BALLB history sample question answer Ancient India

BA LLB history sample question answer 3 Theories of Origin of State in Ancient India: In this article you will read about STATE IN ANCIENT INDIA,Describe the various principles of the origin of the state in ancient Indian politics?Discuss the Saptang Theory of the state in Ancient India?
Discuss the organic theory of the State|Discuss the historical evolution of state?Differentiate between Modern and Ancient State on the basis of their functions? Write a brief note on nature of state?Describe the political condition of Northern India in the Sixth century B.C.

Q. 1. Describe the various principles of the origin of the state in ancient Indian politics.(BALLB)

Ans. In ancient India, no political thinker or writer propounded a ‘theory of the origin of the state. But it is rather surprising that the occasional speculations on the subject refer to, as we shall see, all the modern theories developed in Europe. Another significant point to be noted in this connection is that of ancient Indian origin of kingship. With these preliminary considerations we shall now proceed with a brief discussion of the various views or theories of origin. Origin in War

This theory is found in the Aitreya Brahmana. It asserts that the Devas (i.e. their worshippers – the ancient Aryans) originally had no king. But when the Devas in their struggle with the Asuras (non-Aryans) were repeatedly defeated, they came to the conclusion that it was so because the Asuras had a king to lead them, they were victorious. Therefore they tried to follow them and agreed to elect a king. Jayaswal comments : ‘If it has a historical reference it would refer to the tribal stage of the Aryans in India and it would suggest that the institution of kingship was borrowed from the Dravidians. Whatever the historical truth in the theory, the important point to note here is that kingship is contemplated to be elective in its origin. This theory is a varied from of the modern theory of force. Election of the Early King

“The Digha Nikaya, a Buddha work, describes the process of the birth of the State. It starts with a hypothetical Golden Age when men were inherently good and the State was superfluous. Then came a change in human nature; instead of goodwill there was avarice, and Pesce gave place to fear and strife. Weary of the oppressive conditions,

the people elected a king-Mahasammta, acclaimed by the many-requested him to enforce law and order among men, in return for which they would pay him a part of their agricultural produce.”

In one Jataka the king is chosen by an assembly, while other species of creature chose each a leader. A similar view is to be found in Jain literature. Here also the dark age is described, being characterized by all manner of paradoxes and perversions. The myth of fish conduct’ and the need for a leader promoted in some people the view that democratic constitutional theory was known. It has been supposed that kings were regarded as servants of the people, and evidence for this has been sought in various sources.

The Atharva Veda contains the statement, ‘the people (visah) chose these to govern the kingdom, these quarters, the five goddesses (chose these). In a later passage it is suggested that the king is chosen by nobles, king-makers, sulas and village headmen, chariot-makers and metal-workers. It is not without significance, however that the Taittirya Brahmana says that during the Rajasuya sacrifice the ratnins give the kingdom (rastra) to the king. What do these references indicate ? Some may feel that since there is no clear indication of election, there can be no contractual basis. Election, in its technical sense, cannot be a sine qua non of the contractual theory. The important point is simply that there is no contract implied or stated in these passages. Divine Origin

This theory is stated in its developed form in the following verses in Manu Samhita – ‘The Lord created a king for the protection of this whole creation, taking (for that purpose) eternal particles of Indra, of the Wind, of Yama, of the Sun, of Fire, os Varuna, of the Moon, and of the Lord of Wealth (Kubera). Even an insant king must not be despised, (from an idea) that he is a (mere) mortal; for he is a great deity in human form.’ At the beginning of the Golden Age there was no earthly king, though Indra was the ruler of the gods. According to a legend of the Ramayana, men approached Brahma and pointing out: that Indra was king of the gods, asked that they also should have a king. After all the gods had given a proportion of their energies, Brahma made a sound and this became the name of the king appointed by Brahma. This is an unmistakable indication of a belief in the origin of Vingship by divine appointment. There are

Mahabharata In the Mahabharata, there are two sections of the Shantiparva which deal with the origin of kingship. The first is prompted by a question from Yudhisthira to Bhishma : Whence arose the rajan ? Bhishma in answering, said that at first in the goldeň age, there was no king, but that as time passed man began to commit violence against each other. When this became rampant the Vedas were lost and unrighteousness prevailed. The gods were overcome with fear and asked Brahma for help, that they might not meet with destruction. He composed a treatise on the four human aims of dharma, artha, kama, and moksba with which to guide mankind. After this gods went to Vishnu and asked him to indicate a mortal who deserved superiority over all the rest. By his will he produced a son named Virajas who refused to accept sovereignty and after two more generations had introduced Ananga, who was pious and just became king. His son Alivala became a slave of his passions and his marriage to Sunita produced the wicked Vena, whom the Rishis killed with blades of kusha grass inspired with mantras, From wound in Vena’s right arm sprang the righteous Prathu. The God and the Rishis and present instructed him in Rajadharma, and as a result “there was neither decrepitude nor famine, nor calamity nor’ on earth.’ That high-souled king caused all creatures to regard righteousness as the foremost of all things and because he gratisied people, therefore he was called Rajan. Another section on subject says: that an individual who had exhausted his merit came down from the heavens to be king. Such a person was really ‘a portion of Vishnu on earth’ who had exceptional knowledge and obtained superiority over others ‘Established by the gods, no one transcends him. It is for this reason that everybody acts in obedience to one and it is for this the world cannot command him.

In both the preceding cases, it is clear that the king was divinely appointed. An oath was administered to Prathu, but that was done by the gods and sages and not by the people as such. The legends, in their present forms, point to a brief in the divine origin of kingship. Further, varta, dharma, and danda which appear to constitute the three fundamental bases of the Puranic state, are conceived as having been introduced by Brahma among confused and hungry people to sustain them. Slate is a divinely ordained institution according to the Puranas.

The idea is also expressed in stray Puranic passages having some bearing

on the question of origin of the state. “Having installed the king Prathi – over the people says the Agni Purana, ‘Hari and Brahma parcelled out sovereignty unto others.” In several of the Puranas it is asserted that the Chakravartins are born of a part of Vishnu.

after describing the evils confronting men in the state of anarchy and the necessity of finding a remedy for such a situation states categorically, ‘For these reasons, the gods, created kings for protecting the people.’ Manu also favours the idea of the divine origin of the king. ‘For when these creatures, being without a king, through fear dispersed in all directions, the Lord created a king for the protection of this whole creation, taking for that purpose eternal particles of Indra; of the Wind, of Yama, of the Sun, of Fire, of Varuna, of the Moon, and the Lord of Wealth (Kubera). Because a king has been formed of particles of those lords of the gods, he therefore surpasses all created beings in lustre.’

