tsa . Here evidently
th e devastation of th e crops in th e Kuru country
by maiach i is spoken of . All th e commentators
except one have wrongly taken matachz to mean
‘hailstones ’,but on e commentator wh o is an
exception righ tly gives rakta- varnféh ksh udra
palash i-viéeskah as an alternative equivalent‘
This shows that these “red- coloured winged
creatures” can b e no other than locusts, and
that i t is they which laid waste th e fields of th e
Kuru country as they do to th e present day in
every part of India . It is interesting to note
that this explanation of th e commentator
is confirmed by th e fact that matach i is
1 JRAS . , 19 1 1 , p . 5 10 .
28 LECTURE I .
purpose in Bengal i . Instances can be multi
pl ied 1
, but those given are enough,t o show
that even th e vernacular Bengal i,which bristles
with Sanskrit and derivat ive words,is in debted
to Dravidian languages for a pretty large portion
of its vocabulary and structural peculiarities .
What is strange is that even in H indi speech
Dravidian words have been traced. Even th e
commonest H indi words j l mgrzi, am and so forth
have been traced to Dra vidian vocables 2. No.
reasonable doubt can therefore b e en tertained
as to th e Dravidian speech once bein g spoken in
North India.
W e thus see that th e Dravidian tongue was
once spoken in North India but was superseded
by th e Aryan , when th e Aryans penetrated and
established themselves there . I t, therefore,becomes extremely curious how in Southern
India th e Aryan Speech was not able to supplant
th e Dravidian . But here a question arises
Is i t a fac t that even in that par t of th e country
no Aryan tongue was ever known or spoken by
th e aborigine, after th e Aryans came and were
settled here P I take my stand on epigraphic
records as they alone can afford irrefragib le
evidence on th e subj ect . L et us fi rst take th e
For a deta i led considerat ion of th is subj ect , see Barigalfibhashfi y
Dn'
wigli “pa ti na by Mr. B . C . Mazum dar printed i n Sfih atya -parisha l.
p atr ika, Vol . XX . Pt I .IA . 19 16 , p . 16 .
ARYAN COLONI SAT ION . 29
province whose vernacular at present is Telugu .
Th e earliest inscriptions found here are those of
As‘oka. Evidently I mean th e version of h is
Fourteen R ock Edicts engraved at Jan gada in
th e Ganjam Distri ct,th e extreme north - east
part of th e Madras Presidency . But I am
afraid I cannot lay much stress upon it,because
though Telugu is no doubt spoken in this
district, U riya‘
. is not unknown here, at any rate
in th e northern portion of it . And it is a wel l
known fact that in a prov ince where th e
ranges of any two languages or dialects meet ,th e boundarywhich divides on e from th e other
is never permanently fixed , bu t is always
changing . I shall not,therefore, refer here to
th e Fourteen Rock Edicts discovered in th e
Ganjam District, but shall come down a l i ttle
southwards and select that district where none
but a Dravid ian language is spoken— I mean
th e Kistna District . Here no less than three
Buddhist stfip as have been discovered , along
with a number of inscriptions. Th e earliest ofthese is that at Bhattiprolu, th e next is th e celebrated one at Amravati , and th e th ird is that at
Jagayyapeta. Th e inscriptions connected with
these monuments are short donative records,
specifying each th e name and social status ofth e donor along with th e nature of h is gift . An
examination of these records shows that peopleof various classes and statuses participated in
80 L ECTURE I .
th is series of religious benefactions. W e will
here leave aside th e big folk, such as those who
belonged to th e warrior or merch ant class, and
who,i t might b e contended
,were th e Aryan
conquerors. W e will also leave aside th e monksand nuns, because their original social status isnever mentioned in Buddhist inscriptional
records. W e have thus left for our consideration th e people who are cal led h erafiika or
goldsmiths,and
,above all
,th e ckammaka
’
ras or
leather-workers. These at any rate cannot b e
reasonably supposed to form par t of th e Aryan
people wh o were settled in th e Kistna District,
and yet we find that their names are clearly
A ryan,showing that they imbibed th e Aryan
c ivilisation even to th e extent of adopting their
names. Thus, we have a goldsmith of th e name
of Sidh ath a or S iddhartha,two leather -workers
(father and son ) of th e name of Vidh ika or
Vriddh ika and Naga .
1 All these unmistakably
are Aryan names. but this string of names
does not stop here . W e have yet to make
mention of another individual who is named
Kanha or Krishna . This too is an Aryan name,
but th e individual , i t is worthy of note, calls
himself Damila,
2 which is exactly th e same as
Tami] or Sanskrit Dravida . And , in fact, this is
th e earl iest word so far found signifying th e
Dravidian race . WVe thus see that as th e resul t
x ASS I . , 1 .-3 . Ib id, ,
104 .
ARYAN COLONISAT ION . 3 1
of th e Aryan settlement in th e Kistna District,th e local people were so steeped in Aryan civil i
sation that they went even to th e length of
taking Aryan proper names to themselves. But
could they understand or speak th e Aryan
tongue ? Do th e inscriptions found in th e
K istna District throw any light on this point ?
Y es, they do , because th e language of these
records is Pali,Iand Pal i we know is an Aryan
speech . This clearly proves that an Aryan
tongue was spoken in th e Kistna District from
at least 1 50 B C . to 200 A .D.
— th e period to
which th e inscriptions belong . I am aware i t
is possible to argue that this Aryan language
was spoken only by th e Aryans wh o were settled
there,and not necessari ly by th e people in
general, and, above all,th e lower classes. This
argument is not convincing,because i t is in con
ceivab le that earlier Buddhism,whose on e aim
was to b e in direct touch with th e masses,and
which must have obtained almost all its converts
of this district from all sorts and conditions of th e
indigen ous people including th e lowest classes,could adopt an Aryan tongue unless i t was at
least as well known to and actually spoken by
th e people in general as their home tongue .
This inference is confirmed by th e fact that
1 I use th is term i n th e sense i n wh ich i t h as been taken byMr. Francke i n h is Pali and San skrit . Perhaps th is shoul d have beensty led m onumental Pal i to d ist inguish i t from l i terary Pal i , i .e . th e Pal iof th e B uddh ist scriptures.
32 LECTURE I .
three copies of what are cal led As‘
oka’
s M inor
Rock Edicts have been found in th e Chitaldrug
District of th e M ysore State,
1 i .e . in th e very
heart of what is n ow th e Canarese- speaking
province . O n e of these edicts enumerates th e
diff erent v irtues that constitute what As’
oka
meant by (Manama,and th e other exhorts all
people especially those of low position to put
forth strenuous endeavour after th e highest l ife .
All th e in scriptions of As‘oka
, especially these
Edicts,h ad a very practical object in view. They
were intended to b e understood and pondered
over by people of all classes , and as th e language
of these epig raphic records is Pali , th e conclusion
is i rresistible that though perhaps i t was not th e
home tongue,i t could b e spoken
,at least wel l
understood,by all people including th e lower
classes. But this is not all . W e h ave got incon
testable evidence that up to th e 4th century
A .D . ,Pal i was also th e official language of th e
kings even in those prov inces where Dravidian
languages are now suprem e . At least on e stone
inscription and five copper -plate charters have
been found in these provinces, ranging from
th e second to th e fourth or fifth century A .D.
Th e stone inscription was found at Malavalli in
Shimoga District, Mysore S tate .
2 I t registers
some grant to th e god Malapali by Vin h ukada
EC . ,X I . In tro . 1 ff .
Liiders, List of B aa/1m? Inacrip h ons, Nos. 1 195 -6 .
ARYAN C OLONISAT I ON . 33
Ch utukalanamda Satakarn i of th e Kadamba
dynasty 2 who calls himself king of Vaij ayanti ,and records th e renewal of th e same grant by h is
son . Vaijayanti,we know,
is Banavasi in th e
North Kanara District,Bombay Presidency .
A t Banavasi , too, we have found an inscription
of th e queen of this king . Both Banavasi and
Malavalli are situated in th e Canarese- speaking
country,and yet we find that th e official language
here is Pali . Th e same conclusion is proved with
reference to th e Tamil- speaking country by th e
fi ve copper - plate grants referred to above . Of
these five three belong to th e Pallava dynasty
reigning at Kafich ipura, on e to a king called
Jayavarman,and on e to V l j ayadevavarman .
8
1 I h ad occasion t o exam i ne coins of two princes of th is dyn astyfoun d i n th e North Canara Distri ct
,Bom bay . Thei r names on them
are clearly Ch utukalénan‘ada and Mulan an
'
i da (PR .—W C . ,
19 11 -2,p . 5 ,
para Prof . Rapson is i ncl i ned to take Chutu an d Mada (Munda ) asdynast ic nam es (Cata logue of th e cow s of th e Andh ra Dyn asty etc.
,Intro .
l xxx iv -lxxxv i ) . In my op in ion , th e wh ole Ch utuk a( k u) la'
nari1da and
Mulanarh da are proper nam es or i n div idua l epi thets, for to m e i t isi nconce ivable h ow they cou l d menti on thei r dynast i c names only onth e coins an d n ot in d iv i dual nam es or epi thets at all .
Prof . Rapson h as conclusively shown that Vinh ukada Chutukalan an
’
l da and Sivask andavarman of th e Malavalli i n scrlption s wererelated to each other as fath er an d son ( zbid, l i v -l v ) . But then i t isworthy of note that th e latter h as been cal led k i ng of th e Kadamb asi n one of these records. I t thus appears that both father and son
b e l onge d to th e Kadamba dynasty— a conclusion wh i ch thorough lyag rees w i th th e fact that the i r t i tle Varyayan ti -p ura - raj a ,
Manavya
sagotta an d Ham tipu tta are exactly those of th e Kadam bas known tous from the i r copper-plate charte rs (Bombay Gazetteer, Vol . I .
,pt
. 11
p .
3 Luders’ L i st, Nos. 1200,1 205 , 1327 , 1328 and 1 194.
34 LECTURE I .
Th e verv fact that every on e of these is a ti tle
deed and h as been drawn up in Pal i shows
that this Aryan language must have been known
to officials of even th e lowest rank and also to
l i terate and ev en semi - l i terate people . O n e of
th e three Fallava charters, e .g . ,issues in struc
tions,for th e main tenance of th e grant therein
reg istered , not onlv to rc’
tj alcumc'
tra or royal
princes, senap ati or generals, and so forth , bu t
also to th e free -holders of various villages
(game—!9 54ma
- bhoj aka ) , guards (fi rakhc‘
zdh ikata)and even cowherds (go- va llava ) wh o were
employed in th e king ’s service . Th e princes ’
and gene rals may perhaps b e presumed to b e
of th e Aryan stock and consequently speak
ing an Aryan tongue , but th e free- holders of th e
various villages , guards and cowherds,at auv
rate, must b e supposed to b e of non -Aryan race .
And when instructions are issued to them b y a
charter couched in Pal i , th e conclusion is inev i
table that this Aryan tongue, at least up to th e
fourth centur y A .D.,was spoken and understood
by all classes of people in a country of which
th e capital was Kafi ch ipura or Con jeveram and
which was and is now a centre of th e Tamillanguage and li terature .
Just now I have many a time remarked that
Pal i might not have been th e home tongue of th e
Pe rsona l ly I th m k m ost of t h e pr inces in South e rn Ind ia weref Dran dmn blood , as i ts c learly en denced by the i r nam es such as
I‘uluman .V ilivfiy ak nra ,
Kaln lri ya , Ch utukala an d so forth .
3 6 LECTURE I .
century A .D. was discovered in 1 903 at Oxy
rh ynch us in Egypt, containing a Greek farce b v
an unknown author . ‘Th e farce is concerned
with a Greek lady named Ch arition,wh o h as
been stranded on th e coast of a country border
ing th e Indian Ocean . Th e king of this
country addresses h is retinue as“Chiefs of th e
Indians.
”In some places th e same king and h is
countrymen use their own language especial ly
when Ch arition h as wine served to them to
make them drunk . Many stray words have been
traced , but so far only two senten ces have
been read,and these leave no doubt whatever
as t o thei r language hav ing been Canarese .
O ne of th e sentences referred to h is bare
Kofieha madh u patrakke haki,which means
“h avin g poured a l ittle wine into th e cup
separately .
”Th e other sen tence is p anam bar
etti Katti madhuvam ber ettuvenu,which means
“having taken up th e cup separately and having
covered ( i t) , I shal l take wine separately .
”
From th e fact that th e Indian language em
ployed in th e papyrus is Canarese,i t follows
that th e scene of Ch arition’
s adventures is one
of th e numerous smal l ports on th e western
coast of India between Karwar and Mangalore
and that Canarese was at least imperfectly
understood in that part of Egvpt whe1 e th e
farce was composed and acted,foi i f th e G l eek
JRAS ,190 4
,p 399 a.
A RYAN COLONISAT ION . 37
audience in Egypt did not understand even a
bit of Canarese, th e scene of th e drinking bout
would b e denuded of all its humour and would
b e entirely out of place . There were commercial
relations of an in timate nature between Egypt
and th e west coast of India in th e early
centuries of th e Christian era,and i t is not
strange i f some people of Egypt understood
Canarese . To come to our point, th e papyrus
clearly shows that , in th e second century A .D. ,
Canarese was spoken in Southern India even
by princes,wh o most probably were Dravidian
by extraction . Th e Canarese, however, which
they spoke,was not pure Canarese
,but was
strongl y tinctured wi th Aryan words. I h ave
quoted two Canarese sentences from th e Greek
farce, and you will have seen that they contain
th e words p atra (cup) , p anam (drink) and
mad/ m (wine) , which are genuine Aryan
vocables as they are to b e found in th e Vedas.
Th e very fact that even in respect of ordinary
aff airs relating to drinking we find them using,
n ot words of thei r home language as we would
naturally expect them to do, but words from
Aryan vocabulary , indicates W hat hold th e Aryan
speech h ad on their tongue .
Nevertheless it must b e confessed that even
seven centuries of Aryan domination in South
India was not enough for th e eradication of th e
Dravidian lan guages. I t would be exceedingly
38 LECTURE I .
in teresting to in vestigate th e circumstanceswhich precluded th e Aryan tongue here from
supplanting th e aboriginal on e . Such an inquiry,
I am afraid,is irrelevant here . A nd I
,therefore
,
leave i t to th e Drav idian scholars to tackle
this most interesting b ut also most bewi ldering
problem .
‘
Though th e causes that led to th e preserva
tion and survival of th e Dravidian languages
are not known at present,this much is cer tain ,
as I h ave shown above , that up til l 1 00 A .D .
at any rate , an Aryan tongue was spoken and
known to th e people in general j ust in those
provinces where th e Dravid ian languages are
now th e on ly vernaculars . I f such was th e
case,we can easily understand wh y in Ceylon
to th e presen t day we have an Indo - Aryan
vernacular . For we have seen that th e tide of
th e Aryan colonisation did not step til l i t reached
Ceylon . Naturally,therefore , not only th e
Aryan civilisat ion but also th e Aryan speech
was implanted from S outh India into this
country,where
,however
,as in North India,
i t succeeded in completely superseding th e
tongue original ly spoken there . This satisfactori
ly answers,I think
,th e question about th e
origin of Pal i in which th e Buddhist scriptures
Le t m e say here that t h e exact quest ion to b e answered 1 3 wh y
t h e Dravid ian , was supplanted by th e A ryan , language in NorthIndia
,but not m South Ind ia
,a l th ough Aryan civ il1sation h ad
apparent ly pe rmeated South Indxa as much as North Ind la .
ARYAN COLON I SATION . 39
of Ceylon h ave been written . Th e Island was
converted to Buddhism about th e middle of th e
third century B . C . by th e preach in g of Mahinda,a son of th e great Buddhist Emperor A s
‘
oka .
Naturally, therefore , th e scriptures which
Mah inda brought wi th h im from h is father ’s
capital must have been in Magadh i , th e dialect
of th e Magadh a country . A s a matter of
fact,however , th e language of these scriptures,
as we have them now,is anything but Magadhi ,
though,of course ,
a few M agadh ism s are here
and there traceable . This discrepancy Has been
variously explained by scholars. Prof . Kern
holds that Pal i was never spoken and was an
artificial language al together— a view which no
scholar endorses at present . Prof . O ldenberg
boldly rejects th e S inhalese tradition that
Mahinda brought th e sacred texts to Ceylon .
H e compares th e Pal i language to that of th e
cave inscriptions in Maharashtra and of th e
epigraph of king Kharavela in Hath igumpha in
O rissa,tie . old Kal inga, says that they are essen
tially th e same dialect and comes to th e conclu
sion that th e Ti -pitaka was brough t to th e Island
from th e peninsula of South India,either from
Maharashtra or Kal inga,with th e natural spread
of Buddhism southwards 1. I am afraid , I
cannot agree wi th Prof . O ldenberg in h is first
conclusion . On th e contrary , I agree with
1 Vi naya -Pi takam,Vol . I , Intro . pp . liv - lv .
40 LECTURE I .
Prof . Rhys Davids that th e S inhalese tradition
that Buddhism was introduced into Ceylon by
Mah inda is we l l- founded and must b e accepted
as true . O n th e other h and,Prof . O ldenberg
h as,I think
,correctly pointed out that Pali of
Buddhist scriptures is widely divergent from
Magadh i but is essentially th e same as th e
dialect of th e old inscriptions found in M aha
rash tra or Kal inga . Th e truth of th e mat ter is
that th e Arvans,wh o colonised Maharashtra and
Kal inga 1
,spoke prac tical ly th e same dialect , as
is evidenced by inscriptions,and that when they
wen t sti l l farther southwards and occupie d
Ceylon , th ev naturally in troduced their own
dialect there, as is also evidenced by th e in erip
t ions discovered in th e Island . I have told you
before that th e Aryan colon isat ion of Ceylon
was complete long prior to th e advent of th e
Mauryas, and we must , therefore , suppose that
th is dialect was already being spok en when
Mahinda came and in troduced Buddhism . Now,
we have a passage in th e Ch atte r-(raga? of
Pe rsonal ly I th ink,th e A rvans went to Kal lnga not by t h e
eastern ,b ut by th e south e rn rou te . I t is wort h y of note that wh i le
th e P511 Buddh ist canon knows Atiga and Magadh a and Assaka( Aémalt a ) an d Kalir
'
iga ,1 t does not know Vafiga,
Pundra and Suh ma
exact l y th e countries in terv enm g between Atiga and Kal l iiga ,th rough
wln ch the y would certa i n ly have passed and whe re they ce rtai nlyw ould have been sett led i f th ey h ad g one to Ka l inga by t h e easte rnroute The re is , the re fore ,
noth ing strang e i n th e d ia lect of Ka l ingabe i ng th e nam e as that of Maharash tra or t h e P51 11 .
V . 33 . 1 .
{ RYAN COLONISAT ION . 41
th e Vinaya-
p italca ,i n which Buddha distinctly
ordains that h is word was to b e conveyed by
diff erent Bhikshus in their different dialects.
Th e Magadhi of th e sacred texts brought by
M ahinda must thus have been replaced by Pali ,th e dialect of Ceylon , and we can perfectly
understand h ow in th is gradual replacem en t a
few Magadh isms of th e original mav here and
there have escaped this weeding - out, especial ly
as Magadhi and Pal i were not two divergent
languages but only two dialects of on e and th e
same language .
L ecture II.
PO LITICAL H I STORY .
In this lecture I intend treating of th e Politi
cal history of th e period we have selected,
viz .
approximately from 6 50 to 3 25 BC . No good
idea of th is history is possible unless we first
consider th e question:What were th e biggestterri torial divisions known at th is timePTh e most
central of these divisions is, as you are aware,th e
JIIacllzya-desa or th e M iddle Country . Accor
d ing to Man n i t denotes th e land between th e
H imalaya in th e north,th e V indhya in th e south ,
Prayaga or Allahabad in th e east,and V inas
‘
ana
or th e place where th e Sarasvati disappears, in
th e west . I t is true that th e laws of Manu
were put into their present form after 200 B .C . ,
b ut I h ave no doubt that b v far th e greater
portion of i t belongs to a much earl ier period .
Mann’
s description of th e M iddle Countryappears to be older than that we find in th e
Buddhist Pal i canon , because th e easternmost
point of th e Madh yades’
a was Prayaga in
Man n’
s time, whereas that mentioned in th e
Buddhist works is far to th e east of i t . I t wi ll
thus b e seen that th e M iddle Country h as not
been describ ed by Mann on lv b ut also in Buddhist
II. 2 1 .
44: LECTURE 1 1 .
specified h ave been identified except on e . This
exception is th e easterly poin t,u } . Kajaugala,
which,according to Prof . t s Davids
,must
have been situated nearl y 70 miles east of modern
Bhagalpur .‘In th e time of Buddha,therefore , th e
eastern l imit of th e M iddle Country h ad extended
nearly {LOO miles eastward of Prayaga which
was its eastern most point. in M anu ’s time .
Now there can not b e an y doubt that Madhva
des’
a was looked upon as a territorial division .
we fi nd constant references to it in th e
B uddhist Jatakas . Thus in on e place we
read of two merchan ts going from U tkala
or O r isa to th e Maj j h ima Des'
a or M iddle
Country ? This clearlv shows that O t isa was
not included in th e M iddle Country . But
we read of V ideh a being situated in i t .” Again,
W e hear of hermits fearing to descend from th e
H imalayas to go into Maj j h ima Des‘
a,because
th e people there are too learn ed .
4 I t wil l thusb e quite clear that Maj j h ima Des
’
a or Madhya
Des’
a was a name not created b v l i terary authors,b ut was actual ly in vogue amon g th e peopleand deno ted some particular territorial division .
I t was with reference to th is M iddle Coun trvthat th e terms Daksh iini path a and U ttarapath a
J RAS “7 -8 .
J t'
ct . I. R0
l ivid . III. 3 04 .
l b ld . 1 15 -0 .
PO LITICAL HISTOR Y .
seem to have come into use . Dak sh inapath a ,
I think,originally meant th e country to th e south
not of th e V indhya SO much as of th e Madhya
desfa . This is clear from th e fact that we find
mention made of Avanti -Dak sh inapath a . I
have j ust told you that it was in th is country
that th e Buddhist missionary Malia-Kach chayana
preached . I t is worthy of note that Avanti was
a very extensive country and that in Buddhist
works we sometimes hear of U j jen i1and some
times O f Mah issati2 as being its capital . U j jen i
is,of course
,th e we l l - known Uj jain
,and
Mah issati is th e same as th e Sanskrit Mahish
mati and h as been correctly identified with
Mandhata3 on th e Narmada in th e Central
Provinces. I t,therefore , seems that Uj jai n
was th e capital of th e nor thern division Of Avanti ,which was known Sim ply as th e Avanti coun try
and Mah issati ot'
th e southern division,which
was,therefore, cal led Avanti -Dak sh inapath a .
Now,Mandhata, wi th which Mah issati h as been
identified , is not to th e south Of th e V indh yas,
but rather in th e range i tself , and as i t was th e
capital O f a country , this country must necessarily
have included a portion of Central India imme
diately to th e north Of this mountain range, its
southern portion havin g coincided with Vidarbh a .
1 Ibid . IV . 390
2 SBB . III. 270 .
3 JRAS . ,19 10 , 445 -G.
46 LECTURE 1 1 .
This country O f Avanti -Dak sh inapath a was
thus not exactly to th e south of th e Vindhya as
its upper hal f was to th e north of this range .
And yet i t h as been cal led Dak sh inapath a .
l And
it seems to have been cal led Dak sh inapath a,
because i t was to th e south not so much of th e
Vindhy a as O f th e M iddle Coun try . Th e same
appears to b e th e case wi th th e term U ttarapath a .
O ne Jataka speaks O f certain horse- dealers as
having come from U ttarapath a to Baranasi or
Benares 2 U ttarapath a cannot here signify
Northern India ,because Benares itself is in
Northern India . Ev iden tlv i t denotes a country
at least outside and to th e north of th e Kasi
kingdom whose capital was Benares . A s th e
h orses O f th e dealers just referred to are cal led
sindlzam ,i t clearly in dicates that they came
from th e banks of th e S indhu or th e Indus. “ehave seen that according to Man n th e Sarasvat i
formed th e western boundarv of th e Madh vades'
a .
And th e i ndus is as much to th e north as to th e
west O f th e Sarasva ti and th ere fore of Madhya
des’
a . It was thus with re ference to th e M iddle
Coun tr y that th e. name U ttarapath a also was
devised . Up to th e ten th century A .D. ,we find
th e term U ttarapath a used in this sense .
3 Thus
‘Se e a l so t h e nam e Avan t i -dak k h i napath a occurring i n Jar.
III. 40 ? 16 .
II. 287 . 15 .
3 In th e Dii‘ydvaddna ( C owe l l and N e i l, p 40 7 ) Tak eh asnla is
plat'cd in t h e Uttarfi path a Bu t i t. is not c l ear that th is U ttarfipath a
exc l uded Madhyadeéa .
POL IT I CAL HI STORY . 47
whenPrabh akaravardh ana,king of Sthan v ISVara,
sent h is son Rajyavardh ana to invade th e
Hana territory in th e H imalayas, Bana (air .
6 25 A .D. ) author of th e H arshaclzarita,
re
presents him to have gone to th e Uttara
patha .
l As th e Hana territory h as thus
been placed in th e U ttarapath a,i t is clear that
Prab h ak aravardh ana’
s kingdom was excluded
from it . And as Sthanv is'
vara, capital of
Prabh akaravardh ana,is Thanesar and is on this
side Of th e Sarasvati, h is kingdom was under
stood to b e included in th e Madh yades'
a,with
reference to which alone th e Huna territory
seems to have been described as being in th e
Uttarapath a . S imilarly,th e poet Rajas
'
ek h ara
(880 - 920 in h is Kavya-mimaiizsa
,
2 places
Uttarapath a on th e other Side of Prith fidak a,
which,we know
,is Pehoa in th e Karnal District
,
Panjab, i . e . on th e western border O f th e M iddle
Country . It is,therefore
,clear that th e
terms Dak sh inapath a and Uttarapath a came i nto
vogue only in regard to th e M adh yades’
a . I t
must, however, b e borne in mind that although
Uttarapath a in Northern India denoted th e
country north O f th e Madh yades’
a,in Southern
India even in Bana ’
s time th e term denoted
Nor thern India. Thus Harsh avardh ana,Bana
’
s
patron , h as been described in South India
Harshacharita ( BSPS LXVI ) , p . 2 10 .
2
(GO SJ ) , p . 94 . I. 8
48 LECTURE II .
inscriptions asSriumd UttaNinaz‘lz-c l/zip a l
-Z,i f .
sovereign of U ttarapath a,which must here
sign if v North India .
3
IVe thus see that th e whole of th e region
occupied by th e A ryans was at this early period
divided into three parts,v iz . M adhyadesfa,
Uttarapath a and Dak sh inapath a . L et us now
see what th e political divisions were . In no
less than four places th e A ugutlm'
n -Ni/raya
mentions what appears to b e a stereot yped list
of th e Sotasa JIalzc‘
r-j anap ada ,
fi e . th e S ixteen
Great Countries. This l ist is certainly familiar
to those O f y ou wh o have read Rhys Davids’
B udd/l ist India . I t is as follows
1 . Anga. 9 . Kuru .
2 Magadha. 1 0 . Pafichala.
3 Kasi . 1 1 . Machchha.
ét . Kosala. 1 2 . Sfi rasena.
5 . Vaj j i . 1 3 . Assaka.
6 . M alia. Lt . Avanti .
7 . Cheti . Gandhara.
8 Vamsa. 1 6 . Kamboja.
Now,i f we look to this l ist
,we shal l find
that here we have got th e names not O f countries
proper but of peoples . It is curious that
th e name O f a people was employed to
denote th e country they occupied . Th e
custom was certainly prevalen t in ancient
times,but h as n ew fallen into desuetude .
JunnAs ,XIV . 3 0 ; LA . vm ,
+6 .
POLITICAL HISTORY . 49
Secondly, two of these names are not of
peoples b ut of tribes, viz . th e Vaj j i and
th e Mal la. Thirdly, we seem to have here a
specification , by pairs , of th e conterm inous
countr ies. Anga and M agadha thus are on e
pair,Kasi and Kosala another , Kuru and
Panchala a third , and so on,and there can b e no
doubt that th e countries of each pair are
con tiguouswith each other . O ther poin ts too are
worth noting about this list, but they can b e best
understood when we come to know th e more or
less correct geographical position of th e countries.
Let us take th e first pair, v iz . Anga and
Magadha. That they were conterminous is
clear from one Jataka story,
‘which tellsus that th e citizens of Anga and Magadh a were
travel ling from one land to another and staying
in a house on th e marches of th e two ratifies,
i .e . kingdoms. This shows that they were not
only contiguous b ut separate k ingdoms in th e
7th century B .C . ,th e soc ial l ife of which
period th e Jatakas are bel ieved to depict .
In th e time of Buddha,Anga was first
independent, b ut came afterwards to b e
annexed to M agadh a . Th e river Champa
separated A nga from M agadh a .
2 On this
river was th e capital of Anga which al so
was called Champa and h as been identified
by Cunningham with B hagalpui'
.
3 O ne Jataka
II . 2 1 1 . I (I if . JEt . IV . 454 . 1 1 .
3 ASR .XV . 3 1 .
50 LECTURE II .
story cal ls i t Kalach ampa, and places i t 60
yoj aams from M ith ila. Th e capita l of Maga
dh a was Rajagriha,modern Raj gir . Strictly
speaking , there were two capitals h ere — O ne, th e
more ancient,cal led Girivraja because i t was a
veritable ‘cow-
pen of hills ’ being enclosed ' b v
th e fi ve hills of Raj gir , and th e other, Rajagriha
proper,th e later town built at th e foot of th e
hills. S h ortly after th e death of Buddha th e
capital of Magadh a was transferred from Raja
griha to Pataliputra,modern Patna.
