Local government is where the rubber hits the road, addressing immediate community needs and ensuring effective service delivery, infrastructure development, and responsive governance, all essential for a well-functioning democratic system. This article explores local governance and its role in building social capital and survival in ancient India.
Indian institutions are the key to her survival despite brutal onslaughts over time. Many in the social sciences consider this a paradox of sorts. Mookerji (1920) has done a profound job of explaining this paradoxical phenomenon in his works based on ancient Indian decentralized systems and their functions in acting as a fabric that held society and culture in place. Below are the main points from his thesis and explanations as we understand the ‘how’ and ‘why’ points of survival in contemporary times. Though he did not utilize “Indology” or “indicism,” the arguments will be examined using the Indicism lens, which examines culture and governance from a pre-colonial, native perspective. Mookerji’s work is an argument utilizing the Indic lens.
Studying ancient Indian local self-governing institutions is of great historical and practical significance, especially for Indologists and those who care to interpret historical phenomena as they occurred. The historical accounts mentioned in Mookerji’s work, ‘Local Government in Ancient India,’ demonstrate that the local self-governing institutions were essential for preserving and promoting Indian culture and civilization, even under foreign rule, by providing a means of self-preservation and self-expression for the society. The local institutions of ancient India represented a unique form of self-government with a built-in survival process irrespective of regime changes at the top. They exhibited democratic principles that differed from the rudimentary tribal governance seen in primitive societies and Western systems of government. The above is the main argument in Mookerji (1920). One needs to understand history in order to craft the future better. His work on effective local governance emphasizes the importance of combining both top-down and bottom-up approaches in modern administrative reform, emphasizing that local self-government remains a vital element of governance in India, promoting efficiency, political engagement, social service, and societal progress.
From a comparative angle, the prominent characteristic of ancient Hindu civilization is the significant development of communal life it displays, a life that is different from Western societies and their development. This development was achieved to varying degrees in various aspects of life within India, including religion, education, politics, community welfare, and economics. In each domain, organizations evolved based on democratic or popular principles to serve the broader national interests. A comprehensive portrayal of Hindu culture in all dimensions should consider these diverse expressions of communal life and the numerous instances of the democratic ideal embodied within that culture. This write-up explores one specific facet of this development: the operation of the democratic principle in local governance. It should be noted that the terms “democratic” and “decentralization” here should be understood from the Indiciam perspective and not just mere dictionary or political science definitions exclusive to the West. These aspects will be discussed in depth below.
The subject of Local Self-Government in ancient India holds historical and practical significance, which was based on 1) parallel systems of governance between existing local communities which predated the idea of a state, 2) the efficient functionality of castes and their role in building up social capital and effective governance in society across ancient Bharat. This importance is attributed in large part to India’s intricate system of local administration, which has played a crucial role in preserving the identity, independence, and unique cultural heritage of the Hindu polity. Even in the face of world-altering political upheavals that frequently marked its history, this local governance system has been instrumental in safeguarding the rich tapestry of Hindu culture and its individuality despite imperialism and invasions.
The East and the West, in Comparison
In the West, the prevailing inclination has been towards a progressively expanding state intervention and top-down control, aiming to encompass all significant facets of social life and national activities. This goal, along with the real and/or perceived separation of state from church, is a phenomenon not observed in ancient India. The objective in the West has been to attain complete nationalization or socialization of all aspects of life. Consequently, the Western state, initially an agent of society, evolves into its master and representative, with society eventually becoming subsumed by the state, relinquishing its independent existence. In contrast, in ancient India, the king held a prominent position within the state but not within society. He symbolized the state from a distance, with minimal direct engagement in the daily life of the people, which the bottom-level social organization primarily governed. The points of intersection between the state and the routine interests of the populace were based on mutual trust and, therefore, quite limited.
