Author: Francois Gautier
Publication: The Indian
Express
Date: June 19, 2000
Is it not time for India
to adapt another Constitution to break away from the colonial legacy left
by the British and evolve its own system based on its particular genius?
Indians have always had
to confront the stigma that the country was always politically disunited,
except under Ashoka and some of the Mughal emperors. That their rulers
were just a bunch of barbarians, constantly fighting among themselves and
that it was thanks to the Mughals and the British that India was finally
politically united. This is doing grave injustice to India. The Vedic sages
had devised a monarchical system, whereby the king was at the top, but
could be constitutionally challenged.
In fact, it even allowed
for the general human inclination to war, but made sure that it never went
beyond a certain stage. In ancient India there were never the great fratricidal
wars, like those between the British and the French. Moreover, the system
allowed for a great federalism the real power lay in the village panchayats.
Sri Aurobindo refutes the charge levelled by most western historians that
India has always shown an incompetence for any free and sound political
organisation.
There always was a strong
democratic element in pre-Muslim India, which showed a certain similarity
with Western parliamentary forms, but these institutions were Indian. The
earliest systems was that of the clan, or tribal system, fou-nded upon
the equality of all members within it. In the sa-me way, the village community
had its own assembly, the visah, with only the king above this democratic
body. The priests, who acted as the sacrifice makers and were poets, occultists
and yogis, had no other occupation in life and their positions were thus
not hereditary but depended on their inner abilities. It was the same with
warriors, merchants, or lower class people.
As Sri Aurobindo observes,
from the king down to the Shudra, the predominance, say of the Brahmins,
did not result in a theocracy, because the Brahmins in spite of their ever-increasing
and finally predominant authority, did not and could not usurp political
power.
Later, a republican form
of government manifested itself over many parts of India. In some cases
these "republics" appear to have been governed by a democratic assembly
and some came out of a revolution; in other cases, they seem to have had
an oligarchic senate. But they enjoyed thr-oughout India a reputation for
the excellence of their civil administration and the redo-ubtable efficiency
of their armies. It is to be noted that these Indian republics existed
lo-ng before the Gr-eek ones, although the world credits the Greeks with
having created de-mocracy. But here, as usual, history is recorded through
the prism of the Western world and is very selective indeed.
One should also note
that none of these Indian republics developed an aggressive colonising
spirit and that they were content to defend themselves and forge alliances
amongst themselves. But after the invasion of Alexander's armies, India
felt, for the first time, the need to unify its forces leading to the rise
of monarchies yet again. But there was no despotism here as happened in
Europe until the French revolution. The Indian king did enjoy supreme power,
but he was first the representative and guardian of dharma, the sacred
law. Furthermore, although the king was a Hindu, Hinduism was never the
state religion and each cult enjoyed its liberties. Which religion in the
world can boast of such tolerance ?
In truth, Indians always
regarded life as a manifestation of Self. The master idea that governed
life, culture and social ideals has been the seeking of man for his inner
self. Thus, Indian politics, although very complex, always allowed a communal
freedom for self-determination. In the last stages of the pre-Muslim period,
the summit of the political structure was occupied by three governing bodies:
the king in his Ministerial Council, the Metropolitan Assembly and the
General Assembly of the kingdom. The members of the Ministerial Council
were drawn from all castes. Indeed the whole Indian system was founded
upon a close participation of all the classes. Thus the Council had a fixed
number of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra representatives, with
the Vaishya having a greater preponderance. And, in turn, each town, each
village, had its own Metropolitan Civic Assembly allowing a great deal
of autonomy. Even the great Ashoka was defeated in his power tussle with
his Council and had to practicallyabdicate.
It is this system which
allowed India to flower in an unprecedented way, to excel perhaps as no
other nation had done before her in all fields. Has not the time come for
a political renaissance of that Indian spirit?