According to Beni Prasad, the Mahabharata theories of the in of government, or rather, the state, present same striking points of comparison and contrast with European theory. In a passage of poetic brilliance the Vanaparva records how in very ancient days men lived a pure godly life. In the following account there is a clear conception of the state of nature which preceded political society. All the above illustrations clearly imply that the state is a divine creation, accepted by man as such and helping him to be good. But the divine origin origin theory of kingship does not imply the divine right of kings to rule arbitrarily.

Theory of Social Contract Although the theory of divine origin prevailed in the long run, the theory of social contract also exercised great influence during the ancient period. Its genesis has been traced the the Sutra period for, according to Baudhayan, the king was to protect his subjects, receiving as his pay a sixth part of their gains, it is stated more fully in the Mahabharata. It paints the state of nature not as a Golden Age of righteousness but as a period of terrible anarchy. Men dined on one another like fishes in the waters. People got weary it they made certain pacts among themselves to the effect

all classes of the people. So they lived for a while but, after some time, they felt acutely the need of a king. They assembled and approached the Grandsire, saying, without a king, Divine Lord, we are going to destruction. Appoint some one as our king. All of us shall worship him and he shall protect us.’

The Grandsire nominated Manu to be a king but Manu replied, ‘I fear all sinful acts. To govern a kingdom is exceedingly difficult, especially among men who are always false and deceitful in their behaviour.’ But the people gave an assurance to Manu that the sins would affect only those who committed them and they promised to contribute to his treasury one-tenth of their crops and one-fiftieth of their animals and precious metals, and to depute the foremost of their warriors and riders to form his retinue. Further, they promised that a fourth part of the merit they would earn would go to him. Thus reassured, Manu assumed the sceptre and descended on the world with a large force. Struck with fear, the people put themselves to their duties. Manu made a round of the world, extinguished wickedness and set every one to his duty.

In the above description, one can see the supreme importance of government. It is only through fear of the king that people do not eat one another. The king alone brings peace on earth. If the king did not perform his function, the strong would rob or kill the weak. The righteous people would be terribly oppressed and unrighteousness would be adopted by all. For all regulations of marriage and morality would cease to operate. In short, ‘Society itself would cease to exist.’ There is really no one who can be happy in a state of anarchy. If sinful men deprive others of their possessions, they are themselves assailed be more powerful persons who, in their turn, are exposed to similar risk from yet stronger combinations. Women are abducted. Like cattle without a herdman, like fishes and birds attacking one another, men sink into darkness and rush headlong to destruction. In a word, anarchy is the worst possible of states. None should live in it.’

It is stated in the Puranas) that in the age the Varnashrama order was sincerely adhered to by the people and there was a good deal of prosperity and happiness. But somehow the atmosphere of ‘peace and prosperity was disturbed and the people were confused on account of delusion. They then approached Manu who, after knowing

their intents and purposes created Prijavrata and Uttanapada as the first two kinds of the people. It was from then onward that the kings having the sceptre are born,’ If we connect this story with the above) account of the krita-age and the origin of the state, it is possible to infer from the entire picture the elements of the state of nature and a divinely ordained socio-political compact. To these was added by Manu, later on, the governmental compact between the two parties, i.e. the . ruler and the ruled. But here again the mutual obligation of the compact are not mentioned.

A more complete account of the origin in kingship through social contract appears in Buddhist literature. The state of nature and the way in which man began his political society is graphically described in the Digha Nikaya. In the Golden Age, men were made of mind, fed on rapture, and travelled through the air. After a while, the earth became separated from the waters and men worked the earth into lumps for food, and relished its flavour. Gradually, their self luminance vanished, the moon and sun became manifest, the seasons, night and day and other forms of time appeared. Evil and immorality began to arise and plants came to the earth. Rice only grew in certain places and in less pure forms. So people began to divide off the rice-fields and make boundaries. Someone, in greed, used up his own plot and began stealing what belonged to others. Thus arose stealing and lying, censure and punishment. The people were disturbed and decided that they should select someone who would be stern when the occasion arose and punish wrongdoers. In return he would receive a portion of the rice. The assembled people went to the person among them who was the most capable, and put their proposal to him. He consented and fulfilled his tasks and was given a portion of rice from the people. ‘Chosen by the whole people’ is what is meant by Mahasammata; So Mahasammata (The Great Chosen one) was the first standing phrase to arise for such a ruler. ;

According to Spellman, if the social contract theory is to be validity held operative as a concept of the origin of kingship or government the following basic conditions must be fulfilled : (1) There must be a state of nature in which all men have equal rights; or a belief must be held that such a community existed. (2) The contracting parties should possess, sui juris the ability to contract. (3). There must be an

offer and an acceptance of the terms of contract. (4) The authorization for action must be a consequence of the social contract. Considering the statement of the theory as given in the Digha Nikaya in the light of the above conditions, Spellman concludes : ‘This Buddhist legend is clearly a theory of social contract. The king draws his authority from those who chose him and is paid for fulfilling the terms of the contract.?

As regards the theories of the origin of the state, references to the contract theory in ancient Indian texts seem to be very attractive from the Western point of view. The various stages in the development of this theory, extending over more than a thousand years, mark progressive enlargement of the obligations of both the contracting parties, especially of the people in respect of the various kinds of taxes to be paid by them. Thus in ancient India the contract theory was intended to emphasise the power of the king rather than that of the people. From the Indian point of view, considerations of preserving family, property and varna system played the most vital part in the origin of the state. The traditional account of state of nature and the circumstances leading to the rise of coercive authority, the conditions obtaining the kingless society, the concept of the main duties of the monarch, all point to the same conclusion.n

But Western thinkers looked at the problem from a purely secular point of view. They thrashed the idea of contract thread-bare, initiated fundamental principles of political association, defined he authority of the sovereign and prescribed the conditions under popular obedience would be expected. Ancient Indian rulers did not live in an age of rationalism like Locks and Rousseau; they looked it the question from a semi-religious and semi-sociological point of view. They have, therefore, neither gone deep into the fundamentals of the problem, nor defined precisely the limits of the powers of the state and the people.’

