Ancient Indian DemocracyStudies, Research and Some Modern Myths

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

Editor, Indian Journal of Political Science, Reader, Department of Political Science Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut-5 (U.P.) India E-mail-sanjeevaji@yahoo.co.in ijpseditor@yahoo.co.in

(Published in Indian Journal of Politics, AMU, Aligarh, Vol. XXXIX, No. 3, July-Sep. 2005, pp.155-166)

Ancient Indian DemocracyStudies, Research and Some Modern Myths

Democracy is the best available means of governance in the present world. We are made to understand that as of now there is no alternative to democracy. Some of us may argue against the myth of of the people, by the people and for the people government and some may provide unending list of socio-economic (and yes, political also) problems created by the democratic mode of governance. Even then, the fact of the matter remains that throughout the world, we love democracy, we want democracy, we cherish democracy, we demand democracy and we crave for democracy. All other constructs and concepts of social sciences in general and political science in particular which have gathered world wide respect, such as liberty, equality, justice, rule of law etc. naturally come along with democracy. The institutionalization of democratic norms has, therefore, been of much significance in every political community caring for democratic way of government. Indian Society has since time immemorial been acquainted with democratic form of governance. While some of our friends may argue strongly against this notion but there are number of examples in ancient Indian texts to demonstrate the firm bases of democratic and representative governance in Indian Society. In any case, the present form of Indian democracy has gained so much attachment in the minds of the general populace only because of our traditional sense of belongingness with democracy. The pace of institutionalization of democratic governance has also been very fast in India as compared to other nations gaining freedom from the clutches of the colonial powers largely at the same point of time after IInd World War. The overwhelming Indian

Constitution, the free press, the independent judiciary, the federal system, the division and distribution of powers, the decentralization processes, free and fair regular elections, universal adult franchise, constitutional supremacy, internal mechanisms of debate and dialogue, vigilant and watchful electorate, etc. all have been strengthening Indian democracy to a great extent. India by virtue of being the largest democracy has some unique distinctions in regard of democratic tradition. But we have long been made to understand and believe that the history of democracy can best be understood in the context of western tradition of political development beginning with the Greeks. We have been blindly accepting the assumptions that the concepts of democratic ideals, personal liberty, equality and justice have essentially originated from the Western World and these concepts were simply alien and irrelevant in the non-western cultures. At the outset these assumption require a sincere re-examination. The present paper would deal with the examination of the theoretical edifice of democracy and the study and research of the historical tradition of democracy in Indian ancient texts. Democracy is not merely a form of government (though we find Lowell, Seeley, Lincoln, Dicey, Bryce defining democracy as a form of government), but simply more than that. It is said to be a type of state (Hearnshaw), an order of society (Eddy Asirvatham), a moral and religious principle (Maxey). Democracy, thus, means faith in the common man. It is regarded as sensitive to all its members. Democracy, in modern terms, understood as a means of specifying certain of the conditions and characteristics of mechanism involved in reaching collective decisions.1 The political organization and structure of liberal democracy forms a well patterned whole. It comprises popular sovereignty, popular elections, legislative assemblies, and the independence of judiciary,

civil liberties, and political parties, all of which are complementary to each other and derive from the same fundamental principles.2 The historical perspective of democracy may reveal that for most of its long history democracy was comprehended as one of the worst types of government and more or less synonymous with the rule of the mob. C.B. McPherson finds it rather puzzling and paradoxical feature of the history of democracy. To him, democracy used to be a bad word. Every body who as any body knew that democracy, in its original sense of rule by the people or government in accordance with the will of the bulk of the people, would be a bad thing fatal to individual freedom and to all the graces of civilized living. That was the position taken by pretty nearly all men of intelligence from the earliest historical times down to a hundred years ago. Then, within fifty years, democracy becomes a good thing.3 To give an account of democracy will be largely an exercise in description of current western realities coupled, perhaps, with some account of how this happy state of affairs came about. Such an account will not have to be either critical or challenging, although it may found to be so in societies where democracy has yet to be realized.4 The main problem in modern democratic government is to secure a proper balance between the recognized value of democracy and the equally desirable principle of efficiency.5 Research is an activity which most of our university departments and academic institutions are predominantly engaged with. The main objectives of research in any discipline may be enumerated as- opening up of new vistas for academic excellence; endeavouring to find ways and solutions to enduring and intriguing questions and queries hounding the minds of the intellectuals; preparing working grounds for the newer and newer scholars; creating the body literature for most of the parts of our syllabi;

