Jaina Political Thought

Author(s): G C Pandey
Publisher: Prakrit Bharti Academy

Page 56

federations all have their own laws and leaders. Here we have different forms of territorial settlements, as also associations, based on kinship, forms of polity, and religious belief. Although monarchical polity was more common, the Jaina texts are fully aware of republics and their federations, to one of which Mahavira himself belonged. On the different forms of polity we hear in the Ayaranga (II.3.1.10-11) of "arayani va, ganarayani va, juvarayani va, dorajjani 'va, verajjani va, viruddharajjani. va." Arayani or anarchical states are explained by the commentators as states where the king is dead and none has succeeded him. Juvara yani refers to state where the crown-prince is in charge but not yet coronated. Dorajjani obviously refers to diarchical states of which we hear from the Greek accounts going back to the days of Alexander. Verajja is a fully anarchical condition but one is reminded of 'Vairajya occurring in Brahmanical
where it seems to stand for some distinctive type of polity! Viruddharajja has been explained as a state of war between two states or a no-man's land. It deserves to be noticed that here ganarajya or republican states are putat par with the other more or less anarchical states and the monks are advised to avoid them lest they be accused of theft etc. This clearly reflects a situation which did not exist in Mahavira's age when the Licchavi- gana was famous for its elaborate judicial procedure. This only confirms that Ayaracula is distinctly later than the Ayara.
Although the earlier Jaina attitude did not show any theoretical preference for republics over monarchies, their sympathy in practice lay with the former. Just as we hear in the Mahaparinibbanasutta that the Buddha held the Vajjis superior to the kingdom of Magadha, similarly in the Bhagavati (7.9). we hear that the federation of eighteen ganarajyas including the Mallas and the Licchavis, was really stronger than king · Ajatsatru of Magadha but lost on account of the devilist machinations of the latter in the frightful battles called Mahasilakantaka and Rathamusala.
The descriptions of kings, their courts and administrative officials as found in the existing canon appearto be standardized and possibly belong to the age of the council of Valabhi. The standard forms of such descriptions are often referred to the Aupapatikasutra. To glean administrative details for the earlier period from canonical literature is thus an extremely difficult enterprize. We can only gather a general picture which tends to conform with early Buddhist texts. Kings were assisted hy councils and officials who included amatya, senapati purohita, and setthi. The cities were administered by magistrates who had a police force under them. The villages had headmen as well as local councils. About the republican states some details have already been brought out by a number of scholars on the basis of Buddhist texts. In this respect the Jaina texts suffer by a greater
43