Unit 3 (Indian Polity and Society)

Polity and Governance

In this section you will learn about ancient Indian polity and governance. It
means how was the nature of state in ancient India, and how did the ruling dynasties
organise their system of government.

Meaning of Polity in Ancient India

Every society governs itself in some way or the other. For this, it forms a system of
government, or the processes which help in governance. This system of government is
known as polity, or science of politics and government. In modern state system this is
studied under the branch of Political Science. In ancient India there was not one word
for study of state system, rather it was known variously as Rajadharma, Rajyashastra,
Dandaniti, and Arthashastra. While the first two are clearly related to monarchy, the
Dandaniti was related to application of force in state-craft. Manu says that ‘the
ultimate sanction behind the state is force.’ The state uses it to rule and to protect the
subjects as well. So, Danda combined both people and the state with one another. The
meaning of Dandaniti has been expressed like this- ‘the rules about the functions and
duties of the king and the welfare of the state were called Dandaniti.’ The
Mahabharata, the Arthashastra, Manu Smriti, and Usanas’ and Prajapati’s works
known as Dandaniti describe about it in detail.
Kautilya used the term Arthashastra for broad subjects like system of
government, origin of state, different branches of administration, duties of king and
his ministers, duties of officials, and so on. His book known as Arthashastra is, in fact,
a book on ancient political economy. Some other texts such as the Ramayana,
Mahabharata, Smritis, Kamandaka Nitisara, the Nitivakyamritaof Somadeva Suri who
was a Jain writer of 10th century, and Shukra’s Nitisara also deal with various aspects
of politics. The Shanti Parva of Mahabharata is very relevant on this topic.

Forms of Government
There was not one form of government in ancient India. Rather, several types
of systems were prevalent, such as clan system, monarchy, republic and feudal state.
But among all, the monarchy or kingship was the most widely accepted form of
government.
During the Rig Vedic period the Aryans were divided into clans of a number
of tribes. The term panchajana refers to presence of five dominant tribes at that time.
There were several other tribes. The Bharatas, mentioned in the Rig Veda, were one
of the most powerful Aryan tribes who got victory in the Battle of Ten Kings. The
Bharatas defeated the Purus and their allies. At that time, big territorial units had not
been established. The Aryans had established only small kingdoms based on clan
affinity. The head of such a clan was known as rajan, elected by an assembly called
samiti. Rajan was the protector of his tribe. He had not the unlimited power. It was a
combination of clan system as well as the initial form of kingship. It was consisted of
a number of patriarchal families. Families were formed into grama, vis, and jana in
increasing orders. Grama, consisted of several families, was under the headman
known as gramani. Vis was a collection of many villages under visapati. Viswas
developed into a larger unit of a particular tribe. It was called as jana. There were a
number of such units, each under a king. The five earliest kings were the Purus,
Tugvasas, Yadus, Ayus, and Druhyus.
Kingship
 Kingship was one of the most popular forms of government. There are several
theories regarding the origin of state and kingship. According to Shanti Parva of
Mahabharata ‘society flourished without a king or law court without a king’, before it
fell into degeneration. The strong ‘devoured’ the weak, as it is termed as
‘matsyanayaya’.In this situation, ‘Brahmadeva, the chief god, thought over the matter
and came to conclusion that human society can survive only if a code of law was
framed and enforced through the instrumentality of a king.’ Thus, the code was
created, the first king, Virajas, appointed, and people agreed to follow his orders. The
same Shanti Parva also states about a contract by which the king Manu became the
king on assurance given by people to follow the law and pay necessary taxes. In the
both, the state is regarded as the divine institution. But in some Brahmanical and
Buddhist literature, especially Digha Nikaya, we find like a contract theory. It states
that when anarchy and chaos appeared, people gathered and decided to elect a wise,
virtuous and able man to put an end to anarchicalsituation. A contract was made with
such a man, according to which, he would rule justly and in return he would get a part
of their property(paddy) as tax. Such a man has been termed as ‘mahasammata’,
‘khattiya’and ‘raja’.
The state developed from the small territorial settlements of the Aryans who
were concentrated in the region of Sapta-Sindhu, identified as the settlements around
seven rivers namely, Indus; and its five tributaries- Sutudri (Sutlej), Vipas (Beas),
Parushini (Ravi), Aksini (Chenab) and Vitase (Jhelum), the five rivers of Punjab; and
Sarasvati. The Aryans expansion took place from Punjab to modern Delhi, western
Uttar Pradesh and Ganga-Yamuna doab region between 1000 BCE to 500 BCE. The
realignment of small kingdoms that took place after the Battle of Ten Kings led to the
formation of new states or janapadas each held by a raja or king. By the 6 th CBE the
numbers of such janapadas reach to sixteen. Some of them were Anga, Ashmaka,
Avanti, Chedi, Gandhara, Kamboja, Kashi, Kosala, Kuru, Magadha, Malla, Matsya,
Panchala, Suraseana, Vatsa, and Vajji. Among them, most were hereditary
monarchical.
Kings position was increasing with the states becoming powerful. He led his
people in the war, protected them from aggression, and ruled according to dharma or
rules provided in the scriptures. Buddhist and Brahmanical texts clearly define
responsibility and powers of a king. Raja had not only to punish the offender, but also
to reward the meritorious and deserving. As seen from various sources, main duties of
 king were to punish the thieves and protect private property, to punish adulterer, to
ensure observance of Varna dharma, and establish dharma-based state.