Contract between the Western and Indian Concepts. The Indian version would make the condition of pre-state society as one of evil, this is partially approaches the state of society as envisaged by Hobbes, but it is dissimilar to the one described by Locke and Rousseau. To Hobbes the state of nature was one of war and aggression because men were brutal and selfish; to Locke it was one of equity and freedom because men were peaceable and sociable; while to Rousseau it was one of idyllic happiness, because men were perfect. The Hindu theory,

if at all it could be construed as one of contract approaches in this particular detail only the concept of Hobbes. Another point of contract refers to the question – who abandoned the anarchical state of nature ? It is not clear from the Indian version as to who abandoned the state of nature – whether the people of their own accord or whether they were made to abandon it. In all likelihood it was the latter; thus the Indian version affords contrast to the Western theory in which men themselves abandon the state of nature.

But there is also a different view about the comparison between the Indian conception and the Western conception of the state of nature. In Bhishma’s first theory this is regarded, as in the theories of Grotius and Locke, to be a condition of peace and order, but while according to the Western thinkers it is characterised by the law of nature in the sense of ‘the dictates of right reason. It is based in the view of the Indian thinkers upon right moral sense of the people. In Bhishma’s second theory the state of nature is at first conceived to be a condition of unceasing strife, but this is followed by the creation of social order based upon voluntary agreement of the people. The nearest approach to the Western theories is made by the Buddhist theory of evolution of the world, but even here the differences are more important than the similarities. The state of nature of the Buddhist thinkers, like that of Grotius and Locke, is a condition of peace and order, but unlike it belongs to a mythical age of god like beings living upon the bounties of nature. Again, while the European thinkers attribute the origin of society and state respectively to man’s social instinct and his deliberate act of will based upon contract, their Indian counterparts hold the state along with property to have been produced by popular agreement and conceive the social organisation to have arisen out of a process of division of labour based upon the norm (dharma) of the classes concerned. The fundamental difference between the Indian and Western theories is that the former fail to rise to the level of a philosophical theory of the state obtained by the latter.

Ghoshal rightly holds that there is no evidence to confirm the impression that this theory was used to exert some measure of popular control on royal power, ‘On the contrary the long account of disturbed and miserable life of the people is intended to serve as a justification of the Kshatriya rule, monarchical or oligarchical flourishing

in the time of the Buddha. The only limitation proposed on the power of the ruler in this Buddhist contract theory is that he should ac according to the norm or dharma, but this does not directly form part of the contract theory. At one place it is stated that the raja pleases the people in accordance with dharma. Thus, as in the case of Plato’s Republic, the state is conceived as the fructification of the idea of dharma or justice.’

Theory of Evolution. So far as Indo-European communities are concerned, the institution of the patriarchal joint family might have been the germ out of which state gradually evolved. Even the Aryans in their original homes lived in joint families. The patriarch of the family wielded very wide powers over its members; his position was more or less like that of a king amongst all the Indo-European communities. The Rigvedic evidence shows that the Aryan society in that early period was divided into families, janmans, visas and janas. Probably janmans corresponded to a village and villages joined together by a bond of kingship probably constituted a vis, whose chief was known as vispati. Several visas made a jana or tribe, which had its own jana-pati or the

king.

The available evidence thus shows that as among other Indo-Aryan communities, state was evolved in India also in prehistoric times out of the institution of the joint family. The power of the kings gradually became more and more extensive as states became larger and larger. The institution of the joint family, thus, gradually led to the evolution of kingship. There can be no doubt that the family placed the most important part in the origin of the state. Although political thinkers in ancient India did not speculate on this theory, yet as all modern thinkers agree, this offers the most satisfactory explanation of the origin of the state.

Q. 2. Discuss the Saptang Theory of the state in Ancient India. Ans. Saptang Theory or the Seven Constituents of the State.(BALLB)

The seven constituent elements, limbs or prakrits were known to political writers in ancient India. Since these constituents were regarded more as limbs, the theory concerning these was designated as the Saptang theory of the state. But some writers, including Kautilya, have called them the elements of sovereignty. This may be accepted because Sovereigntyaitself was the most important and is even now regarded as

the distinctive characteristic of the state. These constituents (Prakriti) have been given by Kautilya, by Manu, by Yajnavalkya, by Vishnu and others. They are the lord, the ministers, the land or people, the fortress or capital city, the treasury, the army and allies. These are variants pura and durga for city’, bala and danda for ‘army’, rashtra, jana and janapada for ‘land or people’; suhrt and mitra for ‘ally’. According to Kautilya, “the king, the minister, the country, the fort, the treasury, the army and the friend are the elements of sovereignty.

Altekar writes : ‘Both Kautilya (VI, 1) and Manu (IX, 294-7) held that the state was not a loose assemblage of parts, each having its own interests and moving all its own will, it was characterised by an organic unity. The king, the ministry, the territory, the resources, the forts, the military forces and the allies constitute, according to these writers, the seven constituents of the state. Later writers like Kamandaka (I, 10) and Sukra (I, 122-4) regard this as a self-evident truth and epigraphs also often describe how the kingdom acquired by the heroes, whom they eulogies, possessed all the seven constituents.

Of the seven constituents, Swamin (king) and amatya (ministers) constituted the central government, which exercised the sovereign powers and imparted the central unity. Rashtra (territory), durgas (forts), bala (army), and kosha (treasury) constituted the resources of the state. The stage of the tribal state had long passed and so territory was regarded as an essential element of the state. Forts and armed forces were vitally necessary to defend the very existence of the state and so are regarded as its essential constituents. The defence of the country and the proper discharge of the constituent and ministrant functions of the state required ample resources, and so kosha (treasury) is also regarded as indispensable to the very existence of the state. The inclusion of its allies among the constituents of a state strikes us rather strange.’ The existence of a state, however, depended upon its securing a proper balance of power by making suitable alliances. A large number of small states existed in the country. So Indian political thinkers, felt the the existence of none could be guaranteed for a long time unless a proper balance of power had been secured by wise alliances.

