For the long time, the scholars viewed Greece city-states as the precursor of modern democracy. But now debate on India being the mother of democracy has renewed for two reasons: Firs India has made such claims on many occasion including during the G-20 Summit, and second, the renewal of Indian Knowledges Tradition(IKT)has reinforced this perception. This Article analyzes the nature and basis of such claims made by India.
The revival of scholarly interests in the Indian knowledge tradition is nothing but the exploration and understanding of India’s 5000 years old, rich and multifaceted intellectual heritage covering many fields like philosophy, religion, culture, science and politics and much more. An important aspect of this knowledge tradition is the nature and evolution of political ideas and governance in ancient India. There is renewed interest to look into the democratic elements in the ancient Indian political ideas and practice. This has given rise to the claim that India is not only the largest democracy but the oldest democracy in the world. This is what the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi underlined in his address to the 76th Session of UN General Assembly, 2021 when he claimed ‘I am representing a country which has the distinction of being named as the ‘Mother of Democracy’. We have had a great tradition of democracy for thousands of years (MEA: 2021). Prime Minister reiterated this claim of India being the mother of democracy on many occasions including his address to World Democracy Summit, 2022, Independence Day address, 2022, inauguration of the new building of India Parliament in May, 2023. And now during the G-20 summit a separate pavilion was displayed to showcase the evolution of democracy in India since ancient times to the present times, particularly since India became independent in 1947. This has led to new debate on western and Indian media whether India is the mother of democracy and what were the democratic elements practiced by ancient Indians. This paper is just a minor addition to this debate.
The ongoing debate on India being the mother of democracy for last few years is not new. This is the second round of this debate, the first being the colonial era experience of India. However, the timing, context and goals of the present debate are new. India as an emerging global power would like to project her soft power though highlighting the fine points of her five Millennia old Indian civilization and culture.
The debate on the nature of governance in ancient India is not new. We have been taught in our schools and colleges that Greeks were the first to practice direct democracy in 5th century BC, and that British Parliament is the mother of all Legislatures; and that the modern democratic ideas and practices evolved from the Western countries through the ideas of notable thinkers like John Locke, JS Mill, Bentham, Rousseau and Montesquieu and others as well as series of historic events like British Magna Carta, 1215; Glorious Revolution, 1688; French Revolution, 1789; and American Revolution of 1776. This view was further consolidated during European colonialism in 18th century and afterward when it was concluded that the West is the cradle of democracy and the Oriental/East is abode of despotism. The idea was invoked to justify British colonialism in India during 18th and 19th century. The Western scholars such as Charles Grant, James Mill, JS Mill, Macaulay, Rudyard Kipling propagated the idea that the western rule in India is boon to civilize the despotic and backward people of India. This is what Rudyard Kipling’s 1899 idea of ‘White man’s Burden’ argues for. 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. That despotism, however, Grant argued, resulted from the intrinsic character of their religion, which was the invention of a crafty and imperious priesthood’ (Guha: 2023). Though some Western scholars of this era, like William Jones and Thomas Munro held a sympathetic attitude towards ancient Indian public institutions, yet the majority of the Western thinkers, British policy makers and administrators held the stereotype view of equating entire Oriental world including India with despotism and backwardness.
This western narrative about the nature of governance in ancient India was effectively countered with new research and facts by India scholars like K P Jaiswal (Hindu Polity, 1918, 1936), R C Majumdar (Corporate Life in Ancient India, 1919), 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), UN Ghoshal (A History of Indian Political Ideas, 1959) and many others. Altekar strongly supports the view that local government institutions in ancient India were autonomous and democratic in their functioning. He also claims that republican form of government (Gana based governments) were not monarchy but collective form of government. However, after the independence of India, the debate on the nature of ancient India polity remained largely confined to academic institutions.
Three Fundamental Questions of the Debate
The renewed claim of India being the ‘Mother of Democracy’ in last few years needs to be probed in the light of three fundamental questions: What is the meaning of democracy? What is the historicity and nature of democracy in the Western world? And What are the democratic elements found in ancient India?
The formal meaning of the term democracy has two dimensions: As a form of government- government elected by and responsible to the people; and democracy as a ‘way of life’ animated by elements of toleration, faith in peaceful means for change, discussion, consensus and collective decision-making, decentralization and autonomy of government structure at various level. Thus democracy is not just the form of government, but it is way of life or social ecosystem. Without adopting democracy as a way of life, even an elected government may be authoritarian in its disposition and functioning.
