Democracies That Divide vs Democracies That Unite: Justice Markandey Katju on Ancient Indian Republics and Modern Democracy
How Ancient Indian Republics Fostered Unity Unlike Modern Electoral Democracy
Justice Markandey Katju: Why India Needs a Democracy That Unites Rather Than Divides
Description
Was ancient India home to stronger democratic traditions than modern India? In this thought-provoking essay, Justice Markandey Katju argues that contemporary parliamentary democracy has become dependent on caste and religious vote-bank politics, deepening social divisions. Drawing on Buddhist texts, Panini's Ashtadhyayi, Kautilya's Arthashastra, Greek historical accounts, and the Mahabharata, he examines how ancient Indian republics (Ganas and Sanghas) emphasized collective decision-making, public assemblies, and social unity. The article explores the historical roots of Indian democracy, the decline of republican traditions, and why national unity remains essential for economic development, industrialization, and social progress.
Democracies that divide and those that unite
By Justice Markandey Katju
Democracy sounds as a pleasant, rosy word. It was defined by former US President Abraham Lincoln as government by the people, for the people, and of the people.
But there are democracies which divide the people, and those which unite them. The democracy established by the Constitution of India, 1950, and as practised today in India, divides our people, as it runs largely on the basis of caste and religion in most parts of India ( as everyone living in India knows ). Our political leaders, of all parties, rely on caste and communal vote banks to win elections, and for this they polarise society and incite caste and communal hatred among our people. Casteism and communalism are feudal forces which must be destroyed if India is to progress, but parliamentary democracy, as practised in India, further entrenches and fortifies them, because it runs largely on their basis. This keeps us weak and backward. So how can it be called a good thing ?
But there are also democracies which unite, and consequently strengthen the people and make them prosperous, as those practised in large parts of ancient India. It is these we need to understand and emulate.
There are many references to such democracies in several accounts.
https://livehistoryindia.com/story/eras/gana-sangha-democratic-rule-of-ancient-india
Thus, in the Avadana Shataka, a Sanskrit Buddhist text of the second century A.D. it is mentioned that a group of merchants from North India went to the Deccan, and were asked by the King of the Deccan as to who was the King who ruled over North India. The merchants replied :
'' Dev, kechit desha ganaadheenah, kechit rajaadheenah, iti ''
( which means : "Your Majesty, some areas have democratic governments, while others are under kings").
The accounts of such democracies in ancient India are in (1) external sources, e.g. writings of Greek and Roman historians (2) internal sources, which are in Sanskrit and Pali
1. External sources
These are the Anabasis of Alexander by the Greek historian Arrian, the writings of the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, and of the Greek, and later Roman, historian Plutarch, and the writings of the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, etc.
These external sources begin their accounts of democracies in ancient India with the invasion of northwestern India by Alexander the Great in 326 B.C.
They mention that the fiercest resistance to Alexander's army, which caused him huge casualties, was by the democratic republics, e.g. the Malloi, the Assakenoi, etc. These republics could strongly oppose Alexander because they were united under their democratic governments, much like the Iroquoi confederacy in northeast America ( see Lewis H Morgan's book 'Ancient Society' )
Greek historians who wrote on Alexander's invasion—such as Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, and Plutarch—documented several of these sovereign, democratic republics across modern-day Punjab, Pakistan, and Rajasthan. Thus, Onesicritus, who accompanied Alexander's army, writes “In India, they are not ruled by kings alone. There are assemblies, which make decisions on behalf of the people.”
2. Internal sources
Though evidence for non-monarchical government goes back to the Vedas, republican polities were most common and vigorous in the Buddhist period, 600 B.C.-A.D. 200.
There are numerous accounts in Sanskrit and Pali of democracies in ancient India.
We had democratic Governments in India in very ancient times, even before Alexander's invasion. Thus, in the Buddhist text 'Maha Parinirvana Sutra ', it is mentioned that when King Ajaatashatru of Magadha was planning to attack the Vajjian democracy, he sent a messenger to the Buddha for his opinion. Instead of speaking to this messenger, the Buddha said to one of his disciples " Have you heard, Ananda, that the Vajjians foregather often and frequent the public meetings of their clan? So long as Ananda, as the Vajjians so foregather, and so frequent, the public meetings of their clan, so long they may be expected not to decline, but to prosper." In other words, the Buddha said that the Vajjians, who had a democratic form of government with no king, could not be destroyed because they were united.
Ancient India had vibrant democratic and republican traditions long before the modern era. Even before the time of the Buddha ( about 600 B.C. ), representative self-governance thrived through democratic republics ( ganas ) like the Licchavis, Vajjis, Mallas, and Shakyas, where decisions were made by debate and voting in public assemblies, predating even classical Greek democracy. Long before the concept of democracy became formalised in Western countries, India was a land where democratic principles were deeply embedded in the fabric of governance.
Rulers were chosen by election rather than hereditary succession. The community of residents of the land would elect councils of representatives to govern these republics or Ganasanghas. Collective decision-making, pinned on debate and discussion, was the pillar of governance.
