The Indic Republics

I largely rely on K. Antonova, G. Bongard-Levin, and G. Kotovsky, "A History of India: Book One", Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979 for purposes of this post. I have simplified the material in the interest of brevity.

India had a rich republican tradition in the first millenium BCE, one that ended only in 500 CE. The Vedic texts, Panini, the Buddhist texts, the Arthashatra, the Greek texts and the Mahabharata outline the vibrant republican tradition in ancient India. India had sixteen janapadas in the 7th century BCE. The word Janapada translated means "the foothold of a people". The Indic republics were located either in the northern periphery of the Gangetic plain or in the Indus basin. The republics included confederate unions that linked several tribes such as the Vrijjis and the Yadavas, or individual republics such as the Koliyans, the Shakyas and the Mallas. The Licchavis were one tribe in the Vrijji confederacy that survived 1,000 years to merge with the Gupta empire through marriage.

The word "jana" in Vedic times either meant a people or a tribe. It often implied a non-monarchical state. One Indic text described a monarchy as a land ruled by an individual. It defined a republic as a state that was collectively administered.

A republic was identified by the absence of a hereditary ruler with absolute power. It had an elected head who could be replaced. Elections did not mean democracy. Only the landed few or the Kshatriya had the right to decide. Nonetheless, the system represented a significant achievement in political thought in that it broadened decision making in 500 BCE.

The Chivara-vastu, a Pali text dated to the 1st century BCE, describes the election of the Lichchavi ruler and adds (i) that a candidate had to demonstrate merit; (ii) the assembly retained the right to replace him if he did not enjoy its prior sanction for policy; and (iii) that a ruler had executive power to implement while the assembly retained the right to define policy. The system was one "where even the decision taken by ten men might be reviewed by twenty". This implied the concept of collective scrutiny of policy.

In short, a republic was administration through a partly representative assembly with the implied notion of a social contract. The Indic republics tended to be more independent minded and individualistic in orientation than the monarchies. The Kshatriya leadership of the republics helped define the Upanishads and Buddhism. A spirit of free inquiry prevailed.

The republican assembly had a narrow social base. It was confined to free citizens who in turn chose a council of nobility, entirely drawn from the Kshatriya caste. The Vedic concept of the sabha and samithi comes to mind. All heads of families met in the public assembly. The matter for discussion was placed before the assembly and debated. If a unanimous decision could not be reached, it was put to the vote. The Indic republics enjoyed an elaborate judicial procedure where the suspected criminal had to face in turn a hierarchy of seven officials. In certain instances, a republican constitution governed the affairs of state. All dignitaries in a republic, be it the army commander or judge, had to be kshatriya. This said, a broader segment of the population as opposed to one individual defined policy.

Kautilya praised the Indic republics as invincible in warfare due to their cohesion. The Mahabharata however highlighted the social contradictions within the republics that made them vulnerable. The records of a slave revolt in the Shakyan republic come to mind in this regard.

The monarchical system eventually replaced the republican in ancient India. The kingdoms of Magadha, Kosala and Kashi expanded while the Vrijjis, the Mallas and the Shakyas disappeared. However, the concept of collective administration through debate persisted down the centuries in the panchayat system as enunciated in the Dharma Shastras.