Four Level View Of Systems By Shankara Bharadwaj Khandavalli

Abstract 

This paper proposes viewing all systems in four levels – worldview, doctrinal, institutional/architectural and experienced/lived reality. 

We draw upon the axiomatic sources of Indian knowledge to bring this perspective, and explain how the design of systems in India has been enlightened by such perspective. 

Such a perspective applies to all systems manmade and cosmos, as per Indian knowledge. By corollary, it is visible in the design of collective institutions such as state, social institutions, religious institutions etc. 

We then draw a contrast with the modern institutions and the texts underlying them, and how these four levels are implicit or explicit. 

We argue that taking cognizance of such a perspective results in a systematic design of texts underlying institutions, and the architecture of texts would be very different from the modern texts that lack such a perspective. 

Its primary implications are in 

a. the way futuristic knowledge generation and theorizing would happen, and how various fuzzy and 

complex activities involving institution design for large societies can be made systematic. 

b. the way these subjects can be brought into a more rigorous formal epistemic structure. 

Introduction to the Concept 

The Puruṣa Sūkta of Rig Veda is one of the best expositions of cosmic views, and it is said there - 

“pādosya viṣvā bhūtāni tripādasya amRtaṃ divi” 

Meaning, all the visible world is one fourth of the four-fold divine, the other three remain immortal. They are visible only to the trained eye. 

In many ways, this applies to systems manmade and cosmic, in a simple cause-effect sense. The visible is but an effect, whose cause is visible only to the trained eye. This is a fact that is universally verifiable. It can be the workings of a scientific theory whose results are visible to the common man, it can be the efficiency of a machine whose workings are unknown to the user, it can be the social outcomes of a theory of state, it can also be the visible universe itself whose evolution and workings are unknown to a good part. What appears magic to the untrained eye, is yet something quite meaningful for the trained eye and only more meaningful for the trained hand that is working this “magic” to bear fruit to the ones experiencing the fruits. 

Puruṣa of this Sūkta is the primal cosmic being, the personified representation of the cosmos. He is the performer of the grand cosmic sacrifice, and also the whole of the sacrifice itself. 

Contrary to the view that Upanishad contains the “summary” of Vedic knowledge, it can also be argued that Upanishads contain elaborate commentary of what is summarily mentioned in the Samhita portions.

 

“Ekam Sat” (Rik 1.164.46) is one such brief statement of Samhita which has elaborate descriptions in the Upanishad. Another is the above Rik that mentions fourfold cosmic being. Its nature is found in the Mānḍūkya Upanishad, where the three immortal layers are enunciated along with the fourth and manifest. 

Four Levels and Four Parts 

The four parts of Puruṣa can be seen as correlating to the four parts of divine/cosmic being enunciated in Mānḍūkya Upanishad. The being that consumes gross, subtle, causal objects in three levels and remains immutable in fourth (eternal/composite). 

Mānḍūkya Upanishad (verse 2) says 

“sarvaṃ hyetad brahma, ayamātmā brahma, sothamātmā catuṣpāt” 

Meaning, all that is existent, is Brahman. The self is Brahman too (thus micro is a reflection of macro).

 

And it is four-fold. The subsequent verses detail that the first part is Vaisvanara the enjoyer of gross objects, second is Taijasa the enjoyer of subtle objects, third is PrAjna the enjoyer of causal objects and fourth is the composite/eternal/absolute. 

These four correspond to the manifest outcome (gross, lived experience), the how/mechanism/workings (subtle), the doctrinal/causal what and the fourth of macro perspective/eternal/existential reality. 

The gross is the most manifest level that is experienced, seen with “naked eye”, in case of collective phenomena the “ground reality”. From this level of experience, the universe appears as it is to the naked eye, or “viṣvā bhūtāni”of Puruṣa Sūkta. The universal being at this level of experience is the vaiśvānara of Mānḍūkya. Thus, this is the ultimate outcome/effect whose cause lies in the others. 

The subtle is the level of mechanism of how things are done and how they work. In the workings of any system, this is the layer of architecture/institutional structure. This is the cause of the manifest fourth layer, and it is caused by the workings of other two layers. In case of the cosmos, the laws of nature, the intelligence that causes the dynamics of cosmic action, in other words the mechanisms of setting cosmic order constitute this layer. Institutions work their magic by channeling the collective energies towards specific outcomes, favoring certain outcomes over others. These outcomes appear simply as results of actions of the acting entities/members, yet when one refers to the “system” it is this structure that one refers to implicitly. 

The causal is the level of principle and purpose. In case of cosmos, the primal causal principle or the “purpose towards which the whole game is being played”, is the source of such doctrine. In any system, this corresponds to the doctrine underlying institution design. The primary principles which are meant to be served by the institutional structure, remain the purpose for which it is designed. Thus the causal/doctrine is the cause whose effect is the subtle/architecture. 

The fourth is the level of existential reality. In cosmic sense this is the absolute. In any system, this is the worldview, an ontological statement of the nature of the essential reality. “It is because the essential reality of man is such, that he craves such things, thus to serve his collective purpose such an institution would be an ideal vehicle”- thus proceeds the thought process of an ideal system design. 

The table below summarizes the four level view. 

State, Constitution 

The four level view is best demonstrated with the example of constitution and statecraft. 

The laws, policies, executive actions instruments etc are in fact the manifest fourth leg of statecraft, outcomes of the exercise. What underlies these, is an institutional structure, an architecture of state that makes the various entities in the system operate in a certain way, with specific objectives and incentives motivating those actions. 

This is the “invisible” third part of the system, which is not really something that is paid attention to by the user of the system or even a diligent participant in the functioning of the system, and is known only to a discerning participant in the design of the system. 

This institutional structure determines which aspect of the system weighs more powerful in which aspect, which kind of policies can be enacted by it, what its strengths are and what its limitations are. In this sense, this is the cause whose effect is the manifest and experienced outcome of actual functioning of the system. In fact a good system is one where the institutional structure itself does not become overtly visible or felt, but the country functions because of it. The structure will be felt when its baggage or inefficiency shows, otherwise society is oblivious to it for the most part. 

