"Serbia." Speech delivered at the Serbian
Lunch (Savoy Hotel), August 8, 1917.
Before we take up the report of the Secretary for India and the Viceroy
we intend to clear the ground by briefly meeting the almost universal
impression that prevails in educated circles in the West, that
democratic institutions are foreign to the genius of the Asiatic peoples
and have never been known in India before. The latest statement to this
effect was made by Mr. Reginald Coupland of the _Round Table Quarterly_,
in an article he contributed to the _New Republic_ (September 7, 1918)
on "Responsible Government in India." We have neither the time nor the
desire to go into the question as it relates to other Asiatic countries,
though we might state, in general terms, that an impartial study of
Asiatic history will disclose that in the centuries preceding the
Reformation in Europe, Asia was as democratic or undemocratic as Europe.
Since then democracy has developed on modern lines in Europe. While Asia
has gradually disintegrated and fallen under foreign domination, Europe
has progressed towards democracy. As regards India, however, we intend
to refer briefly to what historical evidence is available.
Firstly, we wish to make clear what we understand by "democracy." There
is no desire to enter into an academic discussion of the subject nor to
burden this book with quotations from eminent thinkers and writers. In
our judgment, the best definition of democracy so far has been furnished
by Abraham Lincoln, viz., "the government of the people, by the people
and for the people," regardless of the process or processes by which
that government is constituted. One must, however, be clear minded as to
what is meant by "the people." Does the expression include all the
people that inhabit the particular territory to which the expression
applies, regardless of sex, creed, color and race, or does it not? If it
does, we are afraid there is little democracy even in Europe and America
today. Until recently half of the population was denied all political
power in the State by virtue of sex. Of the other half a substantial
part was denied that right by virtue of economic status or, to be more
accurate, by lack of economic status considered necessary for the
exercise of political power. Even now the Southern States of the United
States, Amendment XV to the American Constitution notwithstanding,
effectively bar the colored people from the exercise of the franchise
supposed to have been accorded to them by the amendment. In Europe,
religious and social bars still exist in the constitutions of the
different states. As Great Britain is supposed to be the most democratic
country in Europe, we cannot do better than take the history of the
growth of public franchise in that country as the best illustration of
the growth of democracy in the terms of President Lincoln's formula.
Travelling backwards, the earliest democratic institutions known to
Europe were those of Greece and Rome. In applying the term "democratic"
to the city republics of Greece and Rome it is ignored that these
"republics" were in no sense democratic. "Liberty," says Putnam Weale,
"as it was understood in those two celebrated republics of Athens and
Sparta meant abject slavery to the vast mass of the population, slavery
every whit as cruel as any in the Southern States of the American Union
before the war of Liberation.... In neither of these two republics did
the freemen ever exceed twenty thousand, whilst the slaves ran into
hundreds of thousands, and were used just as the slaves of Asiatics were
used.[1] Thus the Greek republics were simply cities in which a certain
portion of the inhabitants, little qualified to exercise them, had
acquired exclusive privileges, while they kept the great body of their
brethren in a state of abject slavery."[2] Discussing the nature of
Roman citizenship Putnam Weale remarks (p. 25) that "in spite of the
polite fiction of citizenship, the destinies of scores of millions were
effectively disposed of by a few thousands." This was true not only with
regard to the outlying parts of the Empire but even as to Italy itself.
"Roman liberty," continues Putnam Weale, "though an improvement on Greek
conceptions, was like all liberty of antiquity confined really to those
who, being present in the capital, could take an active part in the
public deliberations. It was the liberty of city and not of a land. It
was therefore exactly similar in practise, if not in theory, to the kind
of liberty, which has always been understood in advanced Asiatic
states--the system of Government by equipoise and nothing else. The idea
of giving those who lived at a distance from the capital any means of
representing themselves was never considered at all; and so, it was the
populace of the capital (or only a part of it), aided by such force as
might be introduced by the contesting generals or leaders, which held
all the actual political power. _Representative Government_--the only
effective guarantee of liberty of any sort--_had therefore not yet been
dreamt of_." [The italics are ours.]
