The Practice of Democracy in India - A Short Synopsis
The article
by Rakesh Goyal on the ideas of democracy of ancient India, while useful in
providing a theoretical construct, is inadequate in putting forward the
practical constructs of these ideas in ancient India. This is problematic,
since there is ample evidence in favor of the same. There are several examples of
democratic traditions in practice in India. I shall be presenting two
particular instances in India to highlight the thriving practices in ancient
India. I shall also be putting out the actual practices adopted to safeguard
interests and note the potential diversity of the democratic practices observed
in ancient India. Also, while the systems have been noted by Mr. Goyal as
evidence for democracy in India, his article also lacks an elaboration on the criticisms
of the systems thereafter in various texts, which have been given only summary
reference, which we shall also briefly touch upon.
AshtaJanapada System and the Republican Democracy
For those who have read Hindi literature, Acarya Chaturasena
needs no introduction. A lovely Hindi author and an Ayurvedic physician par
excellence, he was as a consequence of his profession also an expert in
Sanskrit and Pali. In his magnum opus Vaishali
Ki Nagarvadhu, Acarya Chaturasena actively describes from history the
makeup of the Vajji Sangha (confederacy
or republic in the modern sense), which had formed after the kingdom of Videha
of the Mahabharata era had broken down. This Sangha consisted of eight janapadas, comprising of the eight clans
of Videha, Licchavi, Kshatrik, Vajji, Ugra, Bhoja, Ikshvaku and Kaurava.
Together known as the Ashtakula, the
first four were the strongest and most prominent. Videha’s centre of power was Mithila,
Vaishali was the center of power for the Licchavis, while Kundapur and Kollaga performed
the same functions for Kshatriks and Vajjis. The Vajji Sangha was ruled by a Rajaparishada,
or a royal council, which was elected from within the ashtakula every seven
years. The elected members of the parishada would allot amongst themselves the
various functions of the state. The republic’s assembly also had
representatives from the various guilds of merchants, artisans and even
farmers. Parallels may be seen with the ancient Greece at the same time around
6th Century B.C.; however, the difference however may be noted that
unlike the much romanticized Athenian or Roman systems of democracy, it is believed
that there were clear conditions laid out about the physical, mental and
psychological state of the various assembly members present. Also, a king would
be nominated from within the assembly, though this position was never hierarchical
in nature. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, there was representation beyond
just the Kshatriyas when it came to state affairs unlike the Roman or Athenian
democracies, where only the warriors had a say in daily affairs of the state.
Also, as Steve
Muhlberger of the University of Missisauga points out, the varnas of pre-Christian-era India were
not the castes of later periods, with their prohibitions on intermarriage and
commensality with other groups, and that the republics involved in the political
process all those who could claim, and justify the claim, to be capable of
ruling and fighting.
Parakesarivarma Chola
and the Kudavolai System of Constitutional Monarchy
The idea of secret ballot is not a unique one that the British
have claimed to have given to the world is nothing new to India (Kalyanasundaram, 2010). In the Chola rule
over large parts of India, we see the first ever identification of the process
of electoral democracy using a secret ballot being utilized to determine what
can be easily described in today’s modern lexicon as a local body like a
municipal corporation or a grama panchayat. The earliest mention of this system
of suffrage, called Kudav Olai (for
those who do not understand Tamizh, kudam
means pot as a ballot box, while olai
refers to palm-leafs to be used a paper votes for ballot) can be found on the
walls of the village temple of Utthiramerur, twenty miles from the city of
Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu. Excellently
captured by the blogger R Muthuswamy, the plaque describes in detail how
they conducted an election to the local assembly of the ‘Utthiramerur-caturvedi-mangalam in its own subdivision of
Kaliyurkottam,’ in the presence of a returning officer. The elections were
conducted in order to set up further sub-committees, particularly looking at
the “Annual Committee”, “Garden Committee”, and “Tank Committee” of the
village, tending to the affairs suggested by the name. Interestingly, the rules
of the election to the local body clearly identified who could contest these
elections through
the following parameters:
In these thirty
wards, those that live in each ward shall assemble and shall choose for “pot-tickets”
(Kudav Olai) anyone possessing the following qualifications:
(a) He must own more than a quarter veli
of tax-paying land;
(b)
He
must live in a house built on his own site;
(c)
His
age must be below 70 and above 35;
(d)
He
must know the Mantrabrahmana, i.e., he must know it by teaching others;
(e)
Even
if one owns only one-eighth veli of land, he should have his name
written on the pot-ticket to be put into the pot, in case he has learnt one
Veda and one of the four bhasyas by explaining it to others.
