Post-Vedic Republics of North-Western India

Jul 2014
1,638
world
Pali cannon are traced back to Buddhas period. Jataka tales also. What do you mean buy medieval period copies ?


Almost every Greek treatise and books are only medieval copies from Arabic sources. are they also unreliable?
 
Last edited:
Sep 2016
350
India
Hey wasn't there some Vaishali Republic? It was faced by Ajashatru, I think. In case u haven't already mentioned it.
 
Jan 2016
1,637
India
Exactly what book of Diodorus does he state that indians follows the democratic tradition? Simply because it is claimed thaat Diodorus, said something does not mean he did. Indian scholars claim ancient Indians invented airplanes, nuclear reactors, doesn't mean theymdid. The coins do not mention any republic on any evidence you hace presented. I could be wrong, but given the repeated chances of Indian posters to reference the actual sources and didn't, I suspect you invented the claim, or interpreted the source different than how it was actual written.
I do not make claims that I can not back up. See Bibliotheca Historica 17.104, Classical Accounts, p. 180 for Diodorus.

The copies of the Pali sources we have are are from medieval times, and what we have do not match the archaelogy record. and have their own biases. The earliest biographies of Ashoka date from centuries after his time, and Indians ignore the less honorable aspects of Ashoka's character such as executing heretics, including his own brother. Should we accept everything what they say, which would make Ashoka a religious fanatic? Or acknowldge that there might be errors, distortions in the record.
We have evidence that there were no republics in medieval India, and many republics such as Yaudheyas or Kshudrakas are not remembered in any medieval text or inscription. What you are saying is that all those tens of references to republics are medieval fabrications (even when there are no medieval republics), Indian republics were writing false legends on their coins, word Gana means nothing, and all Greco-Roman sources are lying. :rolleyes: Just because you do not like to accept something, does not mean it is a medieval fabrication.

Note, in the medieval times when we are no longer dependent solely on Indian sources, but have independent sources,there are no republics as you mentioned. The question is legitmate if these republics really existed as republics as we define them..
Who says we have not any non-Indian sources in ancient times? What are those Greek and Roman sources all about?

Buddhist text, as noted, may merely reflect the way the Buddhist would have like to run government, not the wah they were actually, and in any case, might only relect buddhist realms. Manh of the realms were were primarily Hindu, and so what the Buddhist said wouldn't automotically apply to a Hindu realm.
I would have considered this argument only when the evidence related to the republics is found only in the Buddhist sources. We have nearly every type of source, from secular like Panini and Kautilya, to religious like Jain and Buddhist. This is proved beyond doubt by evidence from inscriptions, coins and records of the republics themselves, and the Hellenistic sources.

By the way, why would Jains lie about 9 Ganarajas of Licchavi and Malla, why would Buddhist completely fake how Sakya state was run, and why would the Yaudheyas lie on their own coins? :lol:

Saying that they had no kings does not make them automatically a republic. Many primitive people have no kings, but aren1t republics. The clans of Sotland had no kings, but weren't republics. What exact book of Rufus does he talk about the Sabarcae. He was unlikely using the word democracy.
In the same text, Megasthenes also says that many cities in India became free and are now ruled by council. This is probably what he means by being "free." Also, Arrian was talking about the republic of Nysa in north-western India in his Anabsis of Alexander. I do not know in which book Rufus said this, but he is quoted by Arrian in his Indika, pg. 252 (McCrindle).
 
Last edited:
Nov 2015
330
abroad
The Yaudheyas were probably worshippers of the diety Kartikeya (who rides a peacock), as is evidenced by their coins. Also, in Mahabharata, the people of the Bahudhanyaka country are called as Matta-Mayurakas, which literally means “having enraptured peacocks.” Quite interestingly, peacock is still considered sacred in this region.

.
it looks more of shiva with snake trishul and hen(which was usually associated with karthikeya)...
 
Feb 2014
1,429
Asia
Bhrigu said:
No, Johiyabar region is just the modern territory of Johiya Rajputs. The region around Rohtak is considered the core (and also possibly, are of their origin) of the Yaudheyas because all of the Yaudheya mints, great hoards of their coins and ancient mounds are found there. Coins are found all over Punjab, Haryana and eastern Rajasthan, but the hoards are more concentrated around Rohtak and are much bigger in size than elsewhere. Also, Digvijaya Parvan of the Mahabharata tells us that Rohitaka was the capital of the Bahudhanyak country (southern and western Haryana). There is no such indication that Yaudheyas had their origins in Johiyabar region, which was actually under the control of the Malavas for most of the times. The Malavas ruled both sides of the lower Sutlej since before Panini, and until the Indo-Greeks.