It is a difficult to see how the ally, mitra can be constituent of a state in the modern sense. It has been suggested that mitra corresponds

to the de jure status of a government rather than the state that depends

on allies. If the relationship were valid we would expect to find in the shastra discussion of mitra a definition of de jure status; what we actually find is Machiavellian advice about diplomacy. This gives us the clue to the nature of mitra. Lacking a territorial and constitutional state, ruler did not have a legal framework that defined and limited the geographical area of his claims. Thus he was automatically in competition with every other king in the area. A king without patronage from a móre powerful ruler, or support from a weaker, or co-operation from any fellow kings, was righting a lost cause. His kingdom could not exist except as part of an uneasy equilibrium of blocks in the area where rival groupings cancelled each other out. Thus mitra is a constituent of the king’s rule.?

According to Mabbett, one of the prakritis ‘land or people’ indicated the territorial basis of the state. Though it is represented by words referring to land or people interchangeably, yet jana means ‘people’ and rashtra means ‘land’. Janapada refers to land, countryside as opposed to city or people. The fort, the treasury, the army, waterworks and livelihood are derived from janapada. Thus, this constituent designates the resources of the king. Rashtra means ‘land’, which should be carefully nurtured by the king. Since all the elements of Rajya spring from rashtra; so in the context of rajya it refers to the material resources of the countryside in the form of minerals, produce and labour. This is obviously a constituent of the king’s rule; he cannot rule without land or people or the resources with which they provide him. There is nothing to suggest that the prakriti (constituent) refers to the geographical confines of a constitutional state.

The discussion of the important constituents as given in Kautilya Arthashastra may be summarised here: The best qualities of the king are; Born of a high family, possessed of valour, virtuous, truthful, powerful to control his neighbouring kings, having an assembly of ministers of no mean quality, and possessed of a taste for discipline. Possessed of capital both in the centre and the extremities of the kingdom, productive of subsistence not only to its own people but also to outsiders on occasions of calamities, powerful enough to put down neighbouring kings, containing fertile lands, mines, timber and elephant forests, and pasture grounds, not depending upon rain for water, possessed of land and waterways, rich in various kinds of commercial

articles capable of bearing the burden of a vast army and heavy taxation, inhabited by agriculturists of good and active character, and with a population noted for its loyalty and good character – these are the qualities of a good country.

Justly obtained either by inheritance or by self-acquisition, rich in gold and silver, filled with abundance of big germs of various colours and of gold coins and capable to withstand calamities of long duration, is the best treasury. Coming down directly from father and grand-father (of the king), ever and everywhere invincible, endowed with the power of endurance, trained in fighting various kinds of battles, skilful in handling various forms of weapons, ready to share in the weal or woe of the king, and purely composed of soldiers of Kshatriya caste is the best army. Coming down directly from father and grand-father long-standing, open to conviction, never falling foul, and capable of making preparation for war quickly and on a large scale, is the best friend.

Adherence to the Saptang theory of the state continued for centuries in ancient India. Mahalingam writes: ‘According to Sanskrit thinkers sovereignty consists of seven constituents elements, namely king, minister, territory fort, treasury, army and friends. The state is compared to a physical organism and its different elements to the various parts of a physical body. The king is considered as the head, the ministers as the eyes, the treasury as the face, the army as the mind, the fort as the hand and the country as the legs of a human being. And Rural makes the king the most important of the seven elements of sovereignty and considers the rest as subordinate to him. The king was the pivot of the administration, and the strength and durability of the government very much depended on his personality.’

Q. 3. Discuss the organic theory of the State.(BALLB)

Ans. Organic theory of the State. Briefly stated, the organic theory of the state holds that the state, like an organism, consists of a number of parts. Although these parts have some measure of separateness, they are nevertheless interdependent. Each organ is concerned with a special function of the organism and superiority may often be dependent upon a particular condition of the moment. The Hindu organic theory of the state is based largely upon the seven elements of the state (Rajya).  Alhough authorities diner, che usual lists include: the ruler or sovereign


(svamin), the minister (amatya), the territory of the state and its peon (Rashtra or Janapada), the fortified city or capital city or capital (durga the treasury of the king (kosha), the army (danda), friends and allies(mitra). It is generally assumed that in this list of the seven angas the elements are given in order of decreasing importance; and all authorities agree that the svamin is the most important of all.

According to Spellman Anjaria denied that the organic theory of the state existed in ancient India. He held that since the state was no a moral institution and withheld the liberty of a large segment of the population on the ground that they were inferior, this concept could not properly apply. But he does not agree with this view for these reasons. The organic theory, in the first place, is a functional concept and not an inherently moral one. Secondly, although the two concepts are often confused, it is useful to distinguish the political organization from the morality of society. The Matsya Purana refers to the same organic concept when it says : ‘The king was the root and the subjects were the tree. The organic theory of the state was, therefore, certainly known and held in ancient India.

However Mabbett holds a contrary view. There has been some discussion among the modern authorities on the question whether the seven prakritis show the existence of an organic theory of the state. The theory is supported by the traditional analogy between the ‘seven limbs’ (saptanga) and the human body, an analogy implicit indeed in the very term. It is not used by the Arthashastra but other texts, such as Manu, specify that the rajya is seven-limbed. Katnandaka stresses the interdependence of the parts. The king and the people are contributing to each other’s benefit. The same theme is reiterated elsewhere. No doubt the modern state, the polls, can be analysed into certain constituent elements and the king’s rule, rajya can also be analysed into constituent elements; and in each case the elements may be interdependent and lend themselves to the organic analogy. But there is no way of arguing from the interdependence (which may characterize either notion) to the polis. It begs the question. If the constituents named are constituent with the liberal meaning of rajya, as in fact they are, there is no evidence of the existence of the idea of a constitutional and territorial state.A different verdict has to be given on the comparison between

the Indian ideas and the nineteenth century European theories of the organismic nature of the state, which arosé chiefly out of reaction aga the prevailing mechanical theories of special contract. According to the fundamental ideas of this school the state is an organism’ because it is itself the end of its existence; (ii) its component numbers are distributed into functionally differentiated parts, as a result of which parts are not only interdependent and inseparable, but the whole is essential to them; (iii) the state in its origin and development is natural and necessary. The state is further concerned to be a living organism in the physical sense exhibited by its structure and the nature of its growth, or else in the spiritual sense as manifested in the characteristics of self consciousness, self-determination and ethical nature. We have only imperfect approaches to these ideas in the Indian conception.