Overlordship
Another system of government was the overlordship or quasi-feudal system
which was based on relation of lord and vassal chiefs. Terms in the Vedic literature
‘adhiraja and Samrat’ seem actually to imply lordship over a number of feudatories.’
During the Mauryan period several vassal chiefs existed, particularly in the remote
regions. ‘The vassals themselves had vassals of their own in petty local chieftains
calling themselves rajas.’ But in India such relations were not based on any form of
contract, as one finds in European feudal system. Here a vassal came into existence by
conquest, not by contract. Weak kings voluntarily paid homage to a strong king. As
mentioned in the Epics and Smritis, “Lawful conquest (dharmavijaya) did not involve
the absorption of the conquered kingdom, but merely its reduction to vassal status.”
But Gupta king Samudra Gupta did not follow this injunction, as he assimilated the
conquered territories. The vassal lords performed duty also to their overlord. Big
vassal was known as mahasamanta who had his own administration and army, and
they could pose threat at any time to the emperor. For example, Dantidurga
Rashtrakuta, actually a vassal of the Chalukya dynasty, overthrew it and established
his own dynasty in 753 CE. The Chalukya regained power after two hundred years.
This time its vassals were the Yadavas, Kakatiyas and Hoyasalas.

Republics
Other forms of polity also existed in ancient India, for example, oligarchies and
republics. Most of the tribal states, the ganas, were governed by oligarchies in which
the elders looked after the administration. They are often compared with republics,
but not in modern sense. We get references of such ganas in the Vedic literature. The
Buddhist scriptures mention the existence of many republics, mostly tributary, in the
foothills of the Himalayas and in the Northern part of Bihar. They were non-
monarchical. The Greek historians found both forms of government, monarchical and
non-monarchical, in the Punjab region at time. Thus, there are references of some of
the gana states, such as, the Yadheyas, the Sakyas, the Malavas, the Vrishnis and the
Lichchhavis. They can be called as republics in the same sense as those of the ancient
Greece or Rome states where power was not actually in the hands of citizens but in
the hands of a few selected persons. In those ganas the kshatriyas dominated but they
did not enjoy position of the ruling class. “The descendants of the original kshtriya
 families (who were founders of a gana), whose heads were called rajas, were known
as rajanyas, while rest of the kshtriyas were known as rajanas.” In the Lichchhavi
Sangha or republic, according to Buddhist literature, there were 7707 kings, who were
actually original Kshatriya settlers. Lalitavistara, a Buddhist text, says that
‘everybody at Vaishali considered himself to be a king.’ Political power in a gana was
shared by a number of classes, such as Brahmanas, military and trading classes.
Almost all the republics had assembly for governance. They were constituted of
smaller units, may be provinces, and villages. All members were entitled to attend the
assembly. The assembly, where sovereignty was vested, elected members of
executives and military. In the later period, however, the higher posts were becoming
hereditary. The assembly also took decisions on foreign affairs and peace and war.
The assembly controlled the executive, the number of which was not same in all
republics. For example, the Malla state had four and the Lichchhavaiand Videhahad
eighteen members in the executive. Meetings were held on all important social,
religious and political matters. Internal conflicts and dissensions were common
among the members of ganas. But many such internal conflicts were solved, not by
votes, but by the interference of elders. In an ideal republic, as mentioned in the
Shanti Parva of Mahabharata, youths should follow ‘path of virtue and the lead of the
elders.’ Party-politics at court cannot be ruled out outrightly. Later on, the Buddhist
Sangha was also modelled on the line of republics. Opinions were collected in favour
of or against a motion, after ensuring the quorum, or the required number of members
to be present in the meeting. A good example of such practice was seen in the Shakya
gana where, at the threat of Kosala invasion a meeting was held on the question to
open the gate or not.
The number of republics was fairly big before the Mauryan period. They were
organised on clan lines, and sometimes they formed a confederation against a
common enemy. But they disappeared after 400 CE. The imperial Mauryas, the
Kushanas, and the Guptas certainly overshadowed their identity.