W e shal l take up th e next pair , viz . Kasi and
Kosala. Kasi -ratth a was an independent king
dom before th e rise of Buddhism . In th e time
of Buddha,however
,i t formed part of Kosala .
Th e capital of Kasi - ratth a was Baranasi, i .e.
Benares, so cal led perhaps after th e great river
Baranasi.2 Kasi , i t is worthy O f note , was th e
name of a country and not of a town . Kasipura,
of course , denoted Benares, but in th e sense of
th e capital (p ara ) of th e Kasi country . Baranasi
h ad other names also Thus i t was called
Surundh ana 3 in th e Udaya Birth , Sudassana4 in
th e Ch ullasutasoma Birth , Brah mavaddh ana 5 in
th e Sonanandana Birth , Pupph avati6 in th e
Mu h ftb h d i u lu , Sub /1 17 2 1 . 1 -3 .
Index:to th e Jdtn l a (Jr-
i t . V II. unde r Bfirdnn s t -mahdnadi .
3 1 71 1 . IV .
Ib itl . IV . 1 19 . 28 ; V . 1 77 , I2 .e tt‘.
l b icl . 1 19 29,v . 3 12 Itl
, e tc.
Ib itl IV . 29 ; VI . 13 1,
52 LECTURE II .
Sotth ivati-nagara .
‘I h ave no doub t that Cheta or
Ch etiya is th e same as th e Sanskri t Chaidya or
Chedi , which occurs even in th e Rigveda 2and
corresponds roughly to th e modern Bundelkhand .
Th e Var’
usa are identical with th e Vatsas,whose
capital was Kaus'
amb i . This last h as been iden
tified by S ir Alexander Cunningham with Kosam
on th e Jumna,about thirty miles south O f west
from Allahabad .
3
Kuru and Panchala have been known to be
contiguous countries Since th e Vedic period . Th e
capital of th e Kuru country was Indapatta or
Indraprastha near Delhi,and that of Panchala
Kampilya which h as been identified wi th Kampil
on th e O ld Ganges between Budaon and Farrukh a
bad in U . P . Both these must be Dak sh ina
Kuru and Dak sh ina-Pafichala . Th e capital of
Uttara-Paiichala wasA h ich ch h atra or A h ik sh etra
according to th e Mahabharata . Mention of
Uttara-Kuru we meet with both in th e early
Brahmanical and Buddhist l iterature,but its
capital is not yet known .
As regards Mach ch h a and Sarasena,th e
former doubtless corresponds to th e Sanskrit
Matsya . Th e Matsya people and country have
been known to us from early times, being men
tioned as early as th e Satapath a5and Gopatha
Brahmanas and th e Kaush itak i Upanishad .
7
h i t. 111 . 454 . 19 -20 ASR . X I . 12 ; JRAS ,1899 ,
3 13
VIII . 5 . 37 -9 .
5 X III . 5 .
3 ASR.-5 al so JRAS .
,1898, 50 3 IV . 1 .
POL IT ICAL HI STORY . 53
Matsya original ly included parts of Alwar,
Jaipur and Bharatpur, and was th e kingdom
of th e king V irata of th e M ahabharata, in
whose court th e five Pandava brothers resided
incognito du ring th e last year of their banish
m en t .l H is capital h as been identified with
Bairat in th e Jaipur S tate . Th e Sarasenas
occupied th e country whose capital wasMadhurai .e. Mathura, on th e Jumna. In Buddha’
s time
th e kin g of Madhura was styled Avanti -putta,
showing that on h is mother ’s side h e was con
nected with th e royal family of U j jain . It is
worth y of n ote that according to Mann , th e
Kuruk sh etra,th e Matsyas
,th e Panchalas and
th e Sarasenakas comprised B rahmarsh i-desa or
th e land of th e Brahman Rishis.
2
Th e Assakas and th e Avan tis have been asso
ciated together in th e S ona-Nanda-Jataka .
Th e first Obviously are th e As'mak as of th e
Brih at- samh ita.
4 In early Pal i l iterature, Assaka
with its capital Potana or Potali h as, on th e one
hand,been distinguished from Mulaka with its
capital Patitth ana (Paithan) ,5and
,on th e other
,
PR ., W C 1909 - 10
,44
II . 1 9 .
3 Jet, v . 3 17 . 24 .
4 IA .,XXII . 1 74 .
5 In th e Sutta -Nipata, (V . 977 ) th e Assaka (ASm ak a) coun t ry h asbeen associated with Mulaka wi th its capital Patitthana and men .
tioned as si tuated imm ediate ly to th e south of th e latter b ut al ongth e rive r Godavari (Va. 977 6:10 10 See also p . 4 and n . 3 supra.
54 LECTU RE I I .
from Kaling t wi th its capital Dau tapura .
1 B ut
as Assaka is here con trasted with Avanti,i t
seems to have included M ulaka and also perhapsKalir
‘
Iga.
2 Avanti also here includes th e two
wel l -known divisions referred to above— th enorthern d ivision called simply Avanti country
with its capital U j jain and th e southern Avan ti
Dak sh inapath a wi th i ts capi tal Mah issati .
Th e last pai r is Gandhara and Kamboja.
Th e former included “f est Panjab and East
Afghanistan . Its capital was Tak kasila or
Tak sh as’
ila,
whose ruins are spread near Sarat
Kala i n th e Rawalpindi District , Panjab . I t
is very diffi cul t to locate Kamboja . According
to on e view they were a Northern H imalayan
people, and according to another th e Tibetans .
But in our period they were probably settled
to th e north -west of th e Indus and are th e same
Jc'
t t . III. 3 . 3 - 4 .
Assaka is sim ilarlv con trasted w i th Avan t i i n JPN. V, 3 17 . 24
In th e Dig lia -Nikaya ,Kab uga ,
Assaka . a nd Avan t i are con tradist in
guish ed- ( SBB III. 2 70 ) wh ere Assaka m ust h ave com prise d Mu laka .
5 J il l ,I. 19 1 . II . II. 17 . 1 1 . e te , e tc In t h e Mahab harata two
cap i tals of ( lan dh fi ra are m ent ioned,
and Push karavat i,
th e form e r sit uat ed to t h e east and th e lat ter to t h e west of th e Indus .
In Asoka ’
s t im e Tak nh nSila does no t. appear to have been t h e capi ta lo f ( Iandlu
'
tra ,for from h is Rock Edict X III we see tha t ( ifl l l tllN-l l‘fl
was n ot in h is dom in ia us prope r b ut was fe udatory to h im On t h e
othe r hand,from Separate O rissa Ed i c t I we l earn t hat Tak sh aéihi
,
was unde r h im as on e O f h is son s was stat ione d th ere . Evident l yTak sh aéili
'
t was not th e cap ital of ( iau tlh fira i n A §0 ka'
s t im e . Th isag rees w i th th e state m e nt of Ptolemy that th e Gande ra i (Gandhara )coun trv was t o t h e we st o f th e Indus w it h its citv I’ rok lais 1 0 .
3 48
POL IT ICAL HISTO RY . 55
as Kambup ya of th e old Persian inscriptions.
Their capital is not known .
It wi ll b e seen that th e different political
divisions, mentioned in th e above l ist, were inexistence shortly before th e t ime of Buddha .
W e know that during h is l ifetime Anga ceased
to b e an independent kingdom,and was annexed
to Magadh a, and that th e terri tory of Kasi was
incorporated into th e Kosala dominions. If we,
however, turn to th e Jatakas, we find that both
Anga and Kasi were independent countries. Th e
Ch ampeyya- Jataka 1
e g . speaks of Anga and
Magadh a as two distinc t kingdoms,whose ru lers
were constantly at war with each other . Kasi
and Kosala are simi larly represented in th e
Mahasilava -Jataka and Asatarfipa-Jataka 2
as
being two independent countries and their k ings
fighting with each other . Th e political divisions
enumerated in th e Angu ttara-Nikaya were,
therefore, existing prior , but only just prior , to
th e time when Buddha flourished, because we
have th e mention of th e Vaj j i‘
and Mal la in this
l ist . I t is wor thy of note that they are mentioned
in th e Jatakas bu t only in th e introductions
to them and never in th e stories themselves.
Evidently,th ere fore , these t ribes came to be
known after th e period represented by th e Jatakas
but before that of th e origin Of Buddhism . I t wi l l
1 Jar. IV . 451 ff .2 1 11 111 ,
I . 26 2 a a an d 409 a if .
56 LECTURE II .
thus be observed that early in th e sixth century
B C , India,i.e . that portioh of India which was
colonised by th e Aryans at that tim e, was Spli t
up into a number of tiny S tates,l iv ing indepen
dently and some times fightin g wi th one
another . There was no supreme ruler to whom
they owed feal ty . Th e Puranas tel l th e
same tale . Th ev distinctly state th at along
with th e rulers Of Magadh a flourished other
dynasties, such as Aik sh vakavas or kings of
R osala, Pafichalas, Kaseyas, As’
makas,Kurus
,
Maith ilas and so forth .
1 This clearly shows that
about 600 B C,India occupied by th e Aryans
Was divided into several smal l kingdoms and that
there was no imperial dynasty to which th e
others were subordinate . Th e most important
of these tiny dynasties is that of Brahmadatta
reigning at Baranasi and ruling over Kas i
rattha. Th e family a lso seems to have been
cal led Brahmadatta after th is king . Thus in
th e Jatakas every prince wh o was hei r -apparent
to th e throne of Baranasi has been styled Brah
madatta-kumara . In th e Matsy a-Purana 2also
,
a dynasty consisting of one hundred Brahma~
dattas h as been refer red to . III th e Jatakas no
less than six kings of Baranasi have been m en
tioned besides Brahmadatta . They are Uggasena,
Pnrgiter, 23 -4 .
( ASS . Fld p V . 72 :I a tu‘iudeb ted for th il refe rence
to Mr. llarl t Kri shna Deb
POL IT ICAL HI STORY . 5 7
Dhananjaya,Mahasilava, Samyama
, Vissasena
and Udayab h adda .
1 In th e Puranas Brahma
datta is represented to have been followed in
succession by Yogasen a, V ish vaksena, Udak sena
and Bh allata .
2 There can b e no doubt that
Vish vak sen a and Udak sena of th e Puranas are
th e same as Vissasena and Udayab h adda Of
th e Jatakas. Bh allata of th e Puranas, again ,is most probably Bh allatiya of th e Bh allatiya
Jataka .
3
When Buddha l ived and preached , there
were four kingdoms,
viz . M agadh a,Kosala
,
Vatsa and A vanti . Th e most prominent of
these was Magadh a,whose rulers
,as we Shal l
see subsequently, rose to th e pos ition Of para
mount sovereigns . From Pali Buddhist canon
which perta ins to a period only Sligh tly later
than th e demise of Buddha and which con sequ
ently is trustworthy, we learn that Chanda-Prad
yota of Avanti , Udayana of Vatsa territory ,Pasenadi and h is son Vidfi dab h a Of Kosala, and
Bimbisara and h is son Ajatas'
atru of Magadh a
were contemporaries of Buddha . Th e kings were
thus contemporaries of on e another . This point
is worth grasping as this synchronism is th e only
Sheet -anchor in th e troubled sea of chronology
JcI t IV 458. 1 3 ; III. 97 . 23 ; 8 ; V . 354 . 9 ; 1 1 .
19 ; IV . 104 . 22 d:25 .
2 Vayu -P. (ASS. Ed ) , p . 376 , VS . 1 80 - 2 , Vi sh nu -P, pt . IV .
cap . l 9 .
3 Jat. IV. 437 . 16 .
58 LECTURE II .
in th e period we have selected . Th e only
chron ic le that is relied 0 11 for this period is th e
Puranas, b u t i t is a hopeless task to reduce th e
chaos of th e Puranic accounts to any order .
Some attempts‘no doubt have recen tly b een
made to deduce a consistent pol itical h istory
from these materials, but without any success
so far as I can see .
I have just informed you that in th e time O f
Buddha there were four importan t kingdoms,flourishing side by side . They were also connected
by matrimonial alliances as might natural ly b e
expected . For our description we Sh all first take
Udayana of Kausam b i, and Pradyota, ruler of
U j jain . A long account of Udayana is contain
ed in th e K a tha- sarii- sagara , but th e greater
portion of i t,I am afraid
,is untrustworthy .
According to th e Puranas h e pertained to th e
Paurava dynasty .
2 Th e same authori ty tel ls us
that h is father’s name was Satanika . Bhasa,
th e earl iest Sanskrit dramatist that we know at
present, h as composed two dramas describing
incidents from Udayan a’
s l i fe,
viz . Svapna
Vasa vada lm and Pra /ij fia- 1 71 l igancI/zarfiyaua .
From these it appears that h e was th e son of
Satan ika and grandson of Sah asran ika and
Mr S V . Vcn kateswara Ayye i 'e '
l h e Anc i en t Histm y Of
Magadha ( IA ,x lv 8 - 10 (I:28 Mr. K P . Jayaswal
'
s Th e
S'
u aéu ndha a nd Mum yu Ch ronology etc fl'
)l’a i g ite r, pp . 7 6 0 .
60 LECTURE 1 1 .
Th e two dramas of Bhasa referred to above
supply us with many interesting items of
information which,when they are brought to
a focus, th row a flood of light upon th e political
condition of th e period . Th e kin g,that seems
to have been dreaded most when Buddha lived ,was not Ajatas
’
atru ,Pasenadi or Udavana,
but
Pradyota who is known both as Mahasena or“possessed of a large army ” 1 and Chanda or
terrible .
” 2 W e know from th e i ll cgj h ima
Nilrc'
Zya that even such a powerful king.
as
Ajatas'
atru was thrown on h is defensi ve and was
engaged on forti fying h is capital Rajagriha
when Pradyota invaded h is ter ritory, instead
of meeting him openly in bat tle . Before ,however
,h e attacked Magadh a,
h e thought of
subjugating th e neighbouring province of Vatsa .
But h e was afraid of th e undaunted brave ry of
Udayana and th e pol itical sagacity of h is prim e
minister Yaugandh arayana . H e,there fore ,
re sorted to a ruse . He knew of th e inord inate
fondness of Udayana for capturing wild
elephants wi th th e captivating sounds of h is
vZuZZ. An artificial elephant was set up in th e
j ungles of th e Narmada j ust where th e
boundaries of th e Avanti and Vatsa kingdoms
Vi savada t ta he rse l f says that. h e r fa the r was ca l le d Mah fiscna on
account of h is larg e a rmy ( fawn hu la -
pm u n fina a rril lmh ufimndh eumic
Ma hdsenn i i i— Si'n p nn
III t h e sam e d rama Udayana speaks o f l'
m dwda a s prl fh u‘yalh
i Jj u - L’miti yfi nfim: yn -
p rn b h n ’! ( p .
PO L ITICAL HISTO RY . 6 1
met,
and in th e body of th e elephant were
concealed a number of select warriors. Udayana
fel l a victim to this trap , put up a heroic figh t
‘to free himsel f, b ut was taken prisoner and
carried away to Uj jain , where however , h e was
accorded chivalrous treatment by Mahasena.
When Y augandh arayana learnt that h is master
h ad fal len into th e hands of a neighbouring
king,h e hastened to h is release . He turned a
Buddhist monk along with another minister and
stole into Uj jain . H e found that th e release of
Udayana h ad become a complicated aff air by
th e latter h av ing fallen in love wi th
Vasavadatta, M ahasena’
s daughter . He ,
however, devised a way out of this difficulty .
O ne of h is m en was made a Mahaut of
Vasavadatta, and on an appointed day th e two
lovers managed to elope,leaving Yaugan
dh arayana and h is fighting band to cover their
flight . At first,Mahasena was furious, but h e
soon relented , and in th e absence of th e lovers
themselves th e proper marriage ceremonies were
performed over their portraits.
Kautilya in h is Arth as‘
astra1says that when
it is impossible to ward off danger from all S ides,a king Should run away
,leav ing all that belongs
to h im ; for , i f h e l ives, h is return to power is
certain as was th e case wi th Suyatra and
Uday ana . IVe know from th e Smp na
1 p . 358.
62 LECTURE II .
Vc‘
csavadatld that Udayana h ad to fl ee from h is
kingdom to a frontier village cal led Lavanak a .
Th e enemy , wh o overran h is terri tory,was
Arani ,1 who appears to have been ruling to th e
north of th e Ganges. Might h e b e a k in g of
Kosala ? At any rate , th e R a b at-
wa ll clearly
represents a king of Kesala to b e Udayana’
s
enemy . Th e disaster was though t by
Yaugandh arayana to b e so serious that th e help
of Pradyota,which was naturally expec ted ,
was not regarded to b e su ffi cient, and marriage
al liance with th e Royal House of Magadh a
considered indispensable . But this was possible
on ly if Udayana agreed to marry Padmavati,Sister of th e Magadha king . Udayana
,however,
was so attached to Vasavadatta that h e could
not brook h e idea of having another wife so
long as sh e was al ive . Vasavadatta must ,therefore, disappear for a time, thought th e
Prime-minister , so that Udayana could believe
h er to b e dead and could therefore agree to
marry Padmavati . When once th e king was
out a -hunting,th e place was set on fire , as
previously planned , after Vasavadatta and
Yaugandh arayana quietly left it. E verybody
thought that th e latter two h ad been consigned
to the flames . On h is return when th e king
knew about th e disaster , h e was overwhelmed
with grief,from which
,however
,in course of
pp . (50 - 1
PO LITICAL H I STORY . 6 3
time h e recovered . There was thus no
difficul ty in bringing about th e contemplated
marriage alliance,and Udayana was married to
Padmavati . Soon after h is marriage and before
h e left Rajagriha,h is minister R umanvat h ad
already apparently wi th th e help sent by
M ahasen a1 driven away Arun i from th e Vatsa
kingdom and to th e north of th e Ganges, where
i t seems h e was j oined by Udayana along with
th e forces of th e M agadh a king,with th e
express object of kill ing Aruni. And we may
assume that h e soon succeeded in accomplish
ing h is Ob ject .'
Accordin g to th e Pali Buddhist canon ,Udayana h ad a son named Bodhi
, wh o most
probably is identical wi th Vah inara of th e
Puranas. Bodhi is represented. as ruling over th e
Bhagga country at Sur'
nsumaragiri, apparently as
Yuvaraja .
2 He got a vaddlzalciorcarpen ter to build
for h im a palace which h e cal led Kokanada,but
fearing that th e artisan may build a S imilar
excellent palace for another prince, Bodhi h ad
h is eyes plucked out . There is a suttanta in th e
M ry’
j lzz’
ma -Nikc‘
wa which is devoted to him and
is called Bodh i - raja-kumara-sutta . Beyond this
we know nothing reliable about this dynasty .
3
1 There can b e no doubt that Mahasen a sent succour to Udayanaas th e lat te r acknowledges i t ( Srap n rr p .
J t-
Lt . III . 1 57 .
3 For th e anecdote about Udayana and Pindola,see JEt IV .
64 LECTURE I I .
Such is also th e case wi th th e dynasty that
ruled over th e Avanti country with its capital
at U j j ain . I h ave just mentioned that a king
of this family wasPradyota,wh o was a contem
porary of Buddha . Th e Puranas make him th e
founder Of th e dynasty . In Bhasa’
s dramas h e
is frequently called Mahasena . From h is queen
Angaravati h e h ad a daughter Vasavadatta
espoused by Udayana,as mentioned above . we
do not know much about h is conquests, and all
we know about him in this respect is th e state
men t of th e fll fuj liima that Ajatas'
atru
king of Magadh a,was fortifying h is capital
Rajagriha because h e was afraid of an i nvasion
Of h is territory by l’radyota . Bhasa speaks of
h is two sons, v iz . Gopala and Palaka .
2 Gopala,
it i s said , was Of th e same age as Udayana .
Katha-sarit-sagam3 says that after th e death Of
Pradyota, Gopala abdicated th e throne O f Ujjain
in favour of h is younger brother Palaka . This
is not improbable, and also accounts for th e
omission of h is name in th e Puranas. Th e
M g'ic/iclzlzakafika
‘further tells us that Palaka
was ousted by Aryaka, son of Gopala,wh o was
in h iding for a long time in a settlement of
h ordsmen . What appears to b e th e truth is
that Pradyota was succeeded not by Gopala
1 III . 7 .
t j fic-
a-Y . ,
III. 6 2 -3 . 1 am i ndebted to Mr. l l . K . Deb for t h is re ference .
( USS . Ed ) pp . d’ 30 6 .
POL ITICAL H ISTORY . 65
b ut by h is younger brother Palaka,and that
Gopala’
s S0 11 Aryaka,not liking th e idea of being
depr ived Of th e throne,conspired against h is
uncle,an d succeeded in usurping th e throne .
Th e Puranas omit th e name of Gopala,
—~which
is not strange as h e resigned th e th rone in favour
of h is brother,and mention those of Palaka and
Aryak a . Th e lat ter is mentioned as A jaka,
which I have no doubt stands for A j jaka op
Aryaka .
1 They , however , place on e Visak h ayupa
between Palaka and Aryaka— which is a mistake .
Visak h ayupa,if there was a p rin ce O f such a
name in th is dynasty , must have come after
Aryaka . W e now pass on to th e Kosala
dynasty . Th e only princes Of this royal family
known to us from th e Buddhist works are
Pasenadi and h is son Vidudab h a . I suspect
that they belonged to th e Ik sh vaku family
described by th e Puranas , which , in th e enumera
tion of its members, mention on e Prasenaj itwhich
,I think , is th e Sanskrit form O f I’asenadi.
Ksh udraka is mentioned as th e name of
Prasenaj it’
s son,and i t is possible that this was
another name of Vidfidab h a . JI aj j /zimci-Nilf fiya3
cal lsPasenadi King of Kasi -Kosala,
and from
th e preamble of Bhadda- Sala Jataka,we learn
that th e territory held by th e Sak yas was also
Th is i dent ificat ion was first proposed b y Mr. K. P . Jayaswa l
(JBO RS
II . 1 1 1 .
Jan,IV . 144, d:If
66 LECTURE II .
subordinate to him . Pasenadi h ad an amatg/ci
called S iri -Vaddh a and a favourite elephant
named Eka -
pundarika . O n e of h is queens was
Mall ika, wh o was originally daughter of th e
chief of garland -makers in Sravasti 2 . Sh e was
on ly sixteen when Pasenadi married h er.and as
Sh e was married when h e was at war with
A jatasfatru ,sh e seems to have been married at
h is practical ly O ld age by Pasenadi. Never
th eless Mal l ika predeceased him . Pasenadi
h ad a daughter cal led Va j ira or Vaj iri . Sh e
was married to Ajatas'
atru,as I shall tel l you
later on . With a pious desire to become a
kinsman O f Buddha, Pasenadi sent envoys to
th e Sakyas with a request to give him a Sakyagirl in marriage . Th e Sakyas, through their
pride of birth , were unwi ll ing to give him any
girl of pure blood , and sen t on e Vasabh a-Khat
tiya, born to a Sakya named Mahanaman from
a slave woman . Sh e was married to king I’asenadi and raised to th e rank of th e Chief
Q ueen .
3 Sh e gave birth to V idudabh a,wh o
succeeded him . IVh en Vidudab h a became a
grown -up boy, h e wen t to th e Sakya countryagainst th e wishes o f h is mother , wh ere h e was
subjec ted to a series of indignities . There th ereal origin of h is mother became known . Th e
Maj -M . II 1 12
1 6 8,III. 40 5 .
.47'
tg. III 5 7 .
68 LECTURE II .
to some princes. According to th e Puranas
Sisiunaga was th e founder O f this dv n asty and
Bimbisara was its fourth prince . A nd they
also tel l us th at th e Pradyota dvnasty consisted
of fi ve king s and that th ev were supplanted b v
Sis’
unaga .Bimbisara is thus ten generations
remo ved from Pradvota . whereas. as a matter
O f fact, we k now that both were contem
poraries of each other,being contemporaries
of Buddha . Again , though th e tradition as
to individual n ames is not verv un stable
in th e di ff erent Puranas . th e same cannot b e
said in regard to th e period of th e indiv idual
reigns wh ich vary cousiderab lv . IVh at is
also strange is that th ev assign a period of 3 6 3
vcars to ten consecut ive reigns, h e . at least 3
years to each reign which is quite preposterous
and utterlv unknown to Indian H istorv .
‘Thisindicates a desperate attempt on th e part of th e
Puranas to fi l l up th e gaps i n th e chronology
anyhow— nu in ference which entirely agrees with
th eir attempt at reduplicating names and assign
ing them to consecutive kings , such as Ksh ema
dharman and Ksh emav it, Nandivardh ana , and
Malianandiu ,and so fourth . Further
,it. is
worth v o f n ote tha t th e Mahavaiiisa mentions
h et name of th e king Munda . which is entirely
omitted from th e Purana list . Th e ex istence
Most of th e se a rgument s have been a l re ady u rg ed b y “f . Ge ige rin h is t ransla t ion o f t h e Il ln h fi rmh su (PTS Ed Int ro x lw fl
'
.
POL IT I CAL u I STORY . 69
of this king is n ow sutfi cien tlv attested by th e
A ug zrttarri-Nilrfiyu and th e Asokfi vadana . Next
,
th e Mahavamsa makes Udayab h adda (or Udayi)th e immed iate successor of Ajatas
’
atru,but th e
Paranas place on e Dars’
aka in between . That
surely is highly questionable , because th e Digh az
Kikaya speaks of Udavab h adra as Ajatas'
atru ’s
son ,but we have no such evidence in respect
O f Dars’
ak a . I am aware,i t may b e argued
,
that Dars‘
ak a h as,as a mat ter of fact
,been m en
tioned b y Bhasa in th e S'
vap na as
a king Of Magadha whose sister Padmavati was
married to Udayana of Kaus’
frmb i,
and that it
is possible that h e was another son of Ajatasatru
and might have been th e latter ’s immediate
successor, h is brother Udayab h adra coming to
th e throne after him . Bu t th is argument does
not appear to b e sound to me,because h ow old
,
I ask,could Udayana b e when h e married
Padrnavati ? To make th e case favourable to
th e other side,we wil l suppose that h e was
wedded to h er in th e very first vear of Dars’
aka’
s
accession toth e th rone . W e know that Budd ha
preached not only to Udayana but also to h is
son Bodhi . To make th e case more favourable ,
we shall suppose that Bodhi was th en on lv six
teen years Old,and that Bodhi was born when
Udayana also was sixteen . Udavana thus must
have been at least thirty - two years old , when
Buddha preached to Bodhi . I Ve will also
70 LECTURE II .
concede that B uddha died th e same y ear that h e
del ivered th e sermon to Bodhi . A nd we know
that Buddha died in th e eigh th regnal year of
Ajatasatru and that th e latter reigned twenty
four y ears after Buddha’
s death . W’
e thus see
that Udayana was at least th irty two y ears .Old
when Buddha died and therefore fi fty- six vears
O ld wh en Ajatasatru ceased to reign . Udavana
was thus married in h is fi f ty- seventh year
,
in th e first y ear O f Daréaka’
s reign . Is i t th e
proper age for th e hero to make love to th e
heroine,and is i t proper for th e poet to describe
i t ? Verily there must b e some mistake some
where . Bhasa evidently fol lowed th e tradition
that was cu rrent in h is time,i . e . most probably
in th e th ird cen turv A . I) . By that time th e
Paranas, through th e corruption of their texts,
I adm i t th at Udaya n a’
s marriage w i th Padmav a ti was of a
politiea l eh aracter and that It is quit e possible to a rgue that i t does notmat te r i f th e he ro represented is i n h is decl ine of age . On t h e O ther h '
rnd,
however , we have to note first that Sammi e - ras ter vdattd is not a pol it ical d rama lrk e Mudrafi ak sh asa Second ly
,wha t I cannot understand
is th e l ove - sickness of th e newly wedded couple wh ich is ce rta i nl y describ ed i n t h e d ram a and wh i t h such a dram at ist of fi ne de l icate sent imen tas B lu
‘rsa woul d ce rta i n l y have suppressed i f h e h ad though t that.
Uda v an a was on t h e other srdc of fi f tv O n p 35 Udaya na speakso f h im se l f as be ing p i e rced by t h e si xth arrow o f t h e God of l ove O n
p . 49 V idfish ak a re fe rs to th e Mada n -Jyar-dc’
rh a of Udayana causedb v h is second m arriage an d i ntensi fi ed by th e bereavemen t of h is firstqueen In Act V we are tol d that Pad nrt'rva ti rs la id up a i th a h aa lache
,
o f course .caused th rough love -si ckness , to re move wh ich h e r mee t ing
w i th Udayana is be ing arr anged for. I am sure t hat all these re fe rencesto th e love -s ickness of th e love rs Bh fisa woul d have studiouslv avoided If
accord ing to h im t h e v h ad been an i l l -assorted couple .
pPOL IT I C AL H I STORY . 1 1
must have become ful l'
O f contradictions and
discrepancies, and must have been more than
once tampered with to make them yield an
in telligen t story . For these reasons I cannot
help thinking that it is not safe to rely upon
th e account furnished by th e l’uranas for this
early period so far at any ra te as th e order
of succession and th e duration Of individual
reigns are concerned . Th e tradition preserved
in th e Mah avamsa about th e Magadh a dynasties
seems to m e more rel iable . A t any rate , no
inaccuracies or blunders have yet been detected
in th e accoun t of this chronicle,wh i ch wonder
fully agrees with th e Scraps of information
which th e Puranas furnish for some princes.
