Jain Journal 1967 04

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 39

170
JAIN JOURNAL
infers this from their judicial system and the disposal of their dead19. Dr. S. C. Vidyabhusan held that the Licchavis were originally Persians and came from the Persian city of Nisibi20. The unsoundness of these theories has been demonstrated by several writers 21. Early Indian tradition is unanimous in representing the Licchavis as kșatriyas. Thus we read in the Mahāparinibbāna Suttānta : “And the Licchavis of Vesali heard that the Exalted One had died at Kusinara. And the Licchavis of Vesali sent a messenger to the Mallas saying: 'the Exalted One was a kşatriya and so are we. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Exalted One. In the Jaina Kalpa Sutra, Trisala, the sister of Cetaka who is regarded by several scholars as a Licchavi chief of Vesali, is styled kşatriyāni23
Manu concurs in the view that the Licchavis (Nicchavis) are rājanyas or ksatriyas23
Jhallo Mallasca rājanyād vrātyān Nicchivireva ca Natašca Karanascaiva Khaso Drāvida eva ca
It may be argued that the Licchavis, though originally non-Aryans or foreigners, ranked as ksatriyas when they were admitted into the fold of Brahmanism like the Dravidians referred to in Manu's śloka and the Gurjara Pratiharas of mediaeval times. But unlike the Pratiharas and Dravidas, the Licchavis never appear to be very friendly towards Brahmanism. On the contrary, they were always to be found among the foremost champions of non-Brahmanic creeds like Jainism and Buddhism. As a matter of fact Manu brands them as the children of the vrātya rājanyas. The great mediaeval Rajput families (though sometimes descended from foreign immigrants) were never spoken of in these terms. On the contrary, they were supplied with pedigrees going back to Rama, Laksmana, Yadu, Arjuna and others. A body of foreigners, who were unfriendly towards the Brāhmanas, could hardly have been accepted as kşatriyas. The obvious conclusion seems to be that the Licchavis were indigenous ksatriyas who were degraded to the
19 Indian Antiquary, 1903, p. 233. We know very little about the state of civilisation in Tibet in the early days of Buddhism. This fact should be remembered in instituting a comparison between Tibetan and Vajjian customs (as reflected in Pali texts).
20 Ind. Ant. 1908, P. 78. 21 Modern Review, 1919, p. 50; Law, Some Ksatriya Tribes, 26ff. 22 SBE, XXII, pp. xii, 227. 28 X. 22.