 |
 |
|
|
|
An
Approach To Indian History
-Prof. Kittu Reddy |
Ancient Indian polity
We shall now take a look at the ancient Indian polity. Like the Indian social system that we have already seen, the Indian political system was unique with some very distinct and special characteristics of it own.
The political evolution of Indian civilisation passed through the following stages: first, the simple Aryan community, then a period of long transition with a considerable variety of experimental formations in political structure and synthesis and finally the definite formation of the monarchical state coordinating all the complex elements of the communal life of the people into regional and imperial unities.
The first stage began with the settled village community. The power sign of this body was the visah, or the meeting of the people assembling for communal deliberation. It was in these meetings that such things as sacrifice, worship and war were discussed. The head and representative of this body was the king; at first it was not hereditary but even after this post became hereditary it was dependent on the assent of the people for his formal election and confirmation.
One point to note in India was the predominance of the religious and spiritual tendency. This led to the importance of the religious sacrifice, which created a class of priests and inspired singer; these men were trained in the ritual or were in possession of the mystical knowledge which lay behind the symbols of the sacrifice. Here too at first these were not hereditary and men from all classes could be selected. The later development from this form followed up to a certain point the ordinary line of evolution as we see it in most other communities. The hereditary principle emerged at a very early stage, a powerful princely and warrior class appeared, a class of traders, artisans and agriculturalists were created and a subject or menial class was added probably from economic necessity. As far as this went there was no real difference from the evolution in other societies; but at the same time there were some very striking peculiarities, owing to the peculiar mentality of the Indian race. These fixed themselves and became prominent characteristics and gave a different and unique stamp to the political, economic and social factors of Indian civilisation.
It is important that we make a note of these characteristics. The predominance of the religious tendency brought about at the top of the social system the growth of the Brahmin order; it created the priests, scholars, legists and repositories of the Vedas. This development was there in other societies and civilisations too, but in India it was given an unequalled permanence and supreme importance. In most other civilisations this would have resulted in a theocracy, but in India with its complex mentality this never happened; the Brahmins in spite of their ever-increasing and finally predominant authority did not and could not usurp the political power. They exercised a considerable influence but the real and active political power remained with the Kshatriya aristocracy, the king and the commons. This is a very important point to note that despite the very strong religious and spiritual tendencies, there never was created a theocracy in India . This is the first important characteristic of the Indian political system.
Here is a quotation from Sudhir on Ancient India’s contribution:
“The reason for this may be found in the character of Hinduism which is a fertile base for a polity that tolerates different religions and has been with us since the most ancient times. Many foreigners who came to India as invaders were themselves absorbed into Indian culture so much so that they lost their position of being foreigners and many ancient Indian kings whom we look upon as Indians were actually of. foreign descent.
Notable among such kings are Kanishka who was a Kushana (Mongol) and Milinda who was a Greek. Many a Hindu Kingdom gave refuge to foreigners who came to India to escape persecution in their home country. In this context the episode of the Parsis is worth recalling:
In the 7th century, Persia which had been a powerful empire under the Sassanian rulers had been subjugated by the Arabs. The Sassanians were patrons of Zoroastrianism and had held the stage for nearly four hundred years, when out of the blue, the Arabs broke in, spurred on by their new found zeal in Islam. The victory of the Arabs had reversed the balance of power in the region and the Persians who had till then reigned supreme over many peoples including the Arabs, found themselves subjugated by a race whose masters they once where.
The Arabs did not stop at military subjugation-of the territories-they overran but in accordance with their concept of Jihad (holy war) they systematically set about converting the local population to Islam. All non-Islamic people were looked upon as heretics (Kafirs) and who, unless they consented to embrace the true faith, were no better than chattel. That, Zoroastrianism was not able to survive the rude shock of Arab rule is evident from the near total extinction of that religion in the land of its birth. But to preserve the religion of their birth, a group of enterprising Zoroastrians decided to flee their mother country and come to India by the sea route around 700 A.D. Though there are various accounts of their emigration, a group of Zoroastrians are re ported to have landed at a place called San jan on the coast of Gujarat in western India.
They approached the local king Jadi Rana (Yadav Rana), to ask for refuge.
On seeing their plight the king was moved, but before assenting, he asked his minister as to the possible repercussions of their absorption into his kingdom. After interrogating the refugees, the minister was convinced of their bonafides. While recommending their case to his king the enlightened minister placed before the king a bowl of milk and stirred it after adding a lump of sugar. He then asked the king to separate the sugar from the milk. The puzzled king asked him the reason for this demonstration In reply the minister remarked that the Zoroastrians may be absorbed into the kingdom but they should merge with the local populace in a manner that they become an inseparable part of society, the way sugar had merged with milk.
