To understand Bharatvarsa is hard, and to describe it aptly is even more tedious. The nation-state serves as an exemplar for what multiculturalists term a ‘cultural mosaic’, with the country being home to a variety of religious and ethnic groups. However, in most discourses and debates, Bharat finds itself being typecast as the land of colonial hegemony, with a rich culture and conscience that has now been lost in the vicissitudes of time.
Just as people, even countries evolve with time. As a blooming flower, it is important to realize that we stand upon our roots, and not the freshly bloomed petals themselves. In order to rediscover the civilization, it is imperative to embark on a journey across the annals of its history.
The Constitution, as it is, borrows a large chunk of its guidelines from the Government of India Act 1935 coupled with articles from the constitutions of Ireland, America, and the United Kingdom. Politics, even beyond the vicinity of our country, has become simplified to a fight for the ideal state, which is a composite of – liberal, democratic, and secular ethos.
These standards keep all countries on their feet to gain Western validation as a ‘progressive nation’. 1
In a country as spiritually strong and diverse as India, the ultimate source of values lies in the term known as ‘Dharma’, a word that is sacred to all the faiths belonging to the Indic fold. Stalwarts like Swami Vivekananda and Aurobindo Ghosh held that this country could never be understood without knowing what is Dharma.
Politics, in a modern lens, is perceived in a Machiavellian cum Marxist manner, that seeks to blend rationality and realism with equality across societal factions. To take a walk back in
time to understand Hindu statecraft prior to modernism is to detach ourselves from the current notions of ‘political idealism’ and understand a civilization for its own substance.
Dharma, in its essence, refers to the fundamental nature of all living beings, whether animate or inanimate. The Dharma of a bee is to pollinate, while for a tree it is to provide fruits and shade. As such, the basis of Dharma is being true to one’s own authenticity. According to
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishna movement, “The very Dharma of the living being is service. “Service” presupposes action, and the Bhagavad- Gita states that it is impossible for the living being to cease from action even for a moment. It is the nature of the soul to be always active. All actions performed by living beings are
ultimately service, every living creature is engaging in the service of something or someone else.” 2
1 “The Constitution of India.” Indian Polity, by Laxmikanth,M, Mc Graw Hill, 2022.
2 “Dharma—Nature, Duty, and Divine Service”, Prabhupada Books, International Society of Krishna Consciousness, 2016.
The bee’s pollination, for instance, provides us with countless fruits and vegetables, and newer plants, thereby preventing soil erosion, which helps all entities situated on the land. Although the bee is simply doing his duty, he is also engaging in service for species beyond itself. Even in the case of humans, for instance, a sweeper keeps the surroundings clean, in the bargain ensuring hygiene and health of the community. Although we work to make a
living, the very essence of a society, whether capitalist or socialist, is to help one another.
As the state is the playground for all politics, it is essential to understand how the inhabitants of the Vedic era viewed the association that is central to all social sciences. The Shanti Parva, or the Book of Peace, within the Mahabharata, has a section dedicated to Rajadharma or Kingship, through the conversation between Yudhisthira and his Grandsire Bhishma.
The scene starts off with a melancholic picture, where following the ghastly war of the Kurukshetra, a grief-stricken Yudhisthira realizes that his victory stands upon the corpses of his own family and allies. Could a peaceful state ever be built on such a bloody price? With this concern in mind, he seeks consultation from the wise Bhishma.
Bhishma clarifies that in the Krita-yuga (Golden age) no institution of governance existed, because society without a leader functioned efficiently as every individual was conscious of their Dharma. It was with the eventual decline of Dharmic realization that humans began subscribing to the Matsya-nyaya, the law of fish, where it is acceptable for the big fish to eat the small one. Precisely the Nietzschean notion of ‘might is right’.
In order to protect the weak from the strong, the people appeal to Brahma, the one who shapes the cosmos, in the hope of restoring order back into society. However, Brahma warns the people that investing power in a person or institution requires the sacrifice of absolute freedom. The strong need for security makes people invest in the greater good. As an answer to their plea, Brahma creates Manu, the first King. 3
In contrast to the Western notion of Democracy that demands representation in
administration, ancient India locates the institution of society as inherently democratic where each person, through their Dharma, serves the other without hierarchy. The modern lens would interpret this as perfect anarchy, but the very essence of democracy, in Vedic understanding, is founded upon the idea of manushya-rna or debt to the society by the
individual.