It is important to emphasize that highlighting this contrast between Indian and Western political tendencies does not imply that Western administrations in modern times entirely exclude local self-government or lack room for autonomous local and municipal bodies. Such an assumption would run contrary to the nature of governance, as it is physically unfeasible to efficiently manage the diverse concerns of civilized life in larger modern states solely from a central government. When examining Western countries, it was conducted locally, be it in villages, parishes, communes, municipalities, counties, or districts. These local administrations were responsible for addressing the needs and interests of the people in these areas. In Western nations, local bodies allocate substantial resources, undertake various initiatives, employ numerous officials, and engage in extensive legislative activities, contributing significantly to the governance landscape. However, these Western local government organizations are primarily products of the central government. Their present form and structure owe their existence to a process of decentralization, delegation, or devolution of authority determined by the national legislature. In the ultimate analysis, these local bodies function as components of a single system, parts of a unified structure. They are not “extra-legal” entities lacking any legal authorization and, thus, devoid of any legal authority. The nature of ancient Indian institutions essentially differs from the central government, having distinct origins and functions.
Regarding the development of local self-government in India, the Indian institutions are essentially unique regarding decentralization, representing a type distinct from the institutions in contemporary democratic politics. The fundamental distinction lies in that the state consciously established autonomous centers within itself through devolution and delineating its functions. The communal institutions, Mathaas and monasteries, caste-based and industry-related guilds, and local bodies in ancient India have their roots in fluid and nascent conditions of tribal life and organization. When the state eventually emerges or is superimposed upon them, it interacts with them on relatively equal terms. It acknowledged their pre-existing rights through conventions and agreements that serve as charters governing their mutual relationships. Consequently, the diverse aspects of communal life, including administrative, judicial, civic, commercial, and industrial dimensions, were secured through the voluntary cooperation of independent and integral units within a standard body politic.
Union of Village Communities in Ancient India
The existence of self-governed institutions and entities at the bottom level, which worked in conjunction with the state, is one of the primary reasons why the Hindu polity survived and, in many instances, thrived. This setup provided a preservation mechanism in which the polity safely protected the vital element of Hindu civilization against the overwhelming political deluges that swept over the country occasionally. As Birdwood (1884) observes, India has witnessed many religious and political upheavals throughout history. Despite this tumultuous past, the village communities have managed to maintain their robust municipal structure across the entire subcontinent. Invasions and dominations by various groups, including Scythians, Greeks, Saracens, Afghans, and Mongols from the mountains, as well as the Portuguese, Dutch, English, French, and Danes arriving by sea, have all left their mark on the land. However, the resilience of what is known as religious trade unions at the village level has proven remarkable, remaining largely untouched by the ebb and flow of external powers, much like a steadfast rock enduring the rise and fall of the tide. This argument suggests that the bottom-level structures were long-existing, intact, and remained untouched by the systemic changes introduced at the state level due to conquests. The heads of Mathaas mainly governed the local levels, poorly translated as monasteries, which could be understood as nodes of a network at the local level where a head of the Mathaa, a Guru, or a Priest had an established system of governance along with the onus of providing education as well as implementing law and imparting justice and upholding dharma as per relevance of the times. The head of the Mathaa, best described as a Guru or a teacher, was trusted by the king and also employed in the king’s court in order to serve as a guide on political and religious governance in the kingdom. Mathaas were centers of learning – philosophy, history, self-defense, and the art of governance. The caste-based guilds, as well as other networks that allowed cohesiveness in society, thus remained intact and contributed to the continuity of existence.
The pattern described resembles an observation by Metcalfe (1855), who noted that village communities in India function like self-contained republics, maintaining most of their needs internally and exhibiting a significant degree of independence from external influences. While dynasties have come and gone, and revolutions have swept through the country, these village communities have remained remarkably resilient and unchanged over time. The union of the village communities, each one forming a separate little state in itself, has contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the peoples of India through all the revolutions and changes which they have suffered and is, in a high degree conducive to their happiness, and to the enjoyment of a significant portion of freedom and independence. This pattern of cohesiveness served as a high-functioning network, safeguarding the essential elements of Hindu civilization.