Organs of the State

Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions seven essential organs of the state. This is
known as the Saptang Siddhant of State. The seven organs of a state were- swami,
amatya, janpada, durg, kosha, danda, and mitra. Swami means head of the state, may
be a king or raja. Kautilya says that a swami should be high-born, intelligent, bold and
full with personal qualities. Amatya was a member of bureaucracy or civil servants.
 There are mention of thirty-six types of amatya, the main among them were the chief
purohita or priest, minister, treasurer, officials who looked after civil and criminal
cases, in charge of royal household, ambassador, superintendents of different
departments, etc. Kautilya restricts the number of ministers to three or four, but
number of amatyas can be fixed by the employer according to requirement. The
Jataka Tales mention hundreds of amatyas belonging to different classes of people.
They were employed to look after common services. Ministers functioned as
councillors. In the post-Mauryan period amatyas were called as sachiva, or
secretaries, who were employed on higher posts in a department. Janapada in the
Arthshastra indicates a combination both of population and territory, means a group
of people living within a territory. Such a land should be fertile, and populated by
hard-working people, like artisan, trader, agriculturist. Durg means the fort, which
was built in the centre, such as in the capital of the state. It was important for defence
of the state. Kosha or treasury was an important part of administration. Kautilya says
that king should keep his treasury full by goodwill and lawful means. It should be full
of gold and silver, and pearls so that they could be used during emergency. It was also
important for maintenance of army. Danda in Arthashastra has been referred as army,
of four types, infantry, cavalry, elephant, and chariot-soldier. Soldiers may be
hereditary and mercenary. The seventh organ of state is mitra or friends who should
be dependable in the time of need. A friend can also be a friendly state in the
neighbourhood.
Organs described above remained in theory and practice in all the states of
ancient India.

Sabha and Samiti

Vidatha, sabha and samiti were popular assemblies during the Vedic period.
Vidatha was a big assembly representing the entire gana or tribe of the Aryans. It has
been referred more times than the other two assemblies in the Rig Veda. Women also
used to take part in the Vidatha. R. S. Sharma is of opinion that Vidatha was more
popular during the Rig Vedic period, and sabha and samiti became popular only in the
later Vedic period. He considers Vidatha special for various reasons, first, there was
women’s participation in it; second, it indicates matrilineal society in the beginning;
third, it discussed over military and religious matters.
In the later Vedic period sabha and samiti seems to be the most prominent assemblies.
Both were different bodies, however the exact nature and functions of sabha are not
 clear. It was used for various purposes. Thus, on the basis of references in Rig Veda,
Atharva Veda and in Brahmana literature it can be said that sabha was place for
gambling, a place for community music and dance. Members discussed on how to
domesticate wild animals, taking decisions of village disputes and sometimes even
political matters. Many times, king also used to attend the sabha. Political and
administrative matters were also disposed in the sabha. Members of the sabha gave
suggestions to king, which was looked into very seriously. K. P. Jayasawal’s opinion
is that decisions of sabha were binding upon everyone. It seems that it was becoming
more a political institution than a social gathering.
Samiti was an assemblyof later period. It was a bigger assembly attended by
all members of the tribe. Its proceedings were not limited to political matters alone.
Rather it discussed religious and philosophical matters too. It was a powerful
assembly which could put restrictions even on the king. So, the king always tried to
get its confidence in his working. A ‘true king’ always paid visit to the samiti. It was
also expected that samiti should remain loyal to the king. King distributed land to his
people after consultation in the samiti. All wished for agreement in the samiti, rather
than disagreement. Members prayed for cordial environment and agreement. But this
agreement was reached upon only after a debate in the samiti. In this way it was a
very important institution for debate and discussion. Everyone taking part in such a
debate wanted to prove his eloquence and ability of argument. It was, in this sense, a
pure democratic institution in the modern sense.
Both representative bodies ceased to remain important and function as
political bodies in the later period. We find very few references of theirs.

