India is celebrating its 75th Republic Day. However, do the citizens of this country realize in the past 74 years who they are as a collective, and what Republic Day signifies? What system do we need to implement in our country – to develop
Niraj Krishna
India has been consistently subjected to invasions since the Portuguese invasion in the 14th century. Throughout this long period, India responded in its own way. Struggles continued, which were national, societal, and universal. During emergencies, people continued to die, even from famines. Our national leaders, with determination, fought against the dominance of the British and gained independence. As we celebrate the 75th Republic Day, it raises a question in our minds: Have we learned any lessons from our long journey?
It is distressing for India that the politics of division still thrives here. Even after 75 years of independence, we have not been able to free ourselves from this ailment. It is painful to think that when we were slaves, we were united, but after gaining independence, we fragmented. This division was not only geographical but also mental, and its bitter memories still linger in the minds of many people.
India is celebrating its 75th Republic Day. However, do the citizens of this country realize in the past 74 years who they are as a collective, and what Republic Day signifies? What system do we need to implement in our country – to develop? If the citizens themselves are not aware of their identity, how will they determine which system to adopt? What is the difference between August 15 and January 26? Most of today’s youth are not aware of why Republic Day is celebrated.
Did you know that January 26th was celebrated 18 times as Independence Day, just like January 26th? Yes! In fact, this dates back to December 7, 1929, when the Indian National Congress held a convention in Lahore. During this convention, a resolution was passed that if the British rule did not grant self-rule to India, India would declare itself completely independent.
When the British did not respond, the Congress initiated a movement. At that time, on the banks of the Ravi River in Lahore, Jawaharlal Nehru unfurled the tricolor flag. Subsequently, on January 26, 1930, the entire Indian subcontinent began celebrating Independence Day for the first time. From then until 1947, January 26 continued to be celebrated as Independence Day. Then, after the country gained independence on August 15, 1947, this day began to be celebrated as India’s Independence Day.
So, what was special about January 26th? In reality, even after India gained independence, the country was still governed by rules and laws established by the British. However, on January 26, 1950, India implemented its own constitution. On this day, the Indian government replaced the Government of India Act of 1935 with the Indian Constitution. Therefore, this day is celebrated as India’s Republic Day. There was also a special reason behind choosing January 26th as the date. On this day in 1930, the Indian National Congress celebrated Complete Independence Day in India.
What were the sentiments of our leaders during the independence movement? What is the idea of India? Why did we fight this war and against whom? Was it just a campaign for a change in power? Looking at the answers to these questions, we understand that this struggle was for self-rule, for swadeshi (self-reliance), for indigenous languages, and for self-sufficiency. The level here is very unique. Society, every aspect of life, intellectualism, every thought had its own perspective. It was also a battle for establishing the mind and thinking of India. Today, there is a profound challenge in front of the forces that connect the country – to liberate the country from divisive ideologies. To expose the malicious intentions of dividing society by distributing India’s identity into different narrow brackets. New debates and new struggles are also emerging through new discussions and new identities.
There should be political ethics in a democracy. If one engages in politics, then once again, democracy should be established. The meaning of democracy is evolving from ‘rule by majority’ to ‘rule by the governance of a community majority.’ In this, there is no place for ‘others.’ Society is divided among violent and fearful individuals. The extremists become the revolutionary leaders. This type of governance is called democratic anarchy. In this situation, there seems to be democracy, but there is actual anarchy.
Today, politicians worldwide do not come to power with a noble purpose or by leading public movements. They attain power through popular slogans and false dreams, establishing their own legitimacy and creating their mandate. They are not bound by values, principles, or the pressure of humanity. This class of politicians draws even the educated masses into their lies, cruelty, and political madness, undermining people’s reasoning abilities.
Democracy is a modern concept of politics. Although it is a system that determines political governance, it works to enrich the citizens through their awareness of rights and the cultivation of essential citizenship consciousness. It keeps the reins of power in the hands of the people. Dissatisfied citizens in a democracy can change the system when the time comes. In a democracy, acquiring power based on factors like religion, caste, creed, wealth, etc., is not possible. Therefore, it is considered the most welfare-oriented political system.
However, success in this endeavor was only possible when the participation of as many people as possible was ensured at the decision-making level. Hence, the need for maximum participation at the governance level began to be felt. Democratic states such as the Lichchavi and Vaishali rose during this time.
The concept of ‘democracy’ finds its roots in the Vedas. Numerous verses in all four Vedas elaborate on this idea, and a thorough study of Vedic society further substantiates this truth. The Rigveda mentions the assembly (‘sabha’) and council (‘samiti’), where decisions were made after deliberations among the king, ministers, and scholars. In Vedic times, even the selection of the king, such as Indra, was based on such considerations. Indra was a title bestowed upon the ruler, and it signified the king of kings.
However, after the decline of the Vedic era in India, the rise of monarchies occurred, and they continued to rule for an extended period.
First and foremost, the use of the word “Ganatantra” (Republic) can be traced back to the Rigveda, mentioned forty times, followed by nine occurrences in the Atharva Veda and several times in the Brahmanic scriptures. The Vedic literature indicates through various references that during that era, democratic systems were prevalent in most places. The Mahabharata also contains sutras (principles) of democracy.
Some essential facts of modern parliamentary democracy, such as decision-making by majority, were already prevalent in ancient times. At that time, decisions made by the majority were considered binding, and descriptions of small republics from the Vedic era are found, where the public collectively deliberated on governance-related issues. The concept of the republic was defined in ancient times as a democratic system of governance for small republics.