To ensure what his minister had said the king granted refuge to these people who had come from a foreign land and followed an unfamiliar religion. And to ensure their merger into the local populace he decreed that these new citizens lay down their arms, they adopt the local language (Gujarati) and the local dress (Sari). These Zoroastrians from Iran have since then constituted a small but cohesive and dynamic community in Indian society”.
Another unique feature of the Indian polity was the place of the Rishi. The Rishi was considered a man of spiritual experience and knowledge, born in any of the classes and he exercised an authority by his spiritual personality over all; he was revered and consulted by the king and in the early days was able alone to exercise an important role in evolving new basic ideas and effecting changes in the socio-religious ideas and customs of the people. We see this phenomenon even today – something almost unique to India - when leading political figures seek advice and blessings of spiritual leaders.
A marked features of the Indian mind was to attach a spiritual meaning and a religious sanction to all; even to the most external social and political circumstances there was given a spiritual and religious sanction. There was thus imposed on all classes not only their rights but also their duties, an ideal way of action and dharma with a spiritual significance. It was the work of the Rishi to put this stamp permanently on the national mind.
The political evolution of this system varied in different parts of India. In most cases it moved to an increasing emphasis on the control of the king. The king was at the centre as head and unifying factor of the more and more complex system of rule and administration. But in India this tendency was combated and held in check by a contrary tendency that resulted in the appearance of the strong and enduring republics. These republics were in existence from the Vedic times but were most powerful during the Buddhistic period. They proved themselves capable of a strong and settled organisation and they had a life lasting over many centuries. In some cases they were governed by a democratic assembly and in others by an oligarchical senate.
Here is an extract from the writings of Steve Muhlberger, Associate Professor of History, Nipissing University in his Article Democracy in Ancient India:
“In 1903, T.W. Rhys Davids, the leading Pali scholar, pointed out in his book Buddhist India that the Canon (and the Jatakas, a series of Buddhist legends set in the same period but composed much later) depicted a country in which there were many clans, dominating extensive and populous territories, who made their public decisions in assemblies, moots, or parliaments.
Rhys Davids' observation was not made in a vacuum. Throughout the nineteenth century, students of local government in India (many of them British bureaucrats) had been fascinated by popular elements in village life. The analysis of village government was part of a continuous debate on the goals and methods of imperial policy, and the future of India as a self-governing country. Rhys-Davids' book made the ancient institutions of India relevant to this debate. His reconstruction of a republican past for India was taken up by nationalistic Indian scholars of the 1910s. Later generations of Indian scholars have been somewhat embarrassed by the enthusiasm of their elders for early republics and have sought to treat the republics in a more balanced and dispassionate manner. Nevertheless, their work, like that of the pioneering nationalists, has been extremely productive. Not only the classical sources and the Pali Canon, but also Buddhist works in Sanskrit, Panini's Sanskrit grammar (the Astadhyayi ), the Mahabharata, the Jaina Canon, and even Kautilya's Arthasastra have been combed for evidence and insights. Coins and inscriptions have documented the existence of republics and the workings of popular assemblies. 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, monarchical thinking was constantly battling with another vision, of self-rule by members of a guild, a village, or an extended kin-group, in other words, any group of equals with a common set of interests. This vision of cooperative self-government often produced republicanism and even democracy comparable to classical Greek democracy.”
However in the next phase of the evolution of the political system, the monarchical tendency prevailed and triumphed all over India. This was necessitated partly by the danger of foreign invasions and partly by the fact that centralisation of power seemed to make government an easier task. However even here, there are some characteristics, which we have to take note. Indian monarchy previous to the Mahomedan invasion was not in any way a personal absolutism or an absolutist autocracy; it had no resemblance to the ancient Persian monarchy or the monarchies of western and central Asia or the Roman imperial government or later European autocracies; it was of an altogether different type. The monarch in India was in fact a limited or constitutional monarch. The Indian king exercised supreme administrative and judicial power, was in possession of all the military forces of the kingdom and with his Council alone responsible for peace and war and he had too a general supervision and control over the good order and welfare of the life of the community. But his power was not personal and it was besides hedged in by safeguards against abuse and encroachment and limited by the liberties and powers of other public authorities and interests, who were so to speak, lesser co-partners with him in the exercise of sovereignty and administrative legislation and control.
