Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c6.s2: The Interpretation and Definition of the Term Gaṇa

Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c6.s2

Language
English

The Interpretation and Definition of the Term Gaṇa

c6.s2.1

While the early Vedic texts support the existence of different kinds of non-monarchical governments, they fail to register the technical term by which these republican or quasi-republican political communities could be described constitutionally. The word *gaṇa*, which denoted a republic in the post-Vedic period, occurs for the first time in the Vedic texts,¹ chiefly in association with the Maruts and Ādityas, and has been interpreted as a "technical word for the republic" by Professor R. S. Sharma.² In most of the cases the *gaṇas* of the Maruts and Ādityas are connected with war and the spoils obtained by fighting were distributed equally among those who formed the *gaṇa*.³ Most authorities derive the word from the root *gaṇ*, meaning "to count" or "to reckon," and explain that the noun *gaṇa* literally means "a flock" or a "troop."¹ Keeping in view the connection of the Vedic *gaṇa* with war and spoils in the Vedic texts, it may appropriately be rendered as "troop" or "multitude," and the interpretation of "republic" is not warranted.² If the *gaṇa* had the technical sense of a republican state, it would be expected to occur in association with the four forms of non-monarchical government which we discuss a little later. As in the *Ṛg Veda* the word has no implicit or explicit sense of a type of government, and as it does not figure in association with different types of aristocracies, we differ from Professor Sharma's interpretation.

c6.s2.2

¹ *ṚV*, i, 14,3; 64,12; ii, 23,1; iii, 32,2; iv, 35,3; 50,5; v, 52, 13-4; 53,10; 56,1; 58, 1,2; vi, 16,24; vii, 9,5; 58,1; viii, 94,12; ix, 96,17; x, 36,7; 77,1; *AV*, iv, 13,4; xiii, 4,8; xix, 13,4, xx, 88,5, etc.

c6.s2.3

² *Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India*, p. 81; *cf.* pp. 81-93.

c6.s2.4

³ *ṚV*, v, 79,5; x, 34,12; *AV*, iii, 30, 5-6, etc.

c6.s2.5

¹ Cf. Monier Williams, *Skt.-Eng. Dic.*, *s.v. gaṇa*, flock, troop or multitude; Böhtlinck and Roth, *Skt. Wörterb.*, *s.v. gaṇa*, *Schaar*, *Reide*; V.S. Apte, *Skt.-Eng. Dic.*, *s.v.*; M. Mayrhofer, *Ety. Skt. Dic.*, *s.v. gaṇaḥ*, *Schar*, *Reide*, *Menge*.

c6.s2.6

² Prof. Sharma himself derives the word from *gaṇ*, but he further argues that "although literally the term *gaṇa* does not mean a tribe but an artificial collection of people not necessarily belonging to the same tribe, it appears that in most cases in the Vedic literature this term is used in the sense of a tribal organization" (*op. cit.*, p. 82).

c6.s2.7

The terms *gaṇa* and *saṅgha*, with reference to the republican form of government, do not occur until after the 6th century B.C.³ They then appear for the first time in the *Ācārāṅga Sūtra*,⁴ *Avadāna Śataka*,⁵ *Mahāvagga*,⁶ *Aṣṭādhyāyī*,⁷ *Arthaśāstra*,⁸ etc., and in the last 65 years several Indologists have endeavoured to bring out the constitutional significance of these terms. Professor Rhys Davids defines them as "republics with either complete or modified independence,"⁹ but while discussing the Sakyas, the Vajjians, the Mallas, etc., he refers to them merely as "clans."¹⁰ Even more surprising is the absence of the terms *gaṇa* and *saṅgha* from his monumental work on the Buddhist period.

c6.s2.8

³ U. N. Ghoshal, *History of Indian Political Ideas*, p. 76.

c6.s2.9

⁴ *Ācār. Sū.*, i, 3, 160.

c6.s2.10

⁵ *Avadāna*, 88, ii, p. 103.

c6.s2.11

⁶ *Mahāvagga*, ix, 4.