The King or Rajdharma enters the picture only to maintain Dharma across all factions. Bhishma states, “Prajanam Palnadharmo Rajyehah Rajhivlochane Dharm Praman Lokasya Nityamam Dharmanrivratrin” 4 which means – in order to help maintain Dharma, the king must look upon his kingdom with eyes as soft as a lotus (compassion) and be an exemplar of Dharma himself in order to maintain the eternal way of being.
3 “Shantiparva Verse 31 Chapter 67.” Mahabharata, Geeta Press, Gorakhpur, 2001.
4 “Shanti Parva Verse 2 Chapter 31.” Mahabharat, Geeta Press, Gorakhpur, 2001.
The King as extolled by Bhishma comes across as a paternalistic figure over a sovereign authority, highlighting the collectivism back in the day. The Vedic idea of a ‘leader as a father’ in contrast to the European ‘leader as God’ could be used to explain why even medieval bharatvasis never felt the same necessity as the French to dismantle those at the top and establish a Grecian variant of democracy.
The Cholas of Tamil Nadu remain one of the most remarkable dynasties of the land. While being patrons of Vedic art and architecture, they were a maritime empire stretching beyond the nation as we know it today. Despite being monarchical in structure and an international power at that time, the Chola royalty embraced a peculiar form of democracy, known as consensual leadership, at provincial levels.
The Kudavolai, as practiced by Tamilians, was a system in the villages where desirable candidates nominated by people had their names put into a pot on palm leaves. A small boy would spontaneously shuffle and pick the leaves of his preference, those selected would form the ruling wards of the area. 5
While secretive voting is a well-known concept, the idea of a secretive election can appear stark to us. Even more so, because leaders are elected through the medium of a child.
Remarkably, the elected would hold office only for a year and could be removed before the end of the tenure in case of misrule. This ensured that there would be no kind of bureaucratic hegemony and all eligible citizens would eventually get a chance.
The Jatakas mention how in the provinces across India, the Gramanayaka (Village Chieftain) had to remain submissive to the village opinion of the Gramasabhas (Village Councils) in order to maintain his office, specifically in the Kingdoms of Magadh and areas under the Pallavas. 6
5 “Chola Kudavolai System (ச ோழர் குடச ோலை அலைப்பு).” Tamil Nadu History, www.tamilnadu.ind.in/tamilnadu_history/chola/chola_kudavolai_system.php.
6 “Village Adminstration.” State and Government in Ancient India, by Alatekara Ananta Sadāśiva, Motilal Banarsidass, 1962, pp. 199–201.
The Arthashastra, written during the reign of the Mauryans, addresses the village chief as the
Gramika, but he does not feature under those to be salaried by the Raja, hence it can be
concluded that he was not a royal servant, unlike the Mantris (Ministers).7 The inscriptions of the Pandyans and the Cholas, collected by the Archaeological Survey of India, support the
idea of the Central Kingdom being a mere watchguard-cum-supervisor for the village, with no royal diktat of governance being assigned to them by the former. 8
The concept of ‘knowledge-colonization’ is a pristine topic, gaining slow yet steady prominence in academia. The way we perceive politics, whether historical or current affairs, itself is through the framework of legalism. Politics devoid of constitutional principles and provisions is immediately discarded as sociology or culture. Such a narrow view often results in unconsciously dismissing other world views – which is precisely what ‘modernism’ claims to fight against.
The understanding of democracy manifests in the Mahabharata through the persona of Sri Krishna, who before the eve of the great war, instructs Duryodhana in the Kuru assembly to follow in the footsteps of the republican Yadavas and heed the counsel of the commonfolk,
the ministers and his relatives. For, a true Kshatriya is one dedicated to the will of the people. 10
The importance of listening to a counsel as highlighted throughout the Mahabharata hints at the existence of a public sphere that was not as politically purposive as the Lok Sabha, nor as informal as an open conference. The Rig Veda even goes on to state –
“We pray for a spirit of unity; may we discuss and resolve all issues amicably, may we reflect on all matters (of state) without rancour,
may we distribute all resources (of the state) to all stakeholders equitably, may we accept our share with humility” 11 – R.V. 10/191/2
The Sabha or General Assembly, forms the heart of the state and is the medium between the Rajya and the Samaj. Unlike Machiavelli’s staunch love for consequentialism, ancient Indian literature puts great faith in the goodness of human nature. The emphasis on amity, equity, and humility as stated in the Rig Vedic verse reflects similar principles of many preambles in contemporary democratic nations.
