Upinder Singh Why it may be wrong to ask whether…

Saved to Dropbox • 14-Aug-2023 at 11:33 AM

Home  The Week


Upinder Singh: Why it may be
 wrong to ask whether India is
the mother of democracy

Non-monarchical traditions of ancient
India were different from modern

democracy


 By Upinder Singh
Issue Date: August 20, 2023
 Updated: August 13, 2023 08:00 IST
 People and power: Sanchi Stupa in
Madhya Pradesh | Shutterstock

“TO THE MEMORY of the Republican

Vrishnis, Kathas, Vaishalas and Shakyas
who announced philosophies of freedom
from devas, cruelty, and caste.”

The passionate tenor of K. P. Jayaswal’s

dedication to his book Hindu Polity
(1924) is not surprising. The discovery
of ancient Indian ‘republics’ proved that
western descriptions of Indian history
as marked by unmitigated despotism
was false. While nationalist scholars
such as Jayaswal made important
contributions to the understanding of
non-monarchical states in ancient India,
they idealised them, exaggerated their
democratic nature, and used an
anachronistic vocabulary.

The current public interest in

democracy stems from two different
trends. The first is a hyper-nationalist
view that heralds ancient India as the
fount of all things great in the world.
The second is a yearning to find
democracy and debate in the ancient
past against the background of rising
authoritarianism. The historian’s
dharma is to steer clear of both trends
and to dispassionately analyse the
evidence.

Upinder Singh | Sanjay Ahlawat

The Greeks invented the word

demokrataia (power of the people) and
used it to describe a political system
that was adopted in many city-states. Its
roots can be traced to the sixth century
BCE, its fully developed form and its
demise to the fourth century BCE. In
ancient Greece, democracy was
debated, lauded, critiqued, and even
denounced. This was a direct
democracy, in which all citizens,
regardless of property, wealth or status,
were entitled to participate in the
deliberations of the assembly and be
involved in executive and judicial
administration. It went hand in hand
with notions of citizenship (politeia),
equality (isonomia) and freedom
(eleutheria). However, women, slaves
and foreigners were not citizens and
did not enjoy political rights.

Non-monarchical political systems

existed in various other parts of the
ancient world, including India. It is
important to recognise differences in
the meanings of words in ancient and
modern times. So, asking whether
democracy existed in ancient India can
lead to muddled conclusions. It is better
to ask the following questions: Did non-
monarchical states exist? Do ancient
texts display a concern about the
excesses of autocratic rule? Were there
corporate organisations? Were subjects
given a role in ancient Indian political
thought?
While searching for answers, we should
remember that across the centuries, the
vast forest stretches of the subcontinent
were inhabited by tribes who had their
own political and social traditions that
are undocumented.

Did non-monarchical political systems

exist in ancient India? Yes. In the tribal
polity reflected in the Rig Veda, apart
from the chieftain known as the rajan,
the sabha and samiti were assemblies
whose power declined as that of kings
rose. The 16 great states of sixth century
BCE north India included the Vajji and
Malla, non-monarchical states
described as ganas or sanghas. As
meaning can get lost in translation, it is
best to leave these terms untranslated.

Several non-monarchical states are

mentioned in Buddhist and Jaina texts,
Panini’s Astadhyayi, the Mahabharat
and Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Greek
accounts of Alexander’s campaigns
refer to ‘autonomous Indians’ and
‘democracies’. Buddhist texts offer
details about the Lichchhavis, who were
part of the Vajji confederacy, and it is
likely that the procedures of the
Buddhist monastic order were modelled
on this gana. The Lichchhavis had an
assembly consisting of the heads of
Kshatriya families, which met annually.
A council of nine handled day-to-day
administration. The Ekapanna Jataka
states that in their capital, Vaishali,
there were 7,707 rajas (rulers), and a
similar number of uparajas
(subordinate kings), senapatis (military
commanders) and bhandagarikas
(treasurers). We need not take the
numbers literally, but they point to a
system of power-sharing. There were
other less powerful ganas, such as the
Shakyas, Koliyas, Bulis, Kalamas,
Moriyas and Bhaggas.

Temple of democracy: The Vaikunda Perumal

temple at Uthiramerur, Tamil Nadu, where
ancient inscriptions detailing systems of self-
governance were discovered; (left) the
inscriptions | R.G. Sasthaa

The heads of Kshatriya families who

attended the assembly were probably
also large landowners. Various other
groups―Brahmins, lower castes, tenant
farmers, artisans, wage labourers and
slaves―lived in the ganas. They were
not part of the assembly. Nor were
women. Therefore the ganas are best
described as Kshatriya aristocracies or
oligarchies, where power was shared by
a group of clansmen.

It seems more than a coincidence that

Mahavira, the Buddha and Krishna
were associated with ganas―Mahavira
with the Jnatrika clan (part of the Vajji
confederacy), the Buddha with the
Shakyas, and Krishna with the Vrishnis.
The Brahmin Ambattha’s complaint that
the Shakya assembly laughed at him
and treated him disrespectfully when
he visited Kapilavastu suggests a
climate where Brahmins did not enjoy
the social prestige they did in
monarchies. Another difference was the
absence of a standing army recruited
and maintained by the state. This was
the most important reason why the
ganas never established empires and
ultimately lost out militarily to
kingdoms.