Underlying the institutional architecture is a doctrine, which acts as a set of ideals that the state aspires to realize. The institutional structure, policies, incentives all are directed towards realizing the ideals derived from the doctrine. For instance, equality and justice, welfare of society, promoting fraternity are all ideals that constitute part of the state doctrine. 

The doctrine thus, is the second part of the system, the cause whose effect is an institutional structure. 

Underlying doctrine is a worldview, from which a doctrine derives. The nature of man and world, purpose and goals of human life, means to their fulfillment, nature of collectivities etc constitute worldview. The state doctrine and goals are determined based on worldview. For instance, if goal of human life is fulfillment of potential and highest happiness, enabling humans towards that happiness becomes the goal 

of state, a state doctrine. On the other hand if fulfillment of needs is defined as the enabler of happiness, then goal of state would be to help fulfill human needs – and the state becomes a welfare state. Thus worldview is the cause whose effect is the state doctrine. In cases where worldview is stated and established, there is a way to systematically derive the doctrine and change it with time, with respect to 

a worldview. In cases where it is unstated, changing a doctrine would mean a full reset of system since there is no basis remaining for evolutionary change. 

In the modern constitutions there is no clear layering of content into these. Worldview is mostly assumed and unstated. Doctrine is where modern constitutions begin. Whether it is “that all are created equal” of US constitution or the aspiration of equality fraternity etc in Indian constitution, the ideals are stated axiomatically. 

This in itself may not concern civilizations that have seen revolutions to bring about change in ideals. But revolution itself is a civilian trauma, and the need for it is a fundamental failure of system in Indian view. 

A society that is capable of evolving systems organically, by changing what is temporary and basing it on a substratum of unchanging principles of nature, would not treat ideals axiomatically but as temporal. 

Ideals of state have changed over time with human evolution. 

So a more scientific approach to this is to make an explicit statement of worldview, part of it being axiomatic (and derived systematically from axiomatic sources to ensure probity in the statement of worldview) and part of it derived from it and established as a translator for establishing doctrine. 

From this, doctrine derives systematically, in a way it suits temporal requirements. Doctrine thus becomes refutable instead of axiomatic. State architecture or institutional structure derives from doctrine and that remains prescriptive, similar to modern constitutions. However, there needs to be refutability in it – to show how an institutional structure realizes the doctrine and how change will be prompted by non- 

realization. 

Thus we have ontological, normative, prescriptive content in the text of statecraft, and not limited to prescriptive content. It is not necessary that all the types of content are in the same document either. But the classification needs to be in a way that consistency and completeness are not violated. Worldview is visible, at the level of lived reality, through the doctrine and institutions. For instance if man is an 

economic being in a worldview, the entire system is designed in an economy-centric way. If purpose of life is highest happiness in a worldview, the entire system is designed to enable what man seeks without judging or measuring him in economic terms. 

In traditional Indian scheme, the worldview and part of doctrine are found in dharma śāstra (Manu Yājnavalkya Parāśara Devala etc). Institution design is only in principle dealt in dharma śāstra. Part of doctrine and institutional structure, instruments of state etc are visible extensively in artha śāstra (Kautilya’s Artha śāstra, Nīti Sūtras, Sukra Nīti Sāra etc). It can be seen by studying them together, that 

artha śāstra is giving instruments to fulfill the goals laid down in the dharma śāstra. After all, “ dharmasya mūlaṃ arthaḥ” or artha is the means to fulfill dharma. 

Such an architecture brings permanence to a grand design, where structures remain temporal and new ones continuously emerge to replace older ones, without needing revolutions for such replacement. That change happens is not a cliché but has to be visible in the way a system is designed. Taking explicit cognizance of this four level view helps us design systems where change is organically embraced at all 

levels. To specify a worldview means that if that layer changes, all the other layers will change to adapt to it. Change in doctrine means there is no change in worldview, and the two lower layers will change. If doctrine remains the same and institutional structure is unable to keep up to realize it, it means there needs to be a more current design and it will mean change at two levels by keeping two unchanged. The 

fourth or lived experience of it always changes, and is the ultimate test for the success of the system. 

Applicability 

It may appear that the Puruṣa Sūkta mantra is indicating the four parts of divine and invisible, and that in case of state all four are manmade. However it needs to be understood that these are four levels of any system – the cosmos too. Divine or otherwise, the “institutional structure” of the universe is explained in 

the śRti. This may or may not be subscribed to in a particular worldview, but in the Astika scheme this remains the cause whose effect is lived reality and experience of beings. Principle of action, yajna, transcendence, guna, are all constructs that govern the experiences/lived reality. 

What becomes doctrine is the dynamics of creation of world, the intelligence principle behind it. 

Viṣṇu is said to have created three worlds and established “dharma” or the order of functioning. This constitutes doctrine. 

Worldview as known to humans is darsana. As known to divine, is only known to human in little bits. 

It is said “yathā pinḍe tathā brahmāṇḍe”, what is applicable at macro is also applicable to micro. This is also the basic principle that yoga and spiritual philosophies base themselves on. It is not limited to seeing and realizing the entire universe manifested in individual being as a microcosm, it also very much applies 

to how human collectivities operate by the same principles of nature that are found in the seeds of creation. The collective being, social at one level is cosmic at another. This is also why the divine who expounds Herself in VāgāmbhRṇī sūkta, revealing Herself as manifest in all the devatas like Indra and Vasu-s, also calls Herself the social collective whole - Rāśṭrī. 

Table below summarizes the four level view of state and its root texts

Society 

In India, society has a matrix of institutions (discussed in the paper Scope of Smriti and Nature of Dharmic State) that are stratified and non-hierarchical, and orthogonal to the hierarchical institutions of state. 