As far as the evolution of democracy in the Western world is concerned, it is traced to the ancient Greek City States during 5-6th Century BC. As we learn from many Greek scholars including Plato and Aristotle, a form of direct democracy prevailed in these small states where citizens were encouraged to directly take part in the process of law making and administration of the state. In spite of many subsequent ups and downs, the Western World has been claiming this Greek experience as the foundation of democracy in Europe and elsewhere. Even in Greek City States, the slaves and women were excluded from political participation. This is clear from the Aristotle, notion of political deliberation. The succeeding Roman Empire and Middle ages not only killed the democratic spirit of Greece, but also led to ascendancy of Church over political sphere. The European Renaissance adorned the human authority and wisdom and gradually led to development of modern democratic institutions through various revolutionary steps like the Glorious Revolution of England, 1688, American Revolution, 1776, and French Revolution, 1789. The democratic ideals were supported by many scholars like Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Bentham, JS Mill and others. This is how the democratic form of government emerged in Europe in modern times. However, European societies still failed to strengthen democracy as a way of life and spirit of democratic deliberation, which resulted in the rise of toxic authoritarianism in Italy and Germany in the first half of the 20th century. This fact has been well documented by Hannah Arendt in his book Origin of Totalitarianism published in 1951(Library of Congress: 2023). In brief, if Greeks failed to incorporate large section of people like slaves and women within the fold of deliberative democracy, the European nations, practicing the democratic form of government in modern time were prone to subjugation of colonialism in other countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. During this period the western scholars supported their undemocratic colonial rule in the name of civilizing mission! They excluded large section of humanity from the fold of democratic process. Thus, is always doubtful whether the West perfected democracy as a way of life at anytime in modern times.
Now, we turn our attention to India’s claim of being the mother of democracy. India’s claim mainly rests on the evolution of democracy as a way of life in ancient times, in addition to the fact that democratic institutions too existed in India much before the West took to such institutions in ancient Greece. Thus, we have the provision of ancient democratic institutions like Sabha, Samiti and Vidatha mentioned in ancient text of Rig Veda around 1500 BC. In this text while Sabha and Samiti find mention 8 and 9 times respectively, Vidatha is mentioned 122 times. Sabha, consisting of heads of families or clans was an advisory body for the King and limiting his authority. Samiti was a larger body like assembly of all people. According to Jayaswal (1943, Third edition), the Samiti the national assembly of the whole people or ‘Visha’ 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. While Sabha and Samiti functioned as a check on the arbitrary powers of the King, Vidatha was a larger assembly for many other public functions of economic, religious and cultural nature. RS Sharma (1959) has noted that women also took part in the meetings of Vidatha. In ths connection, no less significant was the institution of Coronation Ceremony of the King as mentioned in the Aitreya and Satapatha Brahmanas. This exercised a sort of popular control over King as he has to take oath that he should be deprived of all good if he injures the people.
In post vedic period when society became more settled, we witness the existence of 16 Mahajanpadas in 6th century BC. These Mahajanpadas followed the republican form of government. Many of them like Vajji Sangha in Bihar did not have any king and relied more on deliberation and collective decision making in assemblies. None of the republics (Ganas) in ancient India developed aggressive tendencies as was seen in ancient Greece. Even with collective decision making, Republics in ancient India attained high degree of efficiency in administration. That is why Indian republics have longer existence till the beginning of Christian era. They are symbol of democratic states in ancient India (Suda:1986).
The democratic institutions continued to survive in India in Medieval India in at least at the local level even under the foreign rule. Now we have the evidence of pulsating local self government during the Chola rule in 10-11 century South India. The evidence has come from the Uttaramerur inscriptions located in Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu. These inscriptions give details of how members of local bodies were selected, the required qualifications, their roles and responsibilities, and even the circumstances in which they could be removed. We have reference of ‘Anubhav Mantapa’ established by famous Saint Basava in 12th Century in Bidar district of Karnataka. It was the first religious and social assembly of the world to discuss, share and deliberate on various philosophical, religious and social issues. While Inaugurating the new Parliament building in May, 2023, Indian Prime Minister Modi referred to Anubhava Mantapa as the symbol of parliamentary democracy. Even in modern time, India has a sort of record among newly independent countries to exercise peaceful transfer of power through ballot 17 times in last 75 years, whereas many countries have succumbed to authoritarian regimes during this period. This is no mean achievement. This is not merely an outcome of political arrangement, but the outcome of India’s democratic values and tradition deeply rooted in Indian psyche since ancient time. This gives rise to debate on democracy as a way of life.
The claim of India’s being the mother of democracy is more sound credible if we consider the development of democratic values and traditions in India since ancient times, which are essential component of democracy as way of life. When we talk of democracy as a way of life it entails host of values and beliefs like spirit of toleration, faith in peaceful means for change, respecting diversity of views and traditions, dignity of individual and harmonious balance between citizens and polity. In fact if we glance back to Indian history, the toleration and emphasis on peaceful means was day to day experience of Indian civilization. Hindu scriptures Buddhism and Jainism all provide for ‘Ahimsa’ and peaceful means. Even Buddhist text Aghanna Sutta mentions democratic election of Mahasammat (King). As per this text the institution of Mahasammat was secular in nature nad based on the consent of people. It was established for the protection and welfare of people. Another Writer of this age Kautilya, though support Monarchy but links the fate of the king with the welfare of people.
It is the resilience of Indian culture that it accommodated various alien elements and survived for century. The exiting diversity of India attests the spirit of toleration, adjustment and harmony, which are core of the democratic behavior and practice.
