Democracy, a modern connotation of occidental school, is a by-product of 18th century. It is often being argued by scholars of certain trajectory that American and French Revolutions were the cradle of modernism and democracy, and it were these revolutions that marked the end of medievalism. Here, one has to scrutinise very closely to find out the distinction between Prajatantra, Janatantra and Loktantra. The third concept, Loktantra, commonly translates to the modern term ‘democracy’. Essence of modern democracy lies in practising and accepting free will, perhaps the most suppressed thought in Western Europe till French Revolution. But it must be noted here that the Fifth Republic could emerge in France in 1870, only after a lot of upheavals and massive killings. This suggests that philosophy of democracy was not an inherent ethic in the French society, and its evolution was only theoretically practised. It is interesting to suggest that when Martin Luther pasted the Ninety Five Theses on the walls of a German holy place, he had to run to save his life. He had authored Ninety Five Theses in 1517. Three years later, in 1520, Pope Leo X demanded that Luther renounce all of his writings. When Luther refused to do so, he was excommunicated (in January 1521). Later that year, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V condemned Luther as an outlaw at the Diet of Worms (a meeting of the Holy Roman Empire’s political and religious authorities to address Martin Luther’s teachings). Even when Luther died in 1546, Pope Leo X’s excommunication was still in effect. Compared to France, a few years before this happened, in Bharat, saint Kabir was raising critical issues in society, and there is no testimony of he being outlawed from community. This well explains that philosophy of Janatantra was an integral part of Bharatiya ethos.
So, we can say that democracy is not an intervention of the West. In matters of ideas and human institutions, the roots of self-governance in Bharat can be traced back to Vedic ages. The recent Rakhigari (a village in Hisar district of Haryana where Indus Valley Civilisation thrived in 5000BCE) excavations have now been scientifically accepted. These show Loktantra as a self-governing society and polity in which all the people, at all levels from gaon to rajya, have a voice in, and participate in governance by choosing, nominating or electing, a system at that time. It won’t be an exaggeration to say that the traditional systems, in context of the inclusiveness of Bharat’s socio-political norms, can be accessed through an entity known as ‘village’. It is worth quoting American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer John Dewey here. He said, “The village communities are little republics… they seem to last where nothing else lasts. Dynasty after dynasty tumbled but the village community remains the same… if plunder and devastation be directed against themselves and the force employed be irresistible, they flew to friendly villages at a distance; but when the storm has passed over, they return and resume their occupations… This union of the village communities, each one forming a separate little state in itself, has, I conceive, contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the people of India through all revolutions and changes which they have suffered, and is, in a high degree, conducive to their happiness, and to the enjoyment of a great portion of freedom and independence. A village has for long been viewed as a convenient entry point for understanding ‘traditional’ Indian society and its administrative mechanism.
The social institutions, as they existed in their integrity, were not individualist but collectivist, an essential of a democracy. The inter-relations of different families were governed by the village community for the purpose of self-governance. The regulations were customary in the management of affairs, and the unique institution which managed administration through customary regulations in a village was Panchayat. Historical analysis suggests that the traditional nomenclature of Panchayat management of villages was grossly misinterpreted by colonial ideologues and in their construction of Jeremy Bentham’s (English philosopher, social reformer) ideas of Panchayat was reduced to the understanding of a unit of partial judicial activism only. Thus, the colonial confluence led to misleading interpretations of an age-old democratic institution of Panchayat, where Bharat lived.
The village Government was usually carried under the supervision and direction of the village headman. He is called Gramani in the Vedic literature and figures frequently in the Jatakas. The Arthashastra attests to his important part in the administration and inscriptions of almost all the provinces refer to him during the first millennium of the Christian era. He was called Gramika or Grameyaka in northern India, and Mununda in the eastern Deccan in the early centuries of Christian era and Gramukuta or Pattakila in Maharashtra, Gavunda in Karnataka and Mahattaka or Mahantaka in other parts of India. The Gram Sabhas had gradually evolved popular gatherings of earlier periods which discussed religious and political matters indiscriminately at their meetings, and there was hardly any distinction made in such matters at that time. In the light of experience gained, rules were framed in the course of time. Inscriptions refer to them in abundance. Each Sabha had, as a rule its own constitution, though it did not differ much from normal forms. Not only was the Panchayat a part of India’s “ancient constitution,” but, like the village headman, it had continued to function largely independently under both strong and weak kings and princes.
However, in the course of 19th century, the age-old democratic institution of Panchayat which was considered to be the holder of ancient practices and democratic traditions was transformed into a sort of a municipal body under the liberal reformist Colonial agenda. The process of colonial confluence seriously mutilated, not only the managerial system at the grassroots level but also the social fabric as a whole. The follies of the Empire ruptured the community evolution, distorted historical trajectories and forced violent State formation for societies that would otherwise have had a different path of co-existence. As a historian noted “now these Panchayats were regarded, not as the representatives of the village folk, but as servants of the sarkar, the government”.
The legitimacy of the past and the profound mystery of the Panchayat is best illustrated in Munshi Premchand’s famous short story Panch-Parmeshwar (1916). The story’s title was first translated into English as the Holy Panchayat. It is about two characters Algu and Jumman, both acting as Sarpanch (head of jury) in a Panchayat concerning each other’s case. Earlier Algu, as Sarpanch had given a verdict against Jumman and after few days in a case related to Algu, Jumman is Sarpanch. Jumman gives verdict in favour of Algu. Premchand’s depiction of the validity of a Sarpanch sums up the whole issue. He writes: “Jumman was infused with the spirit of the panchayat, and thought to himself ‘I am sitting on the highest throne of justice and dharam (righteousness)’. Whatever comes from my lips will be treated with the same respect as the words of God. I must not stray even an inch from the truth.” Jumman also understood that even Algu had behaved justly in the earlier case. He tells his old friend, ‘Today I have learnt that as a Panch that I am neither anybody’s friend nor anybody’s foe. A Panch cannot see anything but justice. Today I am convinced that God speaks through a Panch’s lips.” The mystical element of justice is certainly not unique to Indian society and culture.
Despite all its plurality, today Bharat is the world’s largest successful working democracy because of its people who are infused with the spirit of equality, and have had Loktantrik-parampara since the Vedic times. Much to the surprise of the rest of the world.
Comments