They are designed very much by these four levels. In the world view layer come the permanent nature of world and man, macranthropy (cosmos as a personified divine), varna dharmas (which are common to all forms and beings not just humans) etc. They are codified in the axiomatic sources and sanātana/eternal layers of dharma śāstras. 

At the doctrine level there are dharma’s operating layers including temporal/yuga dharma, primary principles of life, basic tenets of sampradāyas. Doctrine derived from worldview of triguna and Ananda as purpose of life, so that institutional structure is designed to be a vehicle for its fulfillment. 

At the architectural level the various institutions like deśa, jāti, vṛtti, ecosystem of sampradāyas are visible, which operated to provide cohesion and acted as vehicles for fulfillment of human purposes and realized the doctrines. 

The lived reality is the outcome of these, which reflected in a high civilization, prosperity, perfection, lofty human conduct, integration motifs working across Bharata. While the destruction of these institutions over centuries under external attacks was a matter of time, it is not the vitality of institutions in the long term but the relevance of their principles for the future that matters, so that newer institutional structures 

can be designed. 

Below is the table summarizing the four levels in context of institutions of social collective. 

Religion 

Religion and spiritual philosophy is a sphere where the four level view shows marked difference, and how evolution is enabled or preempted through institutional structure, as a result of the worldview adopted. 

The table below summarizes how the manifestation happened from a worldview to lived reality in dharmic and abrahamist spheres. A lot of this is known reality and hardly needs argument, so it is stated in the most brief way possible primarily to indicate the manifestation level and causation through the levels rather than to indicate the good/bad. There is definitely a bias visible in the presentation, in favor of better articulated knowledge over a faith system, in favor of one that has a stratification between ontological, normative and prescriptive forms of texts. 

Conclusion 

To conclude, taking cognizance of this enables design of lasting institutions that have the capability to evolve and be replaced organically in a non-violent and inexpensive way. The substratum of a permanent worldview which can be rearticulated in an effective way to suit times, enables revision of doctrines and revision of doctrines means scope for rearchitecture without needing violent and costly revolutions or 

resets of civilization. The modern world is now at a stage where it can start contemplating on such possibilities, given the recent tryst with enlightenment ideals and having achieved certain level of civilizational maturity. This possibility would not have been a serious matter to think of in the feudal or slave age, given the maturity levels of institution design and their alignment with higher human purposes. 

Today it is a possibility, to evolve such a four-level knowledge structure, and align design of future collective institutions based on those. If the eternal wisdom of India is to prevail in this matter, this possibility would become a reality. 

Texts and References 

1. Puruṣa sūkta, Rigveda 

2. Viṣṇu sūkta, Rigveda 

3. Mānḍūkya Upanishad 

4. VāgāmbhRṇī sūkta, Rigveda 

5. (Book) Hindu view of Christianity and Islam by Ram Swarup 1992 

6. (Paper) Scope of Smriti and Nature of Dharmic State, Shankara Bharadwaj Khandavalli 2017 

7. Dharma śāstra-s (Manu, Yājnavalkya), Dharma Sūtras (Apastamba, Baudhāyana) 

8. Artha śāstra-s – Kautilīya Artha śāstra, Nīti Sūtras, Sukra Nīti Sāra

Autonomy: The Soul of Indigenous Local Governance in India by Tanya Fransz

 

Abstract

The Vedas mention consensus-based local governance systems such as Grām, Sabhā and Samiti replicated at all levels of polity. These indigenous local governance institutions and systems have existed since time immemorial, keeping the individual and community as their warp and woof, and beautifully upheld an organic harmony in society, helping people from all sections of society pursue their swadharma, purusharthas, and varnashrama dharma in peace for a prosperous country.

Due to a well-functioning village economy, they were completely self-dependent and self-sustaining, which made them insular to a rule change at the central level.

The British experimented with these indigenous models in order to link them with central structures, leading to disastrous consequences that left these autonomous systems deformed and almost defunct.

Let’s delve into content analysis of our knowledge texts, systems, traditions, colonial and contemporary records, as well as contemporary Constitutional arrangements that have been made for modern local governance/Panchayati Raj institutions and their effects.

Introduction

The Indic concept of ‘Unity in diversity’ is clear from the various hymns in the Vedas, Smritis, Sutras, which showcase that India has always been a land of vast diversity of people, customs, usages and traditions. The ‘Unity’ of this diversity lay in the collective outlook focused on the protection and upholding of Dharma, which sustained nature and life, and led people to ethical prosperity and goodness. Anything that went against these was to be done away with as soon as possible in an autonomous manner at any level.

Therefore, in the Indian tradition, the King was never the sole repository of governance. Governance was performed in an autonomous manner from the grassroots, viz., the head of the Clan, Caste, Village, Province, up to the King.

A collection of families (Kula) made up a village (Grāma) which was headed by the ‘Gramani’. The clan (vis) was headed by Vispati, and the Tribe (Jana) was headed by Rajan. We see these tribes, their Kings and tribal alliances fighting in the Battle of Ten Kings (DasarajanyaYuddha) in the 7th Mandala of the Rgveda.

The Kula, jati, desa, grāma, sreni and so on had their laws framed by common consensus by which they governed their disputes and issues. This autonomy was authorised by the sanction of the King, who was governed by the one word Constitution – Dharma.

If there was something that went out of hand or was too serious and unsolvable by these local, indigenous and autonomous governance bodies, it was to be taken to the King by means of initiation of a lawsuit (Vyavahara).

The basis of Kingship – People

The origin of Kingship in Indian tradition is clearly explained as one being brought about by people’s demands after their understandings/pacts between various groups in the society for harmonious social living were obstructed. These pacts were the very customs, traditions and usages decided by the people, and to protect and enforce these, the protection of a King was called upon.

Bhishma Pitamah in the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata, speaks of the origin of Kingship whose only reason for existence is to protect and enhance the happiness of all the people.

The same is very elaborately explained even in Kautilya’s Arthashastra.

