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 literature which helped India name the 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.
There were republican polities in ancient India, and 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 or patriarchs 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 term for monarch. His council had representatives from all varnas or classes 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 ‘rajas’ 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.
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. In the UK, voting rights were reserved only for the property owners or landlords till 1918. So, by that logic, either ancient Athens, ancient Rome and 19th century Britain was not democractic, or ancient Gana Rajyas also qualify for the term.
There were two types of Ganas, Rajaka Gana where all landowners were entitled to vote, or Rajanyaka Gana, where only descendants of founding clans could vote.
But as time passed, these self governing states could not save themselves from the invading empires, and soon were swallowed by the empires. These clans continued to be a ruling class in the age of empires that followed, but idea of republic became irrelevant and over time was 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
Original Blog: https://pravyavnav.blogspot.com/2021/07/ancient-indian-republics.html