The State as a Sacrifice. Spellman explains what he means by this in these words : ‘In India the king was the foundation upon which all religious activities rested. Through him it was possible to obtain the world of gods. Of all those who sacrificed in the land, he was the chief. Just as a priest regulated the details of a sacrifice, the king regulated the duties of the people. Thus, the state itself may be considered as a sacrifice. Each part of the state has its particular function and duties in this sacrifice, the purpose of which is a better future life. That the state and society may be compared to a sacrifice is illustrated in the Satapatha Brahmana in connection with the laying of the bricks of the sacrificial alter.

Now this is only a single (brick). He thus makes the nobility (or the chiestancy) and (social) distinction to attach to a single (person). And what second (such brick there is) that is its mate, a mate, doubtless, is one half of one’s own self, for when one is with a mate then he is whole and complete. Thus it is laid down for the sake of completeness. With a single formula he lays down bricks, he thereby endows the nobility pre-eminently with power and makes the nobility more powerful than the peasantry. A further passage goes on to relate that in the building of altar fires one keeps in mind social distinctions, the acquisition of power and various degrees of political supremacy and One should perform the sacrifice with a view to ensuring these things. In considering the state itself as a sacrifice, the duties of the various classes are set down. The classes themselves, we are told in the


famous hymn X.90 of the Rigveda, were the result of the sacrifice of Purusa by the gods and Rsis. Manu carries this further. “To Brahmanas he assigned teaching and studying (the Veda), sacrificing for their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting (of alms). The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), and to abstain from attaching himself to sensual pleasures. The Vaishya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), to trade, to lend money, and to cultivate land. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the sudra, to serve meekly even these, other three classes’. While noticing that all three classes have in common the duty of studying the Vecia and sacrificing, the important idea from this point of view, is that all classes were assigned certain functions, the total of which would fulfil the grand sacrifice. Indeed, one of the most significant words for the science of government is dandaniti, and this, we are told ‘controls the varnas so as to lead them on to the performance of their duties and, when it is employed by the ruler properly, it makes them desist from adharma. This idea has also been expressed in another work on Nepal. In the Hindu conception of state – just as a priest regulated the details of a sacrifice, the king regulated the duties of the people. Thus the state itself may be considered as a sacrifice. Each part of the state has its particular function and duties in this sacrifice, the purpose of which is better future life. In our own time this sacrificial theory of state taken shape in giving the planned role of the members and bodies of society in the process of development the force of a boly rite. The altar of sacrifice rises tier upon tier as the panchayat. And as Kautilya puts it of a king the religious vow is his readiness to action; satisfactory discharge of his duties is his performance of sacrifice; equal attention to all in the offer of gifts and ablution towards consecration.’ Thus the state is a sacrifice where the unified duties of all surge in the harmony of the holy flames.

Influence of Religion Concepts on the Policy The influence of dharma was dominant, as the king and the state were required to promote and project dharma of the individuals as well as the varnas. The whole duly of the king was called rajdharma. The coronation ceremony was a religious ceremony, and dharma was regarded as the ultimate and supreme power. It was for this reason that the king was Struck by the dharma danda thrice on the occasion of the coronation.

Since the violation of dharma was ultimately punishable by God, so the king was accountable to God. On account of the concept of the supremacy of’ dharma, there could not be the rational development of the rights of the people.

The doctrine of karma also had influence on ancient Indian Polity. Political thinkers regarded it as possible for the sages to pay off their dues to the state by transferring one sixth of their punya to it. The king was expected to perform his duties (Dharma) properly, under the threat that is he misgoverned, the sin of the crimes of his subjects would be visited on him. The common view for all the king as well as the subjects – that every person reaps as he sows; an evil doer would have to go to hell and undergo sufferings for his evil deeds.

The theory of the supremacy of the moral order suggested the ideal of a moral state which should have no sinners or thieves among its subjects. It was also responsible for the enunciation of the code of righteous war, dharma-yuddha, which was followed to some extent at one stage of our history. The state was to strive for the realisation of the moral and righteous ideals along with those in the spheres of social and economic life. The gospel of Aparigralia is responsible for the ideal of self denial placed before the king. The freedom from taxation that was conceded to, pious and poor Brahmanas was due to the view that those who practised Aparigraha should not be made to bear avoidable economic burdens. Altekar concludes that religious and philosophical dogmas did and concepts did not deeply influence the Hindu political thought, practice or institution.

Q. 4. Discuss the historical evolution of state.(BALLB)

Ans. Introduction – The modern state that has developed during our times is a Nation-State. Though the state is a modern concept, there were political systems in ancient and medieval periods and the modern state has emerged from the ruins of these ancient and medieval political systems. Sociologists have generally identified the following forms of state in the course of its historical evolution; the tribal state; the oriental empire; the Greek city-state; the Roman world empire: the feudal state; and, finally, the modern nation-state. It was against the feudal order that the modern Nation-state has emerged. In fact, the State has acquired its present from through a long historical process

extending over thousands of years.

The development of the modern state can be traced through the following stages :

Tribal State – Some sort of political organization emerged among the early tribals, which were small in size. Though most of the tribes.” were nomadic, some of them settled down in definite where water was available and they could take to cultivation. Some of these tribes were ruled by chiefs who enjoyed absolute authority. The authority of some others was restricted by the council of warriors or other similar bodies. This tribal system of organisation was, however, quite rudimentary and cannot strictly speaking be described as state. .

The Oriental Empire – The first territorial states appeared in the fertile valleys of Nile, the Ganges, the Indus, the Tigris, etc., when the wandering tribes settled down there. In the course of time, these tribes formed loose alliances and confederacies. But it was not until these tribes resorted to conquest and domination that the political authority and obligation made their appearance. The real authority behind the political organisations which made their appearance was fear and despotism. The chief merely acted as revenue collector and military raising agency. His authority was obeyed as long as he was strong. There were frequent contests for aụthority which contributed to instability. However, despite these shortcomings the oriental Empire rendered valuable service to the evolution of the political institutions. What is important is that they developed the qualities of obedience and authority among the people.

Greek City-State – The emergence of the Greek city state was another important stage in the development of the state. Due to the peculiar geographical location of the country a number of small village communities emerged around hills. These were popularly known as Polis. Each city because of the natural barriers developed a sort of Self-suffering life. Thus a variety of political organizations made their appearance in ancient Greece. Another significant feature of the Greek city-state was that it was concerned with the whole life of its citizens. As the Greek city states were small enough, each citizen goi an opportunity to take direct part in the administration of the state. However, a sizcable portion of the population known as slaves were not entitled to take part in the activities of the Polis. The Greek political institutions could not survive for long and sell an easy prey to Macedon

and Rome because they failed to present a joint, front. However cannot be denied that they rendered valuable service to the development of various types of political institutions such as monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy tyranny and democracy.