Parallel Governance of State and Society
India’s distinctive historical context offers a remarkable phenomenon wherein the state and society existed alongside each other, possessing a certain degree of independence from one another. They functioned as distinct and autonomous entities with clearly defined structures, functions, and evolutionary principles. The boundaries of state intervention were meticulously delineated, avoiding encroachment into the domain of social organization. Non-interference understood as decentralization, also relevant as parallel governance, was the preferred policy of the state, with its primary responsibilities limited to safeguarding life, property, and revenue collection for executing these duties. There existed a well-defined demarcation between the political and social organizations, both serving as cooperative agents for advancing the common good. This type of governance or decentralization was observed in ancient and medieval India. This ‘decentralization,’ as understood by the Indic lens, is a unique and dominant characteristic of ancient Indian politics that contrasts sharply with the prevalent trend in European or Western politics and the ideas of the functions of the church and state.
The above characterization of ancient India’s local government system and the relationship between the state and society as independent organizations and centers of national life sheds light on the intriguing phenomenon of the few empires in early Indian history governing vast and diverse territories, including on two occasions, territories larger than British India, spanning the Indian subcontinent. It is challenging to fathom how it was physically possible to administer such vast regions, especially considering the limited communication aspects of those times. Nevertheless, historical records attest to the existence and expansion of governance and authority.
It is crucial to recognize that ancient India was not solely a land of wilderness and desolation; it was a land characterized by abundant agriculture, flourishing trade, numerous arts and crafts, well-maintained roads and trade routes, complete with wells and rest-houses, shaded groves, fruit-bearing trees at regular intervals, and thriving cities. However, more than these material factors, while significant, are needed to explain how the governance of empires of such colossal dimensions was possible. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of this perplexing decentralized phenomenon, it is necessary to look beyond the material and objective aspects and consider the subjective and spiritual dimensions of the situation. Human ingenuity is meant to overcome the challenges posed by the natural environment. Thus, the Mauryan empire’s ability to govern extensive territories was not solely due to material and objective factors but also because of practical human statesmanship and the evolution of an administrative system that emphasized extensive decentralization and the empowerment of local government. This approach allowed numerous bottom-up self-governing centers to address the administrative needs of a vast territory irrespective of changes at the top.
Independence of Society from State
It is important to note that this efficient administrative structure was not primarily the creation of the new empire-builders. This administrative machinery was already in existence primarily thanks to governance provided by the Mathaas, serving its purposes adequately, and it had endured for centuries, withstanding political revolutions and changes in ruling dynasties. This continuity embedded in local machinery catered to the routine needs of national life within the deeper layers of society, remaining unaffected by the political currents that affected the upper strata and changes in ruling dynasties. It continually preserved the essential elements of the culture of the people. This administrative machinery facilitated the path for emperors, whose primary tasks involved securing their reign, winning battles, maintaining authority, and adapting pre-existing administrative institutions to meet the demands of the changing times. Mookerji argues that even the most illustrious Indian emperors introduced only a few administrative innovations. The core of the matter lies in the fact that just as the separation of society from the state has been a critical method of self-preservation when the state experiences political upheaval, the autonomous development of local government has offered a sanctuary for the national culture during turbulent political times, this system significantly lightened the burden of a new administration. Consequently, the mere addition of territory did not significantly increase its challenges.
The Mauryan empire’s administration was feasible because it did not seek to establish a centralized government that legislated for and controlled every aspect of the vast whole. Instead, it aimed for an adaptable system of federalism or confederation, wherein the indigenous local administrations were incorporated into the same system alongside the central government at the metropolis. The essence of this governance system lay in recognizing local autonomy at the expense of central government authority, which, due to physical constraints, could only assert itself through its association with the pre-existing local government system.
Likewise, the presence of a system of social self-government, which operated practically independently of ruling powers and remained unaffected by the uncertainties faced by those powers, can explain the remarkable fact that, even during the turbulent period under the rule of the Islamic kings, Hindu India demonstrated considerable progress in material, intellectual, and moral domains. Hindu India could maintain its customary way of life and continue its regular intellectual and spiritual advancements within its socio-economic framework, where the Islamic rulers held no sway. These foreign rulers may have controlled the political capital, but they were limited to the outskirts of India’s true cultural center. Thus, the so-called Islamic era in Indian history can be seen as a period marked by considerable individual and local independence, which contributed to the uninterrupted course of the country’s normal development. In this context, it is essential to note that the Islamic period did not have the physical conditions required for the formation and dissemination of public opinion, except among those who could gather to discuss public matters. As a result, even during this time, there were only forms of popular government within city communities, owing to the absence of the necessary conditions for widespread authority implementation and the propagation of public opinion. This phenomenon was because the machinery of authority was not sufficiently developed to enforce orders over vast territories. Rulers mainly depended on voluntary allegiance for the obedience of their armies, and there were no means to extract taxes sufficient to maintain the force needed to enforce obedience throughout large territories.
