Mediaboss Marketing

Archaeological remains, studies of ancient texts push back the origin of democracy in India a lot before Greece and Rome

The Prime Minister of India asserted at the United Nations General Assembly that he comes from the land which is known as the Mother of Democracy. His very statement triggered a debate if India actually can be considered as the mother of Democracy.

But whatever the opinion one may own, with a given amount of empirical and textual pieces of evidence, it is impossible to deny that the idea of democracy was first practiced and theorised in India.

I look to inspect every probable shred of evidence around the origin of the idea of democracy.

Athenian Democracy and India in the same period

We are told that Greek, and more precisely, Athenian Democracy was the first form of direct democracy. The latest available records say that it came under Cleisthenes around 2.528 kya (thousand years ago) in Athens.

He is referred to as "the father of Athenian democracy". Aristotle mentions in his book VI, that Athenian Democracy had the feature to randomly select ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices. The legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens too existed. We are also told that all the eligible citizens were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly that had the role to set laws of the city-state.

But there is a catch here. It is important to clarify exactly who were the Athenian citizens? The citizenship didnt include women, slaves, foreigners, and youths below the age of military service.

While all the brackets are perfect but they not considering women and slaves gives an absolute notion of how the democracy of Athens insured non-democratic nature of itself. Athenian men believed that women were less intelligent than men and therefore, similarly to barbarians and slaves of the time. They were seen incapable of effectively participating and contributing to public discourse on political issues and affairs.

Perhaps that was the reason that when Greeks came in contact with Indians they were surprised to see the non-discriminatory form of democracy in and around the period of Alexander. Arrian writes in Indika about India in the period of Alexander that:

The Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, much less a countryman of their own.

Diodorus who is said to have visited India, around two centuries after Alexander talks that a high-level democracy of Indians existed and was peculiar to the Greeks. He too saw the difference of non-existent slavery.

And of course, women had a very respectable position in society in that period and earlier. The literature proves this case quite aptly. The thirty-seventh sarg of Ayodhya Kand (Ramayan), tells us that Sita was asked to sit on the throne by Vashistha in absence of Shri Ram. Even if one wants to reject this as mythology (although it is considered as Itihasa for Bhartiya Civilisation), the case is clear that for all practical purposes women saw a respectable position in society. In the same period when Athenian Democracy saw females as barbarians, Queen Mgvat of the Vatsa Mahajanapada ( oligarchic republics) ruled as proxy while her son Udayana was held captive by a rival king. And she was very well respected in society. While there were sanctions against the participation of women in the Athenian Democracy & deprivation of rights, pastamba Sutra (probably conceived in the same period) in Bharat says the following for females:

A man is not allowed to abandon his wife (A 1.28.19).

He permits daughters to inherit (A 2.14.4).

There can be no division of property between a husband and a wife because they are linked inextricably together and have joint custody of the property (A 2.29.3).

Thus, a wife may make gifts and use the family wealth on her own when her husband is away (A 2.12.1620).

Women are upholders of traditional lore, and pastamba tells his audience that they should learn some customs from women (A 2.15.9; 2.29.11).

It becomes clear from the above argument that not only democracy (Diodorus 2.39) existed in India in the period of the Athenian Democracy, but women had a very respectable position (unlike Athens where they were not considered even Athenian) and slavery remained an alien concept.

Now before dwelling deep into the Indic idea of democracy, let us first see what the latest researches have to say about proto-democracies.

Proto-Democracies

We have pieces of evidence of "governing by assembly" in ancient Phoenicians. One such piece of evidence is the story of an Egyptian trader who travelled north to the Phoenician around 3.1 kya. The trader had got stuck in some problem and the king had got matter settled by hearing in an assembly.

According to Thorkild Jacobsen, a form of "Primitive Democracy" existed in pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia. But many scholars have denied recognising it as democracy. They see the case of Mesopotamia as a struggle where common men appear more like pawns than sovereign authority.

One such scholar is Bailkey who says that the period of Gilgamesh etc, reflects a power struggle between primitive monarchy and noblemen.

Then we find the important case of Sparta. It rose around 2.7 kya which showed the trait of the oligarchy but still, slavery existed and slaves were not part of democracy. Unlike Athens, women enjoyed a respectable position in society and one can say that this was the only place in the west around that era that had no discriminatory acts against females. We also have the case of Rome. A form of democracy existed here too around 2.52 kya. But again citizenship and hence legislative rights were only limited to the free Romans. Slaves were considered as a commodity and after being free, the rights did not come to them.

The case of India as the first land to see democracy

THOU, mighty Agni, gatherest up all that is precious for thy friend.Bring us all treasures as thou art enkindled in libation's placeAssemble, speak together: let your minds be all of one accord,As ancient Gods unanimous sit down to their appointed share.The place is common, common the assembly, common the mind, so be their thought united.A common purpose do I lay before you, and worship with your general oblation.One and the same bt your resolve, and be your minds of one accord.United be the thoughts of all that all may happily agree.

Rig Veda (10.191.1-4, was sung at beginning of the Republican Assembly in ancient India).

