A Political order may be described as an arrangement of structures, processes and norms to realize the objectives of state. Political order may be either evolved or imposed or partially imposed and partially evolved. Going by this categorization, the ancient Indian political order was an evolved political order. This evolution took place over the centuries of practices and deliberations, while at the same taking in to account the geography, culture society, economic factors and other similar influences. The evolution of the political order is a continuous process as it conditions affecting its evolution on always changing. However, this natural evolution of the ancient political system was disrupted many times due to infiltration of foreign elements many times, but two such episodes have considerable impact on this journey. First was the imposition of Islamic rule in middle ages with distinct organizing principles and norms, which could not be reconciled even after the seven centuries of this alien rule. Second, a more controversial disruption came during British rule till the independence of India in 1947. Thus, it is still very hard to imagine what shape the ancient Indian political order would have taken in 21st century, had it been allowed to evolve on its own in natural manner, as it did in ancient India. Therefore, it may not be valid to compare the norms of ancient Indian political order, which existed thousands of years back with the norms of modern norms and institutions. Yet we may highlight the universal elements of ancient Indian political order which may enlighten our path now. This is the first reason to focus on the ancient Indian knowledge tradition. The second reason is that during the British rule the organizing principles of India’s ancient political order came under severe attack, misrepresentation and misinterpretation, which India is yet to overcome. Hence the need for reinvention of the key organizing principles of ancient Indian political order.
It is not difficult to unravel the motive behind such misinterpretation and misrepresentation by the British rulers, historians and other scholars. The most distinguishing feature of British rule was its duplicity- the huge gap between what they practiced in Britain with the what they did in India. In order to bridge this gap and justify their rule in India, they came out with the notion of ‘Civilizing Mission’ or ‘White Man’s Burden’ as articulated by Rudyard Kipling and other scholars like Charles Grant, James Mill, JS Mill, and Macaulay. Grant in his book, ‘Observations’ published in 1797 ‘painted a dark picture of the moral depravity of the people of India and attributed this to the uniformly despotic governments that shaped their morals. According to Gant, the despotism, which was the intrinsic character of their religion (Guha: 2023). However, the greatest misunderstanding or misinterpretation to Indian knowledge tradition during British Rule was the translation of Indian concept of Dharma as ‘Religion’ and describing everything in political order as religious or non-secular and thus despicable. In fact, Dharma is not synonymous with any English words like virtue, religion, morality or duty, yet it may contain some elements of all these and still more (Mckengie: 1971; Gautam: 2016). This wrong translation proved catalyst to misinterpretation of all aspects of human life in Ancient India as Dharma in India has been taken as foundational principle of human life in India.
It was in this context that the Western political scholars have also denied existence of any secular and independent political tradition of thought in ancient India. For them, everything Indian did or proclaim regarding political order was embedded with religion. For example, Barker (1918, 01) finds that political thought begins with Greek as the oriental people were predominantly metaphysical and religious in their outlook. W. A. Dunning (1902, XIX) remarks, ‘the Oriental Aryans never freed their politics from the theological and metaphysical environment in which it is embedded to-day’.
However, the discovery of Kautilya’s Arthashastra in 1909 by Shamasastry, there was some appreciation of Indian political tradition. Further in 20th century, some of India’s political scholars and historians like R C Majumdar (Corporate Life in Ancient India, 1919), K P Jaiswal (Hindu Polity, 1918, 1936), B. K Sarakar (The Political Institutions and Theories of Hindus, 1922), N. C Bandyopadhyaya (Development of Hindu Polity and Political Theories, 1927) A S Altekar (State and Government in Ancient India, 1949), and UN Ghoshal (A History of Indian Political Ideas, 1959), among others collected evidence to prove the existence of rich tradition of political thought and institutions in ancient India. A.S. Altekar (1949) even proves that the local government institutions in ancient India were autonomous and democratic in their functioning. The archeological discovery of Uttaramerur inscriptions in Tamil Nadu, belonging to Chola dynasty supports the existence of well-developed local self-government bodies in India.