Alison in his _History of Europe_, Vol. I, says: "The states of
Florence, Genoa, Venice and Pisa were not in reality free; they were
communities _in which a few individuals had usurped_ the rights, and
disposed of the fortunes, of the great bulk _of their fellow citizens,
whom they governed as subjects or indeed as slaves_. During the most
flourishing period of their history, the citizens of all Italian
republics did not amount to 20,000, and these privileged classes held as
many million in subjection. The citizens of Venice were 2500 and those
of Genoa 4500, those of Pisa, Siena, Lucca and Florence taken together,
not above 6000." [Italics ours.] Coming to more modern times we find it
stated by Morse Stephens in his _History of Revolutionary Europe_ that
"the period which preceded the French Revolution and the era of war from
the troubles of which Modern Europe was to be born may be characterised
as that of the benevolent despots. The State was everything, the nation
nothing." Speaking of the eighteenth-century conditions in Europe,
Stephens remarks that "the great majority of the peasants of Europe were
throughout that century absolute serfs"; also that "the mass of the
population of Central and Eastern Europe was purely agricultural and in
its poverty expected naught but the bare necessaries of existence. The
cities and consequently the middle classes formed but an insignificant
factor in the population." These quotations reveal the real character of
the European democracy in ancient and mediæval and even in early modern
Europe up to the end of the eighteenth century, or, to be more accurate,
to the time of the French Revolution. Compare this with the following
facts about the political institutions of India, during the ancient and
mediæval times:
(1) First we have the testimony of ancient Brahmanic and Buddhistic
literature, preserved in their sacred books, about the right of the
people to elect their rulers; the duty of the rulers to obey _the law_
and their obligation to consult their ministers as well as the
representatives of the public in all important affairs of State.
The Vedic literature contains references to non-monarchial forms of
Government,[3] makes mention of elected rulers and of assemblies of
people, though the normal as distinguished from universal form of
Government according to Professor Macdonald was by Kings, "a situation
which, as in the case of the Aryan invaders of Greece and of the German
invaders of England, resulted almost necessarily in strengthening the
monarchic element of the constitution."[4]
In the _Aitreya Brahmana_ occur terms which are translated by some as
representing the existence of "self-governed" and "kingless" states.
These authorities have been collected, translated and explained by K. P.
Jayas Wal and Narendranath Law in a series of articles published in the
_Modern Review_ of Calcutta.
The _Mahabharata_, the great Hindu epic, makes mention of kingless
states or oligarchies. "In fact," says Mr. Banerjea, "all the Indian
nations of these times possessed popular institutions of some type or
other."[5]
Professor Rhys Davids has said, in his _Buddhist India_, that "the
earliest Buddhist records reveal the survival side by side with more or
less powerful monarchies, of republics with either complete or modified
independence." He names ten such republics in Northern India alone. In
regard to the system of Government effective within one of the tribes
that constituted a republic of their own, the same scholar observes:
"The administrative and judicial business of the clan was carried out in
public assembly, at which young and old were alike present in their
common Mote Hall. A single chief--how and for what period chosen we do
not know--was elected an officeholder, presiding over the sessions, or,
if there were no sessions, over the State. He bore the title of _Raja_,
which must have meant something like the Roman Consul or the Greek
Archon."[6] There is no evidence of the existence of slaves or serfs in
these communities. Evidently all were freemen.
(2) We have the evidence of Greek historians of the period who
accompanied Alexander in his Asiatic Campaign, or who, after Alexander's
death, represented Greek monarchs at the courts of Indian rulers. "Even
as late as the date of Alexander's invasion," says Mr. Banerjea, "many
of the nations of the Punjab lived under democratic institutions."
Speaking of one of them called Ambasthas (Sambastai), the Greek author
of _Ancient India_ says: "They lived in cities in which the democratic
form of Government prevailed." "Curtius," adds Mr. Banerjea, "mentions a
powerful Indian tribe, where the form of Government was democratic, and
not regal."[7] Similarly Arrian, another Greek writer, is quoted as
mentioning several other independent, self-governing tribal communities
who lived under democratic forms of government and bravely resisted the
advance of Alexander. One of them, when making submission to Alexander,
told him that "they were attached more than any others to freedom and
autonomy, and that their freedom they had preserved intact from the time
Dionysos came to India until Alexander's invasion."[8] There were some
others which had an aristocratic form of Government. In one of them
mentioned in _Ancient India_, "the administration was in the hands of
three hundred wise men."
Another Greek writer, Diodoros, speaks of _Patala_ as "a City of great
note with a political constitution drawn on the same lines as the
Spartan." It may safely be presumed that the Greek meant what he said.
Chanakya, the author of a great treatise on political science, mentions
many powerful oligarchies that existed down to the fourth century A. D.