According to Katyayana, it was mandatory for the King to maintain all the authenticated records of various customs, usages and traditions followed in various parts of the Kingdom.

Read the full article at: https://www.indica.today/research/research-papers/autonomy-the-soul-of-indigenous-local-governance-in-india/ 

Maritime Chokepoints and Strategic Leverage: Lessons from Hormuz for India’s Great Nicobar Vision - Dhwanii Pandit

With the onset of the United States-Israeli war on Iran, the contemporary geopolitical landscape has moved beyond the theoretical "geometry of chokepoints" into a phase of active, high-stakes disruption as the global energy architecture has been shattered by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

For India, this crisis is a watershed moment that validates the shift from "Geography as Fate" to "Geography as Strategy." The development of the Great Nicobar Island would not just be an infrastructure project but an opportunity to develop a maritime strategy that converts geographic proximity into durable strategic influence. By contrasting the coercive leverage exercised in Hormuz with the facilitative potential of the Malacca gateway, we can discern a new model of "Blue Water" diplomacy, one rooted in the Mahanian theory. 

The Hormuz Lesson: What Coercive Leverage Looks Like 

Iran’s actions around the Strait of Hormuz, which is located between Iran and Oman and connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea have disrupted shipping flows and highlighted the vulnerability of global trade. These disruptions have affected nearly 20 million barrels of oil per day, around one-fifth of global consumption, while also impacting LNG supplies and critical materials such as helium used in semiconductor production. By deploying cruise missiles, naval mines, and submarines, Iran has demonstrated what may be called "negative power" which is the ability to create global impact not through direct control, but through disruption alone. 

Yet, this model reveals its own structural limits. Coercive chokepoint strategy generates immediate leverage but invites escalatory responses, and long-term diplomatic isolation. This disruption of the critical lifeline of global energy trade highlights an important lesson which is, relying too heavily on a single chokepoint creates structural risk, which cannot be fully addressed through security arrangements alone. For a rising power like India, aiming to act as a net security provider, the Hormuz experience serves as a cautionary example where only coercive strategies often lead to tensions and counter-responses, rather than stable long-term influence. 

Theoretical Framework 

Three intellectual traditions illuminate India's strategic opportunity. Alfred Thayer Mahan's theory of sea power established that lasting national influence flows not from naval coercion alone, but from the ability to facilitate and protect trade across open seas. Nicholas Spykman's Rimland theory argued that whoever controls the marginal seas surrounding the Eurasian landmass can shape the flows of global power, a logic that maps directly onto today's Indo-Pacific, where the marginal seas between the Indian and Pacific Oceans have become the decisive strategic zone. Together, these frameworks point toward a third concept, called "facilitative hegemony", wherein a state converts geographic positioning into structural influence not by threatening shipping flows, but by becoming indispensable to them. This is the model India must pursue, and Great Nicobar is where it begins. 

India's Geographic Opportunity: The Great Nicobar Case 

India’s geographic advantage lies in its proximity to this valve through the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago. The Great Nicobar Project, formally called the Holistic Development of Great Nicobar Island, is located on India’s southernmost island, was conceived by NITI Aayog and approved by the government in 2021. featuring a transshipment hub, integrated airport, and township, is positioned at the intersection of the Six Degree Channel and the entrance to the Malacca Strait. Given that more than one third of the global trade passes through the Malacca Strait, the project holds both economic and strategic significance. Taken together, these elements position India not as a threatening presence but as an indispensable node, the facilitator of trade flows that the entire Indo-Pacific depends upon. 

The Complications 

The most underappreciated threat to Great Nicobar's strategic rationale is the much discussed canal across Thailand's Kra Isthmus. If built, this waterway would offer an alternative to the Strait of Malacca, potentially diverting significant shipping traffic and diminishing Great Nicobar's centrality. More dangerously, it would open a direct maritime corridor connecting China to the Indian Ocean, bypassing the Andaman and Nicobar territorial zone entirely and providing a strategic shortcut to Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka. However, the Kra Canal remains uncertain. India should proactively engage Thailand and ASEAN partners to shape the diplomatic environment around this proposal before it becomes a fait accompli, while simultaneously ensuring that Great Nicobar's value proposition extends beyond Malacca traffic alone, encompassing surveillance, domain awareness, and disaster response. 

The next complication is China. China's expanding maritime presence in the Indian Ocean anchored by Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Gwadar in Pakistan, and a network of port investments across the littoral forms an encircling logic that strategists have termed the "String of Pearls." Great Nicobar does not neutralise this network, but it complicates it materially. A fully operational Indian facility at the Six Degree Channel places Indian surveillance and response assets within striking proximity of the Malacca entrance, constraining Chinese naval freedom of manoeuvre precisely where it matters most. India's Act East policy finds its most concrete maritime expression here. 

Another complication which makes India solely cautious is the Environment and the Indigenous ights. The Shompen people are the indigenous community of Great Nicobar and the island's exceptional biodiversity are not merely ethical considerations. They are liabilities if mishandled. International criticism, domestic legal challenges, and reputational damage can delay, delegitimise, or derail the project entirely. Sustainable development and indigenous non-displacement must therefore be understood not as constraints on strategy, but as conditions for its success. It is imperative that the virgin forests of Great Nicobar stay intact, biodiversity preserved, and the Shompen left undisturbed not as concessions, but as requirements of strategic durability. 

Recommendations 

Four concrete steps should anchor India's strategy going forward. First, the transshipment port should be fast-tracked with an explicit commercial-first, military-secondary public framing., for not mere optics but it reflects the genuine logic of facilitative hegemony and reassures regional partners who might otherwise read the project as provocation. Second, India should establish a Maritime Domain Awareness centre at Great Nicobar, structured as a shared facility with willing ASEAN partners. This converts a unilateral strategic asset into a regional institution, dramatically raising its diplomatic value. Third, India must engage with Thailand proactively and urgently on the Kra Canal question. Fourth, India needs to develop a strategic maritime doctrine which would help in taking any necessary action in the time of crises. 