suggesting means of better understanding of the subject; generating greater awareness about the problems amongst the academia; and making coveted attempts in the direction of overall comprehensiveness of the subject at different levels.6 Our efforts for making our subject scientific, understandable, wide, inter-disciplinary and modern, have led us to test various strategies of research and attempt different methodologies for diverse

problems. From normative to empirical, numerous approaches have been tried and tested by our scholars. The approaches and methodologies being followed have sometimes become the characteristic feature of some of our university teaching departments and research institutions. Some of them feel elated in describing their achievements besides identifying themselves with particular brand of research methodology and approach. The methodological denominations are mostly mechanical and deal with the technical aspect of the pursuit of greater knowledge. But the differences in approaches being followed have greatly been converted into strict ideological compartmentalization amongst the

scholars of the discipline. Some of our great researchers have been proudly propounding the exactness of some particular ideological approach in understanding and solving the major problems of our socio-political set-up. Some of our renowned teachers have been spreading the idea of one particular approach to be the sole repository to reach the truth. This one-sidedness amongst the academia unfortunately gives way to sheer intolerance for the other view and hampers the smooth, swift and easy growth of the dialogue between them. Thus, the basic premise that the knowledge can best be increased by healthy debate gets demolished. This type of academic intolerance is against the very edifice of intellectual upwardship. It also generates groupism and factionalism among the intellectual quarters and inculcates unhealthy practices in the affairs of the discipline.

This is also unfortunate to note that most of our academic quarters have been infested with this contagious disease. The gravity of the situation can well be understood by the fact that the research output of our university departments and research institutions can best be classified on the basis of ideological orientations which most of the time are claimed to be the difference of approaches but are mostly the difference of political inclinations. Therefore, the greater part of the body of literature in our discipline (this may be true of some other disciplines also) suffers from the lack of impartiality while confronting any serious question related to the practical aspects of the subject. This bias in our studies gets manifested in our conclusions and suggestive remedies. We, as a community, should address these questions sincerely and try to make serious efforts in creating an environment of healthy and constructive debate in the discipline, as propounded by the ancient Indian sages and saints: Vade Vade Jayate Tattvabodhah Let me make some comments on the state of teaching and research in Political Science in our colleges and universities. We have since long been made to understand that the study of Political Science in systematic manner started from the Greeks. The centuries of British rule have reinforced the myth of western origin of the study of politics. One wonders the over simplification of the construct after confronting the widely accepted fact of Indian being the oldest civilization on earth. The ideological faith in the western origin of the concept of democracy is not at all an impartial judgment. Indian tradition of republics dates back to centuries before Christ. The analysis and the discussion on ancient Indian democratic tradition must be preceded by some simple and widely accepted characteristics of democracy in modern as well as ancient western world.