I have already told you that th e two rulers
of Magadh a wh o were contemporaries of Buddha .
were Bimbisara and h is son Ajatas'
atru . Th e
name of th e family to which Bimbisara belonged
is not de fin itely known , but i t seems that it was
Naga . Th e last prince O f Bimbisara ’
s dynastv
is cal led Naga-Dasaka by th e Mahavamsa . Th e
second component Of th e name, viz . Basaka,
doubtless corresponds to th e Dars‘
ak a O f th e
Puranas. And th e name Ilaga h as been prefixed
to Dasak a to distinguish him from h is successor
wh o belonged to a somewhat d iff erent farn ilv
and who h as therefore been cal led Susu -Naga,
or L ittle Naga . Darsfak a,and thus Bimbisara,
belonged to th e Great Naga dynastv . W e do
7 2 LECTUR E II .
not know whether an y kings of h is dynastv
preceded Bimbisara . They have certainly not
been mentioned by th e M ahavamsa ,but there
was no need for this chron icle to men tion them ,
its sole Obj ec t being to describe th e events of
th e period beginning with Buddha and not
an terior to him . Th e Puranas no doubt re
present at least four kings to have ruled before
Bimbisara, but their authority for this period,
as I have j ust stated,is disputable . Th e proba
b ility is that B irn b isara was th e founder of h is
dynasty , because Bimbisara h as in th e Pal i
Canon been called Sen /13m,which is th e same
thing as Seiiap ati. W e know that Push pam itra,
founder Of th e Sunga dynasty , was designatedSenc
'
ip ati, and we have th e authority O f th e
Puranas that Push parn itra was actually th e
commander - in - chief Of th e last king of th e
Maurya fam ily that h e supplan ted . I t is not
at all impossible th at B im b isftra was th e general
of th e Power that ruled Over Magadha beforeh im and that if h e did not actual ly destroy it
,
h e at auv rate declared h is independence and
carved out a kingdom for himsel f . Th e
question here arises:wh o could b e exercising
swa v ove r Magadha prior to B irn b isara ?‘
A passage in one of th e Oldest Buddhist
documents speaks O l'
Vesali as JI dgar/lumv
p um m ,
‘ capital of th e Magadha country .
Sutta -Nrpdtu , p . 185 , v . 38 .
POLITICAL H ISTO RY .
‘
73
Ifi
Vesali was thus th e capital of th e M agadh a
k ingdom , i t is quite possible that i t was at
th e expense of th e Vajj is that Bimbisarasecured territorv for himself . According to th ePuranas Magadh a was original ly held b v th e‘Barh adrath a family . Then ,
i t seems,occurred
th e inroads of th e Vaj j is, wh o held Magadh a .
In th e early years of Buddha,Bim b isara thus
appears to have seized M agadh a after expelling
th e‘
Vaj j is beyond th e Ganges and to have estab
lish ed himsel f at Rajagriha,th e old capital of
th e k ingdom . This was not th e only conquest
achieved by him . Bimbisara conquered Anga
also and incorporated i t into h is dominions. In
th e M ayj lzima -Nikc‘
cya‘we h ave mention of a
king of Anga wh o gave a daily pension of 500‘
karshapanas to a Brahman . Th e name of this
k ing h as not been specified , but there can be
l ittle doubt that is was th is prince from whom‘Bimbisara wrested Anga . I t was doubtless
these conquests that gave Bimbisara sovereign
ty over townships,
2 th e overseers of
which,it appears
,h e was in th e habit of cal l ing
to an assembly for personal ly discussing state
matters and receiving h is instructions .
Th e M abavaggas
says th at Bimbis'
ara h ad
6 00 wives. Of these on e was, we know a
Vaideh i princess. According to an early Jaina
II . 163 . Muh fim gga ,v . 8:fl .
VIII . 1 . 15 .
74 LECTURE 1 1 .
authori ty sh e was Ch ellana,daughter of
Ch etaka,a Lich ch aVi
,Chief of Vaisali . 1 I t is
quite possible that this matrimonial al liance was
a result of th e peace concluded a fter th e war
between Bimbisara an d th e L ich ch h av is. H is
another queen was Kosaladev i‘
,daughter of
Mahakosala, wh o was father of Pascnadi. Th e
father,when h e married h is daughter to th e
king B imbisara,gave a vi llage of th e Kasi
country,yielding a revenue of a hundred thou
sand , as h er net /"
zEma bath and
perfume money .
2 From h is Vaideh i queen
Bimbisara h ad a son cal led Ajatasatru .
3 He
h ad also another son,named Abhaya
,b ut we do
not know wh o th e latter ’s mother was. When
Abhaya was once going to at tend upon h is
father , king Bimbisara,h e saw an in fant
exposed on a dust-heap .
4 He took up th e
infan t,n ourished h im
,and named h im Jivaka
Komarab h ach ch a . JIvaka went to Tak sh asila,and learnt th e science of medicine . H e returned
to Rajagriha and showed h is exper t knowledge
by speedilv curing kin g Bimbisara of fistula .
Bimbisara was so pleased that h e appointed
Jivaka as ph ysic ian to th e royal household
8 8 8 XX” Intro . x i i i .Jfi t. II 40 3 15 .
Ibid . Il l . l 2 l -2 make Kosaladcv i to b e Ajatasatru ’s m other, and
Hafiz-N. speaks of h im as bh figzneyya to Pasen adi. But th is is a
m istake , because in th e C h ullavagga Aj fi taéatru is i nvariably cal ledVedeh ipul lo.
Mahavagga, v i i i , l , 4 fl .
7 6 LECTURE II .
fin
On learning that h is son wanted to kill h im
because h e wanted th e kingdom,Bimbisara at
once handed over th e re ins of government to
him .
1 But th e prince was not satisfied with
this,and in order to make h is position quite
secure,h e at th e advice of Devadatta managed
to kill h is father b v starvation . W’hi le on ce
h e was l istening to a sermon of Buddha
h e was sudden lv st riken with remorse and
confessed h is sm before him 2. A l though
there is no sound reason to distrust th e story
of this parricide, th e explanat ion which Buddhist
texts give of h is name,viz . Ajatas
'
atru , scarcely
deserves auv credence . I t is sai d that even
when h e was i n h is mother ’s womb , h e conceived
a longing for h is father ’s blood,which was
gratified only by th e mother drinking i t from th e
right knee of Bimbisara ,and that because h e
h ad thus been h is father ’s enemy (satru) , while
yet unborn h e was named Ajatasatru .
This is nothing b u t a pun .
I have told you that when king M ahakosala ,
father of Pasenadi, married h is daughter to
Bimbisara ,h e granted a Kasi village as dowry .
W hen Ajatas’
atru put B imbisara to death ,
Kosaladev i died of grie f . For sometime after
this queen ’
s death,Ajatas’atru continued to
enj oy th e revenues of this village,but Pasenadi
Ch i l l/( H aggu ,v ii 3 5 .
1 5 ! V . 26 1 2 ,Di fl h a -N. I 85 ; SB B. , l l . 94 .
Jal . l l l . 12 1 - 2 .
PO L ITI CAL HISTORY . 77
resolved that no parricide shou ld have’
a village
which was h is b y right of inheritance and so
confiscated it . Th ere was thus war betwixtAjatas
'
atru and Pasenadi. Th e former was
fierce a nd strong,and th e latter Old and feeb le .
So Pasenadi was beaten again and again . Now,
at th e time when h e h ad returned to h is capi
tal Sravasti after suffering h is last reverse,Buddha was staying close by with h is fraternity
of bh i/cslzus . Amongst those there were many
who formerly were Officers of th e king Two of
these at dawn on e day were discussing th e
nature Of th e war,and one of them emph ati
cally declared that if Pasenadi b ut gave Ajata
satru battle by arranging h is army in th e sakag‘a
vyz‘
ah a array , h e could have him like a fi sh in
lobster pot . Th e king’
s couriers , wh o happened
to overhear th e con versation , informed h im .
Pasenadi seized th e hint , and immediately set ou t
with a great host . He took Ajatas‘
atru prisoner
and bound h im in chains. After a few days h e
released him ,gave him h is daughter , Princess
Vaj ira,in marriage, and dismissed h er with that
Kasi village for h er bath -money, which was for
long th e bone of contention between th e two
royal families.
Ajatas’
atru was at war also with th e L ich ch h a
vis of Vesali. I have alreadv told y ou that
h is mother was a Vaideh i Princess. This means
Jat . II . 237 40 3 -4 ; iv . e4s ; scam ;
78 LECTURE n .
that sh e b elonged to th e Lich ch h avi clan .
Ajatas'
atru was thus at war with h is relationson h is mother ’s side . He seems to have pursuedth e policy inaugurated by h is father . W e haveseen that i t was at th e expense of th e Lichch h av is that Bimbisara made himself master ofth e Magadh a kingdom . And now h is son
Ajatas‘atru conceived th e design Of destroying
th e independence of th e L ich ch h avis. It ap
pears that at this time th e Ganges separated
th e Magadh a from th e Videh a kingdom, and
that Pataligrama, which afterwards rose to
great importance and became celebrated as
Pataliputra,was then on th e frontier o f th e
Magadh a territory . At any rate, this is th e
impression produced on our mind on reading
th e M et/tap arin ibbmm -sntla,
1 which is concerned
wi th th e decease of Buddha . Th e same
Sutta also g ives us th e impressi on that
Pataligram a was on th e road from Vesali
to ltajagrih a . I t was, therefore, absolutely
necessary to for tify Pataligrama . And when,
shortly before h is death , Buddha visi ted
Pataligrama, Sun idh a and Vassakara, Chief
M inisters of M agadh a,were busy b uilding a
fortress there to repel th e Vaj j is, al e . L ich ch h av is.
Th e Jaina Nirayr‘
wali- sfi tm informs us that
Ajatas‘
atru fixed a quarre l on Ch etaka, a
Lich ch h av i Chief of Vesali, h is g randfather and
I . 26 Maharagga, v i. 28 7 ff .
PO LITICAL H I STORY . 79
went forth to attack him .
1 N ine confederate
L ich ch h av i and nine confederate Malla kings
came to h is assis tance but it was Of no avail ,and th e Vaj j i
’
s or L ich ch h av is were ere long
subj ected to th e sway of Ajatas‘
atru along with
th e Mallas.
Ajatas‘
atru was succeeded by h is son
Udayab h adra wh o is no doubt th e same as th e
Udayin of th e Puranas. According to th eDigita
Nz’
kc‘
zya,as we have seen
,Ajatas
‘
atru looked upon
h im as h is fav ourite son,but i t was this favourite
son wh o for th e sake Of k ingdom murdered h is
father,
as th e M alravamsa 2 tel ls us. Th e
Fu lanas say that h e made Kusumapura on th e
south ern bank of th e Gan ges h is capital . 3
Kusumapura is but another name forPataliputra,and there is nothing stran ge in Udayabh adra
’
s
remov ing h is capital from Rajagriha to Fatal i
putra . Th e Magadh a kin gdom was very much
extended durin g th e reign of Ajatas'
atru . Th e
dominions Of th e L ich ch h av is and Mal las and
som e parts of even R osala were annexed to i t.
Such an extensive kin gdom required a central
capital, and this idea was wel l fulfilled by
Pataliputra,which
,though in th e first instan ce
i t'
was fortified to repel and subdue th e
L ich ch h avis, admirably served th e purpose of a
central seat of government .
SBE . xxn . l utro . x iv .
IV . 1 .
Pargiter, 22 69 .
LECTURE I I .
Udayab hadra reigned for sixteen years. He
"
was succeeded by An uruddh a,and th e latter by
Munda . A period of e igh t years h as been
assigned to them . NO reference to Anuruddh a
h as so far been traceable in th e Buddhist
li terature , but th e A nguttam-Nikfiy/ a
‘doesmakemention of Manda, king Of Patvaliputra .
H is queen , Bhadra- dev i died, and th e king was
Simply overwhelmed wi th grief . H is Treasurer-Priyaka became intensely anxious on h is account ,and arranged for an interview between th e king
and Narada,a Buddhist monk
,wh o h ad at that
time come to Pataliputra in th e course of h is
rel igious tour . Narada’
s religious discourse
made a deep impression on Munda and gave him
s trength Of mind to overcome h is grief .
Munda was succeeded by Naga-Basaka .
I told you a shor t while ago that Dasak a
of th is composite name corresponded to th e
Dars’
aka of th e Puranas, and Naga.
was
prefixed to h is name to show that h e pertained-tO th e principal Naga dynasty Th e tradition
mentioned by Bhasa that Padmavati married
t o Udayana was h is sister does not appeal"
to b e probable , and y ou have already seen'
th e reason s I h ave set forth . Th e Mahavamsa
s avs that from Ajatasatru down to Dars’
ak a
we h ad kings wh o were parricides , and that th e
people , wh o were , th ere f0 1 e , disgusted with this
9 III. 57 !it 5 .
PO LITICAL H I STORY . 81
dynasty, aided on e Susu -Naga, who was an
amatya or min ister apparent ly of Dars‘aka,
tooust h im and secure th e throne .
Susu-Naga,
as I have said , does not seem to b e a proper
name . I t denotes a branch of th e Naga fam ily,
and as somet imes a k ing is designated by h is
family name alone without specificatiOn of h is
individual name, th e family name Sum -Nags,or Sisfu -Naga of th e Puranas, h as been employedto denote th e usurper of Dars
‘ak a
’
s s overeignty .
Anyhow this usurper was not an outsider,but a
prince Of th e Naga dynasty though of a bran ch
line . The Puranas inform us that S usu -Nagaannihilated th e renown Of th e Pradyota dynasty,placed h is son in Varanasi or Benares
, and madeGirivraja (Raj gir) h is capital . 1 Th e Puranasevidently tel l us that Susu -Naga made himself
master not only of Magadh a but also Of Avanti
and Kasi-Kesala . This seems to b e correct, and
to this we may add that h e probably annexed
th e Vatsa kingdom also to h is empire . W e
know that Pradyota, Pasenadi (Prasenaj it) ,Bimbisara and Udayana were contemporaries,and their families, curiously enough , became
extinct four generations after them ,i . 6 . about
th e rise of Susu -Naga . Th e latter was thus
practically a ruler of th e whole Of Northern
India except th e Panjab . Being thus a powerful
monarch and practical ly of th e same fami ly as
Pargiter, 2 1 68
82 LECTURE II .
Bimb isara,h e was, in later times when th e
Puranas were recast , placed at th e head of th e
fam ily,and all th e kings styled Sis
’
unagas after
him . Sis‘unaga reigned for eighteen years and
was succeeded by h is Sen Asoka. To distinguish
h im from As‘oka
,th e Maurya Emperor
,h e was
des ignated KalaS‘O ka
,th e epithet kale indicating
h is b laek' I
COmplexion . This also explains why
h e was-
cal led Kakavarna in th e Paranas. As a
Burmese tradition informs us,h e removed his
capital from Rajagriha to Pataliputra .
1 This is
exactly in keeping with th e Mahavamsa,2 which
represents KalaSO k a t o be established in Pushpa
pura,t.e. Pataliputra . Th e only event which
,
we know,took place in th e reign of Kalasoka
was th e holding of th e second Buddhist Council .
I t was held in Vesali under this king in th e
year 383— 2 B . C . and led to th e separation Of th e
Mah asamgh ikas from th e Theravada 3. KalaS
‘O ka
reigned for twenty - eigh t years only . After him
h is ten sons conj ointly ruled over th e Magadh a
empire . Their names are:( 1 ) Bh adrasena,
(2 ) Korandavarna, (3 ) Mangura, (411) Sarvaiijah a,
(5 ) Jal ika, (6 ) Ub h aka, (7 ) Safi jaya, (8) Kora
vya, (9 ) Nandivardh ana and ( 10 ) Pafichamaka.
4
Nandivardh ana of this is most probably
SUE. X I . Intro . xv i .9 IV . 3 2 .
3 Mahavm'
nsa ( trans. Ge iger) , In tro ,l i x
.
Mahabodh zrmh sa,98 .
84: LECTURE II .
Th e Puranas say that Ugrasena-Mahapadma
was so powerful that h e uprooted all th e Ksh a
triyas like Paras’
urama,brought th e whole earth
under one royal umbrel la, and made himself
el m-rat, sole monarch . Let us pause here for a
moment and see what th is means . I have told
you that shortly before Buddha lived, that part
of India which was Aryanised was divided into
sixteen different states, of which , excepting two,all were pet ty kingships. But th e process of
cen tralisation h ad begun,and we find that these
tiny kingships h ad already developed into four
monarchies in th e t ime of Buddha . Gradually
these monarchies themselves were being dissolved
and coalesced into on e,but they did not culmi
nate into a full -fl edged imperialism until a
century after th e demise Of Buddha . W e haveseen above h ow th e M agadha Empire gra
dually extended and swal lowed not only th e
Kasi -Kosala country of th e Iksh vakus,but also
th e Avanti territory of th e Pradyotas and th eKauSamb i kingdom Of th e Vatsas. And whenUgrasena
-Mahapadma h as been expressly reprosented by th e Puranas to have exterm inated th eKshatriyas and brought th e earth under his solesway, i t means, I think , that h e made himselfmaste r of about that whole portion of Indiawhich was fam iliar to th e Aryans
,al e . O f almost
all th e sixteen coun tries into which India wasdivided in Buddha’
s time and which I have
POLITICAL HISTORY . 85
already enumerated about th e beginning O f this
lecture . In other words,Ugrasena
-M ahapadma
was a Chakravartin or universal monarch . Th e
idea of Chakravartin is very ancient in India.
Th e A itareya-Brahmana, makes mention of
some kings,who
,after thei r anointing , conquered
th e wh ole ear th and performed a horse -sacrifice .
What we have in this connection to bear in
mind is that by earth is meant n ot thewhole
earth as it is known to us at th e present day but
rather th e earth as i t was known to th e Aryans
at th e time when th e Chakravartin is said to
have l ived and conquered . Mahapadma was
thus but on e Chakravartin and was th e
Chakravartin of th e period we have selected .
Kautilya in h is Arth aSastra1
speaks Of th e
Chakravartin as i f th e lat ter was not a novel
ruler at all i n h is day and te l ls us that h is domain
coincided wi th th e greater portion of th e space
between th e H imalayas and th e ocean and with
an area O f a thousand yoj anas. This no doub t
answers to th e extent of th e Mauryan
empire, and as from th e language of Kautilya
th e Chakravartin was not an unfamiliar figurein h is time, i t appears that there was at least
on e Chakravar tin before th e Mauryas came to
power, and there is, there fore, nothing strange in
our takin g Mahapadma to be a Chakravartin on
1 p . 338.
86 LECTURE II.
th e authori ty Of th e Puranas . I t is time there
fore to give up th e view that th e Indian s for th e
first time gained their idea Of Chakravar tin fromAlexander ’ s invasion .
88 LECTURE III .
testified to by various m ore or less early Indian
writers who have not only referred to th e author
but also given quotations fromh is work . But
th e work h ad.
been looked upon as entirely lost,
and i t was a great though agreeable surprise to
every scholar and antiquarian when,in th e
January number of th e Indian An tiqnai’
y, 1905 ,
Mr . R . Shamasastry not only announced th e
discovery of th is work at Tanj ore but actual ly
published a translation O f some of its chapters .
Th e whole book was afterwards edited and
translated by th e same scholar and is being more
and more eagerly and thoroughly studied,but it
will b e S till long before we are able to Show
what flood of l ight it throws not on ly on ancient
polity but also on economics, law, ethics and
so forth .
When th e Arth as’
astra of Kautilya was first
puliliSIIed, i t evoked a great deal Of cr iticism
more or less O f an adverse nature . But now
there is a consensus of Opinion among scholars
that on th e ground of th e archaic style and
th e social and rel igious l ife depicted therein th e
work h as certain ly to b e assigned to th e period
B . C . 3 2 1 - 296 as i t claims to belong . Any student
who h as even cursorily read th e book knowsthat i t bristles with quotations from th e authors
of th e Arth aSTastra who were prior to Kautilya .
I t therefore follows that if these authors were
known to Kautilya, their works were certainly
ADMIN ISTRATIV E HISTORY . 89
known and studied in th e period we have
selected, especial ly as i t immediately precedes
Chandragupta,th e founder O f th e Maurya
dynasty, whose prime-minister Kautilya was.
It is therefore very important to know who are
these authors that have been referred to by
Kautilya . Th e list of those that I have been
able to frame is as follows
Schools.
1 . Manavah , pp . 6,29
, 63 , 1 77 , 1 92 .
2 . Barh aspatyah ,pp . 6 , 29 , 63 , 1 77, 1 92 ,
3 73 .
3 . pp . 6 , 29 , 63 , 1 77, 1 92 .
43. ParaS'
arah , p . 63 .
5 . Am b h iyahl
,p . 33 .
Th e order in which th e schools are mentioned
not uniform .
Individua l A uthors.
6 . Bharadvaja, pp . 1 3,27 , 3 2
,253 , 320 ,
3 25,380 .
7 . Visalak sh a, pp, 1 3 , 27, 32 , 320 , 326 , 380 .
8. Paras‘
araz
,pp . 1 3 , 27, 3 2, 3 21 , 326 .
1 fimbh iyc‘
zli is prob ab ly a m istake for Echarydl} , as Prof . Jacob ith inks ( llberdie Ech th eit des Kau liliya i n Sztzungsberich te der Kon iglichPreussisch en Akademie der W issenschaf ten ,
p.
2 His name h as been var iousl y spe l t i n th e pri nted edit ionParaéarah Paraéaralz and Paraéaral} . O f course, th e plural form is
90 LECTURE III .
9 . Pis‘una‘,pp . 1 4, 28, 3 3 , 251 , 321 , 3 27 .
1 0 . Kaunapadantaz
, pp . 1 44,33 , 3 21 , 327
1 1 . Vatavyadh i, pp . 1 4, 33 , 26 1 , 322, 328.
1 2 . Bah udan tiputra3,p . 1 4 .
These authors (NOS . 6 -1 2 ) are specified in th e
ab ove serial order .
1 3 . Katyayana, p . 251
141 . Kaniuka Bharadvaja
1 5 . Dirgh a-Charayana
1 6 . Gh otamuk h a
1 7 ; Kiiijalka
1 8. Pis’
unaputra
inadm issib le , where th is nam e h as been ment ioned al ong wi th th oseof ind i v i dua l authors . Of th e rem ai n ing two, Pards
’
arab appears to m e
to b e th e correct form , because i t h as been so ment ioned i n Kamandaka,VII] . 39 , where , aga i n , th e m etr ica l ex igen c ies requ ire Paraéaral} and
not Parasaral} . Pan—lau re l} stands i n th e sam e relation to Paraéardh as
Us’
anah of Kamandak a does to h is Karayal} (VIII -2 21 Piéuna was another nam e of Narada ; an d we know that h e was
th e author of a work on k ing ly dut ies from th e passage Ndradiyam-rdj adh armam from th e Kadambari (Bo . Sk . Series,
p . 9 1 , l . Th is passage can n ot possib ley refer to th e Narada -Sm ij zti,
because it does not dea l wi th kingly dut ies .
9 Accord ing to th e k c‘
mdaéesha,Kaunapadan ta is another
name for Bh ishm a,and i t is not at all im probable that Kaunapadan ta
’
s
work is represented by th e presen t Rdj adharm -Emus’
dsan a of Bh ishma
i n th e Sdn ti -Parvan of th e Mahabharata .
3 Th e correct form of th e n ame m ust b e Bah udan tiputra as h as
b een l b own further on i n th e text .
These have beenmentioned butonce . Of theseagain Charayanaand Gh ota(k a)mu k h a h a v ebeen mentionedby Vatsyayana
as authors O f th edifferent partsof th e Scienceof Erotics .
92 LECTURE III .
It was indeed a wise move on th e part of th e
Calcutta U niversity to have prescribed for M . A .
H istory, th e chapters of th e Santi -Parvan , whichtreat of R c
‘
zj adkarma, Le . th e duties of th e king,and which , in fact, give us good gl impses into
th e condition of th e science of polity before th e
time of Kautilya . W e have seen that Chapter 58
of this Parvan gives th e names of .th e authors of
Raj aéc‘
zstra which all except one agree with those
mentioned by Kautilya . Let us now proceed a
step further and see what th e immediately next
chapter teaches us. This chapter gives us a
genesis of th e science of pol ity— h ow it arose
and h ow i t underwent al terations. Dandan iti
or Science of Polity, we are told, was
first brought out by Brahma. I t treated
not only of th e objects of th e worldly
life, viz . dharma ,performan ce of religious
duties, artha, attainment of wealth and kama,
gratification of sensual desires,but also of
moksha or final beatitude,and consisted of one
hundred thousand chapters. As th e period of
th e human life was gradual ly decreasing,this
colossal work was also undergoing abridgement .Th e god S iva was th e first to shorten it into
a treatise cal led Vaisalak sh a after him and
.
' consisting of ten thousand chapters. Th e divineIndra then abridged it into a work comprising
five thousand chapters and styled Bah udan takaafter him . Brihaspati further reduced it to a
ADMINISTRAT IVE HISTORY . 9 3
work contain in g three thousand chapters and
designated Barh aSpatya a fter him . Last came
Kavi or Usanas, wh o sti l l further shortened it
into a treatise composed of a thousand chapters
on ly . Now th e original work composed by
Brahma is said to have treated of dharma,
artha,[cri me and molcskas
,and comprised one
hundred th ousand chap ters. In Chapter 335
of th e Santi -Parvan we have another t radition
narrated about this work . There its authorship
h as been ascribed to ei ght sages, who read it out
to th e god Narayana . Th e god was exceedingly
pleased with what h e heard,
and said :“Excel lent is th is treatise that ye have composed
consisti ng of a hundred thousand verses .
Guided by it Svayam b h uva Mann wi ll hi mself
promulgate to th e world its code of dh arma,
and Usan as and Brih aspati compose their t reatises based upon it. W e are then told that
th is original work of th e sages will last up to
th e time of k ing Uparich aru and disappear
upon h is death . Curiously enough,Vatsyayana,
author of th e Kamasmm , mentions at th e begin
n ing of this work a th ird tradition which is a
combination of th e first two. Prajapati or
Brahma, says h e , created people and recited
to them a work consisting of one hundred
thousand chapters to enable them to attaindharma
,d rum
,and ledma . That part which
related to dharma was separated by Mann, and
944 LE CTURE III .
those which related to arfl m and [came wereseparated by B rih aspati and Nandin respec
tively . W e thus see that according to th e
t radition mentioned both in Chapter 59 of th e
Santi -Parvan and by Vatsyayana th e original
knowledge about th e work on dha vma,artka
and kama'
emanated from Brahma. Th e first
abridgement of Dandan iti, we have seen,is
ascribed to S iva after whom it was named
Vais’
alaksh a. Th e term Vais’
alak sh a is derived
from Vis’
alak sh a, which i s another name for
S iva . Th e author Vis'
alak sh a mentioned by
Kautilya must therefore b e taken to refer to
th e god S iva h imself l . Th e second abridge
ment was brought out by Indra, and
,we are
informed,was cal led Bah udan tak a . Indra’
s
elephant , A iravata, because h e h ad four
many (bal m) tusks, could b e cal led Bah udan ta
1 I t m ay b e asked whe ther i t is perm issible to quote th e viewsan d th e name of a god exactl y as woul d b e done in th e case of ahum an be i ng ,
and i t may consequently b e doubted whethe r Kautilya’
s
Visalak sh a is a d ivi ni ty or a human be i ng . I t m ay, therefore, b econtended that up to Kautilya
’
s t im e Visalak sh a was a human authorbut was afterwards looked upon as a god and m enti oned as su ch inth e San tif arvan . W e know
,however, that, as a matter of fact ,
Kamandak a c i tes th e doctrines and m ent ions th e nam es of Puloma
and Indra, abou t whose divin i ty there can b e no quest i on , as i f theywere human authors
,as is clear from VIII . 2 1 . Agai n , nobody can
doubt that th e Santi - Parvan was exist ing in its presen t form about300 AD ,
when Kamandaka l ived . To Kaman dak a, therefore, V isalaksha m ust have been a god,
and yet h e speaks of th e latter asVmi lci ksh ah pm b h c
’
zsh ate (VIII . 28) No reasonable doubt need therefore b e entertai ned as to Kautilya
’
s reference to Viéalaksha b eing areference to th e god of that nam e .
96 LECTURE III .
authority on th e raj a -dlzarma and is referred
to by Bana in h is Kadambari l . Th e third
abridgement is attributed to Brihaspati and
i s designated Barh aspatya . For th e fourth,
Kavya or USanas was responsible . Th e name
of h is work is not specified , but it must have
been Aus’
anasa . In Chapter 59 of th e SantiParvan we have a Spec ific mention not only of
four of th e seven authors of Arth as'
astra enu
merated in Chapter 58 but also of th e works
standing to their credit . It is somewhat curious
that Manu , Bharadvaja and GauraSiras have here
been passed away . But th e probable expla
nation is that these were sages and consequently
human beings, whereas th ose noticed above
were either gods or demi - gods and'
that th e
object of th e tradition narrated in Chapter 59
is to establish th e sacred character and th e
extreme antiquity of th e Arth aSastra by showing
how it was handed down from Brahma through
th e various gods and at th e same time more
and more abridged in this process of transmis
sion . Of course, Mann and h is work must
have been well-known at this time,for in th e
Drona-Parvan we find that one of h is qual i
fications to become th e generalissimo of th e
Kaurava army Dronacharya makes a point
ed mention of h is proficiency in Ill dnavi
1 See p . 90,n . 2 .
ADM INISIRATIVE HISTORY . 97
Artha- vidyal. This clearly indicates that a work
on Arth as'
astra composed by M ann was well
known,
and was held in such high repute that
proficiency in it was considered to b e a great
merit to a general . About Bharadvaja I shal l
say something fu rther in th e sequel, but no
reference to th e work of Gauras’
iras I have been
able to trace in th e Mahabharata .
