Gana is derived from “to count” or “numbers.” It meant rule by numbers or a republican form of governance. “Bharat Ganarajya” means Bharat whose state is a “gana” i.e. a republic. The Hindi word for a republican form of government is “gana-tantra.”

Gana is first mentioned in Rig Veda in 46 places. Its exact meaning in Vedic texts is interpreted variously, as tribes, as tribal republics or republican form of governance.

Prof. Altekar of BHU wrote, “even if we grant that these were tribes, they also had a republican form of government. It can be proved beyond doubt that gana indicated a certain type of state, sharply distinguished from monarchy.” In any case, by the 6th century BCE, the association of ganas with republican states is well established in historical records.

Source: A S Altekar, “State & Government in Ancient India”
R. S. Sharma, “Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India”
K. P. Jayaswal, “Hindu Polity”

Picture Credit:

Sabha is referred to in Rig Veda eight times. Sabha means “a body of men shining together,” thus referring to a group of eminent people. The head of the sabha was called sabhapati, another term that continues to be in use today.

Free discussions were held in the Sabha and a resolution of the Sabha was considered binding on all and inviolable. Sabha was also a judicial forum. Rig Veda describes a man who has come back successfully from Sabha as “free from blame.” The Jataka stories enjoin members of the Sabha to speak out Dhamma or justice.

In addition to Sabha, vedic texts refer to other forms of governance too, such as Samiti, Vis, Vidatha and Parisad.

Source: K. P. Jayaswal, “Hindu Polity”
J. P. Sharma, “Republics in Ancient India”

Picture Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Andhaka Vrishnis were a republic with a dyarchy – there were two elected leaders whose titles included Vasudeva and Bhojaka. Their constitution was called Bhaujya in the Aitreya Brahmana. Bhojas later emerged as a separate clan & ruling dynasty and the city of Bhuj is their legacy.

Krishna’s Yadavas are part of the Vrishni clan who migrated from Mathura to Dwarka. In the Mahabharata, Krishna mentions that “he had control over half his realm” alluding to this dyarchy. He laments to Narada that he has to endure a lot of nonsense in the assembly from rival factions.

Towards the end of Mahabharata, we know that the clan and their city Dwarka were destroyed in a civil war between factions which also resulted in Krishna’s death. Puranic legend suggests that the Andhaka Vrishnis were cursed to never have kings, probably reflecting their proud republican tradition.

Source: KP Jayaswal, “Hindu Polity”
A S Altekar, “State & Government in Ancient India”
Upinder Singh, “A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India from the Stone Age to 12th Century”

Picture Credit:

Sangha is the monastic order of Buddha. “Sangham Sharnam Gatchami,” ( I take refuge in the Sangha), is a basic Buddhist chant. Sangha is one among the Triratnas (Three Jewels) of Buddhism, the other two being Buddha and Dhamma.

Mahabharata and Panini use the term Sangha to describe a republic. The rules of the monastic order of Buddha were modelled on the rules of the republics in his time. The Mahaparinibbana­suttanta, a Buddhist text, mentions that the rules for conducting the Buddhist sangha were based in principle on those commonly found in political sanghas or ganas.

Prof Jayaswal says, “The birth of the religious brotherhood of Buddha from the constitutional womb of an Indian republic is of interest to the world.” The key organizational virtue of Sangha was the full participation (like in a republic) of all the monks in the ritual and disciplinary acts of their group.

Source: KP Jayaswal, “Hindu Polity”;
C Rajendran, “Democratic Principles in the Polity of Ancient India”, SVU Oriental Journal, Golden Jubilee Volume.
Steve Muhlberger, “Democracy in Ancient India”

Picture Credit: Wikimedia Commons, “The Buddha preaches the Vessantara Jataka to the Sangha and his Family, Chedi Traiphop Traimongkhon Temple, Hatyai”

Yaudheyas worshipped Kartikeya whose vehicle is the peacock. They were a large republic ruling from Bhawalpur in the West to Panchala in East, from Ludhiana in North to Delhi. Their war like reputation and size of their military alarmed Alexander’s army (as did the reputation of Nandas) which turned back from the Beas and did not cross into their territory.

They were temporarily defeated by Kanishka, the Kushan emperor but they reasserted their independence and dealt the Kushan empire a death blow in the process. They were governed by a central assembly with 5000 members. They pass out from history about 350CE.

Source: A S Altekar, “State & Government in Ancient India”

Picture Credit: Karthikeya at the Parasurameshwar temple in Bhubaneswar, S. R. Ramanujam

Kautilya considered republics as invincible through war. The republic was considered a nation-in-arms. The whole community was their army compared to hired soldiers of monarchies.

The Arthashastra outlines the special strategies that the would-be conqueror could use to vanquish the ganas. Because they were different, the strategies recommended to defeat monarchies would not work. Kautilya’s advice focused on creating dissension among their ranks. He marked out personal rivalry and greed of power in aristocracies as a fit soil for sowing seeds of dissension.

The Mahabarata also comments that it is almost impossible for the enemy to crush republics. Buddha too advised Ajatasatru that Lechcchavis, who were a republic, could not be conquered by war. Heeding the advice, Ajasasatru sent his minister to create dissension within the Lechcchavis and this strategy succeeded.