The study of political thought in modern India is basically western oriented. The departments of Political Science in most of the Indian universities firmly believe that Political Science begins with the Greeks. The easy acceptability of the general belief about the western origin of political thought is often accentuated by the simple ignorance of and continuous aversion to any comprehension of Indian idea patterns and theoretical edifice. Normally our political scientists, researchers and university teachers seem to (or endeavour to) be acknowledged experts of western political ideas, concepts, books constructs and theories. Therefore, their contexts, explanations, theses, analysis and evaluations are often, obviously, based and dependent on the western reading material. There reflects a calculated west-dependence in preparation of books, reading material, researches and analytical explorations of our Political Science fraternity. This trend gets reflected in abundance in our research journals also. The natural and imminent corollary of this trend can be seen in the language, lexicon, idioms, presentations, analysis and vocabulary of our Indian political scientists. Having said that, it must also be kept in mind that this obedient and benevolent following of western idea patterns has not been able to provide any enviable recognition or acceptance to any great number of Indian political scientists at international level in the discipline of Political Science. Some of the noteworthy experts in this field belong to the community of persons of Indian origin either employed or placed in western universities. The overwhelming predominance of non-Indian writers and analysts in the field of analytical study of Political Science at international level makes us ponder upon some intriguing questions about the scenario of Indian political thinking. How it is that the most ancient civilization of the world could not produce any thinker, philosopher, theory, and concept or book in

the field of political thinking in more than five thousand years of its inception, which could be placed among the social scientists or political philosophers of the world? What would have been the reasons of classical neglect of political and administrative aspects of nation building by a country claiming (and widely understood) to be providing the world the way of ethical, universal and transcendental upliftment of the world community? Whether the tradition of Rishis, Ashrams, Gurukuls etc. which exhibited magical and extraordinary talent in the fields of ethics, art, culture, music, religion, moral philosophy, medical science, etc. could not attempt to discuss the issues of state, administration, leadership, authority and so on? Should we presume that Indian intellect did not at all have any caliber to produce any ideology, system, administrative set-up or organizational structure of politics to be presented before world academia? It is really pity that sincere attempts to find answers to these perturbing questions are also rare in our intellectual exercises. The results of the overall westernization of Indian studies in Political Science have been evidently disturbing and disappointing. The scholars of Political Science in India have found the western political thinking intense, systematic, fundamental and thereby incomprehensible for ordinary people and therefore better. Various political concepts, constructs and theories, which seem to have essentially originated from the internal dichotomies and contextual political and social compulsions of the western world have unnecessarily been incorporated in the syllabi of our teaching departments howsoever irrelevant those could be in Indian situations. Hence, the students of Political Science are usually unaware of the references and contexts of most of the theoretical frameworks presented before them and therefore, find the concepts alien and un-

understandable. There is a certain degree of apprehension about the universal application and utility of these west-oriented study materials in our own socio-political conditions. This has resulted into an obvious acceptance of the myth amongst the scholars of Political Science that the position of India in the development-journey of political thought is generally insignificant and negligible. Some exceptionally talented works on ancient Indian political thinking and institutions have compelled some of our university teachers and the departments to recognize the political-study-value of only the public administration aspect of the outstanding academic treatise by Kautilya. Apart from Kautilya, nothing relevant and none significant, has been considered to be the part of the course of the students of Political Science. These trends have resulted in an incipient inferiority complex among Indian political scientists and because of the fear this complex being exposed the community of the scholars of Political Science in India is tempted to establish the superiority of western talent of creating original ideas. This fact gets immensely and overtly reflected and manifested in the seminars, symposia, conventions and research journals of the subject. In fact, some rigorous analytical attempts and in-depth study would indicate that writers, philosophers, thinkers, poets, historians, rishis and others in ancient India had delved into minute and logical examination of the issues related to the overall development and growth of individual, society and state. Thus, the logic of unavailability of separate treatises on politics in ancient India seems to be unfounded. The early Indian logic was essentially approving the fact that politics was an inevitable ingredient of the universal Dharma, which used to govern and regulate all the functioning of individual, society and state. Therefore, the core aspect of analysis and presentation of most of the