Now,here another question arises:have we
got any evidence to Show in what form th e
works of these ancient authors of th e Arth as'
astra
were composed ? I t is indeed a very interest
ing fact that Santi -Parvan is not content with
merely enumerating their names or specifying
their works but actually quotes verses from th e
latter Chapters 56 - 8 are very important in
this respect . W e have th ree verses cited not
only from M anu but also from USanas (Bhar
gava) and Brihaspati . These have all been
culled in th e Appendix . This gives rise to th e
inference that their works at any rate were in
metrical form . And in regard to th e work of
USanas in particular, it is possible to say that
i t was in existence and in metrical form even as
late as th e time of Sankararya, commentator
of th e Kamandak iya Nitisara ,for we know h e
actually quotes one verse from it .
2
Th e conclusion that th e works on Arth asastra
prior to Kautilya were in verse is forced upon
1 IA .
,XL VI
,95 .
2 TSS . Ed . 1 12 .
98 LECTURE III .
us by a study of th e latter’
s work also . Before,however, this can b e demonstrated , i t is n eces
sary to find out th e exact nature of th e form of
composition which h is work represents. This
i s described at th e end of h is book in th e verse
Drish tva vip ratip attim ba/mdha éc’
zstresh u
bhashyakaranam
svayam z eva Visl mugup taé z ckakara saira/m
el m bhashyam el m.
TRANSL AT ION .
Having noticed discrepancy in many ways
between th e commentators on th e Sastras,Vishnugupta him self h as made th e Satra and
th e commentary .
”
Un fortun atelv ,so far as I know
,th e mean ing
of this verse h as not been made clear by any
scholar‘. What th e verse, however, evidently
means is that in Kautilya’
s time a Satra was
interpreted di ff erently by different commenta
tors and that in order that this mish ap may not
befal l h is work h e composed not only th e
Satras but also th e commentary setting forth
h is meaning of h is Satras. Kautilya’
s book,
therefore, consists not only of Saim but also of
Prof Jacobi expla ins i t i n a d iff eren t manner ( l oc . c i t 843
A l th ough th e ve l se in quest ion d ist i nctly says that Kautilya’
s
work is both a Satra and a Bhashya , h e seem s to th ink i t, apparently
on th e author i ty of th e sam e Verse,that i t is
,not a Sfitra
,but rather
a Bh ésh ya
100 LECTURE III .
they all composed by Kautilya himself“9 Let us
try to answer this question . There can b e no
doubt that some at least were composed by him .
Certainly th e first two of th e verses occurring
on p . 1 7 of th e published text must belong to
h im . Th e first gives th e Opin ion of th e prev ious
A ch e-
ay es that th e king shall employ h is minis
ters in offi ces corresponding to their ascertained
purity . Th e second cites th e View of Kautilya
that th e king shal l in no wise test thei r puri ty
on himself or h is queen . Th e phrase here used
is etat Kantilg/a-dars
’
anam . This indicates that
these two verses at any rate come from
th e pen of Kautilya . And we can suppose
that there were perhaps some others which
also were composed by him . I t is not h ow
ever, possible to concede more and assert
that h e was th e author of all th e verses met
with in h is work . This is strongly negati ved by
th e fact that on pp . 3 6 5 - 6 occur two stanzas‘
with th e prefatory remark :ap z iha é lokau
bhavatah . Th is is an unmistakable indication
that these verses at any rate were not of
Kautilya, but were quoted by him from some
work . Again,we have at least two instances of
verses prefaced by on e or more words in prose
either of which is insu ffic ient by itself but which
1 Th e second of these stan zas occurs also i n th e Pratij fiao
Yaugandh arc’
ryana and th e first in th e Paraéara -dh arma
oafit h ata ( BSS . Ed . I . i i .
ADMINISTRAT IVE HI STORY . 101
together make th e sense whole and complete .
Thus on p . 1 2 1 we have th e following
Surakamedak -arish ta -madku-
p 7za l-am lamla
éidhundm cl m
A h naé z cba vikm yam vyaj im j fic’
ctva
mc‘
ma - h im zzyayolz
tathe’
t vaidharanam Icuryad=uch itamck z cmuvavtayei
Here th e verse by itself does not bring out
th e full sense, which is possib le only when it is
in terpreted in conj un ction wi th th e preceding
prose l ine . S imilar is th e case on p . 29 where
we have th e fol lowing
K urvataé z cka
N z asya gu/zyamp are vidyué chkidram
vidyat p arasya elm
guket karma iv z angani yat syad z vivz'i
tam atmanek
Here th e verse is preceded by two words
in prose which together make c lear th e sense
of th e author . Now this prac tice of combin ing
a verse with a prose passage to express an idea
is Often m et with in Sanskrit dramas where
i t is indispensable for dramatic eff ect,but is
conspicuous by its absence in any work dealingwith a Casim when the whole of i t is a pro
duction of one author . In a work setting forth
th e subject O f a Sastm no dramatic eff ect is
ever intended,and when therefore we meet with
such a combination of prose and verse, th e only
102 LECTURE I II .
reasonable conclusion is that th e author isciting that verse from som e other source and
that in order to fully b ring ou t its sense h e h as
to preface it wi th a remark of h is in prose . Th e.
two verses given above must,therefore
,b e
supposed as not belonging to Kautilya b ut
rather quoted by him from a previous work on
Arth as'
astra . There is yet another line of argu
ment which compel s us to adopt th e same conclu
sion . Th e second of th e verses j ust quoted from
Kautilya occurs also in th e San ti -Parvan . I
am aware on e is apt to suspect that th e SantiParvan is indebted to Kautilya for this verse .
But this is n ot possible, because I have j ust
shown that i t cannot belong to Kautilya as
it is preceded by a prose preface . But there are
other considerations also which leave no scep
ticism on this point . Th e verse in question,
viz . that beginning with n z asya guhyampare
eidgah occurs not only in th e Santi but also in
th e Adi -Parvan . But here i t is preceded by two
verses which run thus
Nityam udya ta-dandalz sya1z=nityam
vivrita -
p auruslzak
achch hidm s=ch h idm ~daréz syc'
it p areskc’
m’
z .
vivar -anugalz,
Nityam z udyata-dandad=h i bhriéam
udvéj ate j ana/v
teas-mat se rvant [carve—
mi danden z aiva vi
dharayet
1 04. L ECTURE I II .
have been quoted by h im from previous authors .
When we, therefore, find any verses cited alon g
with and in confirmation of th e doctrines set
forth by him of h is predecessors, th e natural
conclusion is that th e verses in question were
quoted from th e works of th e latter . Such
verses do we find e g . on pages 1 3 , 27 and 253
of th e printed edition . This Shows that th e
works of Bharadvaja,V is
'
alak sh a and Paras'
ara
at least were in metrical form . In th e case of
Bharadvaja th e matter h as been placed beyond
all doub t, because Kautilya actually cites part of
a verse and ends th e quotati on with th e remark
iti B haradvaj ali . I am,of course
,referring
here to Indrasya Izi se p ranamati yo ba lzyaso
n emati iii B haradvaj ali on p . 380 . Th is quota
tion,I need scarcely say, forms th e second half
of an Arya verse, and is exceedingly interesting
inasmuch as i t shows that in th e earlier works
on Arth asfastra,not only th e An ush tubh bu t also
th e Aryametre was employed . I Ve have already
seen on th e authori ty of th e M ahabharata that
th e works on polity attributed to Mann,Erihas
pati and Us’
anas were in verse,and we now see
on th e authority of Kautilya that th e samewas th e case with th e works of B haradvaja,Vis
’
alak sh a and ParaS'
ara .
Here th e question may b e asked:how is itpossible to regard th e works on A rth as
'
astra
anterior to Kautilya as being metrical in form
ADMINISTRAT I VE HISTORY . 1 05
when th e work of th e latter,
as we have seen,
belongs to th e Sfi tra class of composition’
D Doesit not conflic t with th e established Opinion of th e
Sanskritists that a Satra work is prior to a work
in which th e An ush tub h metre is uniformly
employed P I admit that this Opinion is at
present highly countenanced by scholars,but I
dispute its correc tness. I t was Max M iiller1
who first gave utterance to this View,which h as
now been followed rather slavishly by Sanskritistsin Sp ite of th e strong protest raised against i t by
Croldstuck er2 Th e latter scholar clearly tellsus that i t is on e thing to lay down a criterion by
wh ich a class of works such ex) . as th e Saf rasm ight become recognisable
, and i t is another
thing to make such a cri terion a basis for
computing periods of l i terature and that two
classes of writ ings can flourish in on e and th e sameperiod and
,as a matte r of fact, h e h as clearly
proved that th e An ush tub h or metr ical form of
composition was ex isting side by S ide wi th th e
Satra in that very period to which th e latter
style of l i terature h as been assigned . Which
class of composi tion began earlier— th e Satra or
th e metrical is a question which n eed not
trouble us here . My conten tion is that from th e
7th century B . C . onwards to th e time of
Kautilya both th e forms of composit ion flourished
1 HASL.,68 & tf .
Pani n i , 7s ff
1 06 LECTURE III .
side by side as h as been well shown by Gold
stiick er, and there can,therefore, b e nothing
strange in th e Arth as'
astra works of th e pre
Kautilyan period being metrical in form although
they pertain to th e period to which th e Satra
class of l iterature is general ly ascribed and
al though th e work of Kautilya himself is an
example of th is class.
Many of th e chapters of th e Santi -Parvannarrate incidents in th e form of dialogues which
are designated p urc’
rtana itilzasci . M ost of theseitihasas relate to matters connected with Dharma
,
Purana and so forth . But at least two relate to
th e A rth aéc‘
istm . O n e of these is set forth in
Chapter 68, where we are in troduced to a
discourse between Brihaspati and Vasumanas,
king of Kosala . Vasuman as pays h is homage toth e great sage , and enquires about th e governanceof a kingdom ,
and Brihaspati replies by dwel ling
on th e paramount necessity of having a king atth e head of th e S tate . In th e course of h isdiscourse Brihaspati l ikens a king to th e godsAgni, Aditya, M rityu, VaiSravana and Yama
,
and a verse is given,viz . Na Iii j atv z avaman tavyo
manushya iti beamip ali malm ti devatc‘
i fig/ z eslia
nam -rfip ena tisli t/i ati II n which we find alsoin Manu (VII , Then in Chapter 1 40 of th e
same Parvan we are in troduced to another
dialogue, this time between th e sage Bharadvajaand Satrufijaya, king of Sauv ira. King Satrufi jaya
1 08 LECTURE 1 1 1 .
under Itihasal . ( 2) It appears that th e works
named after Brihaspati and Bharadvaja at
any rate were not composed by them but
rather embodied th e doctrines expounded by them
orally to certain kings and on certain occasions.
(3 ) Th e verse 40 , ci ted from Chapter 68 of th e
Santi -Par van , which we find is practical ly
identical with Manu, VII . 8, (p . must,there
fore,b e supposed to have originally belonged to
th e work setting forth th e system of Brihaspati .
For th e same reason Bharadvaja must b e
supposed to b e th e author O f th e three verses
quo ted from Chapter 1 40 of th e same Parvan
and shown to b e iden tical with Man n,VII .
1 0 2 - 3 and 10 52
(p .
When Kautilya wrote ,th e study of th e
Arth as'
astra was fal ling into desuetude . This,
I think,is Clear from one of th e verses occurring
at th e end of h is book , viz
P . 10 .
2 L ike Arth aéastra Kautilya ( p . 10 ) p laces Dh armasastra a lsounder Itih asa . I suspec t that Dharm asastra
,too
,l ike Arth aéastra,
was orig i nal ly of m etri ca l com posi t i on before i t assum ed th e Sfi tra
form . This a l one can expla i n , I th ink , wh y verses have been i ntroducea i nto th e Dh armasfi tras, j ust as they are in Kau tiliya As i n th elatter case we know they were borrowed from previous works onArtb aéastra , those in th e Dh armasatras m ust sim i larly have beenborrowed from p revious works of that sc ience wh i ch m ust thereforeb e supposed to have been m etrica l in form . An d I suspect that th eor ig i nal Man usmriti, and, not th e present recast on e ,
was prior even
to th e Dh armasfi tras, especial ly as verses from th e lat ter have beentraced to th e form er v ide also p . 1 13 , n . 2 be l ow . I hope I m ay findtitne once to work out th is theory fu l ly .
ADMINI STRAT I VE HI STORY . 1 09
Yena sastm m ah a Sastram el m
Nanda -rc’
tj a -
gatc‘
i c/ia bli i'
i/i
amarsh en:oddh ritc‘
my z aéu
tena sastram=idam Irritam .
This verse is evidently c rediting Kautilya
with having rescued Sastra, which can here
mean Arth as'
astra on lyl
. It thus seems that
th e old works on th e Arth as‘
astra were being
forgotten in h is time . And to rescue this S cience
from oblivion Kautilya appears to have made
a vigorous attempt at getting hold of th e old
works,most of which h e did succeed in obtaining
and which h e brought into requisi tion in com
posing h is treatise . And we know what a
s tupendous mass of literature i t was. There
were, to begin with , at least four Schools connec
ted with this Science . A S chool means
a traditional handing ' d own of a set of
doctrines and presupposes a series of ( weary/as or
teachers, wh o from time to time carried on th e
work of exegetics and systematisation . Besides,
we find that Kautilya mentions not only four
Schools bu t also thirteen individual authors
who were in no way connected with any School .Again, we have al ready seen that of th e teachers
of our Science re ferred to in th e Santi -Parvan
all except one have been mentioned by Kautilya .
This exception was Gauras’
iras, whose work
1 Th e word uddhr i ta is taken i n th e sense of ‘l‘eformed’ by
Prof . Jacobi (loo. Cit wh i ch is scarce ly adm issib le . I am afra i dKaugiliya , pp . 7 & 10 .
1 1 0 LECTURE III .
perhaps seems to have been lost in h is time . I t is
quite possible that there may have been works of
some more teachers which were S imilarly for
gotten , especially as we have seen that in Kan ti
lya ’
s t ime th e Science of Polity was being wel l
nigh extin ct . Th e latest of these worksagain must
for th e same reason b e supposed to have been
written at least three - quarters of a century ante
rior to h is time . All things considered , i t is
impossible to bring down th e beginning of Indian
thought in th e sphere of Arth as'
astra to any
period later than 6 50 B C . W e have seen that
Chapter 59 of th e Santi -Parvan attributes th e
origin of this Science to th e god Brahma and of
th e d ifferent treatises on it to th e diff erent
gods and demi - gods. This means that in th e
ath century B C . Arth asastra was looked upon
as having come from such a hoary antiquity
that i t was b el ieved to have emanated from th e
divine, and not from th e human , mind . This
agrees with th e fact that in Kautilya’
s time
A rth as'
astra was comprised in Itihasa,which
was then looked upon as a Veda and of th e same
dignity as th e A th arva-V eda .
l
W e thus see that much of th e matter supplied
by Kautilya’
swork per tains to th e period selected
by us, and can b e safely used to Show how much
th e Indians knew of this science in that period .
To th e same period seem to bel ong th e chapters
Kautzliya , 7 .
1 1 2 LECTU RE III .
GauraSIras, which is mentioned in th e SantiParvan , is not kn own to Kautilya showing prob ab
ly that h is work was forgotten when th e prime
minister of Chandragupta wrote . M oreover , as th e
Mahabharata does not know many of th e authors
ad verted to by Kautilya, i t is no wonder that i t
mentions none of th e la ter authors such asM ahar
shis,1Maya and Paloma wh ocame into prominence
after him and are referred to by Kamandakaz.
som e i ne xorable dest i ny Bh aradvaja,b ecause h e cam e first
,h ad t o
take up for th e discussion of re lat ive importance th e first pai r on lv
an d th en there was a l u l l till V isalak sh a appeared , an d j ust becauseh e was th e second , h e too h ad to take up th e second an d th e second pai ronly
,an d so on an d so on ? Agai n , on p . 3 25 an d ff . th e sam e nu
a l terable necessi ty seem s t o have assigned th e question of relat ivehe i nousness between th e Kopaj c
'
zfj, an d Kr'
zmaj ab, doshalz to Bh aradvaja
because h e cam e first . Then i t appears there was a trace fo r som e
t im e to further d iscussi on t i l l ViSalak sh a th e second arose . Then itwas fel t necessary to deduce two pai rs ou t of th e th ree Kopaj alt dosh c
‘
zi} ,
assign th e first of these to Viéalak sh a ,an d reserve th e second t i l l th e
adven t of h is successor, ParaSara, an d so on an d so on . S ure ly h istorical devel opm ent of th e Arth asastra could not have taken p lace according to th is exact unal terab l e programm e .
By Maharsh is we perhaps have to understand here th e e ight sag esto whom th e origi nal work on pol i ty h as been att ri buted in C hapter3 35 of th e San t i -Parvan . Th e nam e Maya suggests t h e Asura Maya
,
th e Arch i tect , referred to in th e Sabha-Parvan2 VIII . 20 - 1 23 . I need scarcelv say that th is Kaman dak a cannot b e
i dent ified w i th th e sage Kamandaka m ent ioned in th e S‘
e'
m ti-Pq 123 , 10
i f,as th is woul d bring th e final redaction of th e Mahabharata down to
th e 7 th century A .D.
— wh ich is an impossi bi l i ty . Th is chapte r sets fortha dial ogue between Kamandak a and Angarish th a , b u t , as a matterof fac t , we do not hear of th e latter at all i n Kamandak a
’
s Arth aéastra .
Secondly, in t h is chapter Kaman dak a is d iscoursi ng O n a re l ig ioussubject wh ich h as hardly anyth i ng t o d o w i t h th e Arth aSastra and
absol utely noth ing w i th th e pecu l iar doctrines of Kamandaka, th e
pol i t ica l ph ilosO ph er.
ADM IN ISTRAT IVE HISTORY . 1 13
These c onsiderations Show that those portionsof th e M ahabharata, and especial ly of th e
Santi -Parvan ,which treat of th e Sc ience of
Polity,
are on th e whole indebted for their
account to authors wh o l ived prior t o Kautilya .
I have shown above which verses are quoted
in th e M ahabharata and from which of theseauthors. But there seem also to b e versesin this epic which are paraph rases of th e
original of these authors. I sh all give only
on e, b ut typical , instance here . I in formed
you a Shor t time ago that Kautilya quoted th esecond hal f of an Arya metre from Bharadvaja,
viz . Indrasya Ii i se p ivmamati yo ba liyaso
n amati . Now in th e Mahabharata,both in th e
Uddyoga and th e Santi - Parvan , we find an
Anush tub h which i s an obvious rendering of
this half of th e Arya verse of Bharadvaja, viz
E tay=0p amaya e a smiwameie ba liyase
{mirage sat p i'
aajiamaz‘e n amate yo [Malay/at e
1
W e can easi ly infer that th e M ahabharatamust contain many such metrical adaptations
of verses from works on Arth as‘
astra anterior
to Kautilyaz.
1 Uddyoga -R ,Sri n ti-P.
,
Th e sam e is th e case w i th th e Man usm riti, some s
'
lokas fromwh i ch are reproduced in th e Mahabharata verbatim an d som e free lyren dered in verse . Th is does n ot therefore warrant th e conclusi onas h as been drawn by som e scholars that that part of th e epi c wh ichagrees m ost cl ose l y i n its c itat ions wi th th e code of Mann is laterthan that port ion wh ich does n ot coinc ide . n my op i n ion , it ratherpoints to th e i nfer ence that th e por tion that ( U c ides mav b e as O ld
as that wh ich does not .
1 5
1 14 LECTURE III .
(6) H indu concep tions of M onarchy .
So much for th e l iterature bearing upon
Arth as'
astra . I will now turn to some subjects
connected with Administration which have a
greater and general interest for u s all . Let us
see fi rst what were th e various forms of govern
ment prevalent at this time . Th e principal of
these, of course , were m onarchy and Gana or
Sang /za Governmen t . Th e former was a rule
by one person , and th e latter by many . Th e
royal dynasties of th e M agadha, Kos’
ala,Avanti
and Vatsa countries, which I described in my
last lecture, represen t th e monarchical form of
governmen t . In that lec ture I drew your
atten t ion also to two t rib es— th e L ich ch h av is
and th e Mal las,which were brough t under
subjection by Ajatas'
atru . Th ey are in Buddhist
l iterature described as Ganas or Sanglias. In
th is lecture I Shall con fine mysel f to th e first
form of governme nt only,viz . Monarchy
,and
shall treat of th e other in my next. In regard
to Monarchy many interesting details are
supplied by Hindu works on admin istration ,but h ere I shal l take up only those which
appear to b e important to m e .
Now,wh y is a king required ? Where was
th e necessity of a king at th e helm of S tate
aff air s ? L et us see what reply is given to this
question by th e H indu science of polity .
Chapter 67 of th e San ti -Parvan contains
1 16 LECTURE III.
fishes do in water, and refers to what is popularly known as th e Matsya - nyag/a . Th is
'
seems
to have been a very favourite maxim with th e
Hindu writers on th e political science and is
constantly repeated when they have to explain
th e necessity of placing a king at th e head of
government . Thus th e M anu - smriti gives th e
following verse
Yadi na pranayed z raj a danclan'
i
dandyesizv a iandrita/z
j a le matsyan z z iv z ali ini syan
dnrbalan . balavattarah .
Chapter V II . v . 20 .
TRANSLAT I ON
I f th e king did not unwearisomely exercise
th e c hastising rod on those deserving to b e‘
chastised , th e stronger would kill th e weaker
like fish in water . ”
Kautilya also gives th e same i l lustration not
once but twice in h is A rth as'
astra . Thus on p . 9 h e
says Aprani io Iii Jf atsya- nyayani z adblzavayati
ba liyan z aba lan’
i Iii grasate ( landad/zar-abliave .
Because, i f th e chastising rod is not ex ercISed,
it brings about th e realisation of th e proverb
of th e greater fish swal l owin g th e smaller . In
th e absence of th e wie lder of th e chastising red,
th e strong devours th e weak .
”Here th e
employmen t of th e word danrla and th e phrase
Malaya- izyaya and,above all, th e use of th e
ADMINI STRAT IVE HISTORY . 1 1 7
word ap ranita ,are all but conclusive in show
ing that when Kautilya wrote that passage,h e h ad in mind th e verse quoted above which
must therefore b e supposed to have been
incorporated in to th e Manu -smriti from some
Older text of th e Arth as‘
astra . Matsya- nyag/a
is again alluded to by Kautilya on p . 2 2 , but as
I am citing th e whole passage further on and
very sh ortlv , I refrain from doing so h ere and
content myself wi th saying that Kautilya
twice speaks of th e Matsya- nyaya when h e h as
to describe th e anarchy that prevails in
default of a king . Curiously enough this
M atsya- nyaya h as been alluded to even in th e
Ramayana when th e condition is described of an
araj aka j anapada,a c ountry without a
king . Thus we have th e verse
N z araj ake j anap ade sea/rain bliavati
kasyacnit
matsya iva j ana nityan'
i bh alrsliayan ti
p avasp aram .
Ayodhya- kanda, Chap . 6 7 . V . 3 1 .
TRANSLAT ION .
In a country where there is no king,nobody
possesses anything which is h is own . Like
th e fish th e people are always devouring one
another .
O ther reasons have been set forth in th e
Ayodhya-kanda of th e Ramayana from wh ere
1 1 8 LECTURE III .
th e above verse h as been extracted,pointin g
to th e paramount necessi ty of appoin ting a king .
And it is very strange tha t most of them are
precisely th e same as those adduced in Chap . 68
of th e Santi Parvan , showing that either on e
h as borrowed from th e other or,what is more
probable,both of them drew upon some previous
source . I fear it will b e exceedingly irksome
to you if I quote all these passages from both
th e works, and insti tute a comparison be tween
them . Besides, such a thing is not at all necessary
to my main purpose, wh ich is simply to impress
upon your mind th e fact that th e most favourite
illustrat ion given to describe th e state of a
country without a ruler is that of th e fi sh
preying upon on e another . This idea seems to
have been so thoroughly assimilated by th e
Hindus that we find it repeated everywhere .
Even th e Khal impur copperplate charter of
Dh armapala of th e Pala dynasty , th e contents of
which most of you here in B engal must b e
acquainted with , refers to th e M'
atsya- n iyaya
while speaking of Dh armapala’
s father , Gopala .
Thus we have
M atsya-nyayam z apoliitan
'
i p rakritibh ir
L akslimiyali kavan’
i granitali
Si t- Gopala iii ks/iiliéa-sirasani cliadanzanis
tat-sa fak‘
1 EL ,IV . 248 a 25 1 .
1 20 LECTURE III .
repeated but at greater length in chapter 67 of
th e Santi -Parvan .
1 I need not tel l you that
in this as in other chapters on R aj adfiarma
B h ish ma is issuing instructions to Yudh ish th ira .
And in Chap ter 6 7 Bh ish m a says that formerly
m en,being without a king
,m etwi th destruction
,
devouring on e another l ike fi sh in water . They
then assembled together , prepared a code of
laws and proceeded to Brahma,saying
“With
out a king , 0 div ine lord , we are going to des
truction . Appoint some one as our king ! All
of us shall worship him and h e shal l protect us l”
Thus solicited,Brahma asked Man n
,but Manu
would not assent to th e prO posal .“I fear
,said
h e,
“all S inful acts . To govern a kingdom is
exceedingly difficult, especial ly among men wh o
are always false and deceitful in their b e
haviour . ” Th e inhab itants of th e Earth then
said to him “Don ’ t fear Th e sins that m en
commi t will t ouch those only that commit them .
For th e increase of thy treasury, we wil l give thee
a fiftieth part of our animals and precious m etals
and a tenth part of our grain s.
”2 Thus addressed ,M ann agreed
,and h e made h is round through
th e world,checking wickedness everywhere and
setting all m en to their respective duties .
1 I t is worthy of note that th is story occurs i n all th e recensionsof th e Mahabharata . I t must
,therefore, b e of a very early orig in .
These di ff er from t h e dues wh ich m en prom ised to pay to Man n
accord ing to th e version of Kautilya . Th is shows that th e Sant iParvan coul d not have borrou ed th e trad i t ion from Kautilj a .
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY . 121
A similar conception of th e origin of
monarchy is traceable in Buddhist li teraturealso . Th e Aggafifia
- suttan ta of th e DIgh a-Nikaya’
of th e S outhern Buddhist-s describes at great
length th e evolution of man and society and
tell s us how mankind was righteous to begin
with , h ow gradually and in,
diverse ways
sin fuless crept into human society,
and h ow
theft,lying
,reviling and assau l ting became
rife . Thereupon men assembled together,and
after taking counsel,selected th e most handsome
gracious and powerful individual from amongst
them,addressing him thus Come here
, 0
being I Do punish,revile and exile those wh o
wel l deserve to b e punished , reviled and exiled.
W e will give you a portion of our rice .
”He
undertook th e performance of this duty and
received three diff erent appel lations in conse
quence . Because h e was selected by all men
( makc'
zj ana-sammata h e was called Maha
sammata . Because h e was th e lord of all fields
(kh ettc'
mam p atiti) , h e was cal led Kshatriya .
And because h e delighted others through righ te
ousness (dhammena pare rafij etitijz h e was called
Rajan . Practically th e same story is repeated in
1 III. 92 and fi . Th is may also b e compared to th e beg i nn ing of
th e Ulfika -Jataka (Jat . II .2 Th is ag rees with th e etym ology of th e word g iven in th e Samara,
16
122 LECTURE III .
th e Mahavastu‘,a canonical work of th e North
Buddhists, and this conception of kingship
seems to have so deeply permeat ed th e
Buddhist community that th e story of M aha
sammata is narrated also in th e post - can onical
literature and of such wide ly separated countries
as Ceylon , Burma and Tibet . 2
From th e above accounts i t wi l l b e seen
that sovereignty originated in a social contract .
Hum an bein gs, we learn , were fighting with
on e another , by each person taking for himself
all that h e could . Th e state of nature was there
fore a state of war, which came to an end
only when men agreed to give thei r l iberty into
th e hands of a sovereign . I need not tel l you
that this view of th e origin of society bears a
remarkably close correspondence with that
propounded by Hobbes. But Hobbes expounded
this notion of Agreement by saying that
absolute power was thereby irrevocably trans
ferred to th e ruler . Such was not, however, th e
case with th e S ocial Contract theory advocated
by th e H indu Arth as'
astra . According to th e
latter th e king was stil l th e servant of th e
people . Th e sixth part of th e grains and th e
tenth part of th e merchandise th at was his due
( Senart’
s Edi ti on ) , I , 347 -8.
4 Spence Hardy ’s Nan ita l of Buddh ism,128 ; Burm ese Damafi iat
R i chardson ’s Ed . ) 7 Rock h ill’
s L if e of th e Buddh a, 1 -9 .
1 241 LECTURE III .
th e k ing shal l return it to th e owner , or ( if th es tolen property is not recovered) h e shal l pay
(its value) out of h is treasury .
” I t will thus b e
seen that whatever th e king received by wayof taxation prescribed by scriptureswas considered
as h is wage for th e serv i ce rendered by h im to
th e people and that h e was compel led to make
good from h is pocket any loss that h is subj ects
suff ered from their stolen property not being
recovered . Th e king ’s power can thus hardly
b e supposed to b e absolute . And it is this
feature that distinguishes th e H indu theory of
Social Contract from that propounded by Hobbes,
and marks its superiority over th e latter . Th e
king , according to th e H indu notion , thus never
wielded any unqual ified power, but was looked
upon as merely a public servant though of th e
highest order .