The Roman Empire – At a time when the Greek city-states were facing disruption, Rome was flourishing and made valuable contribution to the development of state. Like the Greek city-states, the Romans also started with city-states and after passing through the period of Republic reached the age of Empire. In 510 B.C. Rome became a Republic. However, it was not a people’s republic but rather an aristocratic or patrician republic. The next state in the political development of Rome was the creation of the Roman Empire. After consolidating their position the Romans embarked on a career of conquests and incorporated a number of neighbouring states. By close of the first century B.C., almost the whole of the civilized western world was forged in a single political unit. A highly centralized system of administration was provided to hold the various parts of the empire. together. The Emperor assumed despotic powers and the assemblies ceased to have an important role. The king came to acquire great respect. His decrees were recognised as law and he began to be worshipped. With the spread of christianity in the fourth century, the king came to be regarded as the agent to God on this earth.

One of the greatest contribution of the Romans was they they showed to the world that large states could also be stable and well governed. Another important contribution of Rome was the establishment of a universal code of law. However, the Roman state suffered from certain shortcomings. It completely sacrificed the individual liberty and laid too much of emphasis on the principle of unity. Gettell rightly observes that “Greece has developed democracy without unity. Rome secured unit without democracy”. He counts aniong the contributions of Rome to the political development features like wide unity, uniform laws, sovereign organization, etc. ,

The Feudal State – After the decline and fall of Roman empire, central authority, was eroded. Now the powers began to be exercised by feudal chiefs, i.e., the landlords holding big estates. This led to a hierarchical political organisation with the king as the supreme lord at tne top, and serfs at the bottom. In fact, the king exercised only superficial

control as the feudal lords enjoyed the real power. The serfs were the

landless peasants, obliged to pass on a very major share of their produce to their feudal lords. Thus, the society remained divided into the exploiter and exploited.

With the erosion of the authority of kings in the fourth century, the church became more powerful. Il assumed many functions of the state. The Pope emerged as the head of the Holy Roman Empire. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, when Popes were using their: authority arbitrarily, the authority of the church was challenged and power of monarchy restored. On the other hand with the advent of the industrial revolution, a lot of factors led to the dissolution of the feudal system and the emergence of a new stale-system. . .

The Modern Nation-State – The Renaissance and Reformation movements gave a death blow to the universal church and paved the way for the emergence of modern state. By the 15th and the 16th centuries the national consciousness developed. The need of establishing a strong central government to provide security to the people against the feudal lords was also felt. The new individualism appeared which demanded greater freedom for man. Thus a new political system was needed and developed greater freedom for man. Thus a new political system was needed and developed with the new ideas and new conditions. The new geographical explorations and the discovery of gun-powder helped in curbing of the power of the feudal lords. And there evolved a strong and absolute monarchies in countries like England, France and

Spain. 

 According to Gettell, “A national state with centralized government in the hands of absoluić monarch – Organisation again without freedom — was the immediate outgrowth of the decaying feudal system.”. The earlier nation-states were largely monarchies. However, since the eighteenth century, there has been a slow transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy and democracy in large parts of Europe.

The absolute authority of the king, thus, did not remain unchallenged for long. The emergence of a strong middle class led to the demand for political rights and privileges. These people were no more willing to render passive obedience to the king. They challenged

 the right of the king to wield absolute powers to assert their own

position, The Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, the American war of Independence, and the French Revolutions were significant steps. in the direction of checking the dictatorial powers of the monarch and paved the way for the development of the Constitutional Monarchy. Thercaster, the principles of equality, individual liberty and democracy gained great popularity. This resulted in restrictions on the government and greater participation of the people in the administration of the country. In short, the principles of equality, popular sovereignty and nationality came to occupy an important position in the nineteenth century.

Alongwith the appearance of democracy the 19th Century also witnessed the emergence of strong empires like Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland and Germany. These powers established their control over the people of Asia and Africa and carved out extensive empires. They used these colonies to further the interests of the mother country. They resorted to systematic exploitation of the resources unmindful of the sufferings of the people. Thus, 191h century Europe is characterized by a strange paradox : a nation stale with liberty, equality and rule of law at home, and imperialistic exploitation abroad.

However, the colonial empires did not last long and after first World War started disintegrating. By the sixties of the present century the colonial power was virtually demolished and gave way to independent states. Most of the states at present are democratic in character and work on the twin principles of liberty and authority. Some of these nations have been subjected to military dictatorship and oppression also. But they have stabilized as nation-states.

Marxian socialism advocates a world-wide organization of workers. However, the harsh realities of the world have forced them to accept and perpetuate their position as nation-states.

Q. 5. Differentiate between Modern and Ancient State on the basis of their functions.(BALLB)

Ans. The attitude of the ancient political thinkers in India towards the aims of the state was wholly pragmatic; so it avoided both the extremes of western political thought: anarchism and totalitarianism.. They not only feared anarchy but also rejected individualism – the negative view about the state. Their view about the state was positive, – so they advocated a sort of welfare state. The Epic thinkers are

unanimous in regarding the rashtra or the state as a great means to the realisation of the highest end. To them, the individual was an end in himself and his sell-realisation was the highest goal of social existence, For all these (Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha) the individual depended on political discipline. As such, the ends of the state were both economic as well as moral.

According to Kautilya the king should not let the people deviate from their prescribed duties; whoever fulfills his duties, observes the customs of the Aryans and observes varnashramadharma, he shall be happy in this as well as in the next world. According to Hindu ideas the end of the state is to maintain Dharma. It is Dharma that sustains the kingdom. The fact is that the central place in the theory of state was reserved to Dharma. A slate was good or bad, according to the degree in which it succeeded in making Dharma flourish. Although there is no clear mention of the aims or ends of the state in Vedic literature, yet from the ideas scaltered here and there we can say that the basic aims of the state were : observance of the Dharma, maintenance of peace and order, security and justice.