After the Mahabharata, during the Buddhist era (from 450 BCE to 350 BCE), there were renowned republics. Names such as Maurya of Pippalivana, Malla of Kashi, Kusinagara, and Kashi, Shakya of Kapilavastu, Videha of Mithila, and Lichchhavi of Vaishali prominently come to mind. Subsequently, the republics of Atal, Arat, Malav, and Misoii are also mentioned. During the Buddhist era, republic federations like Vajji, Lichchhavi, Vaishali, Brijak, Mallak, Madak, Sombasti, and Kamboj served as examples of democratic systems. The people elected the first king of Vaishali, Vishala, through elections.
Chanakya writes in his Arthashastra that there are two types of republics: first, Ayudhya Ganarajya, where only the king makes decisions, and second, Shreni Ganarajya, where everyone can participate. Even before Chanakya, Panini described some republics in his grammar. The word Janapada is mentioned in several places in Panini’s Ashtadhyayi, whose governance system was in the hands of representatives elected by the people.
Therefore, it can be definitely said that the network of republics was already spread in India before the democracies of Greece. Greece established republics after seeing India. The Greek ambassador Megasthenes also described republics like Kshudrak, Malav, and Shivi in his book after seeing them in India.
Some leftists argue that there is a deficiency in ancient Indian democracy because Indian democracy was not entirely democratic due to casteism. Nanda and Chandragupta Maurya were both of the warrior caste, yet they ruled, gaining support from the public and establishing their reign through elections. Is there any trace of casteism in this?
On the banks of the Sindhu River, there was a republic named Shudrak, referred to as the Shudra kingdom in the Mahabharata. It too engaged in war with Alexander. Where is casteism here? Even the advanced republic fought with Alexander; they say this is how the origin of the Agarwal community took place. Agarwals were Vaishyas, and they also had a republic. Where is casteism in this? Emperor Ashoka married Karuvaki, who was a fisherman’s daughter, and he also married a lady from the Vaishya community. Ashoka did not marry based on caste or varna, so even at that time, there was no casteism.
In Greece, women did not have the right to vote, but in India, they did. For example, Kalinga was also called a republic, and during the Kalinga War, the people of Kalinga chose Padmavati as their queen so that she could lead in the war. During the Kalinga War, women also participated. Padmavati was a member of the Kalinga assembly, and she had the right to vote as well.
Just like the current Parliament, councils were formed in ancient times that closely resembled the present parliamentary system. The governance of the policies of a republic or a federation was carried out by these councils. Before making any decision on an issue, there would be open discussions among the members. There would be a robust debate between the proponents and opponents to assess the merits and demerits. Only after that, a consensus decision would be presented. In case there was no unanimous agreement, a majority process was adopted. In many places, unanimity was mandatory.
Decisions taken through majority were called ‘Bhuyisikkim.’ For this, the support of voting was necessary. Voting was referred to as ‘Chhand’ during that time. Similar to the role of the Election Commissioner, there was an official responsible for overseeing this election, known as the ‘Shalakagrahak.
Decisions taken through majority were called ‘Bhuyisikkim.’ For this, the support of voting was necessary. At that time, voting was referred to as ‘Chhand.’ Similar to the role of an election commissioner, there was an official responsible for overseeing this election, referred to as a ‘Shalakagrahak.’ There were three systems for casting votes. Guḍhak (secretly), meaning writing one’s opinion on a paper without revealing the voter’s name. Vivṛitak (openly), in this process, the individual openly expressed their views on the relevant subject in front of everyone, meaning an open announcement. Saṅkaraṇajalpak (whispering in the ear of the Shalakagrahak), that is, quietly telling the Shalakagrahak. Members were free to adopt any one of these processes. The Shalakagrahak meticulously and honestly accounted for these votes.
In this way, we find that our country has had a glorious democratic tradition since ancient times. In addition to this, many ministries were also established for the administration of a well-organized government. Officers of these ministries were elected based on excellent qualities and qualifications.
Not only on the Indian subcontinent but also in various parts of the world, democracy emerged as an alternative, but it could not succeed in the absence of a proper system. The famous Greek philosopher Socrates said, “The government should not belong to the people; only the most capable person can make such decisions, not the crowd.” Studying modern history, it becomes apparent that democracy is a new tradition and system based on which the formation and development of modern nations have taken place. In reality, today’s democracy began to take the form of power in the 18th century when America gained independence and the world’s first modern democracy was established.
In a modern nation, the true essence is not the rule of the people but the rule of law. In a modern democracy, the people elect their government, which makes decisions for them while staying within the bounds of rules and order. Democracy does not mean whims of the people; these methods, systems, and rules bind the democratic system together, forming the foundation of the democratic structure that provides stability to the system and the nation.
Since our country gained independence on August 15, 1947, and became a democratic nation on January 26, 1950, when the Constitution came into effect, India has been declared a democratic country. Although it was proclaimed as a democratic nation at that time, changing the mindset of the people was not feasible so soon after nearly 200 years of British colonial rule because the people had just gained their freedom.
Due to the mentality of servitude, people did not even raise their voices against it because they were being made fools of. The poor population had no knowledge of their rights, and the pressure from wealthy and capitalist individuals influenced the government. Due to the vested interests of capitalists, they did not oppose the government. Since then, there have been changes, and the public has become somewhat aware of their rights, but the situation is still not better than before. Today, leaders make promises to manipulate the public, promises that are never fulfilled. Even today, the people of this country get trapped in the snare of tempting promises made by leaders. During the election, leaders do everything to manipulate the public, even engaging in activities that were never seen before.
Certainly, on paper, our country is democratic. However, practically speaking, one can call it a rule by leaders or a slave of political factions. It can be called leader-rule because nowadays, elections are fought around a specific leader rather than the issues of the public, which is a prime example of a leader-rule.