History of Polity and Governance

Polity since the Mauryan Period: The Mauryan system of government was highly
centralised monarchy. Smaller kingdoms and republics became insignificant, though
some of them continued to hold autonomous status. The Arthashastra mentions a few
republics such as Kamboja, Lichchhavis, Vrijis, and Panchala. The kingship under
Chandragupta was despotic, but under Ashoka it became a paternal despotic. He
treated his subjects as his children. His aim was welfare of his people. Arthashastra
also suggests that king must be available to his subjects at all times. King was the
upholder of dharma. He maintained social order.
There was a council of ministers or mantriparishad to advise the king on all
administrative matters. Its number was not fixed, however, there was a small group of
influential ministers, as inner council. The king appointed ministers of his choice.
There were a number of central government officers and superintendents of various
departments. Thus, we get examples of superintendents of tolls, weaving industry,
agriculture, liquor-shops, slaughter house, prostitutes, cows, gold and goldsmiths,
commerce, forest produce and many others. The empire was divided into provinces,
for example, during the time of Ashoka there were four provinces, namely, Taxila,
Ujjain, Tosali and Suvarnagiri. Pataliputra in Magadha was the capital. Princes served
as royal governors in the provinces. Provinces were further divided into districts
which were administered by a group of officials such as rajuka and yukta, assisted by
other lower rank officials. The lowest unit of administration was the villages.
The king was always informed on all important affairs of the state through his
trusted agents, such as pulisanis and pativedakas. They have been mentioned in the
edicts of Ashoka, along with the mahamattas, who looked after the judicial
administration. Ashoka had started the service of a special officer, called as the
dhammamahamattas, in his 14th regnal year. His main work was to spread the
message of dhamma to which Ashoka had started his association and affinity. The
Arthashastra and Megasthenese’s Indica mention about an elaborate system of
military organisation during the Mauryan period. Infantry was of the first importance.
Kautilya mentions three types of soldiers, the hereditary soldiers, mercenaries, and
soldiers of corporations. Hereditary soldiers formed the standing army of the state.
Cavalry, chariots and elephants were other organs of the army. Megasthenese also
mentions about the fleet. He gives descriptions of six committees, which controlled
the six divisions of army, namely the fleet, the supply, the infantry, cavalry, chariots,
and elephants.
It is generally accepted that land belonged to the king and cultivators paid rent
of one-fourth of the produce. The Rummindei Inscription of Ashoka gives a good
description of land revenue system of the Maurya. It mentions two types of land tax,
Bhag and Bali. Bhag was a land tax, normally collected one-sixth of produce, from
land under individual or collective ownership. Baliwas a type of tribute to the king on
land produce. It was an extra tax, other than Bhag. There were non-agricultural taxes
collected as tribute from herdsmen and shepherds in the form of cattle. Craftsmen and
traders were also taxed. Traders paid one-tenth of value of goods sold as sales tax.
Some other types of taxes were house tax, tax on irrigation, pasture, entry and exit tax
in town, etc.
Post-Mauryan Polity: In the post-Mauryan period the Satvahanas, the Kushanas, the
Guptas, and the Cholas of the south India founded sound system of government. The
kingship under Satvahana was also hereditary but kings did not claim to be a divine
king. He worked on the principles as mentioned in the ancient law books. Satavahana
princes, the Kumaras, were in charge of provinces. Some parts of empire were under
direct state control divided into janpadas, others were vassal states. There were further
administrative divisions of janapadas. The feudatory kings under Satavahanas paid
allegiance and tribute to the king. Feudatories were known by various titles such as
the raja, maharathis, mahasenapatis, and mahabhojas. The maharathi, among them,
had some special previleges, such as they could grant land, and could issue their
coins. Mahasenapatis were appointed in far off provinces. All the feudatories helped
the Satavahana kings in war campaigns and in administration. The king had a group
of regular officials. Amatya was an important part of Satavahana administration. He
was like mahamatta of the time of Ashoka. State officials were perhaps paid in cash as
is presumed from a long list of donations given in karshapans, the coins. Revenue was
also collected both in kind and cash. A very dominant feature of Satvahana
administration was role of traders in city administration. The number of cities during
the period of Satavahana was the biggest. Some of them were – Bharuch, Sopara,