The 2026 Hormuz crisis has proven that geography is the ultimate weapon of the 21st century. Iran has used its geography to disrupt; India must use its geography to dominate and facilitate. The Great Nicobar Project is the cornerstone of this new ambition. By leveraging its unique position between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, India is rewriting the rules of maritime engagement. It is moving away from the 'Straitjacket' of being a secondary player and toward a future where it is the indispensable anchor of the Indo-Pacific order. In an era where global trade is under constant threat, the power to facilitate is the most durable power of all. 

___________________

The author is a Mukherjee Fellow'26

Dharmic Legal System Vs Adversarial System - Adv M Sundara Rami Reddy

Dharmic Legal System Vs Adversarial System

Bharat’s legal system is undergoing a game-changing transformation. It’s giving a new lease of life to Bharatiya legal system to transform & is advocating for Dharmic legal system

Author: M Sundara Rami Reddy
Published: Jan 26, 2026

Link: https://organiser.org/2026/01/26/336790/bharat/dharmic-legal-system-vs-adversarial-system/

---

In August 27, 2023 edition, Organiser Weekly first presented idea and suggested that the process to overhaul the justice delivery system should be seen as a constructive step towards decolonisation. Bharat needs a 360° approach to make our legal system indigenous, effective and based on the eternal Dharmic principles of Mimamsa and Danda Niti. 

Justice S Abdul Nazeer, as a sitting Supreme Court judge, delivered a speech on “Decolonisation of Indian Legal System” on December 26, 2021, at the National Conference of Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad.

He had said:

“A colonial psyche persists in the administration of justice in the present day Bharatiya legal system. The British colonialists protected their subjects only on the surrender of the rights to the rulers. In other words, justice could not be demanded but rather it was allowed by the State as a matter of concession. This is in contrast to the ancient Bharatiya legal systems, where justice could be demanded, being the concept that was inbuilt. Ancient legal systems of Bharat even required kings to bend before the rule of law and justice could be demanded against the kin or even the king himself. Instead of this approach, the colonial mindset left behind by British colonialists is apparent from the manner in which pleadings are drafted in Court today, the way in which the Courts are addressed and more importantly, by accessibility to Court itself.”

He further said:

“The need of the hour is the Bharatiyakaran of the legal system. The eradication of such a colonial mindset may take time but I hope that my words will evoke some of you to think deeply about this issue and the steps that need to be taken to decolonise the Bharatiya legal system. Even though it may be an enormous and time-consuming effort, I firmly believe that it would be an endeavour which could revitalise the legal system and align it with the cultural, social and heritage aspects of a great Nation and ensure much more robust delivery of justice.”

Justice PN Prakash, who recently retired from Madras High Court, has called the judicial system a “farce” and said that though calling it “bogus” may be harsh, the criticism is valid.

He argued that Western jurisprudence was shaped by the Greek belief that there is only one life and that time is linear. Bharatiyas, on the other hand, believe in several lives and in the theory of Karma. Time is cyclical, and therefore injustices are often suffered stoically. People tolerate boycotts of courts by lawyers and delays in case disposal, attributing them to Karma.

He remarked:

“Truth and justice are twin sisters. And in the absence of truth in the system, what we are delivering is not justice, but merely judgements.”

In the case MC Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors, former Chief Justice of India Justice PN Bhagwati observed:

“We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for that matter in any other foreign country. We no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order.”

Mahatma Gandhi in his book Hind Swaraj wrote:

“Whenever instances of lawyers having done good can be brought forward, it will be found that the good is due to them as men rather than as lawyers. All I am concerned with is to show you that the profession teaches immorality; it is exposed to temptation from which few are saved from time to time.”

Dharma Based Legal System

Bharat, for centuries, had a robust legal system. It was based on Dharma and administered through communities, panchayats, trade guilds, caste and sub-caste organisations, local groups, families and extended families. 

The legal system has two wings:

1. Theoretical foundation

2. Practical implementation

In Bharatiya society, Dharma had percolated to the last person. Cultural channels such as folk songs, folk tales, Hari Katha, Burra Katha, pravachanams, temples, and devotional traditions helped spread the understanding of Dharma widely among the people.

Pandits knowledgeable in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and Dharmashastras occupied important positions in society and were consulted in complex matters. 

Disputes were resolved locally and often immediately. It has been observed that more than 70% of disputes were settled through village panchayats, where disputants selected members of the community to decide the matter. Thus, the role of formal courts was only the “tip of the iceberg.” 

The author states that even today 80–90% of disputes in villages are settled informally, without legal technicalities or fees, through amicable settlements.

Justice Rama Jois in his treatise on ancient Indian constitutional and legal history summarised that Dharma, including law, was binding on the king. According to Rajadharma, the king had authority only to enforce the law, not to legislate new laws.

Dharmashastras also prescribed rules governing the conduct of the king himself.

This created a key difference between Indian and Western ideas of kingship:

• In the West, the king was the source of legislative, executive and judicial authority.

• In the Dharmic system, the king himself was subject to Dharma.

Colonial Influence and the Adversarial System

England’s known history spans roughly 2000 years. Much of its early history involved wars and migrations. British and European explorers travelled worldwide seeking resources and livelihood.

When the British came to Bharat around 400 years ago, they did not understand concepts such as atma, paramatma, and punarjanma, which were familiar to ordinary Indians.

The British introduced their own systems, including English education, property laws and the adversarial legal system inspired by Macaulay’s reforms. 

The adversarial legal system attempts to establish truth through the contest between prosecution and defence before a neutral judge.

The Malimath Committee Report (2003) explained that:

• The criminal justice system in India follows the adversarial model inherited from British rule.

• The judge acts as an umpire who determines whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

• The judge usually does not actively investigate the truth but remains neutral between the parties.

Because of this structure, critics argue that the adversarial system often fails to uncover truth effectively.

