Ancient Indian Republics
You
must have heard about the Athenian democracy of Greece or the Roman Republic
which influenced modern democracies in the west. But there were some Indian
republics mentioned in ancient works of literatures which helped us naming our
modern republic – Gana Rajya. Gana Rajya literally meant ‘Rule by Assembly’,
and was a republican polity much like today’s Bharat Ganarajya i.e.
Republic of India.
While
there were republican polities, early Vedic kingdoms had also emerged out of
electoral politics. The eldest male of the ancient joint family was titled Kulapati.
Local cantons known as Vishaya had many such joint families. Every kulapati
of these families elected amongst themselves a Vishayapati. Similarly,
all the vishayapatis of all the vishayas formed a tribe called Jana,
and elected a leader called Rajana. These titles after a period of time
became hereditary and thus the Raja or ‘ruler’ became a monarch. His
council had representatives from all varnas who elected him as the king
during the coronation ceremony.
But
some Jana instead of becoming a kingdom preferred becoming a Gana.
One of them were the Yadavas. From the epic Mahabharata one gets an idea that
just like the Kurus, the Yadus were also a monarchical tribe. Kamsa and
Ugrasena were referred as kings of Mathura. But in actuality, it could be a
mistranslation. Raja means ruler, that ruler could be hereditary or elected. As
per the epic, Yadu was cursed that he and his descendants would not become
kings. This could mean an exile from the parent kingdom but it could also mean
that his descendants would adopt a republican system.
According
to Mahabharata, the Yadavas were a Gana Rajya. There were several political
tribes or parties within the Yadava state called ‘varga’. These political
factions were the Andhaka, Vrishni, Kukura and Bhojaka. They had an assembly
called ‘Dasharhi’ which was conducted in the hall called ‘Sudharma’ and Krishna
Vasudeva was their elected leader referred as Sangha Mukhya. The word
could literally mean Federal President, and from his conversation with Narada,
it is understood that his functioning was somewhat similar to that of a Speaker
of an assembly.
The
Assembly had two main opposing parties and their leaders Ahuka and Akrura, both
respected Krishna but fought amongst each other. Krishna had a hard time
bringing them to a consensus, so Narada advises him to keep the federation from
falling apart by binding the factions together using sweet words. Ahuka
belonged to the Kukura Varga while Akrura belonged to the Vrishni Varga.
![]() |
The Yadava Republic of Dwarka |
Similarly, we see other republics during the time of Buddha, like the Shakya-Koliya union and the Vajji Confederacy. The federation or Sangha of Vajji was a union of eight tribes namely, Vajji, Lichhavi, Videha, Kshatrikas amongst the others. The Licchavis had 7,707 representatives who represented their respective 7,707 families. Each representative bore the title of ‘Raja’. The confederacy elected the executive government, comprising of a President called Raja, a Vice-President called Upa-Raja, Defence chief or Senapati, and a Treasurer called Bhandargarika.
The
political whip was called Ganapuraka, voting was done on a piece of wood
of sala tree, and its collector was an impartial person called Salaka-Grahapaka.
Voting was done in a secret method called Guthak, by a whispering method
called Sakarnajapakam, and by an open method called Vivatakam.
Kautilya
bifurcates a Sangha into two categories, Rajashabdopajivin Sangha and Shastropajivin
Sangha. The former’s chief bore the title of raja and was probably a
rule through speeches, i.e. a democratic state. The latter could be a rule that
was probably through military force, i.e. a military junta.
Some critics reject them as republics and call them just oligarchies. This is because their society was divided into two classes – kshatriya rajakula and dasa karmakara. The former class owned lands and electoral rights while the latter were landless labourers. But if one looks at it from the other point of view, these republics never followed a rigid class system of the Vedic religion and the landowners were probably local citizens while the labourers were foreign migrants working as hired for work. Even ancient Graeco-Roman republics had slaves as a prominent part of their system. Plebeians or Plethos didn’t vote or own land like Patricians or Aristocrats did. Therefore, just like Athens and Rome, this system too could be considered as a primitive form of a republic.
But as hung assembly obstructed the workings of such states, and nepotism gave rise to dynasties, the republican form of governments fell due to indecisiveness and empires swallowed them up. Thus, republics became irrelevant and over time were forgotten in history.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Mahabharata
Shanti Parva, Ch-82, Section 81 & 82
Thapar,
Romila (2002). Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. University of
California Press. pp. 148–149
Altekar,
Anant, Sadashiv. State and Government in Ancient India. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publication, 2002) Page 76-78, 80-81
Singh,
G.P., Republics, Kingdoms, Towns and Cities in Ancient India. (D.K. Printworld,
1748) Page 5-6
Comments
Post a Comment