Many texts talk about the ganas’

susceptibility to arrogance, quarrel and
internal dissension. The Lalitavistara
states that each one of the Lichchhavis
thinks, ‘I am king! I am king!’
Ajatashatru, king of Magadha,
ultimately managed to defeat the
Lichchhavis through a policy of
attrition, weakening them internally by
sowing seeds of dissension among their
ranks. This is precisely the sort of
strategy recommended by Kautilya. In
the Mahabharat, Bhishma’s
observations on the ganas’ strengths
and weaknesses match those of
Buddhist texts and the Arthashastra.

Although Ajatashatru defeated the

Lichchhavis, they survived, and so did
the non-monarchical system. In the
early centuries CE, names of the
Yaudheya, Malava, Uddehika, and
Arjunayana ganas appear on coins. The
Guptas had a matrimonial alliance with
the Lichchhavis which was
commemorated on gold coins and
proclaimed in inscriptions which refer
to Samudragupta as grandson of the
Lichchhavis. Ironically, Samudragupta’s
military campaigns were responsible
for reducing the ganas to political
insignificance.

Do ancient Indian texts display a

concern about the excesses of autocratic
rule? Yes. The dominant strand in
ancient Indian political thought exalts
kingship and equates monarchy with
social order (and kinglessness with
disorder), but there was an awareness
of the dangers of tyranny. According to
the dharma view of politics, kings were
answerable to a higher moral law. In his
long, deathbed oration, Bhishma holds
forth to Yudhishthira on raja-dharma
(the dharma of kings) and emphasises
that rulers must be just in taxation and
punishment. A just king goes to heaven,
an unjust one goes to hell. Further, he
tells Yudhishthira, a cruel king, who
after promising to protect his subjects
does not do so, or who robs them in the
name of levying taxes, is evil incarnate
and should be killed by his subjects as
though he were a mad dog. So if a king
does not perform his duties and is
avaricious, cruel and unjust, the
Mahabharat sanctions regicide.
Kautilya, who has no dharmic
compunctions and is usually considered
(wrongly) a supporter of
totalitarianism, emphasises that rulers
must be properly educated, well-trained
and self-controlled; they must listen to
the advice of others, make judicious
choices, and use force only as a last
resort.

ALSO READ
What history tells us about self-
governance in ancient Tamil Nadu

Ancient Buddhista sanghas: From

dhamma to democracy

Lichchhavi: A republic for oligarchs

in ancient India

Harappans and the ‘panchayats’ of

 peace

'If there is anything safe in India, it is

democracy': ICHR chairman Tanwar

'Colonisation overshadowed ancient

Indian wisdom': Shaurya Doval

Were there corporate organisations in

ancient India? Yes. Guilds of craftsmen
and traders existed in various part of
the subcontinent from the sixth century
BCE onwards. Inscriptions reveal their
affluence and influence as religious
patrons and bankers. The most
substantial evidence of corporate
organisations comes from early
medieval South India. The ur was a
village assembly consisting of tax-
paying landowners, the sabha a
Brahmin assembly in villages granted
by kings to Brahmins. The famous
Uthiramerur inscription from Tamil
Nadu, which talks of the selection of
various committees through a draw of
lots, refers to decisions made by
property-owning members of the
Brahmin sabha. Assemblies at the nadu
(locality) level were responsible for land
assessment, tax collection and irrigation
management. Marketing or commercial
centres known as nagarams, too, had
corporate bodies consisting of
merchants. And there were many
merchant guilds, the most powerful of
which were the Ayyavole and
Manigramam.

Were subjects given a role in ancient

Indian political thought? Yes. The praja
was considered an important part of the
body politic. Theories of the origin of
kingship and discussions of a ruler’s
duties emphasise that taxes are the
king’s wages for protecting his subjects,
dispensing justice and maintaining
social order. This is different from the
idea of citizenship in the sense of
people’s rights of political participation.
Kautilya’s brilliance lies in the fact that
he was able to demonstrate through
argument that it was in the king’s self-
interest to promote his people’s
prosperity and welfare. There are no
records of popular revolts in ancient
India, but Kautilya’s references to
prakriti-kopa (the anger of the people)
reflect an anxiety about popular
disaffection.

Ancient India had long and vibrant

traditions of non-monarchical states,
corporate bodies, and critiques of
power based on the idea that rulers
must discharge their duties towards
their subjects. But access to political
power was circumscribed by widely
accepted hierarchies of class, caste and
gender. This is very different from
modern Indian democracy which is―at
least theoretically―based on principles
of freedom and social and political
equality.

―Singh is professor of history at

Ashoka University, Delhi. Views
expressed are personal.

TAGS

Independence Day Special 2023

Terms & Conditions Privacy & Statement

Copyright © 2023 All rights reserved