Kanheri, Paithan, Karle, Govardhanan, Nasik, Brahmapuri, Amravati etc. Members of
City Corporation were traders who managed local self-government at city level.
Similarly, village administration was also highly developed. In all, the Satavahana
state machinery was simple.
Kushanas were one of the Central Asian tribes who established their sway in
the Northwest frontier replacing the Shakas, Indo-Greeks, and the Parthians in the
first century CE. They had two houses or dynasties, the Kadphises and the Kanishka.
Kanishka I was the greatest king of this dynasty. The centre of Kushana Empire was
in Bactria, but it was extended in India up to the Gangetic basin, as far as Varanasi.
Matura was its capital in India. Kushana issued largest number of gold and copper
coins. Kushana kings adopted titles such asmahishwar, maharaja and rajatiraja. The
Kushana kings did not have direct rule and control over a large part of their empire.
There is no clear information about the number of provinces under them. Kshatraps
were appointed to administer provinces. They were very powerful and behaved like
independent rulers. Dandnayaka or mahadandanayaka played important role in
administration. He was a military officer who belongs to the royal family. He
performed magisterial and judicial duties. References of mahadandanayakaare found
from several inscriptions of Mathura. Perhaps Kushana officials were paid in cash as
can be presumed from the number of coins they issued. Gold and silver for this
purpose were imported from the Central Asia. In fact, the Kushanas had served as a
link between the Central Asian and Indian trade and administration. The Kushanas
continued old practices of village administration, however, the tendency of getting
land grants increased. In fact, the feudal character developed during this period.
The Gupta Administration: The Guptas established their empire in the 4 th century
CE. The Gupta Empire extended from Kashmir in the north to Ujjain in the south and
from Gujarat in the west to Bengal in the east. This period in Indian history is known
for all round cultural development and economic prosperity. Politically it is known
for military campaign, the digvijaya, of Samudragupta, and western campaign of
Chandragupta II in the western India. First reference of sale and purchase of land also
appears during this period in north Bengal.
The kingship of the Gupta period was based on strict principle of dharma
mentioned in the sutras and shastras. The king was protector of dharma. The king
adopted titles like ‘parmeshwar’, ‘maharajadhiraja’, and ‘parambhattaraka’. Such
titles make clear the existence of smaller kings and chiefs in the Gupta Empire, who
were feudatory to the Gupta rulers. The Gupta kings appointed ministers, army
generals, and regional rulers. They claimed right of tax collection in lieu of protecting
their subjects as enshrined in the smritis. In the smriti of Katyayana, it is mentioned
that the king collected tax since he was the owner of land. Thus, he had right to
donate land. This supports the feudal character of the state, in which lands were
granted to Brahmans, army officers, and regional rulers. Like the Satavahana kings,
the Gupta rulers also compared themselves frequently with Hindu gods such as Yama,
Kuber, Varun, Indra, and many others. They protected people like Vishnu. Gupta
coins had numerous impressions of Lakshmi, the Goddess of prosperity. This was the
great period of revival of Hinduism. But king was not arbitrary. He functioned
according to laws mentioned in the law books. Perhaps Brahmans dominated in the
administration. Similarly, the land grantees and feudal lords, traders and craftsmen, all
were treated well.
There was a high-class bureaucracy in the Gupta period. Most important
administrative posts were of mahadandnayaka, kumaramatya, and sandhivigraha. A
few ministers like Harishena were so powerful that they held all the three posts at a
time. Kumaramatyas were in-charges of bhuktis. They held considerable influence in
their administration. In the later part of the Gupta rule many kumaramatyas became
independent. Sandhivigrahawas minister of managing peace and war. During
Samudragupta period, Harishena held that post, along with two other posts. Higher
posts were normally given to people of high origin. Posts of ministers or in charges of
divisions and districts were becoming hereditary. State officials were paid in both
forms, in cash or in the form of land grant. The Gupta kings also issued gold coins in
large number. The Gupta kings maintained a big army. Archery and cavalry were
highly developed. References like ‘ashvapati’, ‘mahashvapati’ or ‘bhatashvapati’
signify the presence of mounted archers in the Gupta army. Taxes were collected both
in kind and in cash. Taxes were also collected from traders and craftsmen. The
corporations also played important role in this regard. An officer called as
‘pustapal’maintained the record of sale and purchase of land at district level or
vishaya. Similarly, records of village land were also maintained. Ayuktas looked after
the work of assessment and collection of land revenue. There were a number of
lower-level revenue officials like divir, karnik, and kayastha.
Provincial and local administrations were well-organised. Directly
administered territories were divided in provinces, known as bhuktis, governed by
uparikas. Exact number of bhuktis is not known. There were as many as six bhuktis.
Some of the bhuktis were Tirabhukti, Nagarabhukti, Sravastibhukti,
Pundravardhanbhukti, and Ahichchatrabhukti. Provinces were also called as desas, at
other places. Bhukti was divided into vishayas or districts, which were under
vishayapatis. They worked under uparikas or sometime directly under the king. The
headquarters of a vishaya was known as adhisthana. Rajagriha, Pataliputra, and Gaya
were vishayas under the Magadh bhukti. Maintenance of law and order and collection
of taxes were main works of the provincial and local administration. Further divisions
of bhuktis were vithis and grama. There were several such vithis in Bihar and Bengal.
Provincial or district administrations worked with the help of a number of lower rank
officials, such as, dandikas, Prathama kulikas, pusta-palas, nagara shreshthi. There
were city councils.
Maintenance of law and order was the responsibility of dananayaka or
dandika. They commanded adequate number of forces. The judicial administration
was diversified. Distinction between the civil and criminal cases were laid down. The
Narada Smriti, the Brihaspati Smriti and Kamandaka Nitisara, written during the
Gupta periods, give new insights on judicial and general administration. The
Brihaspati Smriti, or Law of Brihaspati divides laws in eighteen books, out of which
fourteen are related to civil laws, and the rest are related to criminal laws. Civil laws
were concentrated mainly on property right, sale and purchase of land, mortgages, and
contract. It is important to know that during the Gupta period the concept of private
ownership over lands and their sale and purchase had developed very much so laws
were also framed concerning them. Justice was done on the basis of evidences.
However, regarding the composition of courts very few evidences are available.
Courts were working right from the apex to the lower-levels. Craftsmen and traders
had separate courts to dispose their grievances.
South Indian Polity: The Pandya, the Chola and the Chera were the earliest
kingdoms during the Sangam age in south India. In the 4 th century CE, the Pallavas
dominated the politics of south India, and after their downfall there was resurgence of
the Chola in the middle of the 9 th century CE. The Cholas established their supremacy
over the ruins of the Pallava kingdom. They made Tanjore their capital. The Chola
administration was highly organised, centralised and efficient. There was little impact
of feudal dominance in the Chola administration, as was there in other kingdoms of
the south. The king was centre of all powers; however, he was advised by a council of
ministers. Administration was conducted smoothly with the help of different grades of
officials selected on birth right and by their efficiency. Hereditary right in kingship
was recognised and eldest son succeeded his father. The Chola kings also claimed
divine origin. They adopted titles like ‘Chola-Martanda’ or ‘Chakravartigala.’ All
decorum was maintained to magnify the majesty of the kings.
The Chola kingdom was divided into several provinces which were known as
‘mandalam’. Mandalam was administered by a highly efficient person, normally of a
royal blood. A mandalam was further divided into ‘kottams’; and kottams into ‘nadus’
or valanadu. Nadus were like modern districts. A nadu was consisted of a number of
villages known as ‘kurram’. In this way villages were the smallest units of
administration. Officials were normally paid by assignment of lands. The king
collected land revenue on the basis of survey and classification of the land. This
system was introduced during the time of Chola king Rajaraja I (985-1014). He
collected land revenue, either in kind or cash, at the rate of one-sixth of the produce,
however, it was not the fixed rate. Some other kinds of taxes were toll tax, profession
tax, salt tax. Judiciary worked from apex to village levels, with right to appeal to the
 higher court. Serious cases were punished, if found guilty, by death sentence, but
ordinary cases were met with fines and imprisonments.
The Chola period is better known for its local self-government, particularly the
village administration. The central government did not interfere in its functioning.
Village was administered through assemblies, such as the ‘Ur’, ‘Sabha’ and
‘Nagaram’. The Ur was a general assembly of the tax paying villagers. Sabha was the
assembly of those villages, normally rent-free, which were settled by Brahmanas. The
Nagaram was assembly of traders. The assemblies functioned in the interests of the
community, without much interference by the central government representatives.

The concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam

In this section you will read about one of highest ideals of Indian philosophy.
It is known as the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. Let us see in detail below.
3.0.1 Concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam means the
whole world is a family. It is consisted of two Sanskrit words –Vasudha, means earth
and kutumb means family. It appears in the Maha Upanishad which is part of the Sam
Veda. The Maha Upanishad has six chapters which starts from the story of creation
and further it deals with the main theories of Upanishads, i.e. what is Brahma, Atmaor
self, gyanor true knowledge, vairagyaor mortification, mohaor endearment. In the last
two chapters Rishi Ribhugives sermons to his son Nidagha on true knowledge of life
and on the broadness on one’s mind. In this context, in the sixth chapter, the shloka
appears.
It goes like this- ayam nijah paro veti ganana laghuchetsaam
udaar charitaanaam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam.
This sloka has been translated into English like this-
“One is a relative, the other stranger,

say the small minded.

The entire world is a family,

live the magnanimous.”

The Maha Upanishad is a small Upanishad, but it contains very deep
thoughtful ideals of Indian mind. A close examination of it would reveal that it
encompasses man, family, society and the whole world in one integrated bonding. It is
an explanation of Vedantic philosophy. By knowing true nature of this cosmic world
and its relation to human beings it can be said that all are one. The individuality of a
man with the other is just a physical one. All Upanishads in one sense or the other
give the same message of oneness. We feel different from others due to an illusion
which compels us, according to the Maha Upanishad itself, to think that ‘it is I, it is
mine’ and further, ‘it is He, and it is I that is mine.’ The Upanishad, here, enlarges the
horizon of thought in regard to man’s place in family, society and the world. By
following the principle of vasudhaiva kutumbakam a man can feel himself belonging
to the whole humanity. Since the Upanishad believes in one self, it declares ‘there is
no such place where I am not existing.’“All this is indeed Brahman; all this extended
reality is the Self. I am one and this is another -give up this illusion.”
The main teaching of all Upanishads is to make human beings aware of
unnecessary attachment to worldly pleasure and longing. They support self-
satisfaction; a simple living, high thinking. By renunciation of too much longing one
can feel immense pleasure of life. This message of Upanishads is universal and for the
whole mankind. The Upanishads, in fact, preach social harmony.
The concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam envisages a man who is not selfish,
rather a magnanimous one. He should renounce his egoism, adopt reason and good
conducts. He should renounce selfish behaviour of ‘me’ and ‘mine’. For such man the
whole world is a family. This concept has been accepted as the key to a good and
harmonious life in a world of diversity.
 There are other hymns in the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda which also have the
similar meaning of oneness among all. For example, the Saumanasya sukta of Rig Veda
also speaks of togetherness among all and to avoid conflict. The sangyan sukta of
Atharva Veda also speaks of cordial relations among all.
3.0.2 Significance of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is seen as
the ancient Indians’ desire to live a peaceful life in accordance to nature as well as in
harmony to all. It was rightly thought that for a peaceful co-existence a life of
moderation and non-interference in others affairs were essential. It also reveals principle
of a collective life in which no one should claim authority over natural resources. Our
ancient scriptures have time and again dealt this aspect of human life and warned human
beings against selfish behaviour and greediness. It happens if one thinks others different
from himself. But the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam always preaches the
principle of brotherhood, fraternity, a simple living, and oneness.