Modern state of Haryana was divided into two territories in the ancient times. One is the Bahudhanyak country which consists of southern districts like Rohtak, Hisar and Jind. Another was the Kurukshetra or Kuru-jangala which consists of northern districts like Karnal, Kurukshetra and Ambala. Kuru Janapada was always only limited to the Kurukshetra territory.
As you mentioned, Johiyabar itself comes from ancient Sanskrit name Yaudheyavara. Even today Johiyas are mostly concencrated in this region in Bahawalpur and Bikaner. Finding hoards does not prove that Rohtak was the original land of Yaudheyas as we find the wonders of Mughal architecture in Agra and Delhi that doesn't mean that Mongols originated from this region, it simply indicated the center of power that Yaudheyas made during teh post-Mauryan period.

Also in Mahabharata (5.19) we found that Rohtak was a part of Kurujangala. So, under the control of Kurus during the pre-Mauryan times. This atleast explains that Yaudheyas expanded over the Eastern Haryana at the cost of Kurus

Bhrigu said:
Agreed. It is not unique to this case. When we read of ancient history of north-western India, we see several instances where more than one clan sometimes occupy the same territory. It might be assumed that their territories were overlapping as they were semi-tribal polities having not developed yet the idea of well-defined political borders. But this case of Agreyas is not that simple. Even if their territories were overlapping, the Agreyas must have been situated around the peripheries of the Yaudheya territories, but this was not the case. They were right in the centre of what seems to be the core territory of the Yaudehyas. If a territory just 80 km from your capital is ruled by some vassals, then it needs some explanation. Funny thing is that we have found coins of both the Yaudheyas and Agreyas from the same time period and from the same place.
I think we see an examples likes this until the modern times. Jaipur was vassal state lying very close to the capital of Mughal and British Empire.
 
Jan 2016
1,637
India
As you mentioned, Johiyabar itself comes from ancient Sanskrit name Yaudheyavara. Even today Johiyas are mostly concencrated in this region in Bahawalpur and Bikaner. Finding hoards does not prove that Rohtak was the original land of Yaudheyas as we find the wonders of Mughal architecture in Agra and Delhi that doesn't mean that Mongols originated from this region, it simply indicated the center of power that Yaudheyas made during teh post-Mauryan period.
I think that there was a later migration of the Yaudheyas to the Yaudheyavara region, and they ended up giving their name to this region, just like Vaghela Rajputs of Gujarat gave Baghelkhand it's name, and the Malava tribe gave Malwa it's name. From ancient sources it is clear that the Malavas were in control of both banks of the Sutlej in the earliest times, while Yaudheyas were located to the east.

And I do not think that Rohtak was a part of Kuru-jangala as most sources are quite clear on this. This is the quote from Sabha Parvan, XXXII. 4-5:

ततो बहुधनं रम्यं गवाढयं धनधान्यवत् |
कार्त्तिकेयस्य दयितं रोहितकमुपाद्रवत् ||
 
Last edited:
Feb 2014
1,429
Asia
I think that there was a later migration of the Yaudheyas to the Yaudheyavara region, and they ended up giving their name to this region, just like Vaghela Rajputs of Gujarat gave Baghelkhand it's name, and the Malava tribe gave Malwa it's name. From ancient sources it is clear that the Malavas were in control of both banks of the Sutlej in the earliest times, while Yaudheyas were located to the east.

And I do not think that Rohtak was a part of Kuru-jangala as most sources are quite clear on this. This is the quote from Sabha Parvan, XXXII. 4-5:

ततो बहुधनं रम्यं गवाढयं धनधान्यवत् |
कार्त्तिकेयस्य दयितं रोहितकमुपाद्रवत् ||
Thanks for the reference. If I am correct Nakula conquered Rohtak from some Mattamayuras. Is there any reference for Yaudheyas in Rohtak in Mahabharata ?
 
Jan 2016
1,637
India
Thanks for the reference. If I am correct Nakula conquered Rohtak from some Mattamayuras. Is there any reference for Yaudheyas in Rohtak in Mahabharata ?
No, but some believe that these Mattamayuras (literally, those who enrapture peacocks) are the same as the Yaudheyas since we know that they worshipped Kartikeya who rides a peacock.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2014
1,429
Asia
Bhrigu said:
No, but some believe that these Mattamayuras (literally, those who enrapture peacocks) are the same as the Yaudheyas since we know that they worshipped Kartikeya who rides a peacock.
Isn't it strange that we do not have any mention of Yaudheya people in Mahabharata ? Is it possible that Mattamayuras were the original people of Rohtak from whom Yaudheyas got this tradition of Kartikeya worship ? or is there any source that can confirm that Mattamayuras and Yaudheyas were the same people.