Kautilya has briefly stated that the chief duty of the king is the welfare (yoga-kshema) of the subjects. The same idea has been expressed in Yajnavalkyasmriti. ‘Yoga? here means the acquisition of that which has not been acquired and ‘Kshema’ means the protection of that which has been acquired. Both the words taken together denote the security of things or properly already acquired, their increase and promotion of the welfare of the people. The detailed account of the high officials and departments of the state given in Kautilya’s Arthashastra shows clearly that the scope of state acriyily was very wide and that the state performed many functions even in the economic sphere. In all other spheres the activity of the stale was not only unbounded but also distinctly socialistic and highly beneficial to the people’.

according to Jayaswal the state was a trust. ‘The object of the trust is clearly stated in the Sruti text which had to be repeated at every coronation.’ This state to thou (is given) Thou art the director, regulator, firm bearer (of this responsibility) for (the good on agriculture, for well-being, for prosperity, growth (of the people), (that is) for success. The trust, the slate, thus created was for the prosperity of the people. by prosperity was meant, of course, the immediate material prosperity.

the state was instituted for land, culture, wealth, etc. Thal prosperity, which was secured by a correct administration and justice, was regarded to bring about moral prosperity in its train as a corollary.

Again, the Hindu monarchical State was essentially a civil state. At times very large armies, three-quarters of a million strong, were maintained. But the state never lapsed into a military polity. The governors of the provinces were civil officers. The king among his several titles – Narpali (Protector of the people), Bhupati (Protector of the country), Bhattaraka (lord), Great king and others – has not got any epithet indicating an official military character, although his personal heroism is often extolled.

According to Spellman, the Hindus had a profoundly spiritual outlook on lise. The spiritual approach served to impart breadth and integration to all social speculation. So there was never an a priori limit set to the activity of the state. “The state was integrated into the vast institutional apparatus for the realisation of the spiritual life, and could not, therefore, be restricted to merely police functions, or the administration to justice. Hindu government could not be merely negative. It had to adopt a positive attitude towards all the main concerns of life – religion, ethics, family, economics, culture, etc. We find accordingly that the Hindu state touched the whole of life. The best political illustration of this view is the picture of the state activity in Kautilya’s ‘Arthashastra which includes practically everything. Functions of the State

These may broadly be put under the following heads : 

(1) Protection (2) Maintenance of the social order (3) Taxation (4) Promotion of social welfare (5) Economic activities (6) Inter-state relations

Functions of the stale, according to the Puranas, have been grouped under the following three heads :

The Social Functions. The ideal society in the eyes of the Parana-writers, is that which conforms to varnashrama order, for a country deprived of it is described as a land of the mlecchas, outside the confines of Aryavarta. The Matsya Parana enjoins it as the foremost

duty of the king to see that the individuals are observing their svadharma without encroaching upon that of others.

The Economic Functions. It is the prime duty of the state to regulate the proper functioning of Varta, for it is on this that artha and anartha depend. Since the direct means of subsistence are agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade, it is these that the term Varta generally connotes. In these functions are also included such benevolent measures as may ensure the livelihood of all.

The Religious Functions. The spheres of both religion and morality are fused together in the concept of Dharma in the Puranas Morai functions of the state also include religious functions. The state as symbolised by the king, has to place the ideal of noble behaviour before the people.

As an illustration of “the scope of state” functions we may consider the functions of the state according to Kautilya. The names of the large number of high officials and departments have been given in chapter eight. Here we give those functions as slated by Spellman. The state should promote true religion and even regulate the age and conditions under which one might renounce the world. The state should see that husband and wise, father and son, brother and sister, teacher and pupil, are faithful to one another and do not play each other false. The state should provide support to the poor, the pregnant women, their newborn offsprings, orphans, the aged, the infirm, the afflicted and the helpless.

He prescribes conditions of divorce, separation, second or subsequent marriages and ways of teaching manners to refractory women. Detailed and minute are his provisions for safeguarding the honour of women, the safety of immature girls, relations of lovers, as well as the profession of prostitutes. The state should facilitate, regulate and control public amusements and entertainments, including gambling. Similarly rules with an amazing fullness of details are given for the conduct of goldsmiths, weavers of various descriptions, washerman and others, while a series of veritable draft statutes of labourers prescribe, inter alia, that artisans must fulfil their engagement as to time, place and form of work, and obey the instructions duly given, on pain of forfeiting their wages or paying damages or both. The state itself appears as the biggest of all business concerns and was entitled to regulate the whole of the economic life in order to promote prosperity. Kautilya

would license wholesale business, fix the prices and allow a profit of 5 percent on home duties and 10 percent on foreign ones. He would fix rates of interest on loans and mortgages at 15 percent and 12 percent. All imports and exports are to be taxed. 

Contrast between Ancient and Modern State

The modern state has not only vast power but is continually extending its sphere of government control in all aspects of the individual’s existence. In doing so, it may not necessarily justify its action on any’ moral grounds, but may be guided solely by the exigencies of the occasion, or by the programme of the party in power. The ancient Indian state even as described by Kautilya, did not dare to transgress the limits imposed upon it by the dharmashastras and the nitishastras. Moreover state action in ancient India was circumscribed by the ancient usage of the land; while the modern state, although recognising the validity of the common law, is usually eager to narrow down the sphere of ancient usage and custom and impose its will on both. Further, the modern state, in the exercise of its functions, determines its relations with its citizens so as to decide their share in the wielding of political power. There is nothing to indicate that in the ancient state there was ant attempt either on the part of the state or of the individuals to define the relations of the latter with a view to making them share in political power.’

Q. 6. Write a brief note on nature of state. (BALLB)

Ans.        Nature of States  

Before studying the function of the government, we should go deep into the nature of the concept of the state of the Delhi Sultanate because it has greatly influenced the government. It has two main aspects : (1) The theory of Islamic state, and (2) the position of the Caliph.

(1) The Islamic State – The Delhi Sultanate was an Islamic state in nature. Islam was the state religion. The Sultans did not recognize any other concept of state besides Islam. The main object of the state was to propagate Islam and work for its amelioration. The members of the royal families were muslims and likewise dedicated of Islam and employed all resources and means of the state for Islam. “The Muslim state in India was theocracy.” – Dr. Ishwari Prasad. The rulers regarded themselves Gond-sent preaches of Islam and enjoined upon themselves

to convert non-muslims to Islam.” The nature of the state was theocratic

so rules of Islam as propounded in the Quran were given effed in the working of the Islamic State in India was to convert the non-muslim to the muslims to negate the native religious to compel the people in be admitted into the folds of the religion of Muhammad, and to change the danul-harab (country of the non-muslims) into the darul-Islam (country of the muslims), writes Ashirwadi Lal Srivastava.

