State and Government in Ancient India c12.s8.19

c12.s8.19

The normal checks on king's powers were, of course, not strong enough to compel a tyrant to respect the law, who had no apprehension of hell and no respect for public opinion. In their practicability and suitability, they were inferior to those devised by the modern democracies, where the Cabinet is responsible to Parliament. We should, however, not forget that when the states in ancient India were also small like the city states of ancient Greece, as in the Vedic period, the popular assemblies (*samitis*) did control the king more or less like a modern representative assembly. The greatest calamity for a king envisaged in that dim and distant past, was disagreement between him and his Popular Assembly.¹ When, however, states became larger and larger, a central popular assembly became impracticable owing to long distances and bad roads. We should also not forget that the principle of a representative democracy, where people are represented in a central parliament by their chosen representatives, is hardly more than 300 years old. It was no wonder that it did not exist in ancient India, as in ancient Greece or Rome.