The Constitution of the Sakyas of Kapilavastu
By U. N. Ghoshal
Summary
The article examines the political constitution of the Sakyas of Kapilavastu, focusing on whether the Sakyas formed a republic with an elected chief or a hereditary monarchy. It begins by summarising conflicting views among scholars: Rhys Davids saw the Sakya state as a republic with an elected head, while Bhandarkar argued that the word 'raja' in the canonical texts indicates a hereditary king; R. C. Majumdar proposed that Sakya 'rajas' were also heads of minor administrative units, reminiscent of the Licchavi constitution. The author analyses Jataka Preamble narratives and canonical sources to assess these opinions. The narratives depict the Sakyas as occupying a defined territory with a fixed capital and several settlements. Jataka Preambles mention Sakya kings and nobles collectively welcoming the Buddha; sometimes a single king, Suddhodana, plays a leading role, but the texts often portray the Sakya nobles (styled 'kings') as exercising sovereign powers collectively. Examples include the Sakya assembly deliberating over diplomatic matters such as a marriage proposal from the Kosala king, dealing with foreign envoys, and even declaring war against the Koliyas over irrigation disputes. In these stories, the Sakya nobles consult in the santhagara (assembly hall) and make collective decisions, while the figure of a supreme magistrate is either absent or ambiguous. The author contrasts these late Jataka narratives with canonical references in the Vinaya and Digha Nikaya that mention kings Bhaddiya and Suddhodana. In the Vinaya, Bhaddiya is clearly described as ruling over the Sakyas and transferring his kingdom before becoming a monk; he is addressed as Sakyaraja, implying a permanent ruler. Suddhodana, on the other hand, is sometimes titled 'raja' in canonical texts but elsewhere appears simply as a respected elder. By reviewing these sources, the author argues that the late Jataka accounts depict a republican constitution with a sovereign clan assembly and possibly a magistrate, but the older canonical evidence points to a single, permanent kingship. The article concludes that Rhys Davids' view of a republican constitution is problematic; the existence of a permanent king indicates that the Sakya state was more likely a hereditary monarchy moderated by an assembly whose composition and functions remain unclear. The author highlights the need for careful historical criticism when interpreting Buddhist texts and stresses that the evidence for the structure of the Sakya polity is fragmentary and sometimes contradictory.
Conclusion
The investigation shows that while later Jataka stories portray the Sakyas as a republican clan governed by an assembly, the older canonical texts reveal the presence of a single permanent king such as Bhaddiya who exercised authority and even disposed of his kingdom upon renouncing the world. Suddhodana’s ambiguous status may reflect different narrative purposes rather than evidence of an elective office. Consequently, the Sakya constitution was likely a hereditary monarchy tempered by noble assemblies rather than a true republic. Further research on the functions of the Sakya assembly is necessary to fully understand their political system.