The Malimath Committee also observed that globally there are two major legal traditions:

1. Adversarial system

2. Inquisitorial system

Each has borrowed features from the other over time.

The article concludes that mere amendments to colonial-era laws may not be sufficient and that true decolonisation of the legal system requires a fundamental shift toward Dharmic principles of justice. 

The Jajmani System Reframed in Constitutional and Policy Language

When viewed through a contemporary constitutional and policy lens, the traditional Jajmani system may be understood not as a historical economic arrangement tied to caste or barter, but as an early form of community-anchored social security, livelihood assurance, and local economic integration.

At its core, the system operationalized principles that align closely with the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly those concerning livelihood, dignity, social justice, and decentralization.

1. Livelihood as a Right, Not a Market Outcome

The Indian Constitution, under Article 39(a), directs the State to ensure that all citizens have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.

The Jajmani system embodied this principle at the village level. Livelihood was not left to market volatility or individual bargaining power. Instead, essential service providers—agricultural laborers, artisans, service specialists—were assured sustenance as a matter of social obligation, not charity.

In modern policy terms, this represents:

• Guaranteed livelihood assurance

• Prevention of structural unemployment

• Risk-sharing within a local community

This is conceptually closer to universal basic livelihood security than to barter or wage labor.

2. Dignity of Labour and Social Justice

Article 41 and Article 43 of the Constitution emphasize the right to work, education, and public assistance, along with the assurance of living wages and conditions of dignity.

In its ethical form, the Jajmani system:

• Recognized all forms of work as socially necessary

• Embedded respect for labour within social relationships

• Prevented the invisibilization of essential services

Where later distortions degraded certain roles, this represented a departure from the original normative framework, not its fulfillment. From a constitutional perspective, the failure lay in the erosion of dignity and reciprocity—not in the idea of community-based livelihood organization itself.

3. Decentralization and Local Self-Governance

The 73rd Constitutional Amendment emphasizes Panchayati Raj Institutions and decentralized governance.

The Jajmani system functioned within a highly decentralized social economy, where:

• Livelihood, welfare, dispute resolution, and moral regulation occurred locally

• Village elders and councils acted as oversight mechanisms

• Economic life was embedded in social accountability

In contemporary terms, this aligns with:

• Subsidiarity (decisions made at the lowest effective level)

• Community-managed systems

• Local accountability over centralized enforcement

4. Economic Democracy and Reduced Inequality

Article 38 directs the State to minimize inequalities in income, status, and opportunity.

The Jajmani framework limited extreme inequality by:

• Ensuring baseline security for all roles

• Preventing monopolization of essential services

• Distributing economic surplus through social obligations rather than accumulation

Unlike market systems that allow wealth extraction without local responsibility, this model retained economic value within the village ecosystem.

From a policy standpoint, this resembles:

• Circular local economies

• Commons-based resource governance

• Inclusive growth models

5. Social Security Without Bureaucratic Expansion

Article 41 also refers to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disability.

The Jajmani system provided informal but effective social security, embedded in everyday village life:

• Elderly, disabled, widows, and dependents were sustained through community responsibility

• Support was continuous, not event-based

• Care was relational rather than institutional

In policy terms, this represents:

• Community-anchored welfare

• Preventive social protection

• Low-cost, high-trust delivery mechanisms

6. Ethical Regulation vs Contractual Enforcement

Modern economies rely heavily on contracts, litigation, and enforcement mechanisms. The Jajmani system relied on ethical norms, reputation, and continuity, regulated by community oversight.

While modern policy cannot replace law with morality, it can:

• Complement formal systems with social accountability

• Encourage cooperative and trust-based institutions

• Reduce transaction costs through community governance

This aligns with contemporary discussions on social capital and institutional trust in development economics.

7. Reinterpretation, Not Restoration

From a constitutional standpoint, the Jajmani system is not a template to be restored, nor a caste-based structure to be defended. Its relevance lies in the principles it operationalized, which can be reinterpreted through modern, rights-based, non-discriminatory frameworks.

These principles include:

• Livelihood assurance as a social responsibility

• Economic activity embedded in community welfare

• Decentralized governance

• Ethical constraints on accumulation

• Dignity of all forms of labour

Modern equivalents may include:

• Producer cooperatives

• Community resource trusts

• Village-level livelihood guarantees

• Mutual aid and commons institutions

• Panchayat-anchored economic planning

 

Policy-Aligned Summary

Reframed constitutionally, the Jajmani system represents an indigenous precursor to decentralized welfare economics, grounded in:

• Livelihood security (Articles 39, 41)

• Dignity of labour (Article 43)

• Social justice and equity (Article 38)

• Local self-governance (73rd Amendment)

Within the Gram Kula framework, these principles offer a culturally rooted yet constitutionally compatible pathway toward self-reliant, inclusive, and ethical village economies—without reverting to historical rigidities or inequalities.

Case studies that support this argument

Case Study 1: Kerala’s People’s Planning Campaign (proof of what real devolution can do)

Kerala’s decentralization is widely cited because local bodies were given substantial planning authority and a large share of plan funds—i.e., the village/local government became a site of planning, not merely implementation. Participatory planning processes and fiscal devolution were central features. 

Why it supports Gram Kul logic

• Local choice in spending and planning approximates Gram Kul’s insistence on autonomy over local life-systems.

• Institutionalized participation approximates the “village-as-a-family deliberation space” (collective responsibility).

What it shows

When local institutions are treated as governments, not contractors, you see better alignment with local needs and stronger legitimacy.

 

Case Study 2: Hiware Bazar, Maharashtra (community self-regulation of commons + village discipline)

The World Bank case study documents Hiware Bazar’s transformation via community management and self-regulation mechanisms in groundwater and local resource use. 

Additional research accounts link outcomes to watershed work, social rules, and collective enforcement that stabilized livelihoods. 

Why it supports Jajmani/Gram Kul principles

• This is not “scheme delivery only.” It is community rule-making, shared restraint, and collective enforcement—the moral governance aspect central to Gram Kul.