The unbroken current of cultural vitality within the subcontinent is evident from numerous intellectual and religious movements, as well as the emergence of notable figures in both the realms of thought and action during this era. According to Mookerji’s research, in the eighth century, the distinguished Brahmin scholar and reformer Kumarila played a significant role in reorienting diverse groups to the more superficial Vedic religious rituals and ceremonies amidst the confusion and distortions brought about by numerous sects. The ninth century, on the other hand, is renowned for another prominent figure from South India, Sankaracharya, a profound Sanskrit scholar, a prolific writer, an eloquent preacher, and a significant religious reformer and organizer. Sankaracharya’s extensive travels across India, during his spiritual mission called “digvijaya,” contributed to establishing Hinduism with a solid philosophical foundation and certain new elements that enabled it to regain its position as the dominant and popular religion in India. This era also witnessed the ascendancy of the Rajputs and Marathas in the later centuries, further strengthening the fabric of Hinduism. The proliferation of sects and the resulting sectarian disputes during this period produced a substantial body of religious and philosophical literature, primarily in Sanskrit, with Saiva worshippers from Kashmir among the most prolific authors.
The intellectual history of these centuries is marked by the contributions of the Gurus and Mathaa heads to the state and kings who allowed them positions of power alongside them. Intellectuals include figures as Bhavabhuti, who served in the courts of Yasovarman of Kanauj and later Lalitaditya (around 730 AD); Magha (around 800 AD); Padmagupta (around 950 AD); Sri Harsha, author of “Naisadha” (around 1150 AD), who was a courtier of Jayachandra of Kanauj; Bhatta-Narayana (around 850 AD), associated with the Pala court in Bihar; Rajasekhara (around 900 AD), who was part of the Tomara court in Kanauj; Jayadeva (around 1100 AD) and the poets from Kashmir, including Somadeva, Kshemendra, and Bilhana from the twelfth century. Notable historical chronicler Kalhana, the author of “Rajatarangini,” also belonged to this era. In the eleventh century, Southern India experienced a significant Lingayat revival under Basava, followed by the Vaisnavite revival under Ramanuja in the twelfth century. This was further followed by the teachings of the great Brahmin teacher Madhava Purnaprajna in the Kanarese region, who passed away towards the end of the same century. In subsequent years, the growth of the Vijayanagara Empire became a center of political and literary life, epitomized by the famous Sayanacharyya and his school. A similar period saw the birth of Vedantadesikacharyya, a renowned Vaisnavite scholar and poet in southern India.
Furthermore, Northern India witnessed a parallel Vaisnavite revival due to the arrival of Ramananda and his disciple Kabir (1380-1420), who earned equal respect from both Hindus and Muslims. Bengal, under its Muslim rulers, also displayed remarkable literary and religious activity centered around Vaisnavism. In an interesting gesture, the ruler Nasir Shah (1282-1325) even commissioned the first Bengali translation of the Mahabharata, and the poet Vidyapati dedicated one of his poems to him.
During this period, significant cultural and intellectual developments occurred in various regions of India. Kirttivasa translated the Ramayana into Bengali, and Husain Shah commissioned Maladhar Basu to translate the Bhagavata Purana. At the same time, Vidyapati Thakur was composing Vaisnava songs in the Maithili dialect in Bihar. Chandidas was singing in Bengal, and Meera Bai was doing so in Mewar. It was in this conducive environment that two great religious leaders emerged, each founding an independent sect of Vaisnavism: Vallabha Acharyya, whose followers can still be found in Central India, Bombay, and Gujarat, and Sri Chaitanya of Navadvipa in Bengal (1485-1527). Sri Chaitanya was instrumental in triggering a profound intellectual and religious renaissance, revitalizing Vaisnavism. His teachings and enthusiasm had a profound impact, resulting in the emergence of numerous saints, singers, and a rich body of devotional literature.