So much in regard to th e theory of th e
Social Covenant so far as i t was known to th e
early authors of th e Arth as'
astra. Th e other
theory that we now consider is that which
ascribes divine origin to kingship . This theory
h as been set forth in Chapter 59 of th e
Santi -Parvan . Y udh ish th ira begins by asking
Bh ishma a most sensible question .
“Whence
arose th e word raj an ,
” interrogates Yudh ish th ira“which is used on ear th ? Possessed of hands,arms and neck l ike others
,having an n u
derstanding and senses l ike those of others,
ADMINISTRAT IVE HISTORY . 1 25
subject like others to th e same kinds of j oy
and grief, in fact, similar to others in respect
of all th e at tributes of humanity, for what
reason does on e m an,viz . th e king
,govern
th e rest of th e world ? Why do all m en seek
to obtain h is favour ? This was th e question
asked by Yudh isth ira . To this Bh ish ma gives
th e following reply . In th e Krita age there
was no sovereignty, no king . A ll m en used to
protect on e another righteously . Soon after
they were assailed by mafia or infatuation .
And in its train followed loblza,greed , wrath
and raga or unrestrained sexual indulgence .
Confusion thus set in ,and th e Vedas (B rahman )
and righ teousness (Dh arma) were lost . Th e
gods were overcome with fear , and repai red to
th e god Brahma.
“O Lord of th e three Worlds,
”
said they,“we are about to descend to th e level
of human beings M en used to pour upwards
while we used to pour downwards. In conse
quen ce, however, of th e cessation of all pious
rites among m en, great distress will b e our lot .
”
Thus addressed th e god composed th e treatise
consisting of a hundred thousand chapters and
treating of dh arma,
artha,kama and moksha
to which I have already referred . Th e gods
then approached Vishnu , th e lord of creation
(p raj ap ati) , an d said unto him— ‘Indicate, 0 god,
that on e among m ortals who deserves to have
superiority over th e rest . ’ Th e god Narayana
1 26 LECTURE III .
created , by a fiat of h is wi l l,a son born of h is
tej as or lustre, named Virajas. I t was, however,th e seven th descendan t from Vishnu , wh o was
crowned king and ruled accordi ng t o th e
danda - azti composed by th e god Brahma. H is
name was Prith u Vainya, and his coronation
was celebrated not only by Brahmans and
Rishis bu t also deities with Indra,Regents of
th e world , and, above all,V i shnu himself . Th e
eternal V ishnu confirmed Prith u ’
s power,
telling h im“No one , 0 King , shal l transcend
thee .
”Th e divin e Vishnu entered th e personality
of that monarch , and for th is reason ,th e entire
universe ofi ered divine worship to Prith u .
S ince that time there h as been no difference
between a deva and a aaradeva between a god
and a human god,al e . between a god and a king .
And we are further told that a person,upon th e
exhaustion of h is meri t, comes down from
heaven to ear th and takes birth as a king
conversant with Daada -a‘
iti and is real ly portion
of Vishnu on earth . H e is thus establ ished by
th e gods, and no on e can , therefore, transcend
h im . I t is for this reason that th e multi tude .
obey h is words of command , though h e belongs
to th e same world and is possessed of sim ilar
limbs.
I t wi l l b e seen that accordi n g to this theory
th e pre-social condition was one of peace and
freedom . When mo/za or infatuation took
128 LECTURE III .
same Brahmana1 mention s Prajapati as an
ep ith e t of th e god Savi t r i who and Vishnu
represent on e and th e same Sun de ity . This
View, therefore, leads us to suppose that th e
king was original ly regarded as a descendant of
th e sun ; and th is explains,I th ink
,th e etymo
logical mean ing of th e word Ch akravartin used in
th e case of un iversal monarchs. Th e Brahmani
cal, Buddhist an d Jaina works are u nanimous
in saying that preceded by th e miraculous chalcra
a supreme ruler sets out on h is expedition of
conquest and subjects all pet ty princes.
2 What
can this clzalcra b e ? This question h as very
much exerci sed scholars and antiquarians. But
I cannot help th inking that this Giza/era must b e
th e chakm of V ishnu , wh o accord ing to old
H indu notion,abides in him in part and whose
discus alone can legitimately b e supposed as
affording safe ty to him against all h is enemies.
This no doubt reminds us of th e Pharaohs of
of Egypt wh o were S tyled Si-ré or sons of th e
Sun -
god and who in sculptures are represented
as being protected by th e rays emanating from
th e orb of th e sun . I t is quite possible that in
th e Brahmana period th e ch akra Of Vishnu which
granted protection and safety to th e kings, was
real ly th e orb of th e sun darting its rays to them .
1 x 11 .
2 See Encyclopaedia of Religion and Eth ics under th e wordCh akravartin .
ADM IN ISTRAT IVE HISTORY . 1 29
Th e question is here sure to b e asked Werethere any checks to th e arbitrariness of a king ?Those wh o held th e Social Contract theory would
b e th e last persons to condone th e misuse of
authority by a k ing . Even su ch a retired and
self- contained Buddhist monk as Aryadeva can
scarcely keep h is mind unper turbed when h e
sees th e haughtiness of a ruler caused by h is
ruling power and cannot help blurting ou t
Gama - dasasya te darp ali Sh ari- bhagmia bhritasya
kalz 1 “What superciliousness is thine, (0
who art a (mere) servant of th e body
politic and who receivest th e sixth part (of th e
produce) as th ine wages ?” Even those wh o
held th e theory of th e divine origin of kingship
could not have defended or tolerated th e m is
rule and Oppression of any king . A theory
similar to this, is th e theory of th e Divine R ight
of Kings which was started and developed in
Europe by th e Christian Apostles and Fathers .
W e know to what absurd and pernicious extent
it was carried in Europe . O n e of th e Fathers,
Irenoeus e .g . ,holds that th e ruler is not only th e
minister of God’
s remedy for sin but th e instru
m ent of h is punishment2 Much th e same View
was propounded by Fathers S t . Amb rosiaster and
St. Augustine . I t was therefore no wonder at
all if in hi s speech to Parl iament in 1 6 59
1 V . 77 .
2 A H istm y of Medizeval Pol i tica l Th eory m th e W est, Vol . I . byA .J
.Carly le , p . 148 and ff .
1 7
LECTURE II I .
James I I of England declared: Kings are
justly cal led gods ; for they exercise a manner of
resemblance of Divine power on ear th . For if
vou wi l l consider th e at tributes of God , you shall
see h ow they agree in th e person of a king . God
hath power to create or destroy,make or unmake
at h is pleasure , to give l ife or send death,to
j udge all and to be accountable to none . And
th e l ike power have kings. They make and
unmake their subjects ; they have power O F
raising up and casting down ; of l ife and death
j udges over all thei r subjects an d in all cases,
yet accountable to none b ut God . They havepower to exal t low things an d abase high things
and to make of their subjects l ike men at chess.
”
Surely enormity cannot far ther go . Fortunately
for India though th e divine origin of kings was
maintained by some people,i t was never pushed
to this absurd extreme or,for th e matter of that
,
to any absurd extent . O n th e contrary,even
such a late work as th e Sak ra -ai li‘savs Th e
king, who is virtuous, is a part of th e gods H e
who is otherwise is a part of th e demons. I t
wil l b e seen therefore that a king is a nar -deva
only so long as h e is virtuous and that h e ceases
to b e so th e moment h e goes to th e bad . Th e
theory of th e divine origin of kings was thus
maintained and kept with in so ber bounds. Th e
Arthasastrakaras of India,therefore , nowhere
I I . 70 .
1 82 LECTURE III .
Side . And in support of h is position Kautilya.
cites many verses from prev ious authors, on e of
which distinctly tel ls u s that “when a people
are impoverish ed , they become greedy ; when
they are greedy , they become disaffected ; when
they are disafi ected, they voluntarily go to th e
Side of th e en emy or destroy their own master . ” l
W e cannot, therefore ,help infer ring that in India
in th e old period at any rate if th e subjects were
maltreated by a king,they took reven ge by j oin
ing th e enemy’
s side if h e ever invaded , otherwise
by actually put ting their king to death . Surely
histori cal instances of wicked and oppressive
rulers b eing deser ted or even killed by their
Subjects must have remained within th e l iving
mem ory of Kautilya and h is predecessors,otherwise these verses would not have been
composed or quoted . And we hear an echo
of i t even from th e Mahabharata W here in
at least one place we are told that “th e sub
jects should arm themselves for slaying that
k in g wh o does n ot protect them,who simply
plunders their wh o is regarded
as th e most sinful of kings. That king who
tells h is people that h e is the i r protector butwh o does not or is unable to protect them ,
should b e slain by h is combined subjec ts l ikea dog that is eff ected by th e rabies and h as
1 Kautili ya , p . 275 ; a lso verse beg i nn ing w i th ta tas=sa dush la
prakr itil} on p , 257 .
ADM INISTRAT I VE H ISroar . 1 3 3
become mad Evidently, therefore , there
must have been actual in stan ces of pernicious
and sinful rulers being put to death by their
subjects. And all these instances must cer tain ly
have acted as a powerful deterrent to a king
from givin g a loose rein to h is passions.
B ut it may b e argued that th e above cousi
derations at best Sh ow that th e misrule of an
autocrat when i t wen t u p to an excess was put
down by th e people of ancient India, but that
they do not necessarily Show that th e adm in is
tration of th e country was so framed that it
did not allow a king to become despotic and
uncontrolled . Can we say that th e king’
s power
was not arbitrary b ut was restrained by organi
sations of an opposite character ? Now,i t is
true that in th e period we have selected th e
regal power h ad considerably augmen ted as com
pared to that of th e previous periods,but I
con fess that i t could not have become arbitrary .
India was then a home of self -governing com
mun ities as i t continues to be to this day though
now to a very limited extent . India was then
studded with vi llage , town and provincial
corporations which exercised a kind of auto
nomy in their own spheres and managed their
affairs independently or semi - independently of
1 An uéasan a -P.
,6 1 3 2 - 3 ; a lso Sand -R
, wh ich attribu tes a
sim i lar doctrine to th e sage Vann adeva .
13 1 LE CTURE III .
th e king .
1 A similar organisation of this period
was th e trade and craft guilds which then
flourished in numbers and were so powerful as
to keep th e ir own arm ies and sometimes even
lend them to th e king . Th e king was thus in
those days surrounded by these tiny but
numerous self- governing bodies,with their
particularistic j urisdict ions which circumscribed
h is power . Certainly h e could n ot aff ord to
ignore their existence and is therefore exhorted
by all H indu epics and law- givers to respect
their codes of laws and regulations and consult
them . Th e administration of our period must,therefore
,have been a system of mutual checks
,
and could not h ave left much scope for th e
development of th e king’
s arbitrariness. Nay ,
I go a step further and say that th e kings of
this period themselves knew that there were
great l imitations to their power . A typical
instance is furnished by th e Telapatta-Jataka .
Here we are introduced to a king of Tak sh as'
ila,
who is enamoured of a Yak sh in i or Ogress that
h as transformed herself i nto th e most beautiful
woman . Fully conscious that sh e h ad obtained
a perfect mastery over th e king ’s mind,sh e asks
h im to give h er authority over h is whole kingdom
But wh at reply does th e king give though h e was
1 I m ay have to say someth ing of these i nst i tut ions nex t year,but
even i n th is l ec ture I have shown a l i ttle farther on h ow th e townand p rovi nc ial comm un ities h ad to b e consul ted by a ki ng even inregard to h is successi on .
1 36 LECTURE II I .
h is mouth . He exclaimed “S ir , to -day th e
plant only suggests a deadly poison ; but if left
to grow,it will prove th e death of many persons
and forthwi th h e plucked up and crushed th e
tiny growth . Thereupon th e ascetic said“Prince
,dreadin g what th e poison ous seedling
might grow to, you have torn it up and rent i t
asunder . Even as you acted to th e tree, so th e
people of this kingdom ,dreading what a prince
so fierce and passionate, m ay become when king ,will not place you on th e throne bu t uproot you
l ike this Nimb plant and drive you forth to
exile . It is quite clear that th e people not only
exercised control over th e kin g ’s power but also
could prevent h is son from succeedin g to h is
th rone if necessary . An instance of this kind h as
been mentioned in th e Uddyoga- Parvan of th e
Mahabharata also . A king called Pratipa,having
becom e ex ceedingly aged , made preparat ions
for crowning h is eldest and fav ouri te son Devapi.
Th e latter was no doub t possessed of many
virtues,but h ad con tracted a skin - disease
, and
was,therefore, unfit in th e popular opin ion to
hold th e reins of government . Th e subj ects
th e Brahmans and th e Town (paara) and Coun
try ( ianap ada ) people— therefore objected . Th e
king burst into tears b ut h ad to yield to th e
popular voice .
‘In th e Ramayana also we fi nd
1 48 2 1 -7 . Sagara also is sa i d to have exi led h is e l dest SO D
Asamafi j as at th e des i re of th e people because h e u sed to drown the i rch i l dren in th e r iver Sarayfi 579 ) Kh an in e tra is a lso sa i dto have been d eposed by h is subj ects, an d h is son i nstal led i n h is place(Aszamedh a— P 4 8
ADMIN ISTRAT IVE HISTORY . 1 37
that Das‘arath a consecrated h is son Rama as
crown -
prince only after respectfully securing
th e consent of th e Brahmans, generals (bala
makkya) and th e Town (p aura ) and Country
janap arla) people‘.
I have told you before (p . 123 ) that both th e
Artha— and th e Dharma- S‘
astra ordain that a
king shal l make good out of h is own treasury
any proper ty of h is subj ect that h as been robbed
by thieves but canno t b e recovered . I t is worthy
of note that there is thus a perfect agreement
on th is point between th e Artha-sastra and th e
Dharma- s'
astra . And certainly they both would
not have laid down th e law in this manner i f
such h ad not been th e practice . And this cer
tain ly would not have been th e practice i f th e
popular voice h ad not been strong enough to
enforce i t . So even for such a trifi in g matter
as th e stolen property of a private individual
th e king was control led by th e peOple ! Th e
royal power could not possibly have been ab
solute ,at any rate, in th e period we have selected .
There was yet another check to th e arbi
trarin ess of a king which we have to notice
here . There was placed before him nOt only
th e selfish point of view which advised him not
to run up to an extreme and cause disaff ec tion
among h is people but also a higher and spiri tual
II . 2 , 1 5 an d if . Yayati sim i larly crowned h is youngest son , k ingonly after sat isfy ing t h e people wh o strong l y protested because theyat first th ought that th e e l dest prin ce was bei ng unnecessari ly set aside .
1 8
138 LECTURE III .
point of View which , I think , was no less effica
cions.In Chapter 75 of th e Santi -Parvan we
are told that a k ing attains a fourth part of th e
spiritual merit or sin that h is subj ects commit .
Th e same idea we find better explained in th e
Uddyoga-Parvan . Here however only one-sixth
par t of th e vir tue or sin of th e subjects is said
to accrue to th e king . And th e question is
star ted whether any particular A gemakes a king
what h e is or whether i t is th e kin g wh o makes
th e Age what i t is. Th e question is answered
by saying raj a kalasya Icaraaam,i .e. i t is really
th e king who makes th e Age what i t is . If h e
is virtuous and enforces th e Danda-n it i or th e
sc ience of government in its entirety and in th e
proper spirit , h e wil l inaugurate th e Krita
Age . But if h e is all sinful , th e Kal i Age must
set in . I t is thus th e king wh o is held respon sible
for good or bad government and for making
h is people v irtuous or Otherwise . And a belief
is expressed that one- fourth or on e -sixth part
of th e merit or sin of h is subjects must per force
go to h im . In these days when scepticismisrampan t and no certitude is fel t about th e
future world,such an ex pression of th e reward
and pun ishmen t to a king is apt to b e looked
upon as devoid of any force cr meanin g . But
in ancien t times when th e spiri tual was fel t to
Uddyoga -R , 13 1 , 1 2 ff. th is curi ous doctrine h as been se t
forth also i n San ta-R , 69 . 79 ff . an d i n Anuédsan a -P,
36 .
LECTURE— IV .
ADMINISTRAT IVE H I STORY ( Oon tol) .
Samg lia Form of Politica l Governmen t.
In my last lecture I referred to th e monar
chical form of Government and th e various
notions prevalent in regard to th e origin and
nature Of kingship . I then told you that there
was also another form of Government called
Samgha or Gana . L et us now see what its
characteristic features were . Before, however
I discuss this question,i t is necessary to state
that i t was Prof . Rhys Davids who first pointed
out that th is form of Government was fl ouri
shing S ide by side wi th monarchy in North India
about th e t ime of th e r ise of Buddhism . I t was
afterwards Mr . K . P . Jayaswal, who perceived
th e importance of this subj ect and brought i t
to th e more prom inent notice of th e students
of ancient Indian history . In th e article h eh as published 1 h e h as collected much information
bearing upon it, from which i t is possible to
draw a number of interesting conclusions. I t isa pity that no scholar h as so far come forward
to further advance our knowledge of th e question . This task , therefore, I set to myself in
Modern Rev iew,19 13
,pp . 585 -41 and 664-68 .
ADMINI STRAT IVE.
HISTORY . 141
th e p resent lecture , which , i t wil l b e seen ,presents th e subj ec t in a somewhat different
l igh t .
Most of you wi l l perhaps wonder what th e
word Samgha and Gana could mean and h ow
in particular they could denote any non -monar
chical form of Government,or Government of
th e many as I have told you before . Th e words
mean a corporate collection,an aggregation of
ind iv iduals for a definite purpose . Th e terms
were cer tain ly known to Panini, and were thus
curren t about th e middle of th e 7 th century
B . C . to which period h e h as to b e assigned . They
occur in no less than three of h is Sutras. O ne of
these is Samgli -odg/iaa gana-
p raéamsag/olzl. This
Satra is very important,but‘ u nfortunately its
proper meaning h as not been perceived . Th e
word samg li a comes from th e root sam+ ban ,
“to
collect,to gather . ’ Th e regular noun form from
it is sanigliata which means merely ‘a collection
3
or assemblage .
’ But there is another noun derived
from it,though it is irregularly formed
,viz .
samglia . Pan in i is, therefore, compelled to make
a special Satra to acknowledge its existence in
III . 3 . 86 ; th e second Sfi tra is III . 3 . 42 , wh i ch teaches th e
format i on of th e word n ikaya i n th e sense of‘a Samgha but wi th ou t
any concept i on of its g radat i on .
’Th e th i rd is V . 2 . 52 . From th e t ime
of B uddha onwards we fi nd th e word Gana used to denote re l ig iousand pol i t i ca l bod ies . In th e form e r case i t was emp l oyed prom iscuousl yw i th Safii gh a . But in th e pol i t ica l sense
,Gana denoted only on e k ind
of Sarh gh a , v iz . a n ol igarchy , as we shal l see subsequent ly .
142 LECTURE IV .
th e spoken language and to tell us that i t does
not signify a mere collection as th e other word ,viz . stung/lam,
does,but
, a gana ,i n . a special kind
of collection,or a corporate col lection as I h av e
j ust said . I t will thus b e seen that th e tech n i
cal senses of these words were known to Panini .
Samgha or Gana is, therefore, not a promis
cuous conglomeration , but a combination of
individuals for a definite Obj ect , in other words,a corporate body . I t will b e seen that there can
b e as many kinds of Samgh as as there are differ
en t purposes with which they can b e constitu
ted. And , as a mat ter of fact,i t was so in ancient
India,and especially in th e period with which
we are dealing . If we have a fraternity com
posed of persons devoted to a particular set of
re ligious bel iefs, we have a rel igious Samgha,
th e most typical example of which is th e
Buddhist Sar’
ngh a . I t is a mistake to supposethat Buddha was th e first religious founder to
appropriate th e term Samgha to th e brotherhood
originated by h im . Th e Pali Canon itself men
tions no less than seven religious teachers l ikeBuddha wh o were h is contemporaries
,viz .
Parana-Kassapa, Mak k h ali-Gosala,and so forth .
These have all been cal led SCl fi Zg /l’lno
,heads of
Samgh as, Ganino, heads of Gen es and Ga in—10 1m
riya, teachers of Ganas.
l I t wil l thus b e perceived that th e brotherhood founded by Buddha was
1 E .g . th e Mahd-
paruu b bdna -sutta, 58.
1 44 LECTURE Iv .
This is not th e place to give an account of
these guilds or Sren is as they were technical ly
cal led . These I hope to describe in on e of my
lectures some year . What I here wan t to say
is that th e Srenis were real ly Samgh as and have
been so cal led by Kautilya in h is Artha- sastra .
1
Kautilya distinguishe s between three kinds of
Samgh as, on e of which is cart-op aj ivin ,i .e .
dependent upon industry , and is also styled
Sren in by him .
A th ird class of Samgha is agud/za-j ivin as
Panini calls i t , or Sasir -op aj ivin as Kautilya
styles i t, both expressions meaning ‘(a cor
poration ) subsisting on arms.
’ This Samgha
as a rule , denoted tribal bands of mercenaries,and constituted on e kind of th e king ’s army ?
Panin i m entions several of them,some si tuated
in Vali ik a and some i n Trigarta ,both parts
of th e Panjab . But perhaps th e most interest
ing,referred to by him are th e Yaudh eyas,
l’
ars’
us,Asuras andRakshases. O f th e Y audh eyas
1 Th e expressi on actual ly used he re is Kainbh Oj a -Surdsh tra -ksh a
triya -w eng-adayo rdrta-sastr-op afl vm a73. (p . wh ich I render as
fol lows“Kamb h oja and Surash tra sren is (g ui l ds) , Kshatriya
arenas ( fi g h ting corporat ion s) and so fo rth are (Samgh as) wh ich sub
sist on i ndustry and arm s.
’
E lsewhere too Kautilya dist i ngu ish es sreni
(gui l d ) from an ayudh l ya (fight ing ) body ( p .
9 W hen 1 say tha t these Sanhgh as were tribal bands of m ercenaries,I do n ot m ean that any part icular band of them m ust necessari lyexhaust th e wh ole tri be . Th is certa i nly was not th e case with th e
Yaudh eyas as we sha l l see later on . Though in Kautilya’
s t im e
th e figh t ing Sauhgh as ere Kshatriyas, i n Panin i s t im e som e of themwere also Brahmans as is n o doub t impl ied from h is Sfi tra
,V . 3 , 1 14 .
ADMIN ISTRAT IVE H I STORY . 1 45
I shal l speak later on . Parsfus are certainly th e
Persis, or old Persians, and Asuras th e Assy
rians.
‘Rakshases must be th e same asRakshasas,an aboriginal race referred to in early Sanskrit
works,and in particular th e Ramayana . This
indicates that some of th e mercenary bands at
any rate were foreigners. What th e exact cons
titution of this Samgha was is far from clear .
But as these fighting bands have all been called
Samgh a, / th ere must have been some code of
rules accord i ng to which they were formed
and continued their existence . At any rate,a Yodhaj iva or mercenary soldier
,who was a
gc’
wnani,is mentioned in th e Samyutta-Nikaya
2
as discoursing with Buddha . As th e word
gamani, i .e . graman i shows, h e must have been
th e head of a fighting Samgha . From h is talkw ith Buddha i t seems that there were many
old Acharyas among them wh o themselves
were sold iers and who held out to those dying
on th e bat tle -field th e hope of becoming one
with Sarafij ita gods.
There are two or three other classes of
Samgh as which have been referred to in
1 That m ost of th e al l usi ons to th e Asuras i n th e Satapath a
Brahm ana refer to a fore ign tribe h as been clearly establ ished byMr . Jayaswal i n a note wh ic h h e contributed to th e ZDMG . imm ediately before th e war and th e rough copy of wh i ch h e was ki nd enoughto sh ow m e . This embol dens m e in i dent i fy ing th e Asuras w i t h th eAssyrians and consequently th e Paréus with th e Persis .
IV. 308-9 .
1 9
1 46 LECTURE IV .
th e Buddhist and B rahmanical l iterature,but
th ere is no need of men tioning them here, as th einstances I have already given are enough
to Show what a Samgha or Gana really
signifies. A Samgha is a corporate body of
individuals formed for a defini te purpose . Let
us now turn to th e political Samgha,which
,
as I have al ready told you ,denotes th e rule
of th e many, and which again was O f three or
four diff erent kinds. I t is real ly diffi cult to
translate this Samgha by any single English
word,but th e term ‘republic ’
as understood
in O ld Greek political philosophy , makes th e
nearest approach to i t . What is to b e remem
bered is that th is Samgha possessed not Sovereign
O n e but Sovereign Number . At this stage
i t is necessary to inform you that ordinarily th e
words sanigka and gana are used synonymously ,but that th e term gana is also used in a specific
sense, viz . to denote a particular kind of political
Samgha . But I may b e asked to state here,at th e outset, what authority at all I have for
saying that there were political Samgh as. Now,
th e A yaramga -Satta,
‘a wel l - known Jaina
Canonical work , lays down certain rules i n
regard to th e tours of th e Jaina monks and
nuns and tells us in one place what countries
they are not to visi t . Th e countries that are
so tabooed are a -vaya (i .e. where there is no
II. 3 . 1 . g 10 .
1 48 LECTURE IV .
that th e affix is to b e applied to a word
Panchala which denotes both a Kshatriya tribe
and th e country inhabited by them . But
Katyayana says th at this Kshatriya tribe must
be eka - raj a ,i .e . possessed of Ind ividual Sover
eign in order to exclude a Kshatr iya tribe
which is a Samgha,i . e . a Kshatriya tribe which
h as Collegiate Sovereign . This exactly agrees
with what Kautilya tel ls us. I have j ust
told you that h e distinguishes between three
kinds of Samgh as, on e of which is varl - op aj ivin
or a craft guild and another Sastr-op aj ivin or
a mercenary tribal band . Th e th ird Samgha,
h e says,is raj a -subd-op aj ivin ,
i . e . an organisation
all th e members Of which bear th e title raj anl.
In my last lecture I informed you that th e
Lich ch h av is and th e M al laswere typical examples
of this Samgha . These tribes have been constant
ly mentioned in th e Buddhist Pal i Canon . And
th e M aj j h ima-Nikaya in on e place distinctly
cal ls them Samgha and Gana? W e were intro
duced here to a discussion between Buddha
and a Jaina monk cal led Sach ch aka . In th e
course of th e d iscussion th e former askedwhether Pasenadi, king of Kosala,
or A jatSatru ,
king of Magadh a,h ad power to banish , burn ,
A i th aidsti a, 3 76 .
I do not th i nk that th e words sarh gh a and gana are
here used exactly synonymously .!Samgha here is th e genus and Gana
a spec ies. Th e Lich ch h av is and Mal las were spec ifical ly Ganas.
ADMIN ISTRAT IVE HISTORY . 1 49
or kill a man i n h is dominions. A t th e timeof th is discussion
,some Lich ch h av is were
present . And by pointing to them Sach ch aka
answers Buddha, saying that if th e Samgh asand Ganas, l ike th e Lich ch h av is or th e Mallas
,
h ad this power in their own v ij ita or kingdom ,
certainly Pasenadi and Ajatasfatru did possess
it . This indicates that th e Lich ch h av is and th e
Mallas were Samgh as or Ganas and h ad their
own territory where their power was supreme .
I t is thus clear that Samgh a denotes ‘a rule
by numbers’ .
Th e best known form of political Samghais Gana . What I have said so far to prove
th e existence of th e political Samgha applies
real ly to Gana . This Gana,as Katyayana and
Kautilya give us to understand , was tribal
in character and was confined to th e Kshatriya
order . I t is a p ity that no account of its
internal constitution h as been given in th e
Arth as'
astras,where we might naturally expect
i t . Under such circumstances th e Buddhist
Pal i works and Chapter 1 07 of th e San tiparvan
of th e Mahabharata are our only source of
information . Very little do we know even from
this source,b ut we have to b e content even
with that l ittle . W e have seen that th e capital
of th e Lich ch h av is was Vesali. Th e preambles of
th e Jatakas1 or Buddha ’
s Birth - stories tel l us
1 11 . 1 ; IV . 148 .
1 50 LECTURE Iv .
in two places that there were 7 70 7 Lich ch h avi
kings staying in Vesali to administer th e affairs
of th e S tate . This agrees wi th th e statement
of Kautilya,quoted above, that th e members of
th e Samgha were all designated kings. Q uite in
keeping wi th this we find th e sons of these L ich
ch h av i kings called L ich ch h av i-kumaras or L ich
ch hav i princes. As kings they were also en titled
to coronation . W e hear of there having been a
special push karini or tank in Vesali, th e water of
which was used to sprinkle their heads while being
crowned . Th e tank was considered very sacred ,and was, therefore, covered wi th an iron net so
that not even a b ird could get through , and a
strong guard was set to prevent any on e taking
water from it 1 I t is not , however, clear
whether these Lich ch h av i kingswere crowned all
at one time , and, if so, on what occasions. As
every one of th e L ich ch h av i Samgha was a king ,th e probability is that on th e death of
auv one of them h is son wh o succeeded
to h is title and property was alone crowned
king .
Th e ac tual wording used in connection with
th e sacred tank which supplied water for corona
tion is Vesali- nagave Gana- raj ak n lanamabh iseka
manga la-
p olclc/zaran i Here th e phrase
Gana - rr’
g’
akn la is important . It shows that th e
Jar. Iv .
Ibi d,Iv , 148 . 11.
1 52 LECTURE Iv .
India . W e not unfrequently hear of Samgh a
muk h yas and Gana -m uk h yas. They are m en
tioned not only by Kautilya1 but also in th e
San tiparvan . I q uote three verses from th e
latter bearing on th e poin t :Tasman manayitavyas to
Gana-m uk h yah pradhan atah
loka-yatra samayatta
bh uyasi tesh u parth iva
Mantra-
guptih pradhan esh u
charas'
ch=am itra okarsh ana
na Ganah k ritsnas’
o mantram
s‘
rotum=arh an ti BharataGana-muk h yaisz tu samb h uya
karyamGana-hitam m ith ah
Chap . 1 07 , vs. 23 - 25 .