c6.s2.12

⁷ Pāṇini, iii, 3, 36, 42, 86; v, 3, 114; *cf.* V. S. Agrawala, *op. cit.*, chap. vii.

c6.s2.13

⁸ Kauṭilya, bk. xi, pp. 376ff.

c6.s2.14

⁹ Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 2.

c6.s2.15

¹⁰ *Ibid.*, pp. 17ff.

c6.s2.16

In the years 1914-16 a great controversy raged about the term *gaṇa*, which J. F. Fleet translated merely as "tribe."¹¹ F. W. Thomas, supporting Jayaswal, interpreted it as meaning a "republican or oligarchic constitution."¹² He explained the *gaṇa* as "a sort of council representing the powerful families in the state."¹ Since then most scholars have accepted the fact that in the post-Vedic period the term denoted, beyond all doubt, a republican form of government. However, according to Professor R. C. Majumdar, the *gaṇas* "denoted, in general, merely corporations of particular kinds."² Majumdar is correct to a large extent, but his definition is vague and one does not get from it a clear idea as to precisely what the *gaṇa* meant in early constitutional terminology.

c6.s2.17

¹¹ Cf. Fleet, *JRAS*, 1914, pp. 745-7; 1915, pp. 138-40, 802-4; *cp.* 1913, pp. 995-8.

c6.s2.18

¹² Thomas, *JRAS*, 1914, p. 413.

c6.s2.19

¹ *JRAS*, 1914, p. 1012; *cf.* pp. 1010-13; 1915, pp. 533-5; 1916, pp. 162-6.

c6.s2.20

² R. C. Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 138.

c6.s2.21

Dr. K. P. Jayaswal, on the authority of Pāṇini and the *Majjhima Nikāya* held the view that "*saṁgha* and also *gaṇa* synonymously signified, par excellence, the republics. The republics were the *saṁghas* and *gaṇas* at the same time."³ He further states that "the term *gaṇa* signified the form of government. *Saṁgha* on the other hand, signified the state."⁴ It may be that *gaṇa* and *saṁgha* were used synonymously in the sources,⁵ but we find no evidence to support the inference that they "signified, par excellence, the republics." Secondly, Jayaswal is not on very firm ground when he tries to prove that the *gaṇa* and *saṁgha* were distinctly used, the former signifying the "form of government", and the latter "the state." The Pāṇinian *sūtra*, commented upon by the Bhāṣyakāra⁶ and given as Jayaswal's authority to produce the difference between *saṁgha* and *gaṇa*, refers to the numerical strength of the former, which Patañjali explains as consisting of "five, ten or twenty members."⁷ These members, says Dr. V. S. Agrawala, refer to the executive of the *saṁgha*.⁸ However, the term *gaṇa* occurs neither in this *sūtra* of *Aṣṭādhyāyī*, nor in the commentary on it.⁹ Hence, it would be wrong to take Patañjali's commentary as evidence to support the distinction between the *gaṇa* and *saṁgha*, when the former is not even mentioned in the text.

c6.s2.22

³ Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, p. 28.

c6.s2.23

⁴ *Loc. cit.* Pāṇini, iii, 3, 76.

c6.s2.24

⁵ *Cf.* *MPS*, pp. 112ff; *Majjhima*, i, p. 231; Pāṇini, iii, 3, 76.

c6.s2.25

⁶ Patañjali on Pāṇini, v, 1, 59.

c6.s2.26

⁷ *Loc. cit.*, *pañcakaḥ saṁghaḥ daśakaḥ saṁghaḥ*, etc.

c6.s2.27

⁸ V.S. Agrawala, *op. cit.*, p. 431.

c6.s2.28

⁹ *Cf.* Pathak and Chitrao, *Mahābhāṣyaśabdakośaḥ*, *s.v.* *gaṇa*.

c6.s2.29

Professor A. S. Altekar asserted that the "*gaṇa* had a definite constitutional meaning and denoted a form of government, where the power was vested not in one person, but in a *gaṇa* or group of people. *Saṅgha* was another term used precisely in the same sense, because it was sharply distinguished from monarchy.”¹ Although a great improvement on earlier attempts, this definition is still vague and, quite like the previous ones, is not definite in bringing out the full constitutional significance of the terms *gaṇa* and *saṅgha*.