Ancient Indian worldview took individual and state as complementary to each other as both were bound by the law of Dharma (essential duty). The western political thought is based on the assumption that individual and state are contradictory to each other, hence individual should be protected by the provision of certain legal rights. But Indian concept of Dharma offers a duty based political order. It presupposes that if individuals and State both discharge their essential duties, there will be no question of violation of individual rights by the state. Thus, the concept of Dharma is the unique contribution of Indians to a harmonious and democratic political order. Unfortunately, the western scholars translated Dharma as religion and distorted its meaning. However, Gandhi tried to revive the notion of Dharma in its original sense when he commented that politics without Dharma is like snake in the neck. In brief, the ancient Indian ideals of collective decision-making, toleration, respect of diversity, faith in Ahimsa, harmonious blending between Individual and state through Dharma and other such values are the essence of democratic practice and way of life.
The Indian vision of social and political order was not restricted to domestic walls. It was meant to be propagated to the entire human society. It was inclusive and holistic. The idea of Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam underlines this urge of Indian worldview. India has utilized every opportunity to propagate the message of peace brotherhood and inclusiveness to the world at various levels. During the cold war it was the ideology of non-alignment which opposed imperialism and colonialism and pleaded for peaceful co-existence. In the post cold war era, India still continues the journey of Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam. The world is gradually coming to realize Indian worldview. During the heyday of colonialism, the British Prime Minister Churchill termed Gandhi as ‘naked fakir’, but in 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted Gandhi’s birth day as International Non-violence Day. In this conflict redden world, no democratic government proper without the message of peace and non-violence.
India’s age old democratic vision was in full display during the G20 summit hosted by India. The just concluded G-20 summit in Delhi on 9-10 September, 2023 was held amidst various global challenges like Ukraine war leading to the concerns of food and energy security, climate change, inflation ridden sluggish growth of global economy and many others. However, the greater global challenge was the huge gap of perceptions on these issues among the West and the east on the one hand and North and the South on the other. Yet India strived hard to bridge this gap and led the G20 to a successful conclusion. India’s efforts will be remembered for her three distinct contributions to this global forum, which stands for sustainable growth and prosperity in the world. First, India demonstrated her diplomatic skills and heft by evolving a consensus on the Joint Statement, which appeared a daunting task in view of deeply divergent views on Ukraine war between the Western block led by the US on the one hand and Russia and China on the other. India did it by invoking the age old principle that no country would force to acquire the territory of other nations. This Indian trait of consensus building and resilience is deeply rooted in India’s 5000 years old knowledge tradition. Second, India invoked the age old ideal of Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam (One Earth, One family, One Future) as the main theme of this summit. This imparted a sense of inclusiveness in the agenda, deliberations and outcome of the Summit for the welfare of the entire human society. Thus, India managed the membership of African Union to this forum of 20 largest economies of the globe. The underlying urge for inclusiveness is equally ingrained in the Indian knowledge tradition and its practice over the ages. Third, India utilized this opportunity to display her soft power across the world. This focused on the display of India ideals of hospitality (Atithi Devo Bhav), and cultural creativity and achievements through the ages. Beginning with the design and shape of the venue- Bharat Mandapam, India’s cultural objects and artifacts were on full display at the sidelines of the main event. One distinct feature was the Culture Corridor – G20 Digital Museum to represent and celebrate the shared heritage of G20 members and invitee countries. It displayed the physical objects and digital media from G20 members and invitee countries in five categories: Object of Cultural Significance as a physical display, Iconic Cultural Masterpiece as a digital display, Intangible Cultural Heritage as a digital display, Natural Heritage as a digital display, and an Artefact Related to Democratic Practices as a physical or digital display (PIB: 2023). An exhibition themed on India as the Mother of Democracy is also hosted at the Bharat Mandapam.
Conclusion: It has been along held view that the west is the mother of democracy and all other modern values. This view of even promoted to justify the unethical and illegal colonial rule of centuries. Now India has come to claim that India not the West is the mother of democracy. India’s claim is more sustainable when we adopt a broader meaning of democracy. Democracy is not a form of government, but a way of life. For thousands of years, India has displayed in both thought and practice that the ancient Indian worldview is based on democratic values like toleration, respect for diversity, faith in peace and non-violence, harmony and duty based political order. No democratic regime can sustain if it renounces these values. India utilized every opportunity to extend the scope of these ideals in the world. These democratic values and traditions have made India not only a successful example of democracy but also the mother of democracy.
REFERENCES
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.
Library of Congress (Retrieved 2023) Totalitarianism: The Inversion of Politics, The Hannah Arendt Papers. Library of Congress, US. Available At: https://www.loc.gov/collections/hannah-arendt-papers/articles-and-essays/totalitarianism-the-inversion-of-politics/
MEA: (2021) English translation of the Prime Minister’s address at the 76th session of the United Nations General Assembly
Media Centre, MEA. Available At: https://mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/34326/English_translation_of_the_Prime_Ministers_address_at_the_76th_session_of_the_United_Nations_General_Assembly
PIB (2023) CULTURE CORRIDOR – G20 DIGITAL MUSEUM, PIB 02 September, 2023. Available At: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1954325
Sharma, R S (1959) Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidas Publication, Delhi, p.80
Suda, J P (1986) Ancient Indian Political Thought and Institutions. K Nath and Company, Meerut, pp56-57.
Leave a Reply