Key Elements of Ancient Indian Political Order
It was in the light of above background that the ancient Indian political tradition was somehow reinterpreted and revived in modern times by Indian scholars. On the basis of these studies and archeological findings, two approaches to political order are identified in ancient India: Dharmashastra Approach and Arthashastra Approach. Dharmashastra Tradition of political thought is found mainly in Mahabharata, Ramayana, Manusmriti, Yagyvalkyasmriti, and Katyayan Smriti. This approach focused the dharma as an organizing principle for individuals, society, and political order. Dharma was a code of conduct in all these fields. The second approach is known as Arthashastra Tradition in which microscopic focus was on all aspects of political order and its maintenance (danda or Chastisement by state to uphold dharmic social order). The important texts of this approach are: Arthashastra of Kautilya Kamandak’s Nitisar, and Sukrachrya’s Sukrniti. In fact, these two approaches were not opposite to each other rather they complementary as the principle of Dharma and its maintenance (through Danda) was the prime consideration in both approaches. In the light of above background, we may identify the following key elements of the political order in ancient India:
- Dharma as Meta Principle– In Indian tradition, Dharma as a moral code or order has been a fundamental principle of organization in all aspects of human life in India: social, political, economic even applicable to cosmic order. Dharma has many dimensions applicable to individual, social, political and spiritual life as well as local and cosmic fields (Aiyangar: 1952). According to A noted scholar Doninger (1999), the roots of Dharma lies in Vedic notion (Rig Veda) of Rta, which has three meanings: as a Cosmic order; as a spiritual order; and as a moral or ethical order. Here Ṛta or ordering law is considered not only as embracing principle of universe but also as the path of righteousness or dharma. Thus, the essence of Dharma as ordering principle in both spiritual and human world is derived from Rta. Etymologically, the world Dharma comes from Sanskrit dhatu root ‘Dhr’, which literally means ‘to hold’ or ‘to support’. The Sanskrit phrase, ‘Dharyati Iti Dharmah’ conveys the same meaning. meaning. The notion of Dharma pervades all aspects of human life including the ordering of Political life. The Indian political order is based on the foundation of Dharma or righteousness. Another meaning of Dharma is the essential quality or guna of a person or object. The same guna becomes the framework of its functions. The psychological disposition of person would be according to predominance of guna (Suda: 1970). Ancient Greek philosopher Plato has also used three-fold classification of human beings on the basis of three elements: Reason, Courage and Appetite. Plato also prescribed the functions of persons according to their essential attributes or Gunas. It needs to be emphasized that unlike common perception, Dharma is not a static concept. It is a dynamic concept, which takes in to account the changing conditions of time and place. Thus, our ancient thinkers gave the idea of of Desh-Kal Dharma, which is conditioned by changing conditions at different times and places. This idea provides a scope for change and adjustment according to changing conditions. Gandhi wanted spiritualization of politics by invoking this original meaning of Dharama in modern times. He said ‘politics bereft of religion (dharma) are like a death-trap as they kill the soul’ (Gandhi: 1924). Gandhi wanted to impart sense of moral duty in politics, but his idea was misconstrued because the Dharma was taken as synonymous with religion by the critics. In present day India, we need dharma-based politics more than we needed in the past.
- Duty-based political order in place of Right-Based Political Order- Unlike the western political order, the ancient Indian political order is based on the notion of the right conduct and duties. The logic is that if the rulers and ruled both fulfil their duties there is no need for separate rights of citizens. On the other hand, the wester notion of political order in modern times puts state as opposite to citizens. Hence citizens are to be protected from state by a system of rights. In India, the notion of duty presupposes that there is no inherent contradiction between the interests of states and the interest of citizens. Kautilya has declared that the prime duty of the king the happiness of the people. In fact, the notion of ancient Indian political order is closer to the ideas of Plato and Aristotle Rather than modern wester political order. Both Plato and Aristotle did not find any inherent clash of interest between the citizens on the on hand and state or society on the other hand.
- Political order as an extension and integral part of the larger Social order- The Ancient Indian political order was superimposed from out side but it was natural evolution of the social order in political domain. The principle of Dharma was an underlying foundational principle in both social order and political order. The two approaches of political order- Dhamashastra tradition and Arthashastra tradition are complementary to each other as the notion of Dharma forms a bridge between the two. The implication is that there is no clash between the norms of state and the norms of society as both were governed by the same set of principles and norms like Dharma.