The arguments in the above section show us that there was no solidified form of democracy anywhere on earth before 3-2.5 kya. So, of all the empirical shreds of evidence, one of the strongest among all is the excavations that happened recently in Rakhigarhi. The team led by Dr Shinde discovered the footprints of panchayat at this site which dates back to 5.0-5.5 kya. Is it not strong enough evidence to start talking of India as being the mother of democracy?

Perhaps, it might not be convincing enough so let us look at more textual evidence. As a starter, it would be good to give an overview of few important definitions.

1. Democracy: It is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").

2. Republic: It is a form of government in which "power is held by the people and their elected representatives".

3. Gana-Sangha: The word Gana, in general, refers to any association of men formed for the attainment of the same aims. The word sangha in means association, assembly, company, or community. In general Gana-Sangha or Gana-Rajya translates to, (rule by) tribal assembly.

While the first two words dont find origin anytime before 2.5 kya, the third word Gana-Sangh/ Gana-Rajya finds the existence with the same meaning in the oldest extant Indo-European text, Rig Veda (3.26.6).

If I refer to the works of Shrikant Talageri, and try to merge them with the recent genetic discoveries of Rakhigarhi, out of India migration became evident and we find that those who came to be known as Greeks too have ancestral roots in the northern belt of India. It means that if the idea of Gana-Sangha was existing in Rig Veda, the idea must have travelled with the migrating tribes. People must have one thing clear in mind that what we see as the geographic boundary of Bharat today was not the same millennia ago. The existence of a 5.5 kya old panchayat block in Rakhigarhi further reinforces the claim that the idea of democracy was certainly brewing here and we currently do not have any evidence to nullify this claim.

Now let us look at more textual evidence for Gana-Sangha.

Pini talks of the concept as, Sanghoddhau gaa praansayo. We find the Bhishma explaining the policies of the Ganas in Shanti Parva of Mahabharat. The great Sangam literature and Silapathikaram talk about the Ganas. The Buddhist literature Mahabagga mentions an officer tracking the number of ganas and their koram in the Rajasabha. The Buddhist texts like Pali-pitaka, Majjhamnikaya, Mahabagga, Avadana Shataka talk extensively about Ganas and Sanghas. Records state that we had more than a hundred Gana-Sanghas existed in the time when Buddha lived.

As per the Kalchakra traditions, he lived at least 2.9-3.0 kya. It goes way before Mesopotamias proto-democracy too. Back then, early democratic republics were known as Gaa-rjyas, which meant "rule of the assembly". Do we find this term any different from demo-kratia?

If we again go back to Rig Veda, we find mention of words like Sabha (big assembly of people), Samiti (smaller gathering of people) & Rajan (leader). The Rig Veda (10.173) also tells us that the Rajan was elected member and chosen by the representative of the people in Samiti.

According to the Atharva veda, 3.5.6-7, the Rajan was elected by seven representatives of people known as rjakta (the kingmakers). They were representatives of fishermen, chariot-makers, black-smiths, intelligentsia, the kings of other states, charioteers and the village headmen. According to Atharva veda, 6.88.3, Samiti had the right to dethrone the Rajan. Atharva veda, 5.19.15 also observes that the Rajan was to be dethroned should he transgress the rights and privileges of a learned Brahmin. According to Atharvaveda 7.12.2; 10.8.24; 12.3.46, Sabha was a place of debate and discussions.

So all these arguments make a case very clear that an absolute and sophisticated form of democracy existed in Bharat long before Athens or Sparta etc. And at the same time, there was no notion of second-class citizenship for women as it was in Greece and slavery was a completely alien concept here.

Based on these ideas of democracy, multiple Janapads and later Mahajanpads came into existence. They were no different than what we know as the Republic today. Of all, Vajji Mahajanapada of Licchavis came to be known as one of the greatest. Right now we have very few texts available to talk about how exactly they operated. According to Cullakalinga Jtaka and the Ekapaa Jtaka, the Licchavi had 7,707 Rajas. They met annually to elect one of their members as ruler and a council of nine to assist him. They are mentioned in Arthastra (ch. XI) as a republic (gaa sangha), whose leader uses the title of rjaabdopajvinah. Mahparinibbna Suttanta, Dgha Nikya, Manusmriti (X.22), Paramatthajotik, too talk about their democracy.

The Kalpastra of Bhadravhu refers to the nine Licchavi gaarjas who along with the nine Malla gaarjas and the eighteen K-Koala gaarjas formed a league against Magadha.

There is abundant literature that can be put across in support of the existence of sophisticated democracy in ancient India lot before the Roman and Greek. And not an article but a complete book can be written for the subject.

Conclusion

With the existing bulk of shreds of evidence in the current time, it becomes clear that India, that is Bharat seems to be the mother of democracy. The archaeological remains of Rakhigarhi, genetic studies of Rakhigarhi, texts of Rig Veda, Atharva Veda, Buddhist texts, Jain text, etc, when overlapped together push back the origin of democracy in India a lot before Greece and Rome. And interestingly, even though some form of democracy existed in the West, it was not without slavery; a practice which was alien to India in words of Greek historians themselves.

Read the original post:
PM Modi's 'India is the Mother of Democracy' comment isn't far from the truth - Firstpost