7 Chaturvedi, B.K. Kautilya’s Arthashastra: (Science of Polity). Diamond Books, 2006.
8 “South Indian Inscriptions Vol.16 : G.V Srinivasa Rao.” Internet Archive, Archaeological Survey Of India, 1 Jan. 1972, archive.org/details/dli.ernet.107802.
10 Debroy, Bibek. “Udyoga Parva, Chapter 128 .” The Mahabharata, 2015.
11 Saraswati, Swami Sataya Prakash, and Vidyalankar Satyakam. Rig Veda. DAV Publication Division, 2011.
It was during the medieval period that Indians began detaching themselves from democratic ideals and adopted proper monarchy. This was further strengthened by the entry of Middle- East colonizers, where the people found themselves best united under a strong king.
Politics in itself has no objectivity, being a social science, it mutates itself across different
civilizations. The discovery of the Arthashastra in 1905 as a palm leaf document in Sanskrit among the collections of Mysuru’s Wodeyar kings, was the first contradiction to the Western claim of the Indian mind not being able to comprehend any life pragmatically, devoid of
mysticism.
Although we derive the current understanding and application of ‘democracy’ from Westminster, the ethos of a democratic nation can be traced to the era before Christ. Through a legalist perspective, democracy requires representative government, which is verily the will of the people. However, a legal democracy fails to equip itself with ‘democratic deficits’ as votes are, more often than not, bought by politicians.
The promise of subsidies and bribing of the masses with largesse, quite literally ‘obliges’ the working and middle class into reserving their votes for certain candidates and parties. Such behaviour is an outright violation of the constitutionally bestowed freedom of expression, as it turns democracy into a ‘debtocracy’. Vote-bank politics and communal pandering by those in power go on to further alienate citizens from one another. It would be a strong but reasonable statement to proclaim that modern democracy strongly tilts towards oligarchic
tendencies, as once extolled by Robert Michels.
Beyond the chassis of modernity and what today qualifies as ‘rule by the people’, the very
idea of Dharma as the basis of life, where everyone lives only to protect the other and doesn’t seek to impose a ‘one size fits all’, is truly an exemplar of democracy.
– Ria Pillai
Ria Pillai is a student of political science at St. Joseph’s University, Bangalore and an aspiring Gaudiya Vaishnav seeking to spread awareness on Hindu Dharma and the civilization. She is a socio-political commentator and an author of two publications.
References
“The Constitution of India.” Indian Polity, by Laxmikanth,M, Mc Graw Hill, 2022. “Dharma—Nature, Duty, and Divine Service”, Prabhupada Books, International Society of
Krishna Consciousness, 2016.
“Shantiparva Verse 31 Chapter 67.” Mahabharata, Geeta Press, Gorakhpur, 2001. “Shanti Parva Verse 2 Chapter 31.” Mahabharat, Geeta Press, Gorakhpur, 2001.
“Chola Kudavolai System (ச ோழர் குடச ோலை அலைப்பு).” Tamil Nadu History, www.tamilnadu.ind.in/tamilnadu_history/chola/chola_kudavolai_system.php.
“Village Adminstration.” State and Government in Ancient India, by Alatekara Ananta Sadāśiva, Motilal Banarsidass, 1962, pp. 199–201.
Chaturvedi, B.K. Kautilya’s Arthashastra: (Science of Polity). Diamond Books, 2006. “South Indian Inscriptions Vol.16 : G.V Srinivasa Rao.” Internet Archive, Archaeological
Survey Of India, 1 Jan. 1972, archive.org/details/dli.ernet.107802.
Pledge for an Integrated India: Dr. Mookerjee in Throes of Jammu and Kashmir, 1951 to 1953, by Mukhopādhyāẏa Śyāmāprasāda and Devesh Khandelwal, Prabhat Prakashan, 2015.
Debroy, Bibek. “Udyoga Parva, Chapter 128 .” The Mahabharata, 2015.
Saraswati, Swami Sataya Prakash, and Vidyalankar Satyakam. Rig Veda. DAV Publication Division, 2011.