• It demonstrates that village revival requires internal norms + commons management, not only external infrastructure.

What it shows

Villages degrade when commons are unmanaged and social rules collapse; villages revive when local self-regulation returns.

 

Case Study 3: Mendha-Lekha, Gadchiroli (Gram Sabha as a real sovereign over resources)

Mendha-Lekha is frequently cited for strong Gram Sabha-led governance under the Forest Rights Act(community forest rights). EPW notes it as among the earliest villages to exercise rights over bamboo under FRA. 

Case-study documentation also shows Gram Sabha processes and local institutional learning around rights-claims. 

Why it supports Gram Kul

• The village becomes authoritative over local resources—a direct step toward swāvalamban.

• Rights are exercised through collective decision-making (Gram Sabha), not merely through department-driven schemes.

What it shows

Constitutional institutions work when they have real powers over natural resources and local decisions; otherwise they remain ceremonial.

 

Case Study 4: Punsari, Gujarat (visible service delivery + local leadership)

Punsari is studied as a “model village” case where leadership, local body initiative, and effective use of schemes improved visible infrastructure and services. 

Why it is useful—and why it’s not enough

• It shows the upside of capable Panchayat leadership within the current system.

• But it also illustrates a limitation: many “model village” narratives rely heavily on state schemes, not on creating a self-sustaining village economy.

What it shows

Service delivery can improve under the current system, but deeper Gram Kul goals—local economic autonomy, local production ecosystems, reduced out-migration—require structural empowerment.

 

Where the present Panchayat system clashes with Gram Kul / Jajmani principles

1) Livelihood assurance replaced by “beneficiary welfare”

• Jajmani/Gram Kul: livelihood is a community-guaranteed continuity (ethical obligation, stable roles, dignity).

• Today: livelihoods are often mediated through temporary wage programmes and targeted schemes, which can reduce destitution but don’t rebuild a locally integrated economy.

2) Moral economy replaced by transaction + compliance

• Jajmani/Gram Kul: economy is embedded in relationships, responsibility, and restraint.

• Today: institutions are driven by tendering, paperwork, audit compliance, and “utilisation targets.” Audits repeatedly highlight utilisation and accountability gaps—signals of weak institutional capacity. 

3) Gram Sabha sovereignty diluted into administrative meetings

• Gram Kul: the village deliberative space is the core.

• Today: in many places the Gram Sabha is irregular/weak, and decisions are effectively upstream—funds tied, functions fragmented, staff controlled elsewhere.

4) Autonomy is the missing link

Even official devolution scoring suggests empowerment is partial, not complete. 

 

What these case studies collectively prove

1. Where power and resources truly devolve (Kerala), local governments can plan and govern. 

2. Where commons are locally governed (Hiware Bazar), village economies stabilize. 

3. Where Gram Sabha controls resources (Mendha-Lekha), autonomy becomes real. 

4. Where local leadership uses schemes well (Punsari), service delivery improves—but deeper autonomy still requires structural reform. 

The Jajmani System: A Relational Economy, Not a Barter Mechanism

The Jajmani system is often described—incorrectly and simplistically—as a “barter system” or a rigid caste-based economic arrangement. Such descriptions fail to grasp its actual nature. In reality, the Jajmani system was a relational, service-based, and continuity-oriented social economy, deeply embedded in the moral and cultural fabric of the Indian village.

At its core, the Jajmani system organized economic life not around spot transactions, but around long-term reciprocal obligations within a stable community.

1. Relationship Over Transaction

In the Jajmani system, economic exchange was not governed by immediate equivalence (“I give this, you give that now”), but by ongoing relationships. Families providing essential services—such as agriculture, pottery, weaving, carpentry, metalwork, leatherwork, priestly services, or sanitation—were assured lifelong support from the village.

The key feature here is assurance, not negotiation.

A service-providing family did not need to worry daily about selling its output or finding a buyer. The village, as a collective, guaranteed its sustenance across seasons, life stages, and uncertainties. In return, the family carried a duty of service toward the village.

This is fundamentally different from barter, where survival depends on continuous, symmetric exchanges of need.

2. Asymmetry Was Recognized, Not Ignored

One of the strongest arguments against the “barter” interpretation is that human needs are asymmetrical. A farmer can survive without pottery for some time, but a potter cannot survive without grain. A weaver may not need gold ornaments, but a goldsmith needs clothing.

If village life were based on strict barter, such professions would collapse.

The Jajmani system resolved this by decoupling survival from immediate demand. Even when a service was not urgently required, the service-provider’s livelihood was not threatened. The village’s obligation to sustain them remained intact.

This is why the system endured for centuries.

3. Payment Was Periodic, Diverse, and Contextual

Remuneration under the Jajmani system was not fixed wages or market prices. It took multiple forms:

• Seasonal grain shares

• Produce at harvest time

• Assistance during festivals, weddings, or crises

• Housing, clothing, or tools

• Social recognition and protection

Payment was distributed across time, not condensed into a single transaction. This reduced volatility and created stability.

Importantly, remuneration was embedded in social life, not abstracted into purely economic exchange.

4. Dharma as the Regulating Principle

The Jajmani system functioned because it was regulated by dharma, not contracts.

• The service provider had a dharma to serve competently and sincerely.

• The recipient family (or village) had a dharma to sustain the provider with dignity.

• Village elders acted as moral arbiters if obligations were neglected.

This ethical regulation substituted for legal enforcement. Trust, reputation, and continuity mattered more than profit maximization.

5. Jajmani and Jñāti: Skill, Not Birth Alone

While later distortions rigidified occupational roles, the original organizing principle was jñāti—skill, lineage of practice, and social responsibility—rather than mere birth hierarchy.

Skills were often hereditary because:

• Knowledge transmission was experiential and intergenerational

• Stability mattered more than mobility

• The village needed continuity, not disruption

However, this did not mean absolute closure. Historical evidence shows entry, apprenticeship, and adaptation were possible, especially when villages needed new skills or when families diversified occupations.

