________________ The Licchavis of Vaisali 23 This inference is based on the connection of their judicial system and the disposal of their dead with certain libetan customs. Others reject the theory on the ground that we know little about the state of civilisation in Tibet during the early days of Buddhism. Another group of scholars hold that the Licchavis were originally Persiaus who came from the Persian city of Nisibi. This theory has been criticised by several writers, and there is really no evidence in support of it. A distinguished writer points to the unanimity of India tradition in representing the Licchavis as Ksaatriyas. His conclusion is that the Licchavis were indigenous Ksatriyas who were degraded to the position of Vratyas when they championed the cause of non-Brahmanical creeds like Buddhism and Jainism. In my humble opinion, the learned scholar's arguments in favour of the suggestion do not preclude the possibility of the Licchavis having originally been a non-Aryan tribe, with Mangolian affinity, that was later admitted into the Hindu fold. It is well known that the Indo-Gieeks (Yavapas) and the InduScythians (Sakas) were considered 'apiravasita' Sudras as early as the age of Patanjali's Mahabbasya. According to the Manusambita (X, 43-44) however the Paundrakas (people of North Bengal), Audras (people of the Orissa region; v. I. Codas=Colas), Dravidas (the Tamils), Kambojas Yavanas (Greeks), Sakas Paradas (Parthians), Pelbavas (the Pelhevis or Persians), Cinas, Kiratas, Daradas (of modern Kashmir) and the Khasas (modern Khakkas of Kashmir) were Ksatriyas who were gradually degraded to the position of the Vtsbalas (irreligious men or outcastes or Sudras) owing to the omission of sacred rites (or, prescribed duties). and to their neglect of Brahmanas. Elsewhere in the same work (X, 22), the Jallas, Mallas (neighbours of the Licchavis living about Kusinara and Pava). Licchavis, Natas (professional actors) Karanas (professional scribes), Khasas and Dravinas are described as the descendants of the Vratya Rajanyas, i. e., degraded Ksatriyas. It is very interesting to note that the Khasas and Dravidas are put in both the lists of Manu. It is, therefore, clear that the social position of the peoples indicated in the two passages is absolutely or almost the same. It is also to be noted that the Sakas and Yavanas are called 'elevateu' sudras by Patanjali and 'degraded' Ksatriyas by Manu and that the position indicated by the two auihorities is practically the same. Another important fact is that the first passage referred to above from Manu (X,43-44) mentions the peoples as 'Rsatriya-jatayah' i. e., castes (social groups dependent on birth) belonging to the Ksatriya Varna (social grade). I 30
