(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 inst.i.tutions."

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 const.i.tution 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 inst.i.tution 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) a.s.semblies and councils are quite frequently mentioned both in the Rig and the Atharva Vedas. "The popular a.s.sembly was a regular inst.i.tution 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 a.s.semblies. "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 a.s.semblies 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 mediaeval 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 mediaeval 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 Niti Shastra, 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 a.s.semblies 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 a.s.sembly 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 a.s.semblies 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 s.p.a.ce, 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 a.s.signed 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 a.s.signments 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 inst.i.tutions 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 princ.i.p.ally 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 inst.i.tutions as Modern Europe has. In fact no part of the world had. They are all recent developments. The democratic nature of an inst.i.tution 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is extremely doubtful if there were any slaves in India in the corresponding period of Indian history. At least, Megasthenes, the Greek amba.s.sador at the Court of Chandra Gupta, did not find any in northern India, though his opinion is not accepted as quite correct. It is said that slavery did exist in a mild form in the southern peninsula.

[2] _The Conflict of Colour_, by PUTNAM WEALE, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1910, pp. 20-21.

[3] _Public Administration in Ancient India_, by P. BANERJEA, Macmillan, London, 1916, p. 42.

[4] _Vedic India_, by MACDONNELL & KEITH. Vol. II. p. 210.

[5] BANERJEA, p. 43.

[6] _Buddhist India_, p. 9.

[7] _Ancient India_, _Alexander's Invasion_ (MCCRINDLE, p. 292), quoted by Mr. BANERJEA. p. 44.

[8] ARRIAN, _Anabasis_ (MCCRINDLE), p. 154; quoted by Mr. BANERJEA, p.

154. If the Greek writers were familiar with the conceptions of democracy and republicanism they knew what they meant by the use of these terms in relation to Indian inst.i.tutions.

[9] BANERJEA. p. 46.

[10] MACDONELL & KEITH, _Vedic Index_, Vol. II, p. 214.

[11] BANERJEA. p. 95.

[12] Footnote, _Ibid._, p. 96. Original authority quoted by Mr. BANERJEA in footnote on p. 103.

[13] _Ibid._, p. 104.

III

THE PRESENT IDEALS

The wishes, the desires, and the interests of the people of these countries [speaking of German colonies] themselves must be the dominant factor in settling their future government.

DAVID LLOYD GEORGE

"Causes and Aims of the War." Speech delivered at Glasgow, on being presented with the freedom of that city, June 29, 1917.

Every nation has a fundamental right to determine, fix and work out her own ideals. Any interference with this right by individuals or nations of foreign origin is unnatural and unjust. The consent of the governed is the only logical and just basis of governments. These principles have been reiterated with added force and masterly eloquence by President Wilson in his addresses during the War. They have been accepted and adopted by the Allied statesmen. No statesman or publicist of standing in any of the Allied countries can dare question the principles. The difficulty, however, arises when we come to apply them practically. At this point the practical politician's genius for diplomacy discovers flaws that provide excuses for the non-application of those principles if such course seems helpful to his nation or his sovereign.

President Wilson has a.s.severated that "the day of conquest and aggrandis.e.m.e.nt is gone," which, in plain language, means that the day of Imperialism is over. And, in conformity with the principle stated in the Declaration of Independence, that "All nations have the right to a.s.sume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's G.o.d ent.i.tle them," President Wilson has also said that "every people have a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live"; that "national aspirations must be respected, and that 'self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril." Yet as _practical men_ we must not ignore the facts of life. The world is not at once going to be an ideal place to live in even if it may become one. It may be that the advanced nations of the earth which just now divide the political and economic control of the world between themselves may accept the underlying policy of the following statement (of President Wilson) that

"This war had its roots in the disregard of the rights of small nations and of nationalities which lacked the union and the force to make good their claim to determine their own allegiance and their own forms of political life."

and the proposed League of Nations might see that a continuance of the injustice thus far done to small or backward nations is no longer permitted. Being practical men, however, we cannot build on the a.s.sumption that at the end of this war the world is at once to be transformed into a paradise and that full justice will be done to all nations and all peoples alike. We already notice a tendency to restrict the application and the enforcement of these principles to the nations of Europe by the more frequent use of the term "free nations." "Free nations" do not need to be freed. It will be wise, therefore not to be carried off our feet by these declarations and statements. Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford have pointedly reminded us of the Indian saying, "hanoz Delhi Dur Ast" (i.e. "Delhi is yet far away"). But even if they had not done so we were not so simple as to be swept away by the mere language of the war declarations. The wording of the announcement of August 20, 1917, itself did not leave us in doubt about the truth of the saying quoted by Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford. We have, therefore, to test our ideals and aspirations by the touchstone of practicability and expediency. Happily for us there is, in theory, at least, a full agreement between the political goal set up by the Indian Nationalists of the Congress school (since endorsed by the Home Rulers) and that set up by the authors of the announcement of August 20th. This goal is "Self-Government within the Empire on terms of equality with the other parts of it," in the language of the Congress school or, "Responsible Government as an integral part of the British Empire," in the language of the announcement. There is a party of Indian politicians who want complete independence, but at present their number is so limited that we need not take serious consideration of their position in the matter. The vast bulk of the educated cla.s.ses are agreed:

(_a_) That they are content to remain within the British Empire if they are allowed a status of equality with the self-governing dominions of the Empire.

(_b_) That what they want is an autonomous Government on the lines of Canada, Australia and the South African Union.