In one of the inscriptions, said to be of the sixth century A. D., the
_Malavas_ are referred to as living under a republican form of
Government.[9]
(3) Even when kingship became an established institution the idea that
the King was only a servant of the people survived for a long time. His
"remuneration" was fixed at one-sixth of the produce. His subjects had
the right to depose him or to turn him out if he failed in his duty. The
authorities on these points are collected by Mr. Banerjea on pp. 72 and
73 of his book.
(4) Similarly many authorities are quoted by Mr. Banerjea on pp. 74 and
75 of his learned work showing that, according to Hindu ideals practised
in ancient times, the king was not above the law. He was not an
autocrat. He was as much bound by the law as his subjects. Laws were not
made by kings. "Legislation was not among the powers entrusted to a
king," says Mr. Banerjea. "There is no reference in early Vedic
literature to the exercise of legislative authority by the king, though
later it is an essential part of his duties," says Prof. Macdonell.[10]
(5) Assemblies and councils are quite frequently mentioned both in the
Rig and the Atharva Vedas. "The popular assembly was a regular
institution in the early years of the Buddhistic age (500 to 300 B.C.)"
Chanakya mentions that in the King's Council the decision of the
majority should prevail.[11] Sukraniti lays down elaborate rules of
procedure for the conduct of business in these assemblies. "The Council
was the chief administrative authority in the kingdom. The King was
supposed not to do anything without the consent of the Council."[12] In
_Kerala_ State, South India, during the first and second centuries of
the Christian Era, there were five assemblies one of which consisted of
"representatives of the people summoned from various parts of the
State."[13] "From the Ceylon inscriptions we learn that in that island
all measures were enacted by the King in Council, and all orders were
issued by and under the authority of the Council."
While all this is true of Ancient India, we cannot claim the existence
of the same system of Government for mediæval India. Even as regards
Ancient India, all that is claimed is that it possessed as much
democracy, if not more, as Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome. The
non-existence of slavery in Northern India gives it therefore a superior
character to that of the Ancient republics of Greece and Rome. In the
South, it is believed slavery did exist. Coming to mediæval times
generally known as the Mohammedan period of Indian History consisting of
two epochs, from 400 to 1200 A.D. and from 1200 to 1800 A.D., we notice
that the country enjoyed a durable kind of government, cities under
absolute rule, and villages, as before, self-governed. The absolute rule
was a benevolent or malevolent despotism according to the character of
the Hindu or Moslem sovereign who reigned. But in the villages India
maintained a democratic form of government right up to the beginning of
British rule; and though under British rule, it has been practically
superseded by the rule of the officials, yet in some parts of the
country the spirit is still alive, as will appear from the following
testimony recorded by Mr. Sidney Webb in his Preface to Mr. John
Matthai's volume, _Village Government in British India_:
"One able collector of long service in Central India informed me
that he had been, until a few months before, totally unaware that
anything of the sort existed in any of the villages over which he
ruled. But being led to make specific inquiries on the subject, he
had just discovered, in _village after village, a distinctly
effective if somewhat shadowy, local organization, in one or other
form of panchayat, which was, in fact, now and then giving
decisions on matters of communal concern, adjudicating civil
disputes, and even condemning offenders to reparation and fine_.
Such a Local Government organization is, of course, 'extra-legal'
and has no statutory warrant, and, in the eyes of the British
tribunals, possesses no authority whatever. But it has gone on
silently existing, possibly for longer than the British Empire
itself, and is still effectively functioning, merely by common
consent and with the very real sanction of the local public
opinion."
Mr. Matthai has also made a similar remark in Paragraph 22 of his book
(Introductory).
Village councils ordinarily called village _panchayats_ have often been
confounded with caste panchayats and that fact has been emphasised to
prove that these Indian _panchayats_ were or are anything but
democratic. Mr. Sidney Webb and Mr. John Matthai both have controverted
that position and upon good evidence. Says Mr. Webb:
"One suggestion that these fragments of indigenous Indian Local
Government seem to afford is that we sometimes tend to exaggerate
the extent to which the cleavages of caste have prevailed over the
community of neighbourhood. How often is one informed, 'with
authority,' that the _panchayat_ of which we catch glimpses must
be only a caste _panchayat_! It is plain, on the evidence, that
however frequent and potent may be the _panchayat_ of a caste,
there have been and still are _panchayats_ of men of different
castes, exercising the functions of a Village Council over
villagers of different castes. How widely prevalent these may be
not even the Government of India can yet inform us. But if people
would only look for traces of Village Government, instead of
mainly for evidences of caste dominance, we might learn more on
the subject."