TR ANSLATION .
Hence they that are th e Chiefs of th e
Gana should b e especial ly honoured . Th e affairs
of th e kingdom , 0 King , depend to a great
exten t upon them .
“Th e safeguarding of th e (secret) S tate
counsels and espionage,O crusher of foes,
should remain with th e Chie fs only“I t is not advisable that any Gana, as a whole,
should know th e (secret) counsels, O Bharata .
“But th e Chiefs of a Gana, having assembled
in secret , should do what is for th e good of th e
Gana .
”
A 1 th aéfistra , 377 .
ADM INISTRATrVE HI STORY . 1 53
I t is clear from th e above passage that a
select f ew were appoi nted by a Gana from
amon g themselves . They constituted wh at may
be cal led a Cabinet,and were in ch arge of
th e Department of espionage and also of all
S tate affairs of a high ly important and
confidential character . Th is agrees with wh at
Brihaspati,th e author of a Smriti
,lays down .
Th e Verses from h is work are
Sarva- karye prav inas’
ch a kartavy'
as'
ch a
mah attamah II dvau trayah pancha Va karyahsamuh a-hita- Vadiln h I kartavyam vachanam
tesham grama- s'
ren i-Gan -adib h ih II .
1
What these verses tel l u s is that two,
three or fi ve m embers of a corporate body
should b e appointed as M ah attamas or Chiefs
and thei r counse ls should b e carried out by
a Gana, craft- guild or village communi ty .
I t wil l b e seen from what have cited that
th e real executive lay in th e hands of th e Gana
M uk h yas, wh o again were not on e but many ;in other words, power was not centred in one
single indiv idual . No single member of th e
Gana was thus by himsel f a ruler or Rajan in
th e proper sense of th e term . And this is th e
reason why Kautilya styles them q'
a - éabdin,
which means that they were Rajan s in name .
This rece ives suppor t from th e Lal ita - v istaraz
Viradaratnc'
ikai a , 179 .
3 Lefmann’
s Ed . , p . 2 1 .
1 54. LECTURE Iv .
which says about th e Lich ch h avis that ekailoaeva manyate akamraj c
‘
t shamwaj=eti, i f .
“every
one thinks ‘I am k ing, I am king,
’ when none
of them singly was.
I have told you before that th e preambles
of two Jatakas inform us that there were 7707
Lich ch h avi kings in Vesali, th e capital of their
dominions. O ne Jataka further informs us that
there were as many Uparajas or viceroys,Senapatis or generals and Bhandagarikas or
treasurers staying with th e kings at Vesali.
It appears that every on e of these Lich ch h av i
kings h ad with him h is own viceroy,general
and treasurer . Th e Atth ak atha an d Sumangala
vilasin i , which are commentaries on th e
Buddhist Pali Canon works, aff ord us some
interesting glimpses into th e manner in which
Law was administered by th e Lich ch h av is or
th e Vaj j is as they are also called .
l I t is true
that these commentaries were written about
th e fifth century A .D . , but as they are known
to have preserved many interest ing historical
details of th e period when Buddha l ived and
preached , their account of th e j udicial admins
tration of th e Vaj jian kingdom is certainly
worth considering . W h en a culprit was found,
we are told , h e was in th e first instance sent
to an officer cal led Vin is‘ch aya
-Mahamatra.
JRAS . , VII. 993 . n . 2 Kachchc'
zyan a’
a Pali Grammar by JamesD
'A lwis, 99 -100 .
1 56 LECTURE Iv
staying n ot in thei r petty S tates but in th e
capital town,Vesali, and along wi th th eir su
perior officers, viz . Upa1'
aja, Senapat i and
Bhandagarika, leav ing in their respective princi
palities the ir subordinate stafi,such as th e
V in is'
ch aya-Mahamatra,
Vyavah arika and so
forth . In what matters i ndividual ly in th e
several states and in what matters conj ointly
in th e whole kingdom th e L ich ch h av i kings
exercised auton omy is not clear . This,however
,
is certain that their Samgha was a federation
of th e heads of some of th e clan s constituting
th e tribe .
Th e m ost typical examples of th is pol itical
Samgha,as I have said , are th e L ich ch h av is or
Vaj j is and th e Mal las . In my second lecture
I have said that th e form er h eld Videh a and
parts of Kosala and h ad th ei r capital at Vesali
which h as been iden tified with Basarh in th e
M uzaffarpur Distric t of Bihar . Th e capital of
th e M al las was Kusinara or Kasia. Both these
tribes have been m en tion ed by Kantilya,but
h e specifies four oth ers wh ich were similarly
Jifij a -subd - OP/rfi ri Samgh as. These four are
Madrak as,K ukuras
,Kurus and l ’afichalas.
‘
Th e M adrak as occupied th e country between
th e Rav i and th e Chenal) in th e Panjab 2 What
province th e Kuk uras h ad occupied is not certain ,
A i th asasti a, 376 .
JRAS . , 1897 , 889 .
ADM INISTRATIVE H I S 'ICRY . 1 57
but most probably they were settled in North
Gujarat . 1 Th e capital of th e Kurus was Indra
prastha n ear Delh i , an d of th e Panchalas,
Kampilya identified wi th Kampil between
Budaon and Farrukhabad in U . Pf" In another
place in h is Arth as‘
astra, Kautilya speaks of th e
Vrish n i San’
ngh a also . W e have independent
evidence also to attest th e existence of th e
Vrish n i Sar'
ngh a . At least two coins are known,
th e legends of which ,as clearly read by Mr . A . V .
B ergny for th e first time , show that they belon ged
to th e Vrish n i Gana .
3 No doubt need,th erefore
,
b e enter tained as to th e Vrish n is bein g a Gana.
There certainly must have been many oth er
tribes which were Ganas. Some of these have
been noticed by foreign writers al ong with other
Samgh as.
'
1 h e foreign writers, whose statements
can b e of any u se to us for th e period we have
selected , must of course b e th e Greeks wh o
wrote accounts of A lexander ’s invasion of India .
L et us see whether they make“
any mention of
Samgh as, and if so, what remarks they offer in
regard to their constitution . O n e tribe in ! th e
Panjab , which was settled on th e l ower Akesin es
Kukura is tw i ce associated ”
with
Cave i nscrip t ion of VaSish th lputra Puh nn av i and another t im e i n th e
Junagadh rock in sm iption of B udradaman (EL , VIII . 44 an d As
Aparan ta is Konkan , Kukura sh ould correspond to Gujarat .2 Above, p 5 2 .
3 JRAS .,1900 , 416 and 420 4 .
1 58 LECTURE I v .
(Chenab ) , is designated Abastanoi by Arrian ,
Sam bastai by Diodorus, Sabarcae by Curtius
and Sabagrae by O r'
osius.
l They are identified
with th e Am bash th as of th e Mahabharata by
some2 and with th e Saub h reyas grouped along
with th e Yaudh eyas in th e Yaudh eya-gana of
Panin i by others.
3 In regard to this people
Curtius says that “they were a powerful Indian
tribe where th e form of governmen t was demo
cratic and not regal . Accordin g to Diodorus“they were a people infer ior to none in India
ei ther for numbers or for bravery and they dwel t
in cities in which th e democratic form of govern
men t prevailed . Arrian , again , mentions three
tribes,Kath an ians, O xydrak ai andMalloi, which
h e describes as independent republics.
4 And in
respect of th e Mal lei , in par ticu lar, Arrian tel ls
us that when they subm i tted to Alexander , they
informed h im that “they were attached more
than any others to freedom an d autonomy,and
that their freedom they h ad preserved intact
from th e time Dionysos came to India until
Alexander ’s invasion .
s O xydrakal are of course
to b e identified with Ksh audrak as and Malloi
wi th Malavas, which both have been mentioned
1 MC. Crindle’
s Ancient Ind ia:Its in vasion by Alewander the
Great, 155 , 2 52 and 292 .
Ibid,1 55 , 11 . 2 .
3 IA .
,1, 23 .
Mc. Cr ind le, 1 15 .
5
Ibid , 154.
160 LECTURE IV .
as their form of n ernm en t is said to ‘b e not
regal but democratic or aristocratic,these tribes
must b e looked upon'
as polit ical Samgh as. A
Greek au thor at least wou ld not fal l in to th e
blunder of cal ling a governmen t democrati c or
aristocratic if it was not really so.
1
Our account of th e polit ical Sar’
ngh a will
not,I am afraid , b e complete unless I say a few
words abou t Kula, its corporate unit . Kula, you
are aware,denotes a clan or group of families.
In th e Anguttara-Nikaya2 we have a passage in
which Buddha distinguishes between th e difi e
rent kinds of rulers. In th e concluding portion
of i t we are told that on e class of rulers was
PUga-
gamanikas or, as th e commentator explains
i t,Gan a- j etth ak s, E lders of a Gana, and that
another class of rulers was Ye M p ane Ku lesu
p ackch ek-adh ip achckam karen ti
,i. e . those wh o
severally exercise autonomy (fidh ip a tyam) over
th e Kulas or clans . Perhaps a m ost typical
example of this kind of rule is furnished by th e
Salcya clan to which Buddha himsel f belonged .
This clan h ad spread itself over a number of
towns. Th e chief town , of course, was Kapila
vastu . But there were other townships belong
ing to th e Sakyas, such as Chatuma, Samagama,
1 Megasth encs also refers t o republ ics i n Ancien t l nd ia . Thus h e
m akes th e general remark that “th ose wh o l i ve near th e sea have nok ings ”
an d also m enti ons th e Maltecorae an d fou r other t ribes wh o“are free and have no k i ngs” ( LA V I . 3 10
ADM INISTRATIVE HISTORY . 1 6 1
Khomadussa,Devadah a and so forth1 There
are no grounds to suppose that an O ffice-holderwas appointed by th e Sak yas from time to timeas Prof . Rhys Davids h as saidz . Th e Pal i Canonspeaks only once of a king of th e Sakyas. Thisking that they mention is Bh addiya
3and th e
W ords used are B kaddiyo Sakya- raj a Sakyc
’
inammj j am Icareti . Th e word here employed is rc
‘
zj c‘
a,
wh o, in th e period when Buddha l ived , was not
elected but hereditary,and was not a mere presi
dent but a ruler . If Bh addiya h ad real ly been
a periodic O ffice -holder, h e would have been
designated not Raja, but Mukhya or Graman i .
W e must not suppose that th e king of th e Sakyas
was merely th e chief of a clan,and h ad no sove
reign ty over any people outside h is clan . In th e
villages and towns held by th e Sakyas, there
were,besides th e Sakyas, artisans and men of
special higher t rades such as th e carpenters ,smiths and potters who h ad Villages Of their own .
There were Brahmans also whose services were
Rhys Dav ids’ B uddh ist India, 18 .
2 Ibid,19 .
3 VP.,II
,181 . Th e preambles of som e Jatakas (e.g . Nos . 466 and
536 ) lead us to i nfer th at th e Sakyas were a Gana and not a Kula .
Bu t these pream bles do not form part of th e Buddh ist Canon and are
certai nly of a m uch later age than th e V i naya-Pitaka . W hat isn arrated by them is based not upon contem porary or very nearlycontemp orary ev i dence
,but rath er upon trad it ions handed down by
fIchEiryas, wh ich were som e tim es confl i ct i ng or d ifferent ( e g . Ji t ,
V . 4 13 . Th e Jataka pream bles cannot , therefore , b e taken aspossessin g any au th ori ty when they run counter to what th e canon icaltexts say
1 6 2 LECTURE IV .
requisitioned at every domestic event and who
h ad their set tlements in th e Sakya country‘Th e
Sakya chief was, therefore , not only th e chief of
h is clan but was a veritable ruler or Baja. This
is also proved by th e fact that Bh addiya speaks
of h is being protected by a body guard wherever
h e went and also of h is Nagara and Janapada
th e capital town and kingdom— exactly th e terms
technical to th e political administration . This
is th e Ku lc’
Zd/zipatya alluded to by Buddha which
denotes not merely chiefship O f a clan but also
sovereignty over th e territory occupied by th e
clan .
Let us now pause here for a while and try to
digest th e mass of in formation we have collected
about th e political Samgha . O ne kind Of this
Samgha,v iz . Gana
,I have repeatedly told you ,
was a tribal organisation . But if you sup
pose that its sovereign ty was confined merely
to th e tribe, nothing can b e more erroneous.
When a Gana- Samgh a is spoken O f as havin g
a viiita or kingdom and as havin g power to
burn,kill or exile a man as we have seen
above, there can b e no question about sovereignty
being vested in this body . Th e fact that there
were Uparajas, Senapatis, Bhandagarikas and so
forth connected with th e Sar‘ngh a completely
confirms our conclusion,and clearly establishes
its political character . Th e lowest political unit
Buddh ist Ind ia ,20 - 1 .
1641 LECTURE IV.
members of a single Kshatriya family (Kutumba
or Griha) can ever b e expected by themselves
to acquire any strip of territory . I t is only a
Kula or clan , which , because i t consists of a great
many households, and consequently a large
number of fighters,th at can b e reasonably ex
pected to conquer any tract of land . This was
th e case with th e Sakyas whom I have cited as
an instance of Kula soverei gnty . They were a
clan,a branch of th e Ik sh vak u tribe . Th e
province seized by them was called Sakya
country after them and was governed by on e
ruler,and we know that i t was occupied not by
th e Sak yas alone but also by th e Brahmans,ar tisans and traders.
As th e chief of a Kshatriya clan becomes
th e ruler of th e country conquered and occupied
by them ,th e sovereignty must confine itself to
th e family Of that chief . Such a Kshatriya
clan is eka- rc’
zj a, wi th Sovereign O ne, as
Katyayana cal ls i t . But we have instances of
Kshatriya clans, original ly Of monarchical consti
tution , becomin g aristocracies . I have already
informed you that th e Kurus and Pafichalasare mentioned by Kautilya as M j a- éabd-op aj ivi
Samgh as. But th e Jatakas and early Pali l iterature clearly give us to understand that they
were not Samgha but eka -w‘
ij a Kshatriya clans,i .e. clans each governed by one ruler . This
means that in th e s ixth and fifth centuries
ADMINISTRATIVE H IsTORY . 165
be fore Christ, Kurus and Pafichalas were monar
chical Clans but became non -monarchical in th e
fourth century when Kautilya l ived . W e know
that members of th e royal family were Often
given a share in th e administration of a country,and in proportion as this share would become
less and less formal , would th e state organisation
lose th e form of absolute monarchy and
approach that of an oligarchy .
1 Th e chief feature
of a Gana, as we have seen , is its division into
Kulas. In other words, th e political power layin th e hands, not of th e whole people but of
a f ew families wh o consti tuted th e Gana . This
charac teristic can apply , not to a democracy
but to an oligarchy into which alone a monarchy
can glide when it becomes a Gana. And we
know that this characteristic was possessed by
th e political Samgh as mentioned by Kautilya .
W e shall not, therefore , b e far from right, if we
consider th e Kuru and Panch ala Samgh as as
instances of th e Ol igarchic form of Government .
A third instance is furnished by th e
Yaudh eyas and in a curious manner . W e have
already seen that they have been mentioned by
Panini as an dyudha-j ivi Samgha . But, on th e
other hand , i t must be remembered that from
C f . Grote ’s H istory of Greece, Pt . II, Cap . IX . S idgw i ck says:“ButSpeak i ng broadly and general ly, i t is doub t less safe to affi rm that whenpol i t ical soc iety passed in Greece ou t of th e stage of prim i t ive k ingsh ip ,i t passed i n to that of prim i t ive ol igarchy .” —Th e Developmen t ofEurop ean Polity, p . 72 .
1 66 LECTURE IV .
h is Sutra IV . 1 . 1 78 i t is clear that they were an
eka -rdj a Kshatriya tribe even in Panin i ’s time .
I t may seem strange how a tribe,which is once
described as an ayudha-j tvi Samgha,
could b e
said to b e a monarchical tribe . But real ly there
is no discrepancy here, because firstly,an dyad/za
j im’
Samgha bears no political character at all .
Secondly , such a Samgha need not include all
th e members af th e tribe . W e can,therefore,
very wel l suppose that there were some Yaudh e
yas who did not come under th is Samgha and
that pol itically they were a Kshatriya tribe Of
th e monarchical type in Panini’
s t ime . But
about th e beginning of th e Christian era at any
rate they seem to have acquired th e nature Of a
political Samgha . This is indicated by th e issue
of thei r coinage which ranges between 50 and
350 AD 1 L ike th e Malavas they style them
selves Gana on their money . SO they were a
Gana, a political Samgha, when they struck
these coins. I t thus seems that from about th e
middle Of th e first century A .D. onwards they
rid themselves Of their monarchical constitution,
and were set tled down as a political Samgha .
This is proved beyond all doubt also by a stone
inscription foun d at B IJayagadh near Byan‘
a in
th e Bharatpur State 2 Unfortunately it is only
a fragment of an inscription . But what is
1 CC IM . , p . 180 ff .2 CII. ,
1 1 1 . 252 .
1 68 LECTURE Iv .
Lich ch h av i tribe h ad similarly made themselves
masters of th e diif eren t districts and for some
time remained independent of on e another . A
time seems to have come when inst incts of self
preservation and safety impel led th e various petty
rulers to form themse lves in to a Samgha or con
federacy . Each confederated principal i ty main
tained its separate autonomy in regard to certa in
matters such as th e judicial administration,
and al lowed th e Samgha to exercise supreme
and independent control in respect of others
affecting th e kingdom , vesting th e executive
power in th e hands of th e selec t few. I
know that perhaps some of you will feel tempted
to compare th e constitution of th e Lich ch h avi
Samgha to th e con federation Of th e German
States called th e German Empire . I admit that
there are some points of resemblance here, but
unfortunately we do not know en ough about th e
former to institute any compar ison that will b e
inte resting or profitable .
I shal l now touch upon two points only
connected with Gana . W e do not know towhat earlies t period th e existence of this Samgha
can b e traced . Certain i t is that they were by
no means f ew in th e period we have selected,t.e .
from 6 50 t o 325 B . C . And they were certainly
known as late as th e 6 th century A .D. ,because
Varah amih ira in h is work entitled th e Brih at
samhita‘speaks not only of Ganarajyasx 4. 24 ; 14. 14 .
ADMINI STRAT IVE HISTORY . 1 69
kingdoms of th e tribal Ganas in Southern Indiabut also of Gana-
pungavas or Heads of Ganassuch as of th e Malavas
,Kau lindas and Sib is.
Th e second poin t that may b e briefly consideredis:how did th e institution of Gana arise ? Did
it originate in th e poli tical or in th e non -political
sphere ? In this connection let me draw your
attention to a passage i n th e B rih ad-aranyak
opan ish adl
. Th e passage says that just as
Brahman or Supreme Being created th e four
classes of Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisfyas and
Sadras among human beings,i t created similar
classes among th e gods also . Th e Brahman
amongst gods was Agni,th e Ksh atrivas amongst
them were Indra,Varuna
,Soma and so on , and
Vais‘
yas among them ,Vasus
,Rudras, Adityas and
so forth . And then in connection with th e Vaisya
class amongst th e gods occurs th e fol lowing
sente nce:soc iaz aiva web/meat se eiécun z asz'i
j am yang/ 2 6min Cleve -j az‘mzi gmc SCt z alebg/ayan le
Vasevo R udra etc. etc. On th e term ganaéah
Sank aracharya commen ts as follows genome
ganam gammaz alc/zyayante kafl zzyantm Gama
viéak l p rfiyena samlia l‘a h i v itt
samam‘h r
‘
t n z ailcaikamh . This gloss leaves no
doubt as to th e sense in which th eword gazza is to
b e taken here’ . And as th e passage from th e
l 1 . 4 . 1 1 -3 ; I am i ndebted to M r. R . C . Maj umdar for t h isreference .
2 1 m ay a lso ment ion that Gana (=Vrata or Sardha) i n th e
sense of a g ui l d appears t o have h ad Ved ic precedents as was firstpointed ou t by Roth i n th e S t . Pe tersburg Di c t ionary . They are referredto i n th e Pafit ch amania -Brahmarm ,
VI . 9 . 25 ; xv i i . 1 . 5 . 12 , Vaj asaneysSafit h itd, XVI . 25 , and Ta ittiri t
'rt -Safibh itd, 1 8 . 10 . 2 .
1 70 LECTURE I v .
Upanishad speaks of Ganas only in th e ease of
Vaisyas and not of Brahmans, Kshatriyas or
Sadras, i t appears that we h ad commercial
Ganas (zl e . Sren is) first among th e Vais‘yas
before there were political Ganas among th e
Kshatriyas. If th e former is th e prototype
of th e latter, th e former must have been
divided into Kulas as th e latter were . And
I was for a long time wondering whether anytrace could ever be found of a commercial Gana
bein g divided into Kulas, as no doubt i t seemed
very natural . I am glad that my efforts have
proved successful , and there is now evidence that
there were Kulikas even among merchants
belonging to a guild . This evidence is furnished
by th e seals found in th e excavations at Bh ita
and at Basarh l or ancient Vesali, capital Of th e
L ich ch h avis. W e have here seals not only of
ASI, -AR . ,1903 -4 . p . 107 & f f ; 19 1 1 - 1 2
,p . 56 ; 19 13 - 14
,p . 1 38
f f . ; som e of these seals have on them th e legends Sresh th t-sarth ava
h a -kul tka -n igama,Sresh th z-kul ika -m gama ,
Sresh th i- n igama,and Ku lika
m gama Nzgama i n these legends h as been taken to sign i fy a corporati on
,but t here is no authority for i t . Accord ing to th e Amarakoéa
m gama m eans a vam k -path a , p ara or Veda . Th e last sense is O f courseimpossi ble here Nor is th e first sense pract i cabl e , because fromKautilya
’
s Art/zaéc'
zstra ( p . we know that a vaniL-path a. is a road oft raffic whether on land or by r iver . Th e m ean i ng is, therefore, unsui tab leTh e th i rd sense alone is therefore possib le , an d is by no m eans unsuitab le . Th is al one can explain wh y , al ong with th e seals of theseNigamas
,we have seals of O ffic ials or temples somet imes associated .
Th e seal s of official s and temples si de by side with those of th e Nigamas
are i nte l l ig ible , i f Nigama denotes ‘a townsh ip bu t not i f i t signifiesa corporat i on ’
supposing th is sense to b e possi ble, for a commerc ialcorporat i on is an exc lusi ve body an d wi l l not brook th e seal ing of any
fore ign member side by si de w i th the i r own .
1 72 LECTURE I v .
is inconceivable that they could have gone
wrong in describing these forms of government .
When , therefore , we are told that a district
contai ning many cit ies was administered by a
democracy , we are compel led to infer that we
have here th e government not of a ci ty but of
a countrv ,conducted not by a smal l body but
by th e assemb lv of th e people . W e regret that
we are not in possession of more details which
certain lv would have been very interesting ; but
what is preserved to us is enough to show that
here is th e second type of th e political Samgha
that we have t o n ote . But a question here
naturally arises:have we got any evidence from
th e Indian sources which confirms th e above
reference ? I am glad I am in a position to
answer th is question in th e affirmative . W e
hear of two kinds of popular governmen t
(1 ) Nigama and (2 ) Janapada . Both are demo
oracies, but th e sway of th e first was confined
to a single town and of th e second extended
over a province . Just as we have got th e
coins of Ganas, such as Yaudh eyas, Malay as and
so forth ,we have coins also of Janapadas which
can here denote only ‘th e people of a country
in con tradistinction to th e‘tribe ’
si gn ified by
Gana . Th e latter represents a government by
th e component families of a tribe and th e former,a government of th e people, in other words a demo
cracy . Thus we have found one class of coins
ADM INISTRATIVE H ISTORY . 1 73
which bear th e legend: fruznp adasa (coin )of th e Rajanya people .
1 Th e word Rajanya here isnot a svnonym of Ksh a triya or th e San sk ritised
form of th e Raj put ti tle Rana as is commonly
supposed but rather th e name of a peoplecorrespondin g to th e Ranas of th e Panjab hills2
or Ranes of th e Goa territory . Th e second classof coins to b e noted in this connection contain s
th e legend: JIaj /zz'
m ikdya. Sib ’i-j mzap adasa
(coin ) of th e S ibi people of th e Madhyamika
(country ) .
3 lVe thus h ave at least two instances
of Jan apada ,v iz . of th e Rajanyas and Qib is
,
CCIM . . pp . 164—5 1 79 -80 ; JRAS . 190 7 , pp 92 -3
JRAS .,1908, pp 540 - 1 . Tha t t h e n ol d Rajanya denoted a
part i cu lar peop le was known even to Pan in i,wh o m ent i ons th em i n
h is aphorism . i c'
zj a n yddzb lu/o t uft ( IV . 2 . Th e Sutra teaches us
that i f u ni is appl ied to terms such as Rajanya an d others. th e word so
formed becom es expressi ve of the i r country . Thus Rajan v ak a m eansth e coun try of t h e R i janyas . Ev i dentl y by Rajaum a spec ific peopleis m eant , a concl usi on st reng thened b v th e fac t that al ong w i th Rajanyas are m ent i oned Udum b a i as . r
-
h j un ftyan as and others wh o are we l lknown peop les and w h o form th e Raj un ya -gmga of Pani n i
3 A S IR V I . 20 2 -4 :X IV . 146 -7 , EH I ,p . 2 13 . Madhyam ika is
comm only taken to deno te Naga i i n ear Ch i torgarh in RJq tFina and
i den t i fied w i t h that m en t i oned by Pata fi j ali ( IA V II. 2 66 ) But thatdoes not precl ude us from taking i t a lso as t h e nam e of th e provincewh ich h as t h e c i ty of Madhyam ika as i t s cap i ta l W e sim i larly haveAvant i an d Ayodh ‘h . denot in g each both a citv an d th e prov ince of
wh ich i t is th e pri nc ipa l t own In fact,t h is m ean ing a lone can render
th e legend of t h e 0 0 1 13 8 c l ea r an d i nte l l igib l e . That Madh} am ika was
th e nam e a lso of a provi nce is t e nta i n . Chap t e r 3 2 of t h e Subh d-Parra nof th e Mahabhara ta p laces to th e south of Pushkar. Evi dent ly th ev are th e peop le of t h e Madhyam ika count ry , cc.
t h e province round abou t Nagar i Th e Bu h a t smith ztfi a lso p lacesMr
‘
tdh y am ikas I l l th e M id dle Coun trv a long wit h Matsyas . Madhyam ikas here can denote only th e people of th e Madh yam ik ii count ry .
1 74 LECTURE I v
having struck coins. And as issuin g coins is
taken to b e an indication , of political power ,th is Janapada may rightly b e looked upon
as a democracy, and hence on e distinct form
of political Samgha . Th e existence of th e
Janapada or democratic government in India
is traceable to a st ill earlier period . Thus in th e
A itareya-Brahmana (VIII . 14 ) we have a passage
which refers to th e different forms of sovereign
power . There we are told that th e Rajans of
th e Prach yas, th e Rajan s of th e Satvats, and so
on,are
,when crowned , desi gnated respectively
Samrats, Bhojas and so forth,but that
th e Janapadas cal led th e Uttara-Kurus and
U ttara-Madras are styled Virats when they
are consecrated to sovereignty . Janapada
is here con trasted with Rajan and ci ted
as a form of sovereignty . Th e natural
conclusion is that Janapada is a poli tical
form of government which was of a demo
cratic nature and was th e rule of a coun try
(as opposed to th e rule of a town) by its
people . Un fortunatelv we know nothing about
its consti tution .
If a Janapada h ad its Samgha or demo
cracy , there is nothing strange in a Nigama
or town having sometimes a sim i lar form
of government . Let me here place before you
certain facts revealed by works of H indu Law
and epigra phic records. Th e Vivada-ratnakara,
1 7 6 LECTURE IV .
1shown by Buhler , h ad all on th e obverse th e
word negat ed but on th e reverse various names
such as Dojak a ,Talimata
,Atakataka and so
forth . It is natural to take Negama here t o
stand for Naigamah ,th e body of cit izens
such as that men tioned in th e Yajnavalkya and
Narada Smritis, and th e names Dojak a,Talimata
and Atakataka for those of th e towns to which
they belonged . Th e Naigamas of a town which
could strike coinage must b e looked upon as a
corporate body endowed wi th pol itical power .
This is exactly in keeping wi th th e statement of
th e Visuddh imagga (Ch . XIV ) that some Nigamas
or towns and Gamas or villages also could issue
money . In this connection , again , we have to take
into considerat ion th e contents of an inscription
in Cave NO . 18 at Nasik . Th e inscription is
I l ld l f l l t Stud i es, Il l . 49 Indza n Palaeograp h z/ (TI an s ) , 9 .
Buhler takes negam t
‘
t h ere to m ean a m ercant i le gu i l d . But th e prope rword for ‘gu 1 l d
’
is Srenin wh i ch is so frequent ly m et w i t h in Jatakal i terat ure and epig raph i c records . Th e word m a c/ (1 711 6 73, aga i n h as neverbeen proved to si gn i fy a gui l d . Aga i n . w e do not fi n d m ent ion of any gu i ldw i th out th e specificatlon Of th e craft for wh ich i t is organ i sed .