(2) Relation with the Caliph – The Islamic State runs according to the Islamic laws. In view of the sovereignty of Islam, the Caliph was the supreme ruler of all the Muslim states of the world. Rulers of the Muslim states admitted his overlordship. The caliph enjoyed unlimited temporal and religious authority. Almost all the Delhi Sultan tried to obtain his certificate of assent to consolidate his position. The Caliph’s moral and religious authority was so overwhelming that the opposition to his proteges i.e., the Sultans was a sacrilege and the man was liable to be excommunicated. The coin bears the name of the Caliph along with the name of the Sultan and his (Caliph’s) name was pronounced in the Muslim religious congregations on Fridays and the two Eids. Ala-Uddin discontinued the practice and his son, Mubarak declared himself the Caliph.

The nature of the State made the Government intolerant and religious. The government is being studied under the headings : Central administration, Provincial administration, Local administration, Military organization, Finance, and Judiciary.

Q. 7. Describe the political condition of Northern India in the Sixth century B.C.(BALLB)

What do you understand by the term “Janpad”? Give a brief description of the Janpad States.

Ans. In the Vedic terms the foundation of the Aryans was Fan or Jati (a particular family of the Aryans). In every part of the country a Jati settled down, it began to establish its own villages, towns and states. Ordinarily these states were known as Jatiya or Jan states. But by this it should not be understood that people of other jatis or families were not allowed to live in that area. In fact under the jurisdiction or one jan state there lived people belonging to some other jans but they played no important role in that state. Aster the post-Vedic period many changes cropped role in that state. After the post-Vedic period mamy changes cropped up in the lives of the Aryans. Different jatis (families)

began to live permanently in a certain area. Such are as began 10 * known as Janpads. After the post-Vedic period the jaties began to lose

their importance and their place was taken up by the Janpande Consequently the states were determined on geographical basis. The Jain and the Buddhist literatures are full of the details of such. Out of all these, sixteen janpads gained prominence and consequently ‘Sixteen-mahajanpads’ became a political idiom. They are as follows:

(1) Anga : It was situated in the north-eastern part of modern Bihar. Its capital was Champanagri, This town was where modern Bhagalpur is situated. In those days Champanagri was a splendid town and was a centre of art, culture, civilisation and trade. This state progressed a lot, but later on it declined as it had to fight frequent was against the neighbouring kingdom of Magadha. Towards the end of this period it was conquered by Magadha..

(2) Magadha : This state was situated in the Southern Bihar andra Rajgriha was its capital. This town was very famous for its grandeur. In the beginning this state was ruled by Brahdutta and his descendants. But later on many other royal families ruled over it. In the beginning this state was not powerful. But later on it progressed and defeated Anga.

. (3) Kashi : The janpad of Kashi was situated in the South-eastern part of modern Uttar Pradesh. This town was very famous for its wealth, knowledge, wisdom, art and crafts, trade and commerce. This state was one of the most famous, prosperous and highly developed states of those times. The state was engaged in sighting against its neighbouring state of Koshala. On account of these wars the state lost its power and ultimately it came to an end.

(4) Koshala : It was situated in the-middle of the northern Zone of modern Uttar Pradesh. Ip power it was almost equal to Magadha. Its capital was Shravasti. Ayodhiya which was once its capital had lost its importance. The town of shravasti was situated on the bank of the river Gomati. The eastern part of this state declared its independence and it transformed itself into a ganrajya (a republic). On account of

this, area of the Kosála kingdom was reduced. This state had to fight constant wars against Kashi. Kosala was ruled by some very powerful kings who defeated Kashi, brought an end to its power and extended their state was full of riches and grandeur. This town was situated on

an important highway and a commercial road. Therefore it was a centre

of trade .

(5) Vaitt: This state was founded after the fall of the kingdoms of Koshala and Viderblm. It adapted a republican form of government. This state consisted to sixty republics which had their sway on the whole of northern Bihar. Their capital was Vaishali which was considered to be one of the most important towns of those days. This town was the centre of culture and civilisation of those times.

(6) Mall : This slate standing on the foot hills of the Himalas was situated towards the North-west of Vajji janpid. This janpad was formerly the eastern part of the Koshala janpad. The Malls were divided into two branches-one branch had it capilal at Kushinagar and the other bad its capital at Pawa. in

(7) vatsa : Towards the west of Kashi there was the janpad of Vatsa. According to the Purans Raja Miyagya, after the fall of the Kingdom of Hastinapur, established this Kingdom on the bank of the river Jamuna. Kaushambi was its capital. This kingdom was always engaged in battles against the kingdom of Avanti..

(8) Chedi : The Janpad of Chedi was situated to the south of Vatsa Janpad. It capital was Shuktimati a town standing on the bank of the river”Kain. During the rule of Shishu Nag this state achieved eminence. But after his death il declined. Shishu Nag or Shishu Pal lived during the times of Mahabharata and was killed by Lord Krishna. The kings of this family entered Kalinga and established their kingdom there.

– (9) Kuru : The-Janpad of Kuru stood in between Indraprastha (modern Delhi) and Hastinapur. The capital of this state was Indraprastha which had by this time lost all its glory and grandeur.

I (10) Panchal : This Janpad was situated in the middle of the rivers Ganges and Jamuna, towards the east. It was divided into {wo parts-lhe northern Panchal and the southern Panchal. Capital of north Panchal was Ahichchatra and that of the southern Panchal was Kampilya.

(11) Matsiya: This Janpad occupied the areas of modern Alwar, Bharatpur and Jaipur and its capital was Viratnagar.

(12) Shursen : This Janpad was situated towards the south of Kuru jänpad and to the North-west of Chedi janpad. Its capitals was

.Mathura which was a seat of learning.

(13) Gandhar : This Janpad included within in the areas covering the eastern part of Afghanistan the whole of North, western frontior province. The western part of the Torah and The South portion of Kashmir. This state had vast areas under its control. It had two capitals – (1) Taxila and (2) Puskalawati. This town was a centre of learning and was the seat of Taxila university.

(14) Avanti : THis Janpad was situated in the province of present day Madhya Pradesh its capital was Ujjain.

(15) Kamboj : This Janpad included within it the northern part of Kashmir the province north of Gandhar. The Pamir and Badakhshan.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *