What evidence tells us

Ancient India had long and vibrant non-monarchical traditions. But they were very different from modern Indian democracy, which is based on principles of freedom and social and political equality

- UPINDER SINGH

"TO THE MEMORY of the Republican Vrishnis, Kathas, Vaishalas and Shakyas who announced philosophies of freedom from devas, cruelty, and caste."

The passionate tenor of K. P. Jayaswal's dedication to his book Hindu Polity (1924) is not surprising. The discovery of ancient Indian 'republics' proved that western descriptions of Indian history as marked by unmitigated despotism was false. While nationalist scholars such as Jayaswal made important contributions to the understanding of non-monarchical states in ancient India, they idealised them, exaggerated their democratic nature, and used an anachronistic vocabulary.

The current public interest in democracy stems from two different trends. The first is a hyper-nationalist view that heralds ancient India as the fount of all things great in the world. The second is a yearning to find democracy and debate in the ancient past against the background of rising authoritarianism. The historian's dharma is to steer clear of both trends and to dispassionately analyse the evidence.

The Greeks invented the word demokrataia (power of the people) and used it to describe a political system that was adopted in many city-states. Its roots can be traced to the sixth century BCE, its fully developed form and its demise to the fourth century BCE. In ancient Greece, democracy was debated, lauded, critiqued, and even denounced. This was a direct democracy, in which all citizens, regardless of property, wealth or status, were entitled to participate in the deliberations of the assembly and be involved in executive and judicial administration. It went hand in hand with notions of citizenship (politeia), equality (isonomia) and freedom (eleutheria). However, women, slaves and foreigners were not citizens and did not enjoy political rights.