The Vajji confederacy, in particular, is noted for its democratic traditions. The Buddhist text, Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta, refers to the Vajjis as a model republic with a strong sense of community governance. The text praises the Vajjis for their democratic practices, which included regular assemblies, consensus-based decision-making, and equitable representation of people. The Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta cites a conversation ( abovementioned ) between the Buddha and his cousin and disciple, Ananda, where the Buddha laid down seven conditions of welfare that the Vajjis were expected to adhere to: holding full and frequent assemblies, taking and implementing decisions in concord, preserving institutions, honouring elders, protecting women, conserving shrines, and supporting the enlightened.
Another fascinating anecdote is the election of the head of the Shakya clan. The Shakyas practiced a form of democracy where the leader, or Raja, was elected by the assembly of elders. The election involved a process of intense debate and discussion, ensuring that the leader was chosen based on the people’s will, and was not a mere formality.
The Buddhist scriptures in Pali, which describe the state of Gangetic plains during the 6th and 5th centuries BC, the great grammarian Panini’s Sanskrit classic Ashtadhyayi, which discusses entire north India, focusing on the northwest during the 6th century, and Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which got shape during the 4th century BC, i.e., almost contemporary to Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador of Seleucus Nicator, these three indigenous sources enable us to independently identify various ganas and sanghas, some minor, while some large and powerful.
Dwelling at length on these republican polities, Panini informs us that “ states and regions in north India were established in his time by a specific group of people, who continued to hold sway on the polity of that area.” Some of these communities were ruled by a king, who was of one of their own kinsmen and who was dependent on their support. However, in the case of many other communities, states which Panini calls janapads were organized as republics.
The gathering of the members of a sovereign gana or sangha worked together with each other as present-day members of a legislature. Both the Brahminical and Buddhist literature provide details about the working of these ancient legislatures. Panini, writing in the 6th century BC, explicitly mentions about the process of decision-making in these democratic republics. He mentions various terms for voting, decision-making through voting, and the requirement for a quorum. Panini also mentions that sometimes a smaller group of selected people within a gana or sangha were given special functions, e.g. acting as the chief functionary or probably as a select committee for some specific purpose.
Panini indicates that these republics functioned on an egalitarian basis during the 6th century BC, and he mentions that “there was no consideration of high and low.” Kautilya’s Arthashastra specifies that ganas were an important factor in the polity of his time.
Valmiki's Ramayan mentions that when Ayodhya's king Dasharath was old, he wanted to nominate his eldest son Ram as his successor, but before doing so invited the people of Ayodhya for their opinion. This shows that there was a custom at that time for the king to take the opinion of the people before nominating his successor, and kingship could not devolve by heredity alone. This also indicates that there was a democratic element in governance at that time.
Today it is our disunity, fostered by the type of democracy we have today, which is preventing us from emerging as a modern industrial giant like China and becoming a powerful, prosperous country, with our people enjoying a high standard of living. We are badly divided on the basis of religion, caste, ethnicity, etc, which keeps us poor, backward and weak. Unless we are united, like our ancient republics, we will never be able to rapidly industrialise and abolish poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, lack of proper healthcare and good education and the other evils which plague us today.
In the Shantiparva of Mahabharat (Ch 107/108, shlok 14) Bheeshma Pitamah tells Yudhishthir:
''भेदे गणाः विनश्यन्ति भिन्नास्तु सजाया: पराः
तस्मात् संघातयेंन प्रयतरेण गणाः सदा''
i.e.
"Republics have been destroyed only because of internal divisions among its people.
Hence, a Republic should always strive to achieve unity and good relations among its people ".
This shloka also demonstrates that at one time we had democratic governments ( ganas ) in ancient India, which were prosperous and powerful because of unity among their people, but which later perished because of disunity.
We were conquered by foreign invaders because we were disunited. Therefore, to become a strong and prosperous nation, we must become united, rising above caste, communal and racial barriers, like our ancient republics. We need a democracy which unites our people, instead of the one which we have today, which disunites us.
(Justice Markandey Katju is a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, and former Chairman of the Press Council of India. The views expressed are his own.)
FAQ
What is the main argument of Justice Markandey Katju in this article?
Justice Markandey Katju argues that modern Indian democracy often reinforces caste and religious divisions, whereas ancient Indian republics promoted unity through collective governance and participatory decision-making.
Did ancient India have democratic republics?
According to historical sources cited in the article—including Buddhist texts, Panini's Ashtadhyayi, Kautilya's Arthashastra, and Greek historians—ancient India had several republican states known as Ganas and Sanghas where decisions were made through assemblies and voting.
Why does the article compare ancient and modern democracy?
The comparison is used to argue that democratic systems should strengthen social cohesion. The author contends that ancient republican traditions encouraged unity, while modern electoral politics often incentivizes caste and communal polarization.
Which ancient Indian republics are discussed?
The article references the Vajjis, Licchavis, Mallas, Shakyas, Malloi, and Assakenoi, among others, as examples of republican or democratic polities.
What historical sources support the existence of ancient Indian democracies?
The article cites the Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta, Avadana Shataka, Panini's Ashtadhyayi, Kautilya's Arthashastra, and the writings of Greek historians such as Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius Rufus.