ancient Indian treatises is mainly Dharma. All other aspects and elements are though not primary, but not at all negligible and secondary because Dharma is no entity in vacuum, rather it is accumulated whole of the overall moral, ethical and functional dimensions of individual, society and state. That is why we find Indian writers producing comprehensive expressions of most of the aspects of human life in almost every treatise of Vedic, Aupnisadik and Epic period while continuously exploring the epistemological and logical dimensions of Dharma. The procurement of the highly acclaimed treatise of Kautilya, the Arthsastra, in the early years of twentieth century must have necessarily been a witness to the explosion of myth of non-availability and non-existence of any book worth mentioning specifically on politics, Rajdharma or Dandaniti in ancient India. This is also interesting to note that some of the literary works of early Indian poets, though being completely the literary ones and being based entirely on love stories, present political institutions, functioning, theorizations in such emphatic and enduring manner that they bear a testimony to the vibrant and rich tradition of socio political thinking in ancient India. It is very unfortunate to note that most of the early Indian writings including the Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata etc. have generally been looked upon as either literary or religious works of early Hindu society. And, therefore, serious attempts to look into these grand old treatises for tracing the links of modern issues have largely been ridiculed as parochial, fundamental or otherwise. Some noteworthy works have, nonetheless, been able to put forward the basic ideas of ancient Indian society before the academic world. Eventually, even most of these works are the academic exercises by western writers with an intention to peep into the socio-political life styles of early Indians and are based on an

alien viewpoint. This shortcoming can mainly be attributed to the fact that they were simply unaware of the socio-cultural complexities of Indian society in general. Again, one of the main shortfalls of these works is to trying to locate the present days concepts and institutions in their raw form and shape in the early Indian society. This is applicable to the most of Indian writings also. But it must be safely suggested that the huge time gap between these comparisons often leads us to misunderstanding of the myths, beliefs, value-patterns, role models and functional dimensions of those societies in the light of modern yardsticks being applied for. The legacy of colonial rule, acceptance of modern democratic system, growing problems of national integration, the compulsions of multireligious and multi-cultural secular set up, increasing allurement of westernized models of life, decline of vernacular languages and the rise of English based academia, etc. are some of the main reasons behind our general apathy towards our cultural past. To our instant dismay contemporary pressures of real politick have produced a substantial section of Indian intelligentsia which has, under the impressions of academic hegemony of the English speaking and writing West, inculcated in themselves sense of sheer disregard, indifference, disbelief, apathy, hostility and criticism for anything that can be associated with ancient India. The scenario is comfortable for those who find it hard to go through ancient Indian writings because they are written in Sanskrit, a language that has a very strict scientific grammar and has less elasticity as compared to English. In addition to that the adoption of the model of industrialization by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, as the only way of the upliftment of Indian society and the adoption of globalization-liberalization model of development by Rajiv Gandhi in 1990s the then

Prime Minister of India and eventually the grandson of J.L. Nehru, and of course, by the succeeding governments have also led Indian academia to believe that any endeavour to look into our ancient past is purely futile. Leaving apart the political aspects of this attitude of Indian academia, the greatest loss incurred to because of this has been in the field of serious research studies in social sciences. Though it cannot be argued that the ancient Indian writings possess emphatic solutions to all the present day conflicts, yet it can be stated forthwith that serious studies of ancient Indian literature with social science view point would definitely pave the way of better understanding of the Indian mindset and thereby prove immensely helpful in shaping our socio-political values and institutions in an indigenous manner. Strangely enough, our scholars appear to reject the ideas of ancient Indian texts with a viewpoint of Indian Vedas and Puranas containing many fanciful and unscientific ideas and therefore, not taking them seriously. But they fail to note that all ancient texts contain their mythic and legendary elements, and it is not the practice to so completely reject them. It may well be argued that a close study of the texts of ancient India is essentially required to understand their comprehensive views on state, politics, sovereignty, rights and duties and yes-public administration beside the overwhelmingly amazing idea of welfare state. It is astonishing to note that some of your universities have not even bothered to include the study of ancient Indian Political thought in their syllabic. This is an area of great concern for all of us and requires sincere attempts from all in this direction. Amartya Sen argues that the enthusiasm for ancient India has often come from the Hindutva movement-the promoters of a narrowly Hindu view of Indian civilization. The integrationists, according to Sen, tend to see Vedas and the Ramayana as unwelcome intrusions of Hindu beliefs into the contemporary life of

