________________
Political Conditions and Institutions
229 D.R. BHANDARKARI makes the Lichchhavi state a federation of small principalities. He writes, "The number of the kings constituting the Lichchhavi Gana was pretty large. It again seems that each Lichchhavi king had his separate principality where he exercised supreme power in certain respects. Nevertheless, the Gana as a whole had power to kill, burn or exile a man from their kingdom which meant to aggregate of principalities of the different kings." Again he says, "The Lichchhavi Gana was a Federation of the chiefs of the different clans of a tribe who were also each the ruler of a small principality. Each confederate principality maintained its separate autonomy in regard to certain matters and allowed the Sangha to exercise supreme and independent control in respect of others affecting the kingdom." D.R. BHANDARKAR concludes by suggesting some points of resemblance betwecn the constitution of the Lichchhavi Sangha and the confederation of the German States called the German empire.
A.S. ALTEKAR has tried to justify the famous Jataka statement that there were 7707 kings and an equal number of Upa-rājās, Senapatis and Bhandāgarikas in the Vaišāli Statc. When the Aryans came and occupied this territory, it seems to have been divided into about 7707 Kshatriya families, who were something like so many Zamindar families of the state. They were all Kshatriyas and were known as Rājans. The heads of these families lived in the capital while their managers stayed in the countryside and were known as their treasurers. If the Kshatriya householders were known as Rājans, their sons were naturally called Uparājans or Prvarājas. When they werc unable to lead their army thiemselves, thcy used to nominate a Senāpati or Gencral to act for them.
U.N. GHOSIAL points out that the statements in the Jātaka text belong to a late chronological stratuin, while all rcferences in older and more authentic canonical tradition describe the Lichchhavi constitution in very gencral terms simply as Sarigha or Gama. There are therefore grave reasons for doubling the genuineness of thic later account. 1. CL, 1918, pp. 155-150. .. State and Government in Ancient India, p. 115; Homage, p. 0%. 3. IHQ.XX, 334 ; XXI, 1 ff.
