The Constitution of the Licchavis and the Sakyas
Summary
The article examines the republican constitutions of the Licchavis and the Sakyas in ancient India, directly challenging the critical analysis of Dr. U. N. Ghoshal. The author, R. C. Majumdar, argues that the fundamental principles assumed by Dr. Ghoshal regarding the comparative value of the Jatakas as evidence are flawed. The author contends that because the details found in the Jatakas do not contradict earlier canonical literature, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the later accounts. The author defends the generally accepted translation of the Ekapanna Jataka, which suggests a supreme assembly of 7707 members called Rajjis, each governing small administrative units with subordinate officials. The author refutes Dr. Ghoshal’s rejection of the analogy between the Licchavi constitution and the Cleisthenian constitution of Athens, emphasizing the transition from kinship to locality. To support this, the author cites recently discovered Vinaya texts of the Mulasarvastivadas, which provide positive testimony about the Licchavi constitution and suggest the number 7707 originates from mystic figures related to the city's divisions. Regarding the Sakyas, the author rejects Dr. Ghoshal’s theory of a single permanent king. Instead, the author supports Rhys Davids' view that the Sakyas formed a republican clan governed by a sovereign assembly with elected chiefs. The author argues that references to kings like Bhaddiya and Suddhodana in the canon refer to elected chiefs rather than hereditary monarchs, and that the Sakya assemblies mentioned in the early canon corroborate the Jataka accounts.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This article critically examines the constitutional structures of the Licchavis and the Sakyas, challenging Dr. U. N. Ghoshal’s dismissal of later Jataka texts. The author argues that the Jatakas, despite being late, do not contradict earlier canonical literature and can be used to understand their governance. For the Licchavis, the text supports the traditional view of a supreme assembly of 7,707 Rājās, drawing a valid analogy to the Cleisthenian constitution of Athens to explain a transition from kinship to locality. A recently discovered Milasarvastivada Vinaya text further corroborates this republican, democratic system, featuring elected officials and a popular assembly. Regarding the Sakyas, the author refutes the notion of a permanent hereditary king, asserting instead that their constitution was a sovereign clan-assembly with elected chiefs, thereby vindicating the views of earlier scholars like Rhys Davids.