Mahajanapada: Monarchy Form

During the period of Mahajanpada, the normal form of government in India was monarchical but they rarely presented a high degree of centralization. Kingship was usually hereditary in accordance with the rule of primogeniture (although some instances of election is also noted). King lives in high style and glory and enjoys immense revenue from private and public property. He was the head of the state, collecting taxes and tributes, administering justice, fighting foreign foes, and looking after the material welfare of his subjects.^[4] Monarchical state territorial arrangement was a mix of federalism, feudalism, and local self-government. There were alternative groups based on function, such as village communities, family associations, and guilds of manufacturers, traders, bankers, and others. They were able to conduct their affairs with a good amount of autonomy. Their customs or laws were accepted by the state and perpetuated by the legislators.^[5]

In the Mahajanpada having monarchies, the machinery for executive administration was also well organized. It was under the direct supervision of the king, who was assisted by ministers and a number of top officials. Under the big functionaries stood an array of smaller administrators, military officers, ambassadors and spies, secretaries, clerks, professional workers, and so on. Judicature was one of the most significant components of governance in both philosophy and practice There was no division between the executive and judicial branches of government. In practice, however, there were several groups of individuals whose major role was adjudication, who was assisted by a group of smaller officials. Brahmanic and Buddhist theories laid the highest emphasis on justice..^[6]

Administration in Monarchical Mahajanpada

In the age of the sixteen Mahajanapadas, kingship was generally hereditary, but the king used to be elected by the people in some instances. The power of the king was not unlimited. The king carried out his administration with the help of officials, both high and low. Higher officials called mahamatras performed the functions of minister (mantrin), commander (Senanayaka), judge, and chief accountant. A class of officials called ayuktas also performed similar functions in some states. Brahmans exercised significant influence in the monarchical form of government. The Brahmanas of that time were repositories of culture and education and were held in the highest esteem. In some kingdoms such as Koshala and Magadha, despite punch-marked coins made of silver, some influential Brahmanas and sethis were paid by the grant of the revenue of villages. The beneficiaries were only granted revenue and were not given any administrative authority. The rural administration was in the hands of the village headman and was known by different titles such as grambhojaka, gramini, or gramika. The headman enjoyed considerable importance and had direct links with the kings. He collected taxes from the villagers, and they also maintained law and order in their locality.

The king possessed a sizeable professional army fed by the state exchequer. The fiscal system was well established, and Kshatriya and Brahmanas were exempted from tax payments. A voluntary payment called Bali by peasants to the king was compulsory and collected by officers called balisadhakas. Taxes were paid in both cash and kind. Taxes were assessed and managed by the royal agents with the help of the village headman. Artisans had to work for a day in a month for the king, and traders had to pay customs on the sale of their commodities. It may be observed that fines imposed by courts of law formed one of the principal sources of revenue.

Mahajanapadas: Republics Form

Another example of the post-Vedic age system of government can be traced in the non-monarchical, republican state. These republics were gradual evolution of a pluralistic political system as opposed to the authority vested in a single individual. The seeds of non-monarchical government were planted in the institutions of the past, which not only survived but were strengthened in particular areas over time. The early Vedic tribes and clans were organized on the basis of blood relationships. The members of the group retained their independence and local governing authority, though owning allegiance to chiefs belonging to a certain family. Probably republics during the age of Mahajanpada emerged from Gana, Vrata, Sardha, and Visah which were the units of political divisions in the later Vedic period.^[7]

Along with Gana, Samgha was another term used for the republics of the time.^[8] Gana meaning numbers imply that the ganarajya of this period was the state ruled by many. We have references of the republics consisting of either a single tribe, or some were a confederacy of tribes. Instead of one absolute ruler, the republican Sakya clan (to which Buddha belonged) had many Kshatriya chiefs called Rajas. In the Acharanga-Sutra of the Jaina literature, we came across the terms Do-rajjani and Gana-rayani which would be the states where numerous gana ruled.^[9] The Vrijian State in eastern India was formed by the union of several clans including the Lichchhavis and the Jnatrikas. Since a practice similar to counting votes was the norm in Gana, it was clear that, as republics were governed by some form of parliament. Gana rule is opposed to royal rule in the Avadana Sataka. The Jataka mentions Lichchhavis rulers as ‘Gana rulers’ or republican rules.^[10] Coins of the period also shed light on the republican form of government in some states. For example, the coins of the Andhaka-Vrishnis republic which in an earlier period identified with Satvats were struck in the name of the Gana. This attests to the absence of a ‘king council’ in this state. However, Yaudheya coins were struck both in the name of the Executive Council (Mantra-dharas) and the Gana.^[11]