c6.s2.30

¹ Altekar, *State and Government*, pp. 109-10.

c6.s2.31

Professor K. P. Mukerji argued that “the Indian *gaṇarājyas* were republics in no worse sense than that in which the much vaunted democracies of Greece were republics, because in both sovereign power was vested in a large central assembly.”² Professor Mukerji’s remark is too superficial and tends to underestimate the marvelous achievements of the Greeks in democracy.³

c6.s2.32

² Mukerji, *op. cit.*, p. 23.

c6.s2.33

³ *Cp.* Jones, *op. cit.* pp. 41-72, 99-133; A. Zimmern, *The Greek Commonwealth*, pp. 139ff; T. R. Glover, *Democracy in the Ancient World*, pp. 49ff.

c6.s2.34

It is a serious mistake on the part of the student of ancient political institutions to interpret ancient terms, concepts, and institutions in a modern context. Jayaswal, Bhandarkar, Majumdar, and to some extent Altekar as well, have been guilty of imposing twentieth-century democratic ideas and institutions on early Indian polity. They seem to start with a purpose which was, no doubt, a natural reaction to the criticism of the nineteenth-century imperialist writers who underrated Indian achievements and various aspects of her past culture, as well as being based on the presupposition that if Greece and Rome had democratic institutions ancient India should have had them also.

c6.s2.35

The bulk of historical literature produced with this attitude in mind may be justifiable in the context of the times, but only if one accepts academic historical research as a tool for fostering patriotism and igniting revolutions in order to achieve national independence. However, an unbiased and methodical historical monograph of true scholarship cannot be produced with the purpose of proving that India has always been tyrannically ruled by “oriental despots”, and therefore still deserves to be governed by a superior power; neither can it be written to extol an almost perfect form of democracy that Āryavarta knew centuries ago when Britons were still living in caves, and thus prove that India is worthy of self-government. This feeling of patriotism has influenced almost all Indian historians writing on ancient Indian republican institutions to the extent that it has prevented them from appreciating the democratic and oligarchic experiments carried out in Greece and Rome. To this school of Indian historians the Athenian and Roman democracies were of the same type, whereas the study of any text-book would show that there was a world of difference between the two.¹ Athens in the 5th century had the most refined form of democracy possible in ancient times,² and Rome knew no true democracy, at best it had an oligarchy.³

c6.s2.36

¹ ^1 *Cf.* Larsen, *op. cit.*, pp. 1-46; L. Whibley, *Greek Oligarchies*, pp. 83ff; Glover, *op. cit.*

c6.s2.37

² ^2 Glover, *op. cit.*, chap. iii, "The Age of Pericles", pp. 49ff.

c6.s2.38

³ ^3 Larsen, *op. cit.*, p. 4. "In Rome ...democracy had much less chance because the votes were always taken by voting units and this made it possible to favour certain elements in the population. Thus, propertied classes were favoured in the Comitia Centuriata." *Cp.* T. M. Taylor, *A Constitutional and Political History of Rome*, p. 229.

c6.s2.39

The works of nationalist historians contain constitutional terms like parliament, bicameral legislature, popular democracy, proportional representation, executive, cabinet, popular assembly, prime minister, portfolios, chancellor of the exchequer, etc.⁴ These are a few of the inaccurate and annoying terms frequently employed by noted historians to describe the political institutions of the "Hindu period." Our investigations suggest that none of these terms can be applicable even to the most successful experiments of democracy carried out in Athens,⁵ far less to the Indian, Roman or German republics.

c6.s2.40

⁴ ^4 *Cf.* Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, pp. 72ff; Bhandarkar, *Car. Lecs.*, pp. 151ff; Altekar, *State and Government*, pp. 134ff, 377ff; K. P. Mukerji, *op. cit.*, pp. 18-28.

c6.s2.41

⁵ ^5 *Cf.* Zimmern, *op. cit.*, pp. 160ff.