Throughout this time, the vitality of Hindu culture and civilization remained steadfast, even as political upheavals and the advent of the Mughal monarchy loomed. Bengal, in particular, was a hub of creativity and religious activity. Not only did poets and religious figures flourish in poetry and religion, but legal scholars like Kulluka Bhatta also contributed to societal governance. During this period, essential smriti compilations, which encapsulated domestic and social norms, were produced, reflecting the society’s resilience under adverse political conditions. These compilations were authored by Madhavacharyya, Visvevara Bhatta, Chandevara, Vachaspati Misra, Acharyya Chudamani, Prataparudra, Raghunandana, and Kamalakara, and they helped shape Hindu social practices across different regions.
Under the rule of the Mughal monarchy, Brahmanism remained resilient, with its intellectual vitality intact, argues Mookerji. The reign of Muslim king Akbar witnessed a burst of native genius in literature, where luminaries such as Surdas and Tulsidas shone. Their works are considered to surpass that of Shakespeare and other Western contemporaries. The spiritual and religious sentiments expressed in the ecstatic poetry of Jayadeva found continuous expression through the mystics of the Middle Ages, including Vallabha, Mira Bai, Bidyapati, and others. Additionally, poets like Krishna Das and the blind bard Surdas during Akbar’s era contributed to this literary tradition. Furthermore, Tulsikrit-Ramayana, composed by Tulsidas, is considered the foundational scripture for the masses of Bharat. It offered them a guiding principle for dharmic daily conduct and effective existence in society.
The rise of Hindu India in the 15th and 16th centuries also demonstrates the nation’s progress and capacity to produce great intellectuals, further reinforcing the goal of life to be knowledge acquisition irrespective of who was in power. In 1469, Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, was born. By the time of the fifth Guru, Arjuna (1581-1606), when the Adi Granth became the scriptures for the Sikh community, Sikhism had spread among the Jat population of the Punjab and alarmed the Mughal rulers. The execution of Guru Arjuna did not deter the Sikh faith but fueled the determination of his followers. Guru Har Govind (1606-1638) rallied Sikh disciples to take up arms against those responsible for his father’s murder and extorted the local governors of Emperor Shah Jahan. The ninth Guru, Teg Bahadur (1664-1675), endured brutal torture along with some Brahmins in Delhi, but this only solidified the Sikhs’ resolve to wage a religious war against Islam in India, overthrow Muslim political authority, and establish a new empire in its place. The tenth Guru, Govind Singh, took steps to form a new empire. He sought the assistance of Benares Brahmins, invoked the Goddess Durga, and initiated himself and his followers as members of the Khalsa, a community dedicated to the Guru. The emergence of Sikhism and Sikh power is an extraordinary example of the continued vitality and productivity of the Indian subcontinent, even under the challenging circumstances of foreign domination.
Lastly, another notable example of indigenous growth and political vitality can be observed in the rise of Maratha power, which was partly a response to the harrowing and narrow-minded policies of Aurangzeb. Interestingly, during the zenith of oppressive Muslim rule, Hindu India demonstrated its resilience and devised innovative ways to resist subjugation. Aurangzeb’s disdain for Shivaji, derogatively referred to as “the mountain rat,” rallied the masses around the saffron flag and allowed Shivaji to mobilize the Maratha peasantry into a formidable military force. They were driven by religious fervor and a deep-seated animosity towards the cruelty of Islam, enabling them to exact tribute equivalent to one-fourth of the revenue, extending as far as the English factory in Surat, Gujarat, which had to construct a defensive ditch around Calcutta to protect against Maratha raids.