Administration in Republics

The Buddhist literature mentions a large number of republic-clans and provides great details regarding the constitution of the Sakyas of Kapilavastu and the Vajjian Confederation, of which the Lichchhavis were the most prominent. These were administered by a supreme assembly comprised of both old and young members, which met regularly and thoroughly examined all critical issues confronting the State.^[12]

The head of the State served as the chief executive officer and was most likely chosen for a specific period of time. There is reason to think that the republics of Mallas and Lichchhavis, as well as other republican clans, had a nine-person governing a council. Raja, which in this context had the same meaning as Consul and Archon, was the title given to the head of State and the assembly members. Santhagara was the name of the residence where the assembly convened. In the republic state of Vajji, administrative and political affairs were debated in the Santhagara (assembly hall). According to Atthakatha, the following four were the highest officers: President (Raja), Vice-President (Uparaja), Generalissimo (Senapati) and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Bhandagarika).

The assemblies or council of republics seems very powerful and democratic in their functioning. It has been recorded that the Sakiyas decided to gather and decide whether to open the gates when the monarch of Kosala attacked their capital and demanded surrender. When they gathered, they noticed that their opinion was split. However, the majority’s viewpoint prevailed through.^[13]

From Jataka stories, we know that Lichchhavi republican State was divided into many small administrative units, the heads of which lead the supreme assembly at the center.^[14] In these republics, the executive was presided over by a chief called Rajan. Aside from the Raja, there was a Uparaja, who served as a sort of vicegerent, and a Senapati, or military commander. Other officers could have been appointed as well. The Mahavastu mentions the Lichchhavis appointing a Mahattaka to be the people’s ambassador. Police are mentioned among the Koliyans and Mallas republican oligarchies. Besides the organs of government at the center, there were discussions in towns and perhaps also in villages which indicates the existence of local self-government in the republics.^[15]

Atthakatha, commentaries on the Pali Buddhist canon informs us that the judiciary was made up of a series of courts, each of which had to find the accused guilty before he could be sentenced. The Viniccaya Mahamattas formed the first court. Then came the Voharikas or lawyer-judges; Sutradharas or masters of law; Astakula or council of the eight; Senapati, Uparaja, and Raja. What appears is that the judiciary was made up of a series of courts, each of which had to find the accused guilty before he could be sentenced. The decisions of the Raja were also used to be recorded.^[16]

General Principles of Taxation

Monarchical and Republican States both developed a taxation system. The ancient lawgiver Manu elaborates upon the tax that a ruler should collect from his subjects. Manu’s idea is to establish a system of taxation with the consent of the people. The maxim is: “No taxation without protection.” A ruler who demands taxes but does not provide protection takes on “all the foulness of his people” and descends into hell. Duties and taxes must be set after thoughtful deliberation in order to offer appropriate revenue to the state and an adequate return to the employees. Manu says, “As the leech, the calf, and the bee take their food little by little, even so must the king draw from his realm moderate annual taxes.” Here Manusmriti suggests that revenue collection done by the King needs to be reasonable and in accordance with Dharma. The land tax should be one-sixth, one-eighth, or one-fourth of the crops, i.e., one-sixth of the gross yield. Manu awards the king a sixth part of “trees, meat, clarified butter, honey, perfumes, medical herbs; substances used for flavouring food, flowers, roots, and fruit; of leaves, pot-herbs, grass, (objects) made of cane, skins, of earthen vessels, and all (articles) made of stone.” Even from other sources, it is evident that the State used to collect one-sixth of the produce.^[17] The ruler was also expected to ensure that all revenue collected should be used for the welfare of the people and not improperly appropriated by the King or government personnel.