secular India. Although he accepts the enormous influence these old books and narratives have on Indian culture, literature and thought.7 Ancient India is claimed to be the repository of the highest form of democracy. We find the people (vishah) participating in urban councils with the power to instruct and direct the king according to their will. The multitude of ethnicities and people provided for the autonomy and self-determination of the villages, city-states, republics and constitutional kingdoms through the observance of Dharma. The villages ruled by their elected representatives and were, therefore, autonomous and self-governing

administrative units having the power to manage their educational, economic social, administrative and other requirements. Their own assemblies and committees also governed townships. There were Republics in ancient India prior to Greek and Athenian democracy, which were established by people dissenting against monarchy. These republics were expression of the idea of government through an assembly representing the people. Despite inconsistencies and attacks republics continued to survive till the 4th Century A.D. The earliest sources of information about ancient Indian political tradition, Vedas, provide enormous information about the theory and practice of government in that period. Mahabharat presents the views on polity in a systematic, comprehensive and authentic manner, besides presenting the views on sphere of state activity and government as chief instrument for the welfare of the society. Mahabharat declares that in politics are realized all forms of renunciation, in politics are united all the sacraments, in politics are combined all knowledge, in politics are centered the entire world.8 Muhlberger has argued that the largest and most influential Indian literary tradition, the

Brahman cal, has democratic traditions that are more important than they are usually understood to be. A large number of sources have demonstrated the existence of many sovereign republics in ancient India besides identifying numerous sanghas and ganas with more or less powers. It remarkable to note that during the near millennium between 500 B.C. and 400 A.D. we find republics almost everywhere in India. Kingship had a central place in the political life of ancient India. The social order based on Varna system provided the functional basis to the political decision making which had to observe the strict adherence to Dharma. Kautilyas Arthshastra, Manu-Smiriti, Buddhist and Pali literature and Jain treatises confirm the picture of widespread republicanism and popular elements in village life in early India. These works were debated and discussed in the nineteenth century by a number of foreign and Indian scholars, e.g. Rhys Davids, K. P. Jaiswal, Dr. Bhandarkar, R.C. Majumdar, etc. This debate largely concentrated on goals and methods of imperial policy, the analysis of village government, and the future of India as a self-governing country in the context of the British rule in India. But later generations of Indian academicians were not enthusiastic about the early republicanism of ancient India. These include AS Altekar, JP Sharma, UN Ghoshal, etc. It has been observed that, the work of twentieth century scholars has made possible a much different view of ancient political life in India. It has shown us a landscape with kings a plenty, a culture where the terminology of rule is in the majority of sources relentlessly monarchical but where, at the same time, the realities of politics are so complex that simply to call them monarchical is a grave distortion. Indeed, in ancient India, monarchial thinking was constantly battling with another vision of self-rule by members of a guild, a village, or extended kin-groups, in other words, any group of equals with a common set

of interests. This vision of cooperative self-government often produced republcanism and even democracy comparable to classical Greek democracy.9 The gramsabha of ancient India used to control adequate resources for managing their jurisdictions. The Gramsabha was supreme in managing villages in ancient India. It used to elect Sarpanch for not more than one or two years by secret ballot with power to remove than any time for misconduct. All decisions were taken and programmes and expenditure reviewed in assembly. Kohli argues that a close study of ancient Indian texts (Kautilyas Arthshastra, Bhagvad Gita, Shanti Parva in Mahabharat) is required to understand the very concept of the welfare state. These Indian texts are so comprehensive in devising such a view of welfare state that it is amazing to note that although we try to find the roots of such an ideology in the west yet its roots always lay in India.10 Shankhadhar goes to the extent of claiming that in fact, Kautilya over-reached the modern concept in that his yogakshena aims at an all-round development, material as well as spiritual, of the society as well as of the individual. It involves the well being of the poorest of the poor. The Kautilyan state ensured freedom, happiness, prosperity and full-fledged development of human personality. Yogokshema demanded a higher moral consciousness both at the elities and common peoples levels.11 It has been rightly observed that the Indian ethos is reflected in the teachings of our great thinkers like Vivekenand, Rabindra Nath Tagore and Aurobindo Ghosh. Gandhiji, the father of the nation developed his ideology and concepts of democracy on Indian traditions. Indian ethos always recognized spiritual energies generated through empowerment of the people as the main force behind human activity.