The rigidity commonly associated with the system is largely a later degeneration, intensified by colonial classification, revenue systems, and legal codification.

6. Strengths of the Jajmani System

When functioning properly, the system:

• Eliminated fear of unemployment

• Prevented extreme inequality

• Ensured dignity of labor

• Reduced market dependence

• Strengthened social cohesion

• Embedded economy within ethics

It aligned economic life with Gram Kul principles—the village as an extended family.

7. Limitations and Degenerations

A nuanced understanding must also acknowledge limitations.

Over time, especially under external pressures:

• Occupational mobility reduced

• Power imbalances hardened

• Some service roles became undervalued

• Ethical obligations weakened while hierarchy persisted

Colonial revenue demands, monetization, and legal restructuring dismantled the ethical core while freezing the outer form—leaving behind inequality without reciprocity.

Thus, the failure was not inherent to the Jajmani principle, but to its ethical erosion and forced externalization.

8. Relevance Today (Without Revivalism)

The Jajmani system is not a model to be replicated verbatim. Its relevance lies in the principles it embodied:

• Long-term livelihood assurance

• Community responsibility for all roles

• Economy embedded in relationships

• Ethical regulation over pure market logic

Modern village systems can reinterpret these principles using contemporary tools—cooperatives, commons-based resource management, mutual aid networks—without reproducing historical rigidities.

 
In Essence

The Jajmani system was:

• Not barter

• Not mere caste economics

• Not a free market

• Not charity

It was a moral economy of continuity, designed to sustain life with dignity in a stable community.

Understood correctly, it strengthens the Gram Kula (Village as one clan/family) vision by showing that economic resilience emerges when livelihood, ethics, and belonging are inseparable.

The Village as a Living Organism : Economy, Relationships, and Collective Bliss

This is the final part of a series of 3 articles is based on the booklet titled 'Grama Vikas' (Village Development), authored by Ashish Kumar Gupta and Dilip Kelkar and published by Bharatiya Shiksha Sansthan.

Abstract

This paper conceptualizes the village as a living organism—an integrated social body in whicivilizationls, families, and professions function in organic harmony. Drawing upon traditional Indian social philosophy, it presents the village not as a collection of competing units, but as a cohesive moral and economic system rooted in collective well-being, responsibility, and dharma. Prosperity, within this framework, is understood as a shared outcome rather than an individual pursuit, sustained through mutual care, seva, and intergenerational ethics. The paper challenges colonial interpretations of village economies as primitive or barter-based, demonstrating instead that they operated on trust, continuity of service, and socially embedded obligations organized through skill-based occupational systems. By examining social care, economic circulation, moral oversight, and rootedness to place, the study argues that self-reliant villages form the most stable foundation for a resilient and ethical nation. The paper concludes that meaningful civilizational renewal requires restoring village autonomy across education, economy, governance, and social welfare.

What is a Village, Really?

The village may be understood as a living body. Families function as its organs, and individuals as the living cells of those organs. Together, they sustain the life of this collective being called the village. Within such a system, people do not see one another as competitors, but as their own—members of a shared whole.

Prosperity is therefore not pursued individually, but collectively. The well-being of each member strengthens the well-being of the entire village. Just as within a family there is no transactional exchange of money when one member helps another, village life is guided by mutual care, belonging, and seva.

If a family loses its earning members, the village assumes responsibility for its survival and eventual self-reliance. The same applies to the elderly, the disabled, widows, orphans, and the ill. They are not burdens, but respected members of the village family. This collective responsibility forms the moral fabric of village society and inculcates ethics, compassion, and dignity—especially in the young.

No individual is dismissed as useless. Each person is evaluated according to ability, temperament, and inclination, and entrusted with meaningful responsibility. This provides discipline, purpose, and inner stability—needs as fundamental as food and shelter.

Village elders play a crucial role as moral guardians. Their responsibility is to prevent exploitation, degradation, and internal conflict. Such oversight preserves unity and continuity without coercion.

Economically, the Indian village was never a barter system, as colonial observers mistakenly believed. A simple exchange of goods based solely on immediate need would have been unstable. Instead, village economies functioned on trust, obligation, continuity of service, and dharma. Professions were organized through the jñāti system—skill-based, cooperative, and open to learning—ensuring harmony without encroachment.

Wealth generated within the village remained within it for collective upliftment. Goods produced in the village were sold externally; goods brought from outside were distributed internally—not resold. Markets existed outside villages, preserving internal economic balance.

Migration, in such a system, was rare. Leaving the village was considered a sorrowful necessity, not an aspiration. Belonging, security, and dignity anchored people to place.

When thousands and lakhs of such self-reliant villages exist, they form the strongest possible nation—healthy, prosperous, ethical, and resilient.

Reviving this system requires courage and autonomy. Villages must be empowered to determine their education, economy, governance, nutrition, and security. Only then can they once again become the living foundation of civilization.

Conclusion

Understanding the village as a living organism offers a profound alternative to individualistic and transactional models of social organization. When families function as organs and individuals as living cells, the village becomes a moral and economic ecosystem in which belonging replaces competition and responsibility replaces coercion. In such a system, prosperity is inseparable from compassion, and dignity is ensured through meaningful participation rather than material accumulation alone.

The traditional village economy—grounded in trust, dharma, and continuity—demonstrates that stability does not arise from constant exchange or market expansion, but from balanced circulation and shared obligation. Social care for the vulnerable, moral stewardship by elders, and respect for individual aptitude collectively sustain harmony and resilience. Migration becomes unnecessary when security, purpose, and identity are locally fulfilled.

A nation composed of thousands of such self-reliant villages constitutes the strongest possible civilizational structure—socially ethical, economically stable, and culturally rooted. Reviving this vision demands courage to decentralize power and restore village autonomy over education, livelihoods, governance, nutrition, and security. Only then can villages once again serve as the living foundation of a humane and enduring civilization.