It is essential to recognize that this Hindu political power, like many aspects of Hindu society, had a spiritual underpinning and mission. Shivaji’s spiritual mentor was the Brahman Ramadas, to whom he offered his wealth and kingdom, accepting them back as a gift from his Guru, whom he always regarded as his master. This partnership is reminiscent of the historical evidence and texts about the effectiveness of the priest-king rule of the Indus-Saraswati Civilization. Consequently, the Maratha national flag was the saffron-colored cloth worn by Sannyasis. Another influential spiritual leader was the Sudra poet Tukarama, whose asceticism, preaching, and singing awakened the dormant spirit of the Maratha nation. He instilled in them a faith worth living and dying for, based on devotion to Lord Krishna as the sole path to salvation. For whatever reason, indologists have failed to examine these unique phenomena in ancient India. Frazer (1907) argues that observers often overlook the considerable strength of this religious drive when assessing Indian life.
Conclusion
A historical study of ancient Indian local institutions sheds light not only on the early political governance but also on the fundamental aspects of ancient Hindu culture and civilization. Contrary to the common perception of tradition and authority dominating early Hindu society, a substantial element of Indic decentralization is embedded in the Indian social system. These native ideals differ from Western ideals and find expression through various institutions, reflecting collective solid or communal values and intuitions among the people. These values coexist with a degree of restraint on aggressive individualism and an acute sense of property rights. Indian society preserves a blend of individual and collective values, fostering social solidarity that functions parallel to the state.
One may argue that these democratic institutions, like ancient Indian village communities, are mere survivals or extensions of tribal communism. However, it is crucial to understand the fundamental differences between them. Ancient Indian local institutions have evolved into differentiated structures and functions, distinct from the rudimentary tribal self-governance seen in primitive societies. The Indian systems represent a unique type, marked by developed structures and specific functions, unlike tribal institutions, which tend to revert to their original form over time. Therefore, when studying ancient Indian local institutions, we must guard against preconceived notions and misconceptions rooted in the history of tribal evolution. The Indian systems reflect their native development trajectory and should not be confused with the initial stages of tribal self-government, typical of Western primitive societies.
In summary, this brief overview of the intellectual and spiritual progress in Hindu India, even under the challenges of foreign rule, stresses the role of a self-sustaining organizational system that remained impervious to external political powers. It preserved and promoted the culture of the Hindu civilization through indigenous institutions that covered various aspects of national life, including economic, educational, social, and religious spheres. This decentralization allowed the race’s genius to thrive, unfazed by the threats of stifling external influence, and enabled Hindu culture and civilization to endure over the ages, overcoming the effects of alien rulers and political environments—a testament to the resilience and enduring strength of Hindu India’s unique institutions. The subject of local self-governance in ancient India, in addition to its historical significance, holds practical relevance today. In contemporary India, there are two competing schools of thought advocating distinct principles of administrative reform. One seeks to introduce self-government “from above,” while the other emphasizes “from below.” From an indicism perspective, the optimal approach likely involves balancing both principles. However, it is worth noting that any form of provincial or central government organized solely “from above,” no matter how mechanically efficient, will struggle to establish deep roots and vital force as long as societal institutions function. Without these, it risks becoming a lifeless bureaucracy that impedes national development. It is crucial to integrate such top-down systems with the natural and spontaneous associations of the people, as exemplified by their local self-governing institutions, which serve as the foundational elements of all governance.
Studying ancient Indian local institutions is valuable for cultivating good leaders, and we owe thanks to authors such as Mookerji (1920) for capturing the pivotal role of local governance as seen in ancient times. The present government should continue to utilize and develop the remnants of indigenous local governance, empowering and aligning them with modern needs. To the people, this development fosters national self-respect and respect for institutions that, through appropriate social structures, are capable of effectively managing schools, religious sites, healthcare, sanitation, public works, and local conflict resolution. Local government is not only a key driver of efficiency for most people but also a vital training ground for political engagement, especially for those who cannot participate in provincial or central governance. Moreover, it is pivotal in social service and contributes significantly to societal progress.
References:
Birdwood, G. C. M. (1884). The industrial arts of India (Vol. 3).
Frazer, R. W. (1907). A Literary History of India. TF Unwin.
Metcalfe, C. T. M. B. (1855). Selections from the Papers of Lord Metcalfe: Late Governor-general of India, Governor of Jamaica, and Governor-general of Canada. London: Smith, Elder.
Mookerji, R. (1920). Local government in ancient India. Oxford University Press.