This article was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.
If we choose to seek inspiration from the ancient past, there is a large menu from which to choose. However, it is somewhat ironical that people living in a modern democracy should make appeals (often of diametrically opposed kinds) to traditions rooted in hierarchical and unequal societies governed by autocratic kings.
These appeals are usually based on selective reading and decontextualizing of the evidence. Ancient societies accepted the idea of the natural inequality of social groups; this is the antithesis of the principle of natural equality, the fundamental premise of modern democracy.
In ancient India, inequality was challenged from time to time, largely at the religious and soteriological levels, and this had a social impact. But the principles of liberty and equality as the basis of a political community were first promulgated in the Constitution of the Indian republic. Surely the inspiration for a better future should come not from a past that is long gone, but from aspirations for a future that is yet to come, one which will hopefully be better than the past or the present.
Upinder Singh
Ancient India: Culture of Contradictions
Aleph Book Company, 2021.
I am saying this because in the present context of an increasingly authoritarian and intolerant state, it has become fashionable to talk about the ancient Indian tradition of debate and dissent and to present this as an inherent aspect of Indian culture and civilisation.
We have seen in this book that in ancient India, vigorous questioning, debate, and disagreement existed in plenty within and across disciplines and traditions. But we should not forget that participation in these was circumscribed by the unequal, hierarchical nature of social structures. If we would like to extract some political takeaways for our times from ancient India, it is more appropriate to choose some elements of the model of an ideal ruler — that such a ruler must be utterly impartial in the administration of justice, must not be motivated by considerations of personal favour or profit, and should not be swayed by a lust for power. This ideal is as valid in discussions of ancient monarchies as it is in modern democracies.
So are the ideas that a ruler should be self-controlled and receptive to good advice; should recognise the line between necessary force and illegitimate violence; and should know that using excessive or unjust force against subjects is not only morally wrong but will invite dire retribution.
In fact, Kautilya’s warning of cruel and unjust rulers meeting their nemesis due to prakriti-kopa, ‘anger of the people’, suits modern democracies better than ancient monarchies. Ashoka’s desire to promote genuine religious dialogue and concord is exceptional but even lesser kings did not try to create a theocratic state. Dharma was understood as greater than religion. This idea is very relevant for a modern multi-religious, multicultural nation.
Also read: Book Excerpt: The Surprising Similarities in Ideas Shared by Ashoka and Kautilya
India has never been a hermetically sealed unit. Over the centuries, there was continuous interaction with the lands and people of various parts of Asia, Europe, and Africa. Genetics proves that the present inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent represent the result of thousands of years of migrations and mingling that ultimately go back to the continent of Africa. For Indian readers, the discussion of the complexities and contradictions in early Indian history in this book has hopefully given some answers to the question: ‘Who are we?’ The existential question ‘Who am I?’ is more difficult. Its answers are better sought in philosophy than history.
(Excerpted with permission from Ancient India: Culture of Contradictions, Aleph Book Company)
