India has a great tradition of Democracy. From pre Buddhistic times for centuries there flourished in India a number of non-monarchical states. Some of them were tribal Republics, other Oligarchies or Aristocracies, and one was ruled by two Hereditary Kings and a council of elders with supreme authority. Yet others were large Republican states and confederacies. From Greek, Sanskrit and Pali sources, we learn that the conception and practice of democracy in ancient India were in no way inferior to that of Athens.
Like ancient Greek Democracy, ancient Indian Democracy also, more or less, possessed these five characteristics: 'The equality of all rights, the rejection of arbitrary power, the appointment to offices by lot, the responsibility of officials and common deliberation and decision in the popular assembly’. (Herodotus, ¡¡¡, 82.). Many of these Indian Republican states were established by dissolving monarchies when they became sceptical, and in turn they were abolished and incorporated in the Maurya, Kushan and Gupta empires. Krishna, Mahavira and the buddha belonged to autonomous societies which were more or less democratic. Krishna belonged to Vrsni Clan of the Yādavas of Mathura, Mahāvīra to the Jnātrika clan of Kundagrāma near Vaiśāli, and the Buddha to the Sākya clan of Kapilavastu.
Like the Teutons against the universal Roman empire, the ancient Indian non-monarchical states fought against the absolutistic and expansive tendencies of the Mauryan and the Gupta states as well as foreign invaders. If, as Montesquieu said, the germs of constitutional monarchy are to be found in the forests of Germany, those of representative democracy can be found in ancient Indian republics. The recollection and conscious appropriation of this Indian democratic tradition can animate present day Indians by engendering the republican spirit in them and thus strengthen the foundations of the Indian republic. There were in the sixth century BC a large number of states, both great and small, and many of these were not ruled by kings but formed pretty republics or oligarchies. This political condition of North India...thus resembled that of Greece in the same period, though naturally the size of the kingdoms as well as of some of the non-monarchical states in India was much bigger.
So far as the period under review is concerned, there is abundant evidence that monarchy was not the sole form of government.... It is to be noted that the majority of Indian states with which Alexander came into contact were no monarchical. ------ The non-monarchical states are also referred to Indian literature such as the Mahābhārata and Kautilya's Arthaśāstra. But by far the most interesting account of them is preserved in the Buddhist literature.....This indicates that the non-monarchical constitution, referred to as gana, was a general feature of the political system of the country.
The Buddhist literature mentions a large number of Republican clans, but does not give any details regarding their constitution save in the case of the Śākyas of Kapilavastu and Vajjian Confederation, of which the Lichchhavis of Vaiśāli were the most prominent. These were ruled by a supreme assembly, consisting of both old and young members, which frequently met and fully discussed all important questions concerning the state. There was a head of the state, probably elected for a term of years, who functioned as the chief executive officer. There are good grounds to believe that the Mallas and Lichchhavis, and probably also others, had an executive council of nine members. The head of the state and the members of the assembly were called Rājā, which bore here the same sense as Consul and Archon (The Greek words for magistrate and rulers). The house where the Assembly met was called Santhāgāra. The Lichchhavi state was divided into a number of small administrative units, the heads of which composed the supreme assembly at the centre. This has a strong resemblance to the Cleisthenian constitution of Athens, and perhaps in both cases the locality was substituted for the clan as the administrative unit, which meant in effect the transition from the principle of kinship to that of locality or residence.
We can formulate the following general principles in regard to the Republican constitution: 1. Definite rules were laid down regarding the method of moving resolutions in the Assembly. Generally, the proposal was repeated thrice and if no objections were raised, it was taken as Passed. In case of objection, the sense of the Assembly was determined by the votes of the majority. Definite rules were laid down for the counting of votes and there was a special officer for the purpose. Voting by ballot was in use. 2. Complicated questions were referred to committees. 3. Definite rules were laid down about quorum, votes of absentees, subsequent legalisation of acts done by an illegally constituted assembly, etc.
[The Mahābhārata] was in favour of the democratic forms of government, and was anxious to preserve them from the dangers to which they naturally exposed. The chief of these were disunion and dissension and lack of secrecy. Hence, they recommend forbearance and toleration as the guiding principles of members, and the formation of a small cabinet of select leaders. 'The gana leaders', we are told, 'should be respected, as the worldly affairs depend to a great extent upon them. The spy and the secrecy of counsel should be left to the chiefs, for it is not fit that the entire body of the gana should hear those secret matters. In conclusion it is said that 'it is the internal danger that is chiefly to be guarded against; the external danger is not of much importance.
The games are torn asunder by the enemies......by creating dissension and offering bribes; so, it is said that unity is the chief refuge of the ganas'. The long passage in the Śānti parvan from which the above extracts are quoted shows a thorough comprehension of the essential features of a democratic constitution. The existence of the democratic states in India for more than a thousand years (600 BC to AD 400) gave rise to a political philosophy of which only a faint echo has been preserved in this remarkable passage in the Great Epic.
Footnotes: - The History and Culture of the Indian People__ the age of Imperial Unity. BC Law and Beni Prasad, edited by RC Majumdar.
Comments