A greater sovereign than the king was the Dharma, the religious, ethical, political, juridic and customary law organically governing the life of the people. The Dharma was considered an impersonal authority, sacred and eternal in its spirit and in the totality of its body, always fundamentally the same. However whenever changes came, they were brought about organically and spontaneously by the evolution of the society itself. The changes were always from within and no secular authority had any right of autocratic interference. The Brahmins themselves were recorders and exponents of the Dharma, not its creator nor authorised to make at will any change. The king was only the guardian, executor and servant of the Dharma, charged to see to its observance and to prevent offences, serious irregularities and breaches. He himself was bound the first to obey it and observe the rigourous rule it laid on his personal life and action and on the province, powers and duties of his regal authority and office.
This subjection of the king’s power to the Dharma was not an ideal theory inoperative in practice. For the rule of the socio-religious law actively conditioned the whole of life and was therefore a living reality. In no field did the king have absolute power. In the legislative field he did not have the power of direct legislation. His power was limited to the decree of administrative decrees and this had to be in consonance with the religious, social, political and economic constitution of the community. We are quoting a passage from the Arthashastra where the duties of the king are described:
“When in his court he shall never cause his petitioners to wait at the door, for when a king makes himself inaccessible to his people and entrusts his work to his immediate officers, he may be sure to engender confusion in business, and to cause thereby public disaffection, and himself a prey to his enemies. He shall, therefore, personally attend to the business of gods, of heretics, of Brahmans learned in the Vedas, of cattle, of sacred places, of minors, the aged, the afflicted, and the helpless, and of women; all this in order (of enumeration) or according to the urgency or pressure of those works. All urgent calls he shall hear at once, but never put off, for when postponed, they will prove too hard or impossible to accomplish.
Having seated himself in the room where the sacred fire has been kept, he shall attend to the business of physicians and ascetics practicing austerities; and that in company with his high priest and teacher and after preliminary salutation (to the petitioners). Accompanied by persons proficient in the three sciences but not alone lest the petitioners be offended, he shall look to the business of those who are practicing austerities, as well as of those who are experts in witchcraft and Yoga.
Of a king, the religious vow is his readiness to action; satisfactory discharge of duties is his performance of sacrifice; equal attention to all is the offer of fees and ablution towards consecration. In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness; in their welfare his welfare; whatever pleases himself he shall not consider as good, but whatever pleases his subjects he shall consider as good. Hence the king shall ever be active and discharge his duties; the root of wealth is activity, and of evil its reverse. In the absence of activity acquisitions present and to come will perish; by activity he can achieve both his desired ends and abundance of wealth”.
There could therefore be ordinarily little or no room in the ancient Indian system for autocratic freak or monarchical violence and oppression. Kingship in India proved to be in effect, moderate, efficient, and beneficient; it served well the purpose assigned to it and secured an abiding hold on the affections of the people.
As we have already seen in the first part of this article, the socio-political evolution passed through three stages: first, the simple Aryan community, then a period of long transition with a considerable variety of experimental formations in political structure and synthesis and finally the definite formation of the monarchical state coordinating all the complex elements of the communal life of the people into regional and imperial unities.
Through all the building and rebuilding of the Indian polity, there was one principle permanent at the base of construction. That was the principle of an organically self-determining communal life. It was self-determining not only in the mass by means of the machinery of the vote and a representative body erected on the surface, representative only of the political mind of a part of the nation, which is all that the modern system has been able to manage. It was a system self-determining in every pulse of its life and in each separate member of its existence. A free synthetic communal order was its character and the condition of liberty it aimed was not so much an individual liberty as a communal liberty.
This free organic life was founded on the system of the self-governing village community. The whole people living in its village mostly on agriculture formed in the total a single religious, social, military and political body governing itself in its assembly, samiti, under the leadership of the king. There was as yet no clear separation of functions or class division of labour.
This system sufficed as long as life was restricted to a small area, but as life evolved and the communities grew larger and the pressure of new circumstances came into existence, a new system was called for. The Indian mind evolved, to meet this necessity, the stable socio-religious system of the four orders. We have already seen in one of the earlier chapters the Indian social system in which the caste division was discussed in some detail. It will be pertinent to point out that in ancient India the fourfold order was at once and inextricably the religious, social, political and economic framework of the society and within that framework each order had its natural portion; it must be emphasised that in none of the fundamental activities was the share or portion of any of them exclusive. This characteristic is vital to an understanding of the ancient Indian system, but has been obscured by false notions; a misunderstanding and exaggeration of some of the later phenomena of Indian history, in its period of decline have led to the formations of these notions.