c6.s2.42

Keeping these points in view, and depending entirely on the early literary, inscriptional and numismatic evidence, our observations lead us to suggest that the *gaṇa* or the *saṅgha* was a republican or quasi-republican form of government in which the supreme power of the state was vested in a considerable portion of the population so qualified only on account of their birth, property or merit.⁶ The supreme power was exercised by a few of these *rājās*, elected from amongst themselves and more or less responsible to the qualified body, who deliberated and took, in consultation with the latter, decisions that were binding on the entire population within their territory. The rulers derived their power, not from an individual, human or divine, above them, but from the qualified multitude, below. In short, it was a "government by discussion."¹

c6.s2.43

⁶ ^6 *Cp.* Taylor, *op. cit.*, pp. 41ff.

c6.s2.44

¹ *Cp.* Larsen, *op. cit.*, pp. 5ff.

c6.s2.45

Our analysis of the Vedic texts reveals that there were at least four different forms of "government by discussion" in the early Vedic period (c. 1500 to c. 1000 B.C.).² On the other hand, the evidence of the Buddhist and Jaina texts, Pāṇini's *Aṣṭādhyāyī* and Kauṭilya's *Arthaśāstra*, combine to attest to the existence of a number of republican states³ (from c. 600 to c. 480 B.C.).⁴ The classical historians record yet a larger number of republics and aristocracies which Alexander faced in various parts of north-western India, Panjab and Sind during the latter half of the 4th century B.C.,⁵ while the *Mahābhārata*, and certain coins⁶ and inscriptions prove that republics flourished in western India even later. The mention of some republican ethnic groups in the Allahabad Pillar Inscription of Samudra Gupta⁷ appears to show that these republics had somehow managed to retain their system of government even during the reign of the mightiest Gupta conqueror, just as in Greece republicanism and federal government outlived Alexander the Great.⁸

c6.s2.46

² See below, pp. 15ff; *cp.* G. Landtman, *Origin of the Inequality of the Social Classes*, pp. 309-16.

c6.s2.47

³ *Cp.* C. V. R. Rao, *Modern Review*, Oct. 1959, 106, pp. 276-86.

c6.s2.48

⁴ *Cf.* A. L. Basham, *History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas*, pp. 67-105.

c6.s2.49

⁵ *Cf.* J. W. McCrindle, *Ancient India, Its Invasion by Alexander the Great*.

c6.s2.50

⁶ *Cf.* J. Allan, *Catalogue of the Coins of Ancient India*; V. A. Smith, *Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum*, i.

c6.s2.51

⁷ Fleet, *CII*, iii, p. 8, line 22, *Mālava-Ārjunāyana-Yaudheya, Mādraka-Ābhīras-Prārjuna-Sanakānīka-Kāka-Kharaparika-ādibhiścha. . .*

c6.s2.52

⁸ *Cf.* Larsen, *op. cit.*, pp. 158ff.

c6.s2.53

Thus, the inscriptions and numismatic data suggest that it was not at the hands of the powerful Indian kings like Rūdradāman and Samudra Gupta that the western republics suffered their fatal blow, but rather that it was partly because of some inherent weakness of Indian republicanism,⁹ and partly due to foreign rulers like Toramāṇa and Mihirakula.¹⁰

c6.s2.54

⁹ *Cf.* below, Conclusion, pp. 237ff.

c6.s2.55

¹⁰ For details of these two kings, *cf.* Fleet, *CII*, iii, Introduction, pp. 10-12.

c6.s2.56

Ideally, all these republics should have been treated in one volume and we started our research with this in mind. But there is enough to be said about these republics to fill two books of reasonable size. Therefore, we have confined ourselves to the governments by discussion in the early Vedic and the Buddhist periods alone. The subject matter of our study, then is: the problems connected with the constitutional development of Vedic institutions, the question whether or not the Vedic monarchy was elective, the manner in which the Vedic aristocracies were organized, the relationship between the Vedic and the northeastern republics, the controversial issue whether or not the *vidatha* was the earliest folk-assembly of the Indo-Aryans, the method by which the northeastern republics were administered, the constant struggle that went on between the republicanists and the monarchists, what wrought the fall of the republics, and some other allied topics of historical importance.

Linked texts (9)