B esides,
we never h ear of a m ercan t i le gui ld h av 1ng m i nted an v m on ev at any
rate in Ind 1a . Such a fac t woul d certa i n ly h ave been ment ioned,i f
i t h ad been rea l ly so, in th e passage of th e Vasuddh z'
-magga re ferredto above especial l y as th e expert knowledge of a h ei afi fi zl a or bankeris th ere a l l uded to an d g ui l d com s wou l d have th erefore been th e
first to b e m entioned i f th e v h ad real ly ex ist ed . To sav th erefore .
that neg/mu? of th e Pani eom s stands f or a g uil d is noth ing b ut
a gratu i tous assum pt i on It is. th erefore . natural to take n eqamc
'
z i nt h e sense of an agrm zdlt ( =bod y of tmvn smen ) such as that m ent ionedn i th e Y z
‘
tJfi avalkya and Narada Sm r i t is an d d isting u ish ed from Sren isor gui lds.
ADMIN ISTRATIVE H I STORY . 1 77
Ndsikakanam Dhaw’
zbh ika -
gc‘
tmasa ddnam. Th e
natural in terpretation is th at proposed by Pandit
Bh agwan lal Indraj i wh o says that i t records th e
gift of th e village Of Dh amb h ika by th e
inhabitants of Nasik .
1 W e have here not one
individual or a guild, but th e whole people of a
town,granting a village . And it 1s Inconceivable
that they could have done so un less they
constituted a government holding sway over
th e town and its adjunct villages or n iyama
gramas asthey are called . When we, therefore,find that th e people Of a city could issue their
own coinage an d could together give any village
in charity , it is difficult to avoid th e conclusion
that we have here an instance of a Nigama
1 BG . ,XVI. 590 . Th is i n terpretat ion h as been cal led i n quest ion
by M .Senart (EL ,
VIII . wh o says:“W e have m et with m oret han one i nstance of a gen itiv e j oi ned to th e nam e of a donor
,to
i nd i cate th e comm un i ty, d istr ict or c lan to wh i ch h e happened tobel ong . [ suppose th e case is th e sam e here and th e Dh amb h ik a
V i l lage , wh ich h ad cont rived at th e comm on expense ( noth ing is m orefrequent than th e pay ing of such re l ig i ous expenses from th e resourcesof th e comm uni ty ) to decorate th e entrance of th e cave , m ust havebe l onged to th e gene ral populat ion or to th e townsh i p of Nasik .
” I amafrai d , Nc
'
zsikakan afn m ust m ean “of th e i nhab itan ts of th eNasi k c i ty”
and never “of th e clan or d istr ic t Of Nasik” as is clearly bu t incorrect lyimpl ied by M .
Senart ( compare e.g . Nasi k Inscript ion NO . Th e
suffix ka h as so far been foun d appl ied to th e nam e of a v i l lage ortown to denote an i nhabi tant O f t hat v i l lage or town . An d unt i l
ani nstance is adduced of th is suffix be i ng added to th e name of
a.town an d O f th e wh o leterm so form ed be i ng used in th e pl ural i n
th e sense of ‘d istr ict or clan’
,th e i n terpretation proposed by Pand i t
B h agwan lal Indraj i seem s to b e th e natura l on e . Besi des, i n th e
Satavah ana period , not Nasik bu t Govardh ana was th e name of th ed istri ct .
23
1 78 LECTURE Iv .
Samgha or town democracy . Nay,towns could
sometimes b e governed by an aristocracy . W e
have already seen on th e authority of Arrian
that th e form of government at Nysa was an
aristocracy comprising 3 00 members and h eaded
by th e president . This wou ld b e another form
of Nigama- Samgha which is nei ther an oligarchy
nor a democracy .
S o much for th e di fferent kinds of th e
political Samgha that I have been able to trace
at present . There must have been many other
types of Collegiate Sovereignty prevalent in
Ancient India,which I have no doubt th e find
of n ew materials and a re - examination
of th e old ones will bring to light . A fewminutes
ago I threw out a hint that th e poli tical Samgha
cal led Gana was constituted after th e model of
th e commercial Gana . Th e other political
Sar’
ngh as, v iz . Nigama and Jan apada, seem
however to b e th e natural developments of th e
municipal administrations of towns and districts
which were scattered all over anc ient India and
about which I may b e able to say something
next year . But th e terms Samgha and Gana
were appropriated also by rel ig ious communities,
such as e .g . Jainism and Buddhism . As regards
th e Jaina congregation it was split up into
Ganas, Kulas and Sakhas, a long list O f which
h as been set forth in th e S tlzavirc'
wa li of th e
Kalpasutra . And this l ist not many years ago
180 LECTURE IV .
of th e councils orp arislaads of th e L ich ch h avis
and their holding frequent meetings. W e also
hear of subhas and samitis of th e Nigama and
Janapada-Samgh as. Is i t poss ible to know
something about th e mode in which they
carried on their del iberations ? This question
must now present itself to us. Fortunately for
us th e V inaya-Pitaka of th e Buddhist scriptures
h as preserved th e code Of procedure according
to which th e meetings Of th e Buddhist congre
gation were held and conducted . As this con
gregation was a Samgha,i t is perfectly intelli
gib le that th e set of rules which governed its
del iberations must in their essence have
governed those of any Samgha, b e i t political ,municipal or commercial . Let us therefore
try and know from th e V inaya- pitaka what th e
procedure of th e Buddhist Samghawas. You will
perhaps b e surp rised when I tell you that i t was
of a highly spec ialised and developed character
such as is observed by th e political bodies of
our twen tieth century . Th e first point to note
is th e order of precedence according to which
seats were assigned to th e Bhikshus . There
was a Special officer whose duty was to see that
they received seats in accordance with their
dign ity and seniority . He was cal led Asana
prajfiapaka . W e have got a reference to such
a functionary in th e account of th e Counci l
of Vesali preserved in th e Ch ullavagga of
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY . 181
th e Vinaya-pitaka . I quote a passage from
it
Now at that time a B h ik k h u named AJIta,
of ten years’ standing, was th e reciter of th e
Patimok k h a to th e Samgha . H im did th e
Samgha appoint as seat regulator (Em ma
p afifidp aka ) to th e Thera Bh ik k h us.
”
Th e deliberations are commenced by th e
mover wh o announces to th e assembled mem
bers what motion h e 1s going to propose . This
announcement is called i apti. Then comes
th e second part of th e procedure which consists
in putting th e question to th e Samgha whether
they approve th e motion . I t may be put once
or thrice . In th e former case th e Karma or
ecclesiastical act is called Jnapti -dvitiya, and in
th e latter, Jfiapti-ch aturth a . I will g ive an
instance to explain what I mean and shal l
quote i t from th e Mahavagga . Buddha lays
down th e fol lowing rule in regard to th e
Upasarnpada ordination z.
“L et a learned
competent Bh ik k h u ,
”says h e,
“proclaim th e
following fiatti before th e Samgha“Let th e Samgha, reverend S irs, hear me .
This person N. N . desires to receive th e upa
san’
npada ordinati on from th e venerable N . N .
( i . 3 . with th e venerab le N . N . as h is upaj jhaya) .
If th e Samgha is ready , let th e Samgha confer
1 SEE , xx . 408 .
2 Ibid . , XML 170 .
1 82 LECTURE IV .
on N . N . th e upasampada ordination with N . N .
as upaj j haya . This is th e fiatti.” Now what
follows is Karmavacha which is placing th e
motion before th e Samgha for discussi on and
execution (Karma) , and is in evey case aecom
pan ied by th e formal repetition of th e Jfi apti.
In th e present case th e Karmavacha is repeated
thrice . I therefore quote h ere what fol lows.
“Let th e Samgha, reverend S irs, hear me . This
person N . N . desires to receive th e upasampadaordination from th e venerable N . N . Th e Samgha
confers on N. N . th e upasampadaordination with
N . N . as upaj j haya . Let an v on e of th e venerable
breth ern wh o is in favour of th e upasampada
ordination Of N . N . as upaj jh aya b e silent,and
any on e wh o is not in fav am of it speak .
And for th e second time I thus speak to you
Let th e Samgha as before) .
And for th e third time I thus speak to
you :Let th e Samgha,&c.
N . N . h as received th e upasampada ordination from th e Samgha with N . N . as upaj jhaya .
Th e Samgha is in favour Of it,therefore it is
silent . Thus I understand .
As th e motion h as h ere been thrice put to
th e assembly , it is Jnapti - ch aturth a Karma,
t.e . it comprises three Karmavachas and on e
Jnapti . A Karma or Official act of th e Samgha
to b e lawful must consist of on e Jfiapti and
on e or three Karmavachas. When a resolution
184 LECTURE I v .
not at all wonder if my account appears to b e
incredible to you . B ut my authority,
th e
Vinaya-pitaka,is there before you ,
and you can
at any time read it along with th e translation
published by Professors O ldenberg and Rhys
Davids, and I am sure that you will agree with
me in saying that th e set of rules for conducting
th e deliberat ions of th e B uddhist Samgha was of
a highly developed order , and shows h ow th e
regulation of debate was carried almost to a per
f ection . Again, i t is worthy of note that m ost of
th e terms technical to Samgha debate have now
here been explained by Buddha . If h e h ad been
th e first to invent these rules and coin new names
for th e various procedures, h e would h ave
explained them in ex tenso. But nowhere h as
Buddha told us what Y eb h uyyasika, O hb anda and
so forth signify .
‘ Evidently h e borrows these
terms which we re already wel l -known in h is
time and which cal led for no explanation . W e
may therefore not unreasonably conclude that
th e various terms and rules of debate which
Buddha adopted for h is rel igious Samgha were
those which could fit popular assemblies only
and must have already been fol lowed by Sarn
ghas,whether politiCal, municipal or commercial .
O f course , Jfiapti h as been fu l ly explai ned by Buddha, as w i l l beseen from th e quotat ion from th e Ch ullavagga g iven in th e tex tabove . But B uddha is here perhaps sing l ing out one out of m anyform s of Jnapti p reva len t in h is t ime . Th e de tai ls spec ified by h imabout va l i d or inval id Karma, val i d or i nval id votes, and so on are so
many and so com pl i cated that th ey appear to have com e i n to generalcognisance after several cen tur ies’ work ing Of th e popu lar assem bl ies.
App en dix .
I . MANU .
Santi -Parvan , Chapter 57 .
Shad e tan purush o j ab yad=b h innar'
n
navam iv=arnaveaprak taram acharyam anadh i yanam
ritvijam v . 43 .
Arak sh itaram rajanam b haryam ch=apriyavadin im
grama-kamam ch a gopalam vana-kamam
ch a napitam v . 441 .
[Th e above verses occur also in Uddyoga
Parvan , 3 2 . 83 -4,but without b eing attributed
to any author] .
Santi -Parvan , Chapter 1 21 .
Su -
pranitena dandena priy-apriya
-sam -atm
ana
praja rak sh ati yah samyag z dh arma eva
sa k evalah v . 1 1 .
II . USANAS.
Santi -Parvan , Chapter 56 .
Udyamya s’
astram z ayantam z api vedanta
gain rane
n igrih niyat sva-dh armena dharm -apeksh i
nar-adh ipah v . 29 .
V inaSyamanam dh armam hi yo=b h irak sh etsva-dh armav it
241
1 86 ADI-ENDIx .
na tena dh armah a‘
. sa syan manyus tan
manyum richchhati v . 30 .
Santi -Parvan , Chapter 57 .
Dvav=imau grasate b h umim sarpo bila
s’
ayan z iva
rajanam ch=aviroddharam brahmanam ch
apravasinam v . 3 .
[This verse is found also in Uddyoga-Parvan ,32 . 5 7 and Sabha-Parvan
,55 . 14
,but with
out being ascribed to any author] .
Santi -Parvan , Chapter 1 39 .
Y e vairinah s’
raddadh ate satye satyetare z pi
V5.
vadh yan te s'
raddadhanasz tu madhu Sushka
trinair z yatha v . 70 .
Na hi vairani s’
amyan ti kule duhkha-gatani
ch a
ak h yataras'
z ch a vidyan te ku le vai dh riyate
puman v . 7 1 .
Santi -Parvan , Chapter 57 .
Rajanam prath aman’
n v indet=tato bharyamtato dh anam
rajany z asati lok e z sm in kuto b harya kuto
dh anam v . 40 .
Tad-rajye rajya-kamanam n=a11yo dharmah
sanatanah
r ite rak sham tu v ispashtar'
n raksha lokasya
dharini V . 41 .
APPEND IX .
Santi -Parvan , Chapter 5 7 .
Guror apy avaliptasya kary-akaryam
ajanatah
utpath a-
pratipan nasya dando bh avati s’
as’
va
tah v . 7 .
[Truly speaking this verse h as not been
ascribed to Brihaspati, b ut is said to
have been sung by king M arutta as being
approved by B rihaspati . What this means
is not clear , but i t perhaps implies that M arutta
was an author belonging to th e Barh aspatya
school . Th e verse eccurs in A di-P ,1 42 . 52 -3
and also in San ti-P. ,1 40 . 48 in th e dialogue b et
ween Bharadvaja and king Satrufi jaya which
seems to show that th e verse is to b e ascribed
rather to Bharadvaja] .
Santi-Parvan Chapter 58 .
U tthanen amritam lab dham utthanen
asura h atah
u tthan ena Mah endrena s’
raish th yam praptam
div z iha ch a v . 1 4 .
Utthana-v l‘
rah purush o vag-v iran z adh itish
thati
u tthana- viran vag-v ira ramayan ta z upasate
v . 1 5 .
Utthana-hino Iaia hi buddh iman z api
n ityas'
ah
pradh arsh an iyah s’
atrunam bh ujanga z ivn
n irvish ah v . 1 6 .
APPEND I X . 1 89
Santi -Parvan , Chapter 68.
Na hi jatv z avaman tavyo man ush ya iti
b h fim ipah
mab ati devata h y=esha nara- rupch a tish th ati
v . 40 .
[This verse h as been attributed to Brihaspati
in th e dialogue between him and Vasuman as,
king of Kosala . That i t is an original verse and
not a paraphrase or adaptation of i t is proved by
th e fact that i t occurs in Manu (VII .
Santi -Parvan , Chapter 69 .
Kritva'
. sarvani karyani samyak sampalyam edin im
palayitva tatha pauran paratra sukh am
edh ate v . 72 .
Kim tasya tapasarajfiah k imch a tasy=adh varair=api
supalita-
prajo yah syat sarva-dharma-vid
eva sah v . 73 .
[Th e above verses have been assigned to
Augiras which is but another name of Brihaspati
in th e very preceding chapter Of this Parvan
we find Brihaspati styled Augiras (vs. 5
IV . BHARADVAJA .
Manu -smriti , VII .
Nityam=udyata-dandah syan n ityamvivrita
paurush ah
n ityarn samvrita-samvaryo n ityar'
n ch h idr
anusary zz areh v . 1 02 .
1 90 A PPEND IX .
Nityam udyata- dandasya k ritsnam udv ijatejagat
tasmat sarvani bhutani danden z aiva prasadh ayet v . 1 03 .
N asya ch ch h idram paro v idyad
v idyach oh h idram parasya tu
gub et kurma iv angami rak sh ed=vivaramatman ah v . 1 05 .
[I think , Manusmriti h as preserved th e origi
nal verse, and A—
di-P. 1 42 . 6 - 8 and Simii-P. 1 40 .
7- 8 and 24 are adaptations of them . Man n VII .
1 0 5 occurs wi th slight changes in Kau tiliya,
p . 29 . As th e above verses are contained in th e
dialogue between Bharadvaja and Satrufi jaya,king of Sauvira, I have att ributed them to th e
former] .
Kautiliya,p . 27 .
Tasman=n=asya pare v idyuh karma k in
ch ich z ch ik irsh itam
arabdharasz tu jan iyurz arabdh am k ritam
eva va.
Kautiliya,p . 253 .
Kalas'
sak rid=ab h yeti yamnarar’
n Kala
kank sh inam
durlab h asz sa punas=tasya Kalah Karma
ch ik irsh atah .
Kautiliya,p . 380 .
Indra-ya hi ea pranamati yo balIyaso mamati .
INDEX
[Abbreviations— Buddh . Buddh zst cap . capital con t . con
tent/porary d . daugh ter dy. dynasty f . fath er Gk . Greekk . king n . n ame or n ote q. queen r. river s . son 8k .
Sanskrit] .
Abastanoi an
?
Agastya’
s H i l l
Agastya-tirtha
Aggafifia-suttan ta
Agn iAh ich ch h atra (Ab ikshebra)
Aik sh vak avas
Ailavarh éa
Airavata,
Aitareya -B rahman a
Ajaka Aj jaka)A jatasatru
931
Akouph is
n . of a tr ibe in th e Panjab m ent ioned by Arrian .
158 .
s. of k . B im b isara , 74, 75 .
teachers, 100 , 109 , 1 1 1 . n . l , 145 .
102 , 10 7 .
god, 10 6 ,
Brahm an sage crossed th e Vindhyas and
carr ied Aryan C iv i l isati on to th e south , 18 ;h is figh t wi th th e Rakshasas, 20 .
Mount Agastier in t h e T inn eve l ly d ist . whereAgastya is supposed to have final lyret ired
,18.
n . of a sacred place ment i oned i n th e Mahabharata
,1 3
,n .
121 .
god, 106 .
cap . of U t tara-Panchala, 52 .
n . of a dy . ,56 .
n . of a dy . ,16 n .
94, 95 .
2,3 , 2 1 , 85 .
Aryak a , k . of Uj ja i n . See unde r Aryaka .
k . of Magadh a, s. of B imb isara and
cont . of Buddha, 57 , 6 6 , 67 , 74-79 ;
story about th e m urder of h is fatherBim b 1sara at th e i nst igat i on of Devadatta,75 -6 ; war between A jatasatru and
Pasenadi, final defeat of A jatasatru, 76 -7 ;
war wi th th e Lich ch h avis, defeat of th eLich ch h av is and the i r a l l ies, th e Mal las
,
77 -9 .
president of th e Nysians sent to A lexanderat Nysa, 1 59 .
1 94
Ahgu ttam -Nikc'
iya
Anuruddh a
arfiya
Arrian
Arthaédstra of Kautilya .
Asamafi jas
Esan a-pmj fldpaka
AsZitari pa -Jc'
ttaka
Ashta-kul ikaAsoka
Asoka
As'
okc'
ivaddna
Assaka (Asmaka)
INDEX .
q . of B imbisara, 7 5 .
n . of a tr ibe m ent ioned i n th e Mahabharata,
sam e as Ab astanoi,Sambastoi
,Sab arcae and
Sab agrae of th e h istorians of Alexander, 158.
corrected into Zichc'iryc'
fl} by Jacob i , 89 n . 1 .
i n th e Kistna d ist . , Madras Presy . ; Buddh .stfipa at, 29 .
n . of a tribe , 3 , 2 1 .
on e of th e S i x teen Great Countries, m ode rnBhagal pur d ist . , B ihar, 40 . n . l
, 48, 49 ,
55 , 73 ; in th e t ime of Buddha annexed toMagadh a, 49 , 73 ; also n . of a k . of Angawh o gave a dai l y pension of 500 Karshapanas t o a B rahman, 73 .
q . of k . Pradyota, 64.
n . of a k . ; h is d ia l ogue with th e sage Kamandaka
,1 1 2
,n . 2 .
Buddh . Pal i work, 48, 55 , 69 , 80 ; enumera
t ion of th e Solasa, Mah d-j an apada, 48.
successor of k . Udayab h adra of Magadh a, 80 .
where there is no ruler, 146 .
a Gk . wr i ter , 158.
8, 15 , 88, 98- 10 1 date of , 88 ; consists ofsi tra and bh c
'
ish ya ,
enemy of k . Udayana, 62 ; d riven away fromVatsa k ingdom , 6 3 .
a Buddh . monk, 129 .
k . of Uj jain , s. of Gopa la ; ousted h is
uncle Palaka, 64-5 .
k .
, ex i led at th e desi re of th e people, 136 . n . 1 .
seat -regulator 180 .
55 .
offi cer appointed over e igh t Ku las, 155 .
Maurya em peror, 6 . n . l , 7 , 23 , 29, 32 , 35 ,
39 , 54 . n . 3 , 82 .
Kalaéok a, of th e Saisunaga dynasty ; removalof th e cap . of Magadh a to Fataliputra andhold ing of th e Second Buddh . C ounc i l , 82 .
stories about th e Maurya k . Asoka, 69 .
country, 4 n . 6 , 19 , 22 , 24 . n . 1 , 40 ,
u . 1,48
,5 3 & n . 5 , 54 & n . 2 , 56 ; asso
ciated with th e Avan t is in th e Jataka, 53 .
1 96 INDEX .
Bavarin
Bengal i languageB haddasala -Jfi taka
Bh addavatika
Bh addiya
Bhadra-deviBh adrasen a
Bhagavata -Pmfi na
BhaggaBh agwan lé l In draj i
Bh allzi ta Bh allatiya)Bha llc
’
ztiya-Jc‘
itaka
Bh allav in
Bhdmj c—zgfin
‘ika
Bharadvaja
Bharata fam i lyBh aruk ach ch h a
Bhasa
n . of a Brahman guru ,descript ion of h is
route to th e North , 4 -5,19, 22 .
Dravi d ian e lem en ts i n , 27 -8 .
65 .
n . of a sh e-e lephan t of k . Udayana, 59 .
k . of th e Sakyas, 16 1 , 16 2 .
q . of k . Munda, 80 .
s . of Kalasoka, 82 .
83 .
country,6 3 .
177 .
k . of Brahmadatta’s dy .
,57
57
School of Law,23 .
treasurer,1 5 4
, 1 56 , 16 2 .
a pre -Kautilyan author of Arth asa stra,89
,9 1 ,
96,97 , 104 , 106 , 108
,1 1 1 , n . 1 , 1 13
,189 ;
m entioned by Kautilya, 89 m entioned i n th eMahabharata, 91 proof of h is work havingbeen in verse , 104 ; d ial ogue with k . Satru
njaya, 1 06 -7 .
59 n . 2 .
m odern B roach,2 8.
n . of a poet, 58 ; date of, 59 , 70 ; h is dramas,
60 , 6 4, 80 , 89 .
spoken language 26 .
i n th e Madras Presy . ; Buddh . stfipa at, 29 .
n . of a pr ince of Vidarb h a’, 2 .
90,n . 2 , 1 1 1 , 1 20 , 124, 1 25 1 27 ; i dentified withKaunapadan ta, autho r of an Arth aéastra
,
90,n . 2
,1 1 1 .
seals d iscovered at, 170 -71 .
designation of some Rajans, 174 .
k . of th e Nanda dy . , 83 .
k . of Magadh a, 57 , 6 7, 68, 71 , 72 , 73 , 74,
76 , 76 , 81 -2 a cont . of Buddha, 57 ,67 ; h is dy . probably cal led th e Naga
dy . , 7 1 cal led sem’
ya. i .e. Senapat i wh i chperhaps i nd icates th at h e was th e founderof th e dy . , 7 2 ; expulsi on o f th e Vaj j
'
is fromMagadh a and conquest of Ar'iga, 73 .
I NDEX . 1 97
Bodh i s. of k . Udayana, ruler o f th e Bhaggacountry
,6 3 ; Buddha ’
s sermon to , 69 -70 .
Bodh i-b'aj akumara 6 3
Brahma god, 92 4, 96 , 1 20 , 1 26 , 128 .
Brah madatta dy . of, ru l ing at Benares, 56 -57 .
Brahmarsh i-desa si tuat ion of , 53 .
Brah mavaddh ana a n . of Benares, 50 .
B rahu i a language ; Drav id ian words i n , 25 .
Brih achch arana th e Great Imm igrat ion,a sect i on of th eBrahm ans, 23 .
Brihad-c’
zrauyakopa
fn ish ad
Bri haspat i
Brih at-safizh ita
Buddha
Ch filuk ya
Ch ammakc'
zfas
ChampaC hampaChampeyya -Jfi taka,
C handa-Pradyota
reference to th e Vaisya class of gods in , 169 .
an author on king l y duties, 9 1 , 92 , 93 , 94 . 96 ,
97 , 104, 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 , 187 -89 ; founder of th e
Barh aspatya S chool , m ent i oned i n th eMahabharata
, 9 1 h is abridgement ofth e Sc ience of Pol i ty, 92 -4
, 96 ; quotat ionfrom h is work in th e Mahabharata, 97 ;d iscourse with Vasuman as, k . of Kosala
,
10 6 .
a Sk . work by Varah am ih ira, 53 , 168.
sakyam un i , 1 , 4 , 5 , 1 7 , 41 , 43 , 44, 49 , 5 1 , 53 ,
142 .
91 , n . l , 103 .
Aryan colon isat i on of, 2 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 24, 38, 39 , 40 ,41 ; cause of there be ing an Indo-A ryanVernacular i n, 38 ; converted to Buddh ismby Mah i nda, 39 ; Magadhi a l ready introduced before th e advent of Mah inda, 40 ;Magadh i superseded by Pal i , 4 1 .
n . of a country , 52 .
Un iversal m onarch ; its i dea older thanA lexande r’s invasion
, 85 -86 ; m eaningof
, 1 28 .
descendan ts of C hal ukyas, 10 , n . 1 .
leather workers,30 .
cap of Anga, 49 ; cal led also Kalachampa, 50 .
r . separat ing Anga from Magadh a, 49 .
55 .
k . of Avan ti , a con t . of Buddha, 57, 59 .
1 98 I NDEX .
C h arition
C hatama
Ch ellana
Cheta (Ch etiya)Ch etak a
Cheta-ratth a
ChetiO hbandaCh handogya Upan ishad
Chada
Chord s ( Cholas)
Ch u llasutasom a Bi rth 50 .
Chu llavagga 40 .
Ch utukala n . of a Drav id ian k .,33 , 34, n . 1
C leisob ora (Krishnapara)
Col leg iate SovereignCunn inghamC urtiusDak sh ina-R osalaDak sh ina-Kurudaksh ina pada
Dak sh ina-Pafi ch ala
Dak sh inapath a
n . of a Gk . lady occurr ing in a farce of th esecond ce ntury A .D. , 36 .
a sakya townsh ip,160 .
d . of Ch etaka a Lich ch h avi ch ief, 74 .
sam e as Ched i , 52 . See under Cheta -ratth a .
a Lich ch h av i ch ief, 74, 78 .
n . of a k ingdom , modern Bundelkhand , 5 1 , 5 2 .
coun try,48
,5 1 . See under Ch etaratth a .
‘an absentee vote ,’ 183 , 184 .
26 , 27 .
n . of a t r ibe,6, 7 ; cal led Chala in Tam il and
Chola i n Te lugu , same as Sk . Ch ara, 8 .
a people ; its meaning th ief i n Sk .
deri ved from , 8 ; men t ioned for th e fi rstt ime in th e Taitt1r1ya Aranyaka, 9 .
9 .
148 .
49,52
,175 .
a Gk . writer, 158 .
16,n . 4 .
country, 52 .
‘wi th southward foot ’ , 2 .
52 .
S . India ; 2 -41, 44-7 , 48 ; Aryan col on isat i on
of th e count ry th e A ryans going down t oVidarb h a i n th e pe riod of th e Aitareya
Brahm an a, and com ing i n con tact wi th th e
South Ind ian tribes, Andh ras, Pundras,
Sab aras,Pulindas an d Mfi tib as
,2 -3
Pan in i m en tions no prov ince south of th eNarmada except Asmak a, 4 ; route ofBavarin to N. Ind ia st raigh t th rough th e
Vindh yas, 4 -5 ; S . Ind ian countries, Chodaand Kera la ,
known to Katyayana b ut not toPan in i
, 6 -7 th e m ig rat ion of th e Aryant ribe Pandyas from th eNorth t o th e South ,9 - 1 3 ; colon isat ion of S . Ind ia by Aryan
200
Diodorus
Dirgh a-charayana
Di vi ne R igh t of K i ngsDojaka
do-raj j a
Drav id ians
Dronach arya
Dror) aparvanDush takumara
DvarakaEgyptian papyrus
Ekapmyga -Jataka,Eka -
pundarika
eka - raj aeka -rat
Gaman i (Graman i )Gana ( Samgha)
INDEX .
s . of k . Pratipa, 1 36 .
adopted s. of Viévam itra, 3 .
n . of a vi l lage, 177 .
k . of th e Nanda dy .,83 .
k . of th e Brah madatta dy .
,57 .
k . of th e Pala dy . , 1 18.
103 , n .2 , 107 , 108, n .2 , 1 23 i ncludeditthasa, 1 08,
23 .
a Pal i work, 69 , 7 9 , 1 2 1 descript ion of th eevolut ion of men and soc iety contai nedi n
,12 1 .
a Gk . wri ter, 158.
a Pre -Kautilyan author of Arth asastra, 90 .
1 29 .
n . of a town occurr ing on‘negama’ co ins, 176 .
gove rnm ent by two, 147 .
a race, 18, 25 , 26 , 27 , 28, 37 , 38 ; the i r language once spoken in N. Ind ia, later onsuperseded by th e A ryan tongue, 25 , 28.
96 .
96 .
story of, 135 - 136 .
n . of a c ity, 10 .
ev idence of, 35 -7 Canarese words traced
i n , 36 ; Canarese spoken by even princesof Drav id ian extract ion in S . Ind ia i n th esecond cen tury A .D. ,
th e language stronglyt i nc tured w i th A ryan words, 37 .
1 35 .
a favouri te e lephan t of k . Prasenaj it, 66 .
tr i be possessed of i nd iv idua l sovere ign, 148 .