- Effective Check on Political power- Though, Monarchy was a predominant form of government in ancient India, but it was not absolute and arbitrary. India’s ancient thinkers like Kautilya, Manu, Shukracharya, Veda Vyas, Kamndak, and Yagyvalkya placed many limitations on the powers of the king. Some of these restraints on the powers of king are his extensive training, advice of ministers and Purohit and above all the notion of Rajadharma or the duty of the kings or rulers. The same idea of Dharma binds both the ruler and the ruled. Kautilya viewed the relations between the king and his subjects like the relationship between father and son. The most important Rajyadharma of the King is the protection and welfare of the people. In Vedic period we come across the institutions of Sabha, Samiti and Vidatha as well as the ceremony of Singhavarohan (Coronation ceremony). During Coronation Ceremony, the king has to take the pledge of protection of people as well as seeking their welfare. In Aitaraya Brahmna, the oath is mentioned like this,’ Between the night I am born and the night I die, whatever good I have done, may heaven, my life, and my progeny may I be deprived of if I oppress (injure) you’ (Suda: 1972). Also, the very reason for the origin of kingship for these scholars is to restore social order, which was disrupted without ruler and Matsyanyaya or disorder prevailed in society. Thus, Rajadharma of the king was to seek security of social order and welfare of citizens or Praja. If a king failed to follow Rajadharama, it will lead to its destruction. This was potential limitation on the powers of king. Thus, in spite of Monarchical order, the ancient thinkers were conscious of limiting the arbitrary powers of the rulers.
- Democratic Principles and Practices- For long time, it has been established in the western thinking that Greece is the mother of democracy. But the Indian democratic traditions preceding much before the times of Plato and Aristotle were not considered for this credit. As per the Ashtadhyayi of Panini as well as the Buddhist literature, the 16 republican states were in practice in 6th century BC in India. These republics, called Mahajanpadas are: Anga-Bihar and West Bengal; Magadha- Bihar, Kashi- Varanasi in present-day Uttar Pradesh; Kosala- present-day Uttar Pradesh; Vajji- A confederacy of eight clans in present-day Bihar; Malla- present-day Uttar Pradesh; Chedi- Bundelkhand region, covering parts of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh; Vatsa- Kausambi, near modern-day Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh; Kuru- in the Delhi region, with Indraprastha as its capital; Panchala- Divided into two parts, with capitals at Ahichhatra and Kampilya, roughly in present-day Uttar Pradesh; Matsya- in the Jaipur region of Rajasthan; Surasen- near the Yamuna river, with Mathura as its capital; Asmaka- only Mahajanapada south of the Vindhyas, located on the Godavari river; Avanti- Divided into two parts, with capitals at Ujjain and Mahishmati; Gandhara- present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan, with its capital at Taxila; and Kamboja- present day Afghanistan. These republics practiced collective leadership and decision making by a group of people and followed many democratic practices. Buddhists text Aghanna Sutta (Sutta Pitaka) mentions democratic election of Mahasammat (King). According to Bandyopadhyaya (1927, 149-150), the Mahavagga and Culavagga texts (Vinay Pitaka) mention the many rules for the democratic functions of Sanghas. Even before Mahjanpadas we find many democratic institutions and practices in vedic period. A noted scholar, K. P. Jayaswal (1943), finds the Samiti the national assembly of the whole people or ‘Visha’ during Vedic period and that its function was to elect or reelect the Rajan or the King. It was the duty of the king to attend its meetings. It was in the background of these robust democratic practices and Principles that the India Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made the repeated claims in many fora that India is the mother of democracy- during his address to UN General Assembly in 2021, Summit of Democracy in March, 2023 and again during G-20 summit, hosted by India in September, 2023.The the Indian Council of Historical Research has come out with a new volume illustration the points which prove that democratic principles were prevalent in ancient India (Mother of Democracy: India, 2023 published by India Council of Historical Research).
- Material Conception of State- In modern political science we have developed an abstract notion of state with four attributes like sovereignty, government, territory and population. But ancient Indian thinkers adopted an empirical and material notion of state while describing its elements. Ancient Indian thinker have adopted seven limbs or elements of state- Swami (the King), Amatya (Ministers), Janapada (Population and Territory), Durga (Forts), Kosha (Treasury), Danda (Army), and Mitra (Allies). These elements are not abstract element like sovereignty or government but are material requirements of any viable state. In modern time we change their name, but these material elements are still the backbone of the modern state.