We need to deliberate how far these values are relevant today and, if they are, then how they can be woven into our governance practices.12 We may find the argument well conceived that Ancient India considered individuals not as social, but as spiritual beings undergoing an evolutionary process. This is the key to that dharma-based society, for which its unique form of democracy streamed from the high planes of the intuitive mind. The polity and society, art and philosophy, science and mathematics, surgery and astronomy, economics and the military rule, all fields of knowledge and investigation, all activities and aspects of life revolved around the dharma or law of ideal living-embracing yet going beyond all religions. The rishis translated the sacrosanct dharma into shastras-authoritative codes encompassing the whole of life, determining both the highest order of life and particulars with the same care. The rishis and the gods thus sanctioned the law and custom of society. Belonging to any of the varnas, the rishi or Vedic seer was often the advisor and preceptor of the king. The monarch and emperor, the people, the larger and lesser polities were all bound to maintain the dharma, preserving both the right law of human existence and the universal one. The aim of life was the pursuit of perfection, intellectual and physical, ethical and aesthetic, empirical and spiritual, social and political. The broad lines were universal but each human conglomerate as well as each individual was considered to have a nature and a law, a svabhava and a svadharma of its own, to which corresponded detailed rules, as outlined in the shastras, leading to perfection via the various disciplines.13 The main purpose of the expositions in this part of the paper has been to propose further in-depth studies in the direction of exploring the traces of the tradition of democracy and democratic institutions in ancient Indian texts and society with a certain

view of understanding those references and contexts in an unbiased and objective manner and commitment to advance and encourage in the study of ancient India amongst our teaching and research community of Political Science.

References 1. Barry Hindess- Parliamentary Democracy and Socialist Politics, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1983, p. 48. 2. Maurice Duverger Modern Democraties: Economics Power versus Political Power, The Dryden Press, Illinois, 1974, p. 50 3. C.B. Macpherson, the Real World of Democracy, Oxford, Clardendon Press, 1966, chapters 2 and 3. 4. 5. 6. Anthony Arblaster- Democracy, World View, New Delhi, 1997, p.2 R.G. Gettell Political Science, World Press, Calcutta, 1950, p. 204 I must acknowledge here that the bulk of this paper is borrowed from and dependent on some of my comments in the issues of the Indian Journal of Political Science as the Editor of IJPS. I have thought it prudent to start a debate by compiling these stray ides in a well-knit presentation. 7. Amartya Sen-India: Large and Small-

www.planningcommission.nic.in/news/profsen.pdf 8. 9. Mahabharat, Shantiparvam-63 (28-29 Democracy in Ancient India- Sterve Muhlbeger (World History of Democracy site).

10. 11.

Ritu Kohli, op cit., p.9 MM Shankhdhar- forward in Ritu Kohli- Kautilyas Political Theory, Yogakshema- The Concepts of Welfare State, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi, 1995, p, viii

12.

S.K. Sharma and Ashok Khosla, Whither True Peoples Democracy?, August 1997, http://www.dainet.org/livelihoods/0897sk.htm

13.

Paulette, Sri Aurobindo on the Nature of True Democracy, Auroville Today, August 2004,

http://www.auroville.org/journals&media/avtoday/august_04/aurodemocracy. htm