Among those
possessing the foregoing qualifications:
(f) Only such as are well conversant
with business and are virtuous shall be taken and,
(g) One who possesses honest earnings,
whose mind is pure and who has not been on any of the committees for the last
three years shall also be chosen.
The scribe
note, written down on the 16th day of the fourteenth year of
Parantaka Chola King (mudalam
parantakanin padinankavatu aandu padinaram naal) (dated to the years
919-921 A.D.), thus clearly demonstrating the active utilization of the ballot
box method, which the villagers, as quoted by the scribe, vowed to use ‘till
the sun and moon endure’. However, the senior officials of the court had
nothing to do with this electoral democracy, which was restricted to only the
smallest unit of governance.
 |
| A Plaque From the Utthiramerur Inscription (Courtesy R Muthuswamy) |
Criticisms from Within – the Challenges of Democracies
Identified by Indian Literature
That there
were republican systems present in ancient India is an accepted fact and
presented as a case for presenting India as a modern democracy. However, the
same evidences show us that most people subsequent to this period of flirtation
with democracy, particularly the republican period, strongly thought otherwise.
In his online essay Muhlberger notes how texts – Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina and
even literary – left no opportunity wasted in making fun of the democratic
system. As Muhlberger wrote,
“The
Lalitavistara, in an obvious
satirical jab, depicts Vesali as being full of Licchavi rajans , each one thinking, "I am king, I am king," ….The Santi Parva
section of the Mahabharata
shows the participation of too many people in the affairs of state as being a
great flaw in the republican polity….A Jaina work again
criticizes ganas for being
disorderly: the monks and nuns who frequent them will find themselves bullied,
beaten, robbed, or accused of being spies.”
This seems to be as
Muhlberger points out a later period insertion, one also shared by K.P. Jayaswal
in his book Hindu
Polity – a Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times. Interestingly,
the last mention of republics takes place around the time of the Guptas, who
themselves rose with the help of the Licchavis but end the idea of the republic
altogether by somehow defeating the increasing strength of the tri-mitra republics - Pushpamitra-Padhumitra-Padmamitras. Also,
one must note that in both cases the forms of democracy continue to remain
limited in nature – while only nominated members could assume power in the
janapada, the potential nominees for the Cholan system also restrict the choice
of candidates strongly, determined by land ownership among other factors.
While one reason why a
more stable power centre may have been readily accepted by society was
attributed to the solidification of caste and hierarchies by the time of the
Gupta empire, trade and commerce may have had a much bigger role to play.
Wealth does not flow into a poor state. While Vajji was noted for their wealth
and prosperity in ancient India, the unstable political climate due to constant
threats and the concentration of political interests amongst the various guilds
may have possibly resulted in cronyism, a practice seen too often in today’s
democracies.
Thus, we see that the
ideas of limited democracies were thriving in ancient India, all the way up to
the 9th century A.D., when the Cholas were active. Indian democracy
has also seen experimentation with both the republican as well as the
constitutional monarchical forms of democracy as are seen even today in the
world. However, the ideas of democracy in India were not free of criticism, and
eventually the system is seen to die out. This has various signs for the
sagacious to portend; however, it is a discussion for another day.
*I have tried to summarize
a few key points in this blog. Any errors are regretted, and any help on the
same shall be deeply appreciated.
References:
Swamy S., and Kalyansundaram, S. (ed.) Electronic Voting Machins - Unconstitutional and Tamperable, Vision Books 2010 ISBN 978-81-7094-798-1
Vaishali ki Nagarvadhu, Acarya Chatursena, Rajpal and Sons, 2006 edition (Hindi)
Muhlberger, S., Democracy in Ancient India, 2016, World History of Democracy
Jayaswal, K.P., Hindu Polity - a Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times, The Bangalore Printing & Publishing Co., Ltd., 1943
R. Muthuswamy, Know Your Heritage, Uthiramerur Inscriptions on Chola Kodavolai Election System, July 20, 2014
Uthiramerur Inscription, From V. Venkayya, in Annual Report on
Epigraphy, 1904.
Comments