Each one of the four divisions had attached to it a spiritual life and utility, a certain social dignity, an education, a principle of social and ethical honour and a place and duty and right in the communal body. Thus the Brahmin had his spiritual life and ethical and social honour which he had to fulfil. It was the same with all the other castes, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra, each having their own spiritual life and discipline, their ethical and social honour. It followed therefore that the social hierarchy was not at the same time a political hierarchy. All the four orders had their part in the common political rights of the citizen; they had also in the assemblies and administrative bodies their place and their share of influence. As a consequence, the old Indian polity at no time developed, or at least it did not maintain for long, those exclusive forms of class rule that have so long and powerfully marked the political history of other countries.
The summit of the political structure was occupied by three governing bodies, the King in his ministerial council, the metropolitan assembly and the general assembly of the kingdom.
The members of the Council and the ministers were drawn from all orders. The Council included a fixed number of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra representatives. The Vaishya community had the largest number of representatives as it corresponded to their numerical preponderance in the body of the people. In the early Aryan society, the Vaishya order comprised not only the merchants and small traders but also the craftsmen, artisans and the agriculturists and thus formed the bulk of the common people. The Council representing thus the whole community was the supreme executive and administrative body and its assent and participation was necessary to all the actions and decrees of the sovereign. All important matters of the government, finance, policy and the whole range of communal interests had to referred by the King to his Council. The King was aided by a system of boards of administration and with his ministers and council superintended and controlled the various departments of the State action. Although the power of the king tended to grow in time, he could not with impunity defy or ignore the opinion and will of the ministers and his council.
In fact as a matter of constitutional theory and ordinary practice all the action of the king was in reality that of the king in his council with the aid of his ministers and all his personal action was only valid as depending on their assent. This assent depended on whether the action was a just and faithful discharge of the functions assigned to him by the Dharma. The Council was the quintessential power body and was represented by the four orders and therefore the King was only the active head and not as in an autocratic regime himself the State or the owner of the country and the irresponsible personal ruler of a nation of obedient subjects. Always the obedience of the people was to the Law, the Dharma.
There were two powerful bodies in the State, - the metropolitan assembly and the general assembly - which represented on a larger scale the social organism; and they were a nearer and closer expression of its mind, life and will independent of the immediate regal influence. These bodies exercised large and constant powers of administration and administrative legislation and were capable at all times of acting as a check on the royal power.
The Paura or metropolitan assembly sat in constantly in the capital town of the kingdom or empire. It was constituted of representatives of city guilds and the various caste bodies belonging to all the orders of the society. It is worthwhile noting that even the guilds and caste bodies were themselves self-governing constituents of the community in the country and the city. It was not an artificial but an organic representation of the collective totality of the whole organism as it existed within the limits of the metropolis. It governed all the life of the city, acting directly or through subordinate or lesser assemblies of five or ten members; it issued regulation or decrees which the guilds were bound to obey and by direct administration controlled and supervised the commercial, industrial, financial and municipal affairs of the civic community. Most important however, was the fact that it was a power that had to be consulted and could take action in the wider affairs of the kingdom. Its presence in the capital made it a force that always had to be reckoned by the king and his ministers and their council.
The general assembly was similarly an organic representation of the mind and will of the whole country outside the metropolis; for it was composed of the deputies, elective heads or chief men of the townships and villages. This body too included members from all the castes and was a faithful expression of the life and mind of the people. It had no fundamental legislative powers, any more than had the king and council; its only powers were of decree and regulation. Its business was to serve as a direct instrument of the will of the people in the coordination of the various activities of the life of the nation, to see to the right direction of these and to the securing of the general order and welfare of the commerce, industry, agriculture, social and political life of the nation; it could in addition give or withhold the assent of the people to the action of the king, and if need be, to oppose him actively and prevent misgovernment or even end it by the means open to the people’s representatives.
The royal resolutions on any matter of State policy were promulgated to these assemblies and their assent had to be taken in all matters involving questions of vital interest to the country. The two bodies seem to have sat constantly, for matters came up daily from them to the sovereign; their acts were registered by the king and had automatically the effect of law.
It is clear therefore that they were partners in the sovereignty and its powers were inherent in them. It is significant to note that even such a powerful king like Ashoka in his attempt to alter the Dharma of the community, proceeded not merely by his royal decrees but by discussion with the Assembly.
It is thus evident that there was in ancient India a strong democratic element and even institutions that present a certain analogy to the parliamentary form; but in reality these features were of India’s own kind and not at all the same things as modern parliaments and modern democracy. It did not in any way resemble the scrambling and burdensome parliamentary organisation of freedom and self-styled democracy characteristic of the modern period.
 |
 |
 |