‘sole m onarch ’
, 84 .
head of a Samgha, 145 .
corporate col lection for a defin i te purpose , i nwh ich techn ical sense i t was known toPan in i
,14 1 -2
,146 ; ganj a , rel ig ious, 142 -3
,
178 ; formed for th e purpose of trade and
i ndustry, 143 -4 ; fighting corporat ions, 144 -5 ;
garga synonym ous with safizgha , 146 ; . a
form of pol i t ica l san'igh a, 146 -47 ; contra sted
Gaaino
Gana -j etth akas
Ganaq n uk h yas
Gana-pungavas
Gana -raj aku laGauarajyas
INDEX . 20 1
with myan , m eans ‘th e pol i t ical rule ofMan y , ’ 147 ; Kshat riya tr ibes hav ingC ol leg iate Sovere ign: Lich ch h av is and
Mal las, 148-50,1 56 ; Madrakas
,Kuk uras,
Kurus and Pafichalas, 156 ; composed ofraj aku las or ‘roya l fam i l ies 150 -5 1 ;
appoi ntm en t of gana-mukhyas or a gana
cab ine t or execu t i ve 15 2 -4 ; j ud ic ial ad
m i n istra t i on i n th e Vaj j ian gana, 154-5 ;
power to ki l l,burn or ex i le a man
,155
test im ony of Gk . wri ters regard ing Indiantr i bes hav ing republ ican form of pol i t i calgovernm en t, 1 57 -60 , 17 1-72 , and 1 60 , u . 1
ku la,th e corporate unit of a gana, 160 -64
proof of its b e i ng an ol igarchy , 165
i nstances of eka -raga, Kshatriya tribesbecom i ng raj a -éabd-cpaj ivi e .g . Kurus
,
Pafi ch alas and Y audh eyas, 164 -67 ; th e
peri od when i t fl ourished , 168-69 ; h ow th e
i nst i tuti on arose , ev idence of th e Brih adaran yak -opan ishad, commercial gaaas th e
prototype of pol i t ical ganas, 169 -70 , 178
other k inds of pol i t ical Samgha—Nigama.
and Janapada ,171 -78 Janap ada , rule of
a country by its people , 174 ; Niyama,
town -dem ocracy,177 -78 ; th e m ode in
wh ich de l iberat ions were carried on in th ecounc i ls or assembl ies of th e ganas,
180 -84 Buddha’s gana. or safitgha not th efirst of its k ind , 142 -3 , 184 .
teachers of ganas, 142 .
Gandhara, 54, n . 3 .
on e of th e S ix teen Great C ountries, 48 posit i on of
, cap . at Tak sh asila, 54 ; twocaps . , 54, n . 3 .
heads of ganas, 142 .
Elders of a Gana, 160 .
Ch iefs of a Gana, 1 52 -3 .
Heads of Ganas, 169 .
Gana ,com posed of raj aku las, 150 -5 1 .
k ingdoms of tr ibal Gan as, 168-69 .
20 2 INDEX .
Gana-raya
Gauraéiras
Gautama
Gh osh avati
G hotakamuk h a
Girivraj a
GodavariGoldstiick er
Gonardda
Gopala
GopalaGopa th a -Brahmana.
Govish anak a
Grama
Harwm’
néa
Harsh ach arita
Harsh avardh an a
H imalayaH i ndu m onarchy
H i ndu pol i ty
( state ) ‘where Gana is th e rul ing authori ty',147 .
author of an Arth asastra of th e pre -Kautilyan
peri od, 9 1 , 96 , 97 , 10 9 , 1 1 2 .
author of a Dh armasfi tra, 1 23 .
n . of a l ute , 59 n . 2 .
author of an Arth aéastra, 90 .
cap . of Magadh a, 50 , 81 .
r .
,4,16 , 19 , 53 , n . 5 .
b irth p lace of PatafiJali, 4 n . 4 .
s . and successor of k . Pradyota , 64 n .om i t ted in th e Puranas, 65 .
k . of th e Pala dy . e lec ted by th e people, 1 18.
52 .
on e of th e N i ne Nandas, 83 .
vi l lag e, 17 5 power to issue m oney , 176 .
15 .
l i fe of k . Harsha by Bana, 47 .
k . of Kanauj,47 .
m ountai n,42
,44
, 85 .
conceptions of, 1 14 -39 ; nece ssi ty of a k ing,
1 14 - 18 not ion s of th e orig in of k i ngsh iptheories of th e Socia l C ontract and Divi neOr igi n of kings, 1 19 -28 checks on th e
arbi trariness of a k i ng , 129 -39 .
l i terature on,87 -1 13 Kan tilya
’
s enumerat ionof d iff eren t schools of
, 89 and ind i vidualauthors of
,89 -90 , 1 1 1 i n d iv i dual authors
as known from th e Mahabharata, 9 1 , 96th e form i n wh i ch th e ancient authorswrote , 97 -98 th e Artbaéa
'
stras of th epre -Kautilyan period were metrica l i nform ,
106 ; th e orig i n of Arth aéastra i nIndia cannot b e later than 6 50 B .C . , 1 10 .
placed in th e Uttarapath a , 47 .
an h ist orical royal dy . of N . Ind ia,16 , 17, 84.
author of an Arth asastra, 92 , 94, 95 .
c i ty , 157 .
a C hrist ian f .
, 1 29 .
204
Kaman dakiya. M tzsara
Kam boja
Kambuj iya
Kampilya
Kafi ch ipura
Kandra-Man ik k am
Kanha (Krishna)Kag inka -Bh aradvaja
Kapilavatth u (Kapi lavastu )
KarmaKarmavacha
Kart ikeyaKaseyas
Kaéi
Kath an ian s
Kathasarzt-sagam
Katyayana
Katyayana
Katyayana
Kaulindas
Kaunapadan ta
Kauéamb i
Kau sh i fa ki Upa nzshad
Kautilya
INDEX .
Buddha’
s bi rth -place , 5 , 1 60 .
execution of a m ot ion, 182 .
placing of a m ot ion before th e Samgha 182 .
orig i nator of th e sc ience of theft , 95 .
n . of a dy . ,56 .
on e of th e S i x teen Great C ountries, 48, 49 ,55
, 74 .
country,65 , 81 , 84 .
Benares,cap . of th e Kasi Kingdom ,
50 .
Kas1 Ki ngdom ,46
,50
,5 1 , 55 , 56 , 74 ; i nde
pendent before th e r ise of Buddh ism ,in th e
tim e of Budd ha fo rmed part of Kesala,50 ;
imm ediate ly bordering on Kosala, 5 1 th e
fam i ly of Brahmadatta in , 56 .
a tribe,158 .
story of k . Udayana contai ned in , 58, 64 .
n . of a gramm arian , 6 -7 , 9 , 10 ; date of, 6 .
a Pre .Kautilyan author of Arth asastra, 90 .
au thor of a Smri t i , 147 -9 , 1 5 1 .
a Gana, 169 .
a Pre -Kautilyan auth or of Arth asastra
sam e as Bh ish m a,90 n . 2
,1 1 1 .
ki ngdom and cap . of th e Vatsas, 5 , 52 , 69 ,84 .
52 .
au thor of an Arth asastra and cont . ofC handragupta Maurya , 8, 15 , 6 1 , 85 , 89 ,
9 1 , 100 quotat i on from Bharadvaja, 104,1 13 h is attempt to rescue th e Arthasastra wh i ch was bei ng forgotten , 108
a work on Arth asastra, 97 .
country,48
,54 ; th ree meanings of, accord i ng
to Pan ini , 6 .
n . of th e Kam boja people i n Anc ient Persianinscript ions, 55 .
m odern Kampil , U . P. ,157 .
modern C onjeveram ,3 3, 34 .
n . of a v i l lage, 23a Dam i la, 30 .
a pre-Kautilyan author of Arthasastra, 90
KavyaKavya-M maiibsa
KeralaKern , Prof .
INDEX . 205
1 10 ; mem bers of pol i t ical Samgha desigmated k ings by , 148-1 50 .
Uéanas, author of an Arth asastra, 93 , 96 , 104 ,1 1 1 . See under Uéanas .
Usanas, 9 1 , 96 .
a work by Rajasek h ara, 47coun try
,6, 7 .
39 .
Khal impur copperplate . 1 18.
Kh anqlah ala B i rthKh aninetra
Kharav ela
Kifi jalka
Ki t te l
Kosaladev i
Kshatr iya t r ibeKsh audrakas
Ksh emadh arman
Ksh emav it
Ksh omadussa
Ksh udrak a
Kukuras
Ka la
Ku ladh ipatya
Kulik as
Kurus
5 1 .
n . of a k . deposed by h is people , 136 .
Emperor of Kaliiiga, 39 .
a Pre -Kautliyan author of Arth asastra,90 .
h is l ist of Drav i dian words i n th e Sanskri tlanguage, 26 , 27 .
n . of a palace of prin ce Bodh i , 6 3 .
s . of Kalasok a, 82
s . of Kalasoka , 82 .
country,3,4, 17 , 19 , 48, 49 , 50 , 5 1 , 55 , 56 , 57 ,
6 2,65 -7 , 79 , 1 14 ; m ent ioned by Pan i n i
, 3
on e of th e S i x teen Great Countries, 49dy . of 6 5 -7
q . of B im b isara and d . of Mahakosala,
74 & n . 3 ; d ied of grie f at th e news of
B im bisara’
s death, 76 .
9 , 10 .
10 5 .
mean i ng of, i n th e Buddh . l i terature,12 1 ;
th e authori ty exercised by,163 .
n . of a tribe 1 58. See also under O xydrakai.n . of a k 68 .
k 68 .
a Sakya townsh ip,1 6 1 .
s. of Prasenaj it, 6 5 .
a triba l Samgha, 156 , 157 n . 1 .
a clan or g roup of fam i l ies, 1 5 1 , 160 , 179 .
162 -3 ; mean ing of , 16 3 .
heads of Ku las, 170 n . 1 , 17 1 n . 1 .
t ri be and country 26 , 48, 49 , 52 , 56 , - 156 ,
164 -5 on e of th e S i x teen Great countries,
206
Kuruk sh etra
Kuéinara
Kusumapura
KuQumb in
Lalztamstara
Lavanak a
Lich ch h av i kumarasLich ch h av is
LockeMach ch h a (Matsya)
INDEX .
1 19
n . of a t ri be and on e of th e S i x teen GreatCountries 48 posi t i on of , 52 -3 .
Madh ariputra Sri -V irapurush adatta an Ik sh vak u k i ng ,16 n . 4 .
Madoura (or Madura)Madura
Magadhafn pu ramMagadhiMagandiya
Mahabharata
Mahaj ana-sammata
Maha-Kach ch ayana
Mah akosala
cap . of th e Pandyas i n th e South , 1 1 .
a c i ty,th e‘Mathura’ of th e eastern Arch ipe
lag o , 1 2 .
Math ura, cap . of th e Sarasen as,1 1
, 5 3 .
M i ddle C ount ry,1 1
, 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48,147 si tua t ion of
,accord ing to Man n
,42
,
accord i ng to th e V i naya-p i taka, 43 ; itswestern boundary
,th e ri ver Sarasvati ,
46 .
n . of a prov in ce an d cap , 173 n . 3 .
173 , n . 3,1 74 a dem ocracy
,174 .
a triba l Samgha, 1 56 .
one of th e S i x teen Great C ountries,m odern
Bihar 22,39
,40
,n . 1
, 48, 49 , 50 , 5 6 ,
57 . 59 , 60 , 62 , 6 3 , 6 7 , 6 9 , 7 1 , 78, 79 ,
8 1, 82 , 83 , 84, 1 14 ; cap . t ran sferred to
Pata liputra from Rajagri ha short l y afte rth e death of Buddha
,50 ; dys. of , 67 -86 .
cap of Magadh a, denotes Vesali, 7 2 .
lang uage , 39 , 40 ,4 1 .
a q . of Udayana, 59 .
3,1 5
,18, 5 2 , 53 , 10 3
,104 1 1 1
,1 12
132, 1 36 .
12 1 .
a Buddh . m issi onary,43 , 45 .
k .,f . of Pasenadi, 76 .
48 posi t i on of, 5 2 a tr iba l Samgha,
1 56
politlcal const i tut ions of,1 64-5 .
country, 5 3 .
m odern Kasia,5,156 .
another n . for Pataliputra 79 .
head of th e A ryan household , 16 3 .
a Buddh . work , 1 53 .
n . of a v i l lage , 6 2 .
150 .
a t ribal Samgha, 5 1 , 74, 77 , 1 14,148
,
149,150 , 154, 1 55 , 156 , 167 -8, 179 , 180 .
208 INDEX .
Mal loi (Malavas)Maltecorae
Manavi Arth avidya
Manavah
Mangudi
ManguraMan tradh ikara
Mann
Manu
Meth ora (Mathura)midioke
Mith ila
Molagu
Mol i niMrichch hakatika.
Mrityu
Madraraksh nsa
MundaMulaka
a tribe , 158 .
a tribe , 160 , n . 1 .
96 -97 .
a School of H i ndu Pol i ty, 89 .
n . of a v i l lage , 23 .
s. of Kalaéok a, 82 .
99 .
au thor of a Dharmasastra, 42, 44, 46 , 53 ,
9 1, 96 , 97 , 104, 106 , 108 n . 2
,1 1 1 , 185 ;
date of its presen t form , 42 orig inal Manuprobably pri or even to th e Dh armasfi tras,
108, n . 2
s . of Vivasvat , first e lected k . of men ,
1 19 -20 .
of Aéok a , 2 2 .
town of th e Sfi rasenas, 10 , 1 1 , 12 , 16 , 53 .
a Drav id ian word traced i n th e Vedi c l i terature , 26 -7 .
th e‘Videgh a,
’ k . of Videh a, story of, 14 .
an i nternec i ne quarre l or rebe l l ion , 1 16 , 1 17 ,
56 .
th e‘Mathura’ of Ceylon, 12 .
n . of a country , sam e as Mulaka, 4, n . 3 . See
unde r Mulaka .
6 , n . 1 , 40 , 72 .
10 5 .
au thor of an Arth asastra ,1 12 .
n . of a v i l lage , 23 .
Gk . ambassador t o th e court of Chandragupta ,
6,n . 1 , 7 , 160 , n . l .
town of th e Saurasenas, 9 .
27 .
m odern Darbhanga Distri ct , B ihar , 50 .
n . of a v il lage , 2 3 .
a n . of Benares, 5 1 .
a Sk . drama, 64, 95 .
god, 106 .
a Sk . drama, 70 , n . 1 .
k . ,68, 80 .
coun t ry, associated with Aémaka
,4 n . 3 ,
5 , 22 , 53 n . 5 .
INDEX . 209
Mulananda
Mfi tibas
Naga
Naga-BasakaNaga dy .
fn ahana -chu nna -mala
Naigamas
Nanda dy .
Nan divardh an a
Nandivardh ana
Narada
Nigama
n igama -
gramasNigam a-sau
'
igh a
n ikaya
Nirayavali-satm
NysaNysian s
Orosi usO l denberg , Prof .O xydrak ai
Padmavati
a k . of S . India,3 3 , n . 1 .
3 .
n . of a leathe rworker, 30 .
th e last k . of th e fam i ly of B im bisara, 7 1 , 80 .
bath and perfum e m oney, 74 .
c i t izens, 175 .
83 .
k ., s. of Kalasok a
,82 .
k . of th e Nanda dy . , 68, 83 .
a Pre -Kautilyan author of a work on king lyduties, 90 , n . l , 95 .
n . of a Buddh . m onk , 80 .
god, 93 .
g i ft of th e i nhabi tan ts of, 176 -77 .
‘body of t ownsm en ’,not Buh ler ’s ‘m er
can tile gui l d ,’ 176 , n . 1 .
'a k ind of pol i t i cal gana town -sh ip , 170 ,
n . 1,172 ; seal of , associated wi th th e
seal of kumaramatya , 171 , n . 1
governm ent of, 174-78 Naigama
, a
corporate body,th e word derived from
Niyama,175 ; cannot m ean a
‘gui l d’ , 175
n . 1 ; power to issue m oney, 176 .
177 .
177 -9 .
141 , n . 1 .
a Ja i na work 78 .
form of g overnm ent at, 178.
159 .
a Gk . h istorian , 158
a tr ibe , i den tified with th e Ksh audrakas,
1 58 .
sister of k . Daréak a and q . of Udayana, 59,62 , 63 , 69 , 70 , n . 1 , 80 .
83 .
s .of Pradyota ,
ousted by Aryaka, s. of Gopala,64 .
210 INDEX .
Pal i language
Pfisdyfi
Pandyak avataka
Pan in i
Paraéara
Pasanaka Cb etiyaPasenadi (Prasenaj it)
22,24
,n . 1
, 3 1 n . 1, 32 , 33 , 34, 35 , 38,
39,41 .
3 3, 34 .
n. of a Kshatriya tri be and country,14 on e
of th e S ix teen Great Countries, 48 posi t i onof, 5 2 -3 kings of, 56 ; cap . at Kampilya,
1 57 double m ean ing of th e word , 148const i tut ion of, 164- 5 .
k .,s . of Kalasok a 82 .
18 .
See under Pandya .
d . of ‘th e Ind ian Hercules,
’9 .
on e of th e Ni ne Nandas,83 .
an A ryan t ri be, 9 , 1 1 , 14 . See under Pandya .
on e of th e Ni ne Nandas 83 .
sam e as Pandya,1 0 . See un der Pandya .
an A ryan Kshatriya tr ibe , 6 , 7 , 9 , 14 ; connec ted wit h th e North
,9 m igrat i on of,
10 - 1 1 colon isat ion of Ceylon , 12 1 3 ; the irk ingdom , 2 3 .
d . of Krishna, 10 .
iden tificat ion of,8, n . 1 .
g rammarian,3,5, 6 , 7 , 14, 14 1 -2
,147 date of,
3 h is school of g ramm ar , 5 reference t oSamgha and Gana, 141 -2 .
a Pre -Kau tilyan author of Arth asastra, 89 ,
104,19 1 work m e trical i n form , 10 4 .
School of Pol i ty, 89 .
a Kshatr iya, 84 .
1 80 .
a t r ibe , 144 ; iden t ified wi th th e Persis, 145n 1 .
a p lace , 5 .
k . of Kosala , a con t . of Buddha, 57 , 60 ,65 , 66 ,
74 n . 3, 76 , 7 7 , 81, 1 48
1 75 .
a v il lage on th e road from Vesali to Rajagri hafort ificat ion of
, 78.
cap . of Magadha, 4 , n . 4 , 50 , 78, 79 , 80 , 82 .
grammar ian ; nat ive place of, 4,n . 4
, 6 ,
2 1 2 INDEX .
Pundras
Pupphavati
Puma.Pfirana-kassapaPuranas
Push k aravati
Push pam itra
Push papura
Raj adh arma
Raj a-dharm -anuéasan a
Rajagri ha
Raj akulas
Raj an
Raj anyaRaj aéabd in
Raj a -éabd -opafi vin
Raj aéastra
Rajaéek h ara
Rajyavardh ana
RakshasasRakshasesRama
RamayanaRamma
Rash trapala
Ra tnavali
Rhys Dav ids, Prof .R igvedaRousseauRuman vat
Sabagnn
Sab aras
Sab arcae
sab has
Sach ch ak a
3 , 2 1 , 40 , n . 1 .
a n . of Benares, 50 .
cap . town,175 .
142 .
3 , 9 , 17 , 56 , 57 , 58, 6 3 , 67 , 68, 69 , 7 1 , 7 2 ,
73 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84, 86 , 106 , 1 07 , 1 3 1
chaoti c condit i on of th e Puran i c accounts,58 va l ue of , 6 7 -8 .
cap . of Tak sh asila, 54 , n . 3 .
founde r of th e Sunga dy ., 72 .
a c i ty, 82 .
92,96
,120 .
1 1 1 .
m odern Ra ir,B ihar
,th e earl ier cap , of
th e Magadh a em pire, 50 , 59, 6 0 ,
1 5 1 .
m ean i ng of , i n th e Buddh . l i terature,1 2 1 .
1 27 .
153 .
148,156 .
92
a poe t , 47s . of k Prab hak arav ardh ana of Kanauj , 47 .
tri be ,20 ,
2 1 , 145 .
tri be,144 .
17 , 18,20
,2 1 ; h is sout hward march ,
18 - 20 ; war with th e Rakshasas, 21 .
a n . of Benares, 5 1 .
on e of th e Ni ne Nandas, 83 .
a Sk . drama, 6 2 .
40,44
,140 , 16 1 .
5 2 .
1 19 .
m i niste r of k . Udayana, 63 .
n . of a tr ibe, 158an aborigi nal t ri be, 3 , 2 1 .
n . of a tribe,158 .
180 .
h is d iscussion with Buddha, 95 , n . 2 , 148-9 .
INDEX . 2 1 3
of a r .,boundary between Kosala and
V ideh a,14 .
Sadan ira n .
Salaka-gahap aka
Salalavati
sam agama
Sam ana -brahmanaSamav ati
Sam b astai
Samg haSafngh amukh yas
Samgha tr i besSamitisSamyama
Safit yutta -Nzkaya
safi jaya
Sankarach arya
Sank ararya
San tiparvan
Sarafij ita gods 145 .
Sarasvat 'i r .,14
,42
,46 , 47 .
Saraya r . , 1 36 , n . 1 .
Sarvafi jah a k . , s. of Kalaéoka , 82 .
Sarv ilak a 95 .
Sastr-opaj ivin ( flyw
dhafi vin )Satan ika
Satapatha -Brahmana
Sath iyam afigalam
Satrufi jaya
Sa tru -sh ad -va rga.Saub h reyas
1 36 .
g randfather of k . U dayana , 58 .
77 .
Oudh ; cap . of Kosala i n th e period immediately preceding Buddha 4 n 4 5 16 ,
n . 4, 5 1 .
a tri be,65 -7 , 160
,164 ; thei r terr i tory
subjected to Prasenaj it, 65 -7 .
183 .
a r . , 43
a Sakya townsh ip , 160 .
143 .
a q . of Udayana , 59 .
n . of a t ribe , 1 58 .
See under Gana .
15 2 .
1 59 .
180 .
a k . of th e Brahm adatta dy . ,57 .
145
k . ,s . of Kalaéok a, 82 .
169 .
comm entator of Kamandaka,97 .
9 1 -94, 96 , 97 , 1 02 , 10 3 , 106 , 108- 1 14
123 -4,149
,15 1 , 1 52 .
‘(a corporat i on ) subsisting on arms 144
, 148.
f . of k . Udayana, 58.
2 3 .
k . of Sauv ira ; d iscourse wi th th e sage
B h aradvaj a, 106 -7 , 188, 190 .
21 4 INDEX .
Sauv ira
Savatth i (Sravasti)
Savi triSe leuk os Nicator
Senapat iSetakann ika
Setavya
Seven Prak ritisSh amasastry, R .
S iddharthaSilavat
S indhuSireS i r George GriersonS i ri -Vaddh aSiéunaga
S.
Si vask andavarman
Siv is
S ix teen Great Countries
Skandaputras 95 .
Soc ia l Contract theory of,1 19 , 122 , 1 24, 1 29 ; kn own to Kau
t i lya, 1 1 9 .
Solasa Mahaj anapada
Son anandana B irthSotth ivati-nagaraS overe ign O neSovere ign Num berSrem s
S t . Am b rosiasterS t . August ineSthauv iévara
Stha t‘irdva l t
Sudassana
S ahmu
Sukm ni h
Sru n nnga lub ilasini
Sumsumaragiri
country,24
,106 .
cap . of Kosala ,5,19 , 5 1 , 66 , 77 identifi cat ion
of, 5 1 .
god, 1 28 .
Gk . k . , 7 .
7 2 , 162 .
n . of a town 43 .
5 .
1 1 1 , n . 1 .
88 .
n . of a goldsm i th, 30 .
s . of B imbisara , 75 .
country , 1 3 i nhabi tants of, 24 .
1 28
h is opi n ion about th e Aryan language , 24 5 .
m in iste r of Prasenaj it, 66 .
founder of a Magadhan dy ., 68, 81 .
god, abridged Danda -n i tt i n to a treatise ca l ledVaisalak sh a
,92 , 94 .
a Pallava k .
,3 3
,n 2 .
a Janapada tribe , 173 -4 .
enum erat ion of,48 ; con term i nous countries
specified by pairs, 49 .
48 .
50 , 53 .
cap . of Ch e taratth a 52 .
146 .
146 .
m ercan t i le gu i lds, 144 .
a C hristian Father,1 29 .
a Ch rist ian Fathe r,129 .
modern Thaneévar,47 .
178 .
a n . of B enares,50 .
coun try,40
,n . 1
a Sk . law-book,1 30 .
a Pal i work , 154a town , 63 .
2 1 6
CaanasUsiraddh aja
Utk ala
U t tara-Kosala
Uttara-Kur uU ttara -MadrasU ttara -Pafich ala
U ttarapath a.
Vaideh i pri ncess
Vaideh iputra
Vai jayantiVaiéalak sh a
Vaisravana
Vaivasvata Man n
Vaj ira (Vaj iri )
Vanaras
Van asah vaya
Vaii gaVarah am ih ira
Vc‘zrt-op aj
’
iv in
Vagab h ak h attiya
Vasavadatta
vasish th iputra Puln
mav i
INDEX .
4 , n . 3 .
mi
97 , 185 .
n . of a m oun tai n , 43 .
country,not i nc l uded in th e U ttarapath a, 44 .
1 6 , n . 4,17 , n .
country,52 ; Janapada Government i n
, 1 74 .
a Jan apada, 174 .
country,cap . a t A h ich ch h atra ,
52 .
44,46 , 47 , 48 th e term used wi th re ferenceto th e Madh yadeéa ,
44 ; sense of, 46 ; Benares excluded from ,
i n a Jataka, 46 Takshasi la i nclu ded i n , 46 ,
n . 3 placed outsi deTh anes
’
var an d Pehoa by Rajaaek h ara ,47 .
carpen ter, 63 .
1 44 .
probably iden tical w i th Bodh i , s . of Udayana,6 3 .
q . of B imbisara, 73 , 7 7 .
59 .
m odern Banavasi, 3 3 .
92 , 94 .
god ,106 .
9 1 .
(l . of Prasenaj i t , m arr ied t o AJataéatru 66,
77
n . of a tri be and on e of th e S ix teen GreatCoun tries, 48 , 49 , 5 1 , 55 , 73 , 1 54; knowna lso as Lich ch h av is, 5 1 .
a sage , 133 , n . 1 .
sam e as Vatsas, cap . at Kausamb i , 48 ,5 1 ,
5 2 .
an aborig i nal tri be , 2 0 .
4 .
count ry , 40 , n . l .
astronom er,4 ,n 3
, 10 - 1 1 .
a craft gu i l d 144 , 148
d of Mah anaman,
a sakya , from a slavewom an
,m arr ied to Pasenadi ; m othe r
of k . V idudab h a ,66 67 .
q of Udayana ,5 9
,6 2
,64 .
INDEX . 21 7
Vasuman as
Vatavyadh i
Vatsavatsyayana
VedaVedet u tto
Vedisa
Vesali (Vaiéali )
V i j ayadevavarm an
s tta
Viliv ayak ura
V imalakondafi fi a
Vinaéana
Vm ayap t taka
V i ndhyaVin h uk ada Ch utukala
nanda 3 2 -3 .
V im sch aya-Mah amatra 154
,156 .
V irajas 126,1 27 .
V i rata k . of Matsya,5 3 .
V i sak h ayfipa k . ,6 5 .
V iéalak sh a a pre -Kau tilyan author of Arth aéastra 89 , 9 1
same as Kautilya , 98. See un der Kautilya .
k .,57 .
k . of t h e Brah m adatta dy .,57 .
n . of a sage , 2 , 2 1 .
n . of a leather-worker,3 0 .
k . of Kosala ; d iscourse wit h Bri haspati , 1061 89 .
a pre-Kautilyan author of Arth asastra
,90 .
(IV an d kingdom 57 , 81 , 84, 1 1 4 .
aut hor of th e Kamasfi tra,90 , 93 , 94 .
1 10 .
74 , n . 3 .
4
cap . of th e Lich ch h av is ; 5 , 5 1 , 72 , 7 3 , 74 ,
77 ,
"8, 1 49 , 1 50 , 1 5 5 ; i dent ificat i on of, 5 1
ca l led Magadhmit p uram , 72 .
a Rakshasa ,20 .
country ; A ryan colon isat ion of, 2 , 5 , 22 . 45 .
country,44
,45 , 5 1 , 59, 78
s . of Pasen adi,k , of Kosala, 9 cont of Buddha
57 ; perh aps th e sam e as Ksh udraka, 65 ;
born of vasab h ak h attiya, 66 when grown
up ,went to th e Sakva coun try and because
of h is low birth was subj ect to indig
n it ies 66 ; m assacre of th e Sak yas, 67 .
k . ,33 .
kingdom ,149
,1 5 5 .
a S . Ind ian roya l n .,34
,n . 1 .
s of B imbisara, 75
th e p lace wh ere th e Sarasvat i d isappears, 42 .
a Buddh . Canonical w ork , 4 1 , 43 .
m ountai n,2,3,5,18
,19
,22
,42
,45
,46 .
21 8 INDEX
Vrish n i
I'
yavaharika.
Yak sh in i
Yama
Y audh eyas
Yaugandh aray ana
Yayat i
Yebh uyyaszka
Yodh aj h a
Yogasena
Y uvafijaya B i rt h
C . U . Press—Reg ,672 29 -5 - 19— 1 000 .
a Samgha ; num ism at i c ev idence of t h e ex ietence of, 1 57
story of,1 34-35 .
god, 106 .
a t ri be,144, 1 58 const i tu t ion of 165 -67 .
prim e -m i n ister of k . Udayana 60
k . , 1 37 , r . l183 , 184
145 .
k of th e Brah m adatta dy , , 5 ;
5 1
University of Toronto
library
DOWWO T
REMO VE
FRO M
THIS
PO CKET
Acm e Lib rary Card Pock et
UnderPat. “Rd . Index F110"
Made b y LIBRARY BUREAU
