The edifice of the constitution of a country is always built on the foundations of his past. To understand any constitution in existence and operation, therefore, it is essential to know its background and history.
Constitutional Government in Ancient India
The concepts of democracy, representative institutions, limitations on the arbitrary powers of rulers, and rule of law were not alien to India in the hoary past. The concept of the supremacy of Dharma was hardly different from the rule of law or limited government. The rulers in ancient India were bound by Dharma, no one was above Dharma. Enough evidence has come to light to show that republican forms of the Government, representative deliberative bodies and local self-government institutions existed in many parts of ancient India and democratic thinking and practices permeated different aspects of the life of the people right from the Vedic age (circa 3000-1000B.C.).
The Rigveda and the Atharvaveda mention the Sabha (General Assembly) and the Samiti (House of elders). The Aitareya Brahman, Panini's Ashtadhyayi, Kautilya's Arthashashtra, the Mahabharats, inscriptions on Asoka's pillars, the Buddhist and Jain texts of the period and the Manusmriti all bear witness to the existence of several functioning republics during the post-Vedic period of Indian history. After the Mahabharat particularly, large empire gave way to a number of small republican states. Jatakas make many references to how these republics functioned.
The members met in Santhagar. Representatives were elected in open assembly. They selected their gopa who became King and ruled with the help of a Council of Ministers.
In the 4th century B.C. the republican federation known as the Kshudrak Malla Sangha offered strong resistance to Alexander. Near Patliputra (Patna), there was Vaishali, the Capital of Lichchavis. The state was a republic governed by an assembly with an elected President called Nayak. Unfortunately, we know little of the details of the Constitution of these republics. The Greek Scholar Megasthenes has left records of popular assemblies that were preserved in the south and which restrained the power of the Kings. Kautilya's Arthashashtra also records that autocracy or the divine right of kings have no place in ancient Indian polity. The power of the Indian king was hedged in by safeguards against abuse and limited by liberties and powers of other public authorities and interests. He was, in fact, a limited or a constitutional monarch. Manu and the Mahabharat say that an unjust and oppressive ruler should be killed by his own subjects like a street dog gone mad. Nitisara (Science of Polity) of Shukracharya written in the tenth century is a book on constitution. It deals with the organisation of the central government as well as village and town life, of the King's Council and of various departments of government. The King was to act on the opinion of the majority of the people. To quote Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
"It is not that India did not know what is Democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or Parliamentary procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments-but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of Parliamentary Procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, whip, Counting of Votes, voting by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularization, Res Judicata, etc. Although these rules of Parliamentary procedure were applied by Buddha to the meetings of Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the Political Assembly functioning in the country in his time.
Constitutional Government in Ancient India
The concepts of democracy, representative institutions, limitations on the arbitrary powers of rulers, and rule of law were not alien to India in the hoary past. The concept of the supremacy of Dharma was hardly different from the rule of law or limited government. The rulers in ancient India were bound by Dharma, no one was above Dharma. Enough evidence has come to light to show that republican forms of the Government, representative deliberative bodies and local self-government institutions existed in many parts of ancient India and democratic thinking and practices permeated different aspects of the life of the people right from the Vedic age (circa 3000-1000B.C.).
The Rigveda and the Atharvaveda mention the Sabha (General Assembly) and the Samiti (House of elders). The Aitareya Brahman, Panini's Ashtadhyayi, Kautilya's Arthashashtra, the Mahabharats, inscriptions on Asoka's pillars, the Buddhist and Jain texts of the period and the Manusmriti all bear witness to the existence of several functioning republics during the post-Vedic period of Indian history. After the Mahabharat particularly, large empire gave way to a number of small republican states. Jatakas make many references to how these republics functioned.
The members met in Santhagar. Representatives were elected in open assembly. They selected their gopa who became King and ruled with the help of a Council of Ministers.
In the 4th century B.C. the republican federation known as the Kshudrak Malla Sangha offered strong resistance to Alexander. Near Patliputra (Patna), there was Vaishali, the Capital of Lichchavis. The state was a republic governed by an assembly with an elected President called Nayak. Unfortunately, we know little of the details of the Constitution of these republics. The Greek Scholar Megasthenes has left records of popular assemblies that were preserved in the south and which restrained the power of the Kings. Kautilya's Arthashashtra also records that autocracy or the divine right of kings have no place in ancient Indian polity. The power of the Indian king was hedged in by safeguards against abuse and limited by liberties and powers of other public authorities and interests. He was, in fact, a limited or a constitutional monarch. Manu and the Mahabharat say that an unjust and oppressive ruler should be killed by his own subjects like a street dog gone mad. Nitisara (Science of Polity) of Shukracharya written in the tenth century is a book on constitution. It deals with the organisation of the central government as well as village and town life, of the King's Council and of various departments of government. The King was to act on the opinion of the majority of the people. To quote Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
"It is not that India did not know what is Democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or Parliamentary procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments-but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of Parliamentary Procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, whip, Counting of Votes, voting by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularization, Res Judicata, etc. Although these rules of Parliamentary procedure were applied by Buddha to the meetings of Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the Political Assembly functioning in the country in his time.
0 comments: