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/
No comments:
Post a Comment