- Hierarchical Principal of Order- As with many other ancient societies like China and Greece, India too adopted the hierarchical principle for ordering polity and society both. Initially this hierarchical ordering was based on the functions of individuals and groups, but gradually, it degenerated in to birth-based social order organized hierarchically. This stifled India’s social and political progress. Lord Buddha and Jaina Tirthankars tried to reform the social rigidity by emphasizing on the principle of equality, much before this slogan was raised in Europe for the firs time during British rule. However, the subsequent subjugation of India under foreign rules did not allow the India political order opportunity to evolve in the natural manner as did in the Europe. Now India is on the way to move towards a more inclusive and equity-based society.
- State and Society: Organically linked but had distinct Spaces– In India the notion of Dharma established an organic link between society and state as it was the founding principle of both. Yet, the society and state were not the same in ancient like many thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Hegel have described. State was just an institution which managed the political affairs of the society, but it never subsumed the society within its scope. Society was viewed a larger mechanism to all round welfare of individual. Thus, society enjoyed a high level of jurisdiction autonomy from state. That is why during the political upheavals, political rulers changed, but society continued to move on its own rhythm and pace. This is perhaps the reason that in spite of may changes in the political order, society and cultural norms survived over centuries.
Conclusion
The ancient Indian Knowledge tradition is rich in all spheres of life-Philosophy, science, culture and arts and material progress. However, it suffered two serious setbacks. First, the long foreign dominations led to breakdown in its natural growth. Second, in addition, it was misrepresented and misinterpreted by western scholars during the long British rule. Thus, a renewed focus is required to retrieve and learn from the ancient knowledge tradition. The ancient political order is not exception to these setbacks. Many Indian thinkers like Altekar, Jaiswal, Ghosal and others have tried to present a correct perspective of ancient political order by painstaking research and collection of data collected by historical research. Thus, in view of these findings, we find many distinct characteristics of ancient Indian political order like- notion of Dharma as a meta principle of social and political order, limitations on the arbitrary powers of the rulers, evolution of duty -based political order rather than right-based order, existence of democratic principles and practices, material conception of state, jurisdictional autonomy of society from state and government, and integrated view of society, state and Individual. We need further research to bolter our claim that ancient Indians not only put in place a viable political order but they were pioneer in democratic practices.
REFRENCES
Aiyangar, Rangaswamy and KumbakonamViraraghava (1952) Some Aspects of the Hindu View of Life According to Dharmaśāstra, Oriental Institute, Baroda , pp. 63-64
Altekar, A S (1949) State and Government in Ancient India. (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi) Indira Gandhi Centre for Arts. Available at: https://ignca.gov.in/Asi_data/16086.pdf
Bandyopadhyaya, N.C. (1927) Development of Hindu polity and Political Theories. Soft Copy available At: https://ignca.gov.in/Asi_data/6059.pdf
Barker, Ernest (1918) Greek Political Theory: Plato and His Predecessors. Digital Library of India Item 2015.237131. Available At: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.237131/page/n15/mode/2up
Doniger, Wendy; Smith, Brian K. (1999), The Law of Manu, Penguin Books India, New Delhi, p. 17-18
Dunning, William Archibald (1902) A History of Political Theories: Ancient and Medieval. New York: The Macmillan Company, Internet Archive, p. xix. Available At: https://archive.org/details/historyofpolitic0001dunn/page/n23/mode/2up
Gautam, Pradip Kumar (2016) Understanding Dharma and Artha in Statecraft through Kautilya’s Arthashastra. IDSA Monograph Series, No., 53, July 2016. Available At: https://idsa.in/system/files/monograph/monograph53.pdf
Guha Sumit (2023) ‘Was India the Mother of Democracy?’ The India Forum 14 February, 2023. Available At: https://www.theindiaforum.in/history/was-india-mother-democracy
Jayaswal, K P (1943) Hindu Polity (Third Edition), Bangalore Press, Bangalore, p.12.
Mckenzie, John (1971) Hindu Ethics, Oriental Book Reprint Corporation, New Delhi, p. 38-39.
Suda, J. P (1972) Ancient Indian Political Thought and Institutions. K. Nath and Co., Meerut. P.43.
Suda, J. P. (1970) ‘Dharma: Its Nature and Role in Ancient India’. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 356–366. Available At: https://www.studocu.com/in/document/university-of-delhi/political-science/dharma-jp-sudha/43793592
PSIR Simplified 
Leave a comment