Later on in the same paragraph Mr. Webb remarks that, even where caste
exists it has, in fact, permitted a great deal of common life, and that
it is compatible with active village councils.
Besides the evidence furnished by the texts of Hindu codes, law books
and political treatises (like the _Arthasastra_ of _Kautalaya_), and
Nítí Shástrá, etc., other good evidence has been produced by Mr. Matthai
in support of the above-mentioned proposition.
In Paragraph 23 he refers to the _Madras Epigraphic Report_, 1912-13, in
support of the statement that "there were village assemblies in South
India in the tenth century A.D., which 'appear to have consisted of all
the residents of a village including cultivators, professionals and
merchants.'"
"In the _Private Diary of Anandaranga Pillay_, who served as agent
to Dupleix, the French Governor in South India in the middle of
the eighteenth century, there is an entry referring to a village
meeting to consider a case of desecrating the village temple 'in
which people of all castes--from the Brahman to the Pariah--took
part.'"
In Paragraph 24, he points out that a village council (_Panchayat_)
might either be an assembly of all the inhabitants of the village or
only a select committee consisting of representatives selected on some
recognized principle. The first are common among less developed
communities like those of the aboriginal tribes and the latter in more
highly organized communities.
Evidences of bigger assemblies consisting of representatives of more
than one village, sometimes of more than one district, to decide cases
of importance or dispute between whole villages are also cited in
Paragraphs 26 and 27 and 32. On the strength of certain South Indian
Inscriptions relating to the Tamil Kingdoms of the 10th century A.D., it
is stated that the administration of the village was carried on by no
less than five or six committees, each vested with jurisdiction relating
to certain definite departments of village life, though there was no
fixed rule on the point. In Paragraphs 33 and 34 the mode of election to
the committees and the qualifications for membership are set down in
detail. The procedure seems to have been quite elaborate, though suited
to the level of intelligence of the people concerned. These village
councils and committees looked after education, sanitation, poor relief,
public works, watch and ward, and the administration of justice. To
describe the methods by which these departments of village life were
administered by the village councils requires too much space, but we
give two excerpts from Chapter II on education:
"The history of village education in India goes back perhaps to
the beginnings of the village community. The schoolmaster had a
definite place assigned to him in the village economy, in the same
manner as the headman, the accountant, the watchman, and the
artisans. He was an officer of the village community, paid either
by rent-free lands or by assignments of grain out of the village
harvest."
"The outstanding characteristics of the schools of the Hindu
village community were: (1) that they were democratic, and (2)
that they were more secular than spiritual in their instruction
and their general character.... Nevertheless, when we speak of the
democratic character of these early Hindu schools, it is to be
understood that they were democratic only in this sense, that they
were open not merely to the priestly caste but to all the four
superior castes alike. There was never any question of admitting
into the schools those who lay outside the regular caste system
whose touch would have meant pollution, nor to the great
aboriginal populations of the country."
"This is very similar to the public schools in the Southern
States, in the United States, where schools for the white children
are closed to coloured children and vice versa."
From what has been stated above it appears that the general impression
that democratic institutions are _entirely_ foreign to India is nothing
but the survival of a prejudice originally due to ignorance of Indian
history. In collecting his evidence Mr. Matthai has principally drawn
upon South Indian sources. There can be no doubt that abundant evidence
of a similar kind is available as regards North India and is waiting to
be collected, collated and sifted by other Matthais. We do not contend
that India had the same kind of representative institutions as Modern
Europe has. In fact no part of the world had. They are all recent
developments. The democratic nature of an institution does not depend on
the methods of election but on the people's right to express their will,
directly, or through their representatives, in the management of their
public affairs. It is clear that that idea was never altogether absent
from Indian life either in theory or in practise. Even under the most
absolute autocracies, the bulk of the people managed their collective
affairs themselves. They organised and maintained schools; arranged and
paid for sanitation; built public works; provided for watch and ward;
administered justice, and for all these purposes raised revenues and
spent them in a democratic way. They did so, not only as regards the
internal affairs of a village, but applied the same principles in the
larger life of their district or districts. Such a people cannot be said
to have _always_ lived a life dictated and held together by force. Nor
can it be said with justice that the introduction of modern democratic
methods in such a country, among such a people, would be the
introduction of an exotic plant, with the spirit and working of which it
will take them centuries to be familiar.