Source: Upinder Singh, “A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India from the Stone Age to 12th Century”
KP Jayaswal, “Hindu Polity”.

Picture Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Lichcchavi was a republic centered around Vaishali, north of Patna, across the river Ganga. It formed the Vajji confederacy with Videhas, Mallas and others.

Lichcchavi was ruled by a large body of families. The Jatakas refer to Lichcchavis having 7707 kings, probably a reference to the council of warriors. The Lalitavistara, in an obvious satirical jab, depicts Vesali as being full of Lichcchavi rajans , each one thinking, “I am king, I am king.”

Amrapali was born here and she was beautiful and perfect. It was a law in the Lichcchavi republic that the perfect woman cannot marry and should become common property of the State. Thus she became a courtesan. Bimbisara, king of neighbouring Magadha kingdom is reported to have had an affair with Amrapali. Bimbisara’s elder son Ajatasatru developed enmity with the kingdom and carried out a long-drawn battle. The Lichcchavis were defeated and their power was weakened. They rose again after the fall of the Mauryan empire. They continued till the Gupta era and thus reigned for about 1000 years. The first Gupta emperor rose to power through a marriage alliance with a Lichcchavi princess, Kumaradevi. The republic then slides into oblivion.

Source: A S Altekar, “State & Government in Ancient India”
J. P. Sharma, “Republics in Ancient India”

Picture Credit: Cinestaan

The Guptas rose to power in the early 4th century through a marriage alliance – Chandragupta I married a princess of the Lichcchavi republic. Samudragupta is known as Lichchhavi-dauhitra (grandson of the Lichchhavis) in inscriptions.

Their imperium of roughly 200 years saw the almost complete eclipse of republics in North India.

The prashasti of Samudragupta on the Prayagraj Ashokan Pillar records the ganas that were overcome by Guptas. This included the Malavas, Arjunayanas, Yaudheyas, Madrakas, Abhiras, Prarjunas, Sanakanikas, Kakas and Kharaparikas.

The Gupta’s rule was weakened by the short-lived republic of the Pusyamitras around the Vindhyas. The Emperor Kumaragupta is supposed to have been killed in battle with the them around 450CE. His successor Skandagupta defeated them but he candidly mentions that they had made the empire totter. Skandagupta revived the Guptas and even pushed back the Huna invasion but the empire went into terminal decline after him.

Source: Upinder Singh, “A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India from the Stone Age to 12th Century”
KP Jayaswal, “Hindu Polity”.

Picture Credit:

Uttaramerur is about 80 kms south west of Chennai, near Kancheepuram. Inscriptions on temple walls tell us about the democratic traditions of the village sabha starting in the 8th century.

The village sabha continued through the reigns of different kings in the region, from Pallavas to the Cholas and till the decline of Cholas. The sabha performed several public welfare functions, e.g widened roads, created drinking water facilities, set standards for testing gold, desilted tanks, took loans, alienated land to retire debt and created schools.

The village had a refined electoral system for its Sabha and committees (for testing gold, tank maintenance, gardens etc). It also had a written constitution prescribing the mode of elections. Interestingly, the constitution was also amended formally to alter voting procedures.

“This inscription, dated around 920 A.D. in the reign of Parantaka Chola [907-955 A.D.],” explains Dr. R. Nagaswamy, former Director of the Tamil Nadu Department of Archaeology, “is an outstanding document in the history of India. It is a veritable written constitution of the village assembly that functioned 1,000 years ago”.

Source: K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, “Studies in Cola History and Administration.”
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/Uttaramerur-model-of-democracy/article16566830.ece

Picture Credit: Nilakanta Sastry

Buddha is also known as Sakyamuni. Siddhartha, before he became Buddha, is represented as a royal prince. But his father Suddhodana was not a hereditary King, nor was there monarchy in Sakya region where he was born.

Sakya was one of the republics of the era. All the chiefs of Sakyas, who were probably large and wealthy landowners, were called kings. The eldest son would inherit the position of the chief in the assembly and was called uparaja or prince. The multiplicity of chiefs or kings in Sakya is referred to by several scholars. Thus Buddha was not a crown prince the way we understand the term these days.

Sakya was founded by a cadet prince of the Ikshvaku dynasty of Lord Rama. The Buddha fondly mentioned this fact many times in his life. Probably because of this connection, in later Puranic tradition, he was incorporated as Vishnu’s incarnation.

Buddha attained Parinirvana at Kusinagara, which was in the Malla republic. Sakyas claimed a share in his relics and later built a stupa at their capital town. Both the Mallas and Lechcchavis are supposed to have requested Buddha to deliver a sermon during the opening of their assembly hall.

Sakya was controlled by Kosala, the neighbouring monarchy, but was not fully subordinate to it, and had its own identity. However, during Buddha’s time, the Sakya state was invaded multiple times by the king of Kosala; and soon after destroyed. Literature mentions how the Sakya assembly met, discussed and voted to surrender, a republican way even in the dissolution of power!

Source: KP Jayaswal, “Hindu Polity”
A S Altekar, “State & Government in Ancient India”
Koenraad Elst, Lectures on Buddha available on you tube.

Picture Credit: Root Buddha at Ayuthaya, Thailand. S. R Ramanujam