Deep roots of democracy in Indian social system —

As on today, the democratic pattern of India has got the cognizance as of a “matured democracy.” And this cognizance has been taken by foreign media either. Added with, they accredit this rating to the Constitution of India as a protector. From their perspective, the democracy in India was evolved only after the Independence of India i.e. by the year 1947 and onward. Here an interesting point they avoid to take notice of is that still on this present day of 21st Century, a majority of Indians have not read properly the entire transcript of the Indian Constitution. This is probably on the account of Indian Constitution being the largest written Constitution of the world.

And if we talk about the post Independence era and following decades of the past, the literacy rate of India we find at very low level. In fact, it remained at a lowest rate in true sense with the perspective of being as much literate to comprehend the written complex phrases of embedded articles of our Constitution. Then how come, under those circumstances with India having largest people as illiterate, the concept of democracy kept on grow and flying high? It had some major reasons. First, our regime gave a free hand to grow and flourish this system. This was supported by factors of “freedom of expression of speech” and secondly, by the right of “adult franchise.” Both rights were safeguarded by the Constitution. But some significant primitive factors too were there.

If we retrospect in the era of last twentieth Century, the rough prototype of the Constitution for every citizen revolve around these two rights majorly in the name of Constitution as a whole. But, whether the democracy in India has evolved in India only after the Independence as proclaimed by the foreign media? Answer is a big NO! The truth is, the concept as well the sentiments of democracy has for past thousands of years already been embedded into the matrix of our people. We try to comprehend in the following simple manner.

Prior to the Independence of India, for more than two hundred years Britishers ruled over the India. Before them, for many centuries Muslim or Mughals had regime over the territory. But here, we often don’t discuss that never any foreign invader succeeded to take the entire control over this vast land in true sense! The Nation was a huge territory that never was under the whole possession of any outsider ruler in true sense. It ever remained fragmented and reigned by different dynasties in parallel on the ground. To say, Britishers had the actual control over the 3/5th of the land and rest 2/5th was under the control of local Kings and Lords. Though, some administrative name was allocated to this system, but that is not the part of discussion of this blog.

The same situation was in Mughal or Muslim time. At some places, Maratha rulers maintained a strong hold, at other places Rajputana were so fierce and never gave up. Like wise position was on different parts in Deccan. This situation ever prevailed through out the entire territory from East to West and from North to South. It is another subject matter that on the transcript of historic periodicals, it all been mentioned with tilt in “self magnanimous”  way by the historians of the Court of Kings they worked under. Prior to the Muslim invaders, the entire land was under the control of Hindus’ kings accordingly.

During the Muslim or Mughal period, the ruling system was a business between elite and affluent class mainly. Common man was not disturbed in his day to day life, hence a parallel system we find existed during this period of time. The battle between two States was always an affair between two kings only and common people watched it  nonchalantly. But here only, a system kept surviving on, that had seeds and roots of democracy. Before switching to that point, something has to be mentioned about the  Britishers.

Britishers were intelligent and with an acumen. They had been here with intent to explore and exploit the natural resources of India. They were deeply aware that “time and setting” of every country has got its own “structure.” This “structure” of “time and setting” evolve gradually passing through long centuries. They, in general, didn’t give any effort to disrupt the fundamentals of that olden structure. They dealt with it delicately and paid special heed not to disturb the “personal and customary laws” of native people. These laws dealt with social norms and religious rites of different religious communities, sects and creeds. This might offend the Native people and invoke an unrest.

No doubt, they also took some stern actions against some malefic customs which had been shaped into social evils. But in front of these social issues they always used local social reformers as a shield.  A good instance of this is abolition of “Sati pratha” ( The horrendous custom in which a widow was forced to self immolate herself on the burning pyre of her deceased husband.) Otherwise, never they infringed in social structure until and unless it was needed direly.

Along with the dynasties and rulers, a local system always existed in Indian social structure. Here one thing worth noticing is, from the inception of civilization of ancient India, Indian civilization has ever been an “agrarian culture” vastly. This system continued and still continues. No doubt, some important cities had always been in existence in every time. But sociologically it can not be ignored that at the initial stage,  every city was a village only. Due to its commercial value it gradually grew into a city. But the sentiments of rural mentality remained present in the mind of people for some generations to come unless it entirely transformed to an advanced city. Besides, every city, in every day business is to be reached out by migratory people with a rural mental set up to get settle there.

Here comes the significance of rural system and its “Chopal system.” The Chopal is a village committee and need to be considered in wider sense. Our every village from the inception carried this significant factor. This pattern prevailed over thousands of years in its journey. The “village committee” was selected in every village. Here term “selected” is used and not the “elected”. In olden time, a man of influential potential was chosen as the “head man” of the village unanimously. He was denominated as “Surpunch or Pradhan or Mukhiya.” To assist him, a team of at least five persons  were also chosen. This team worked as “Cabinet” to the head man of the village.

All matters related to the village community, be it about the development or some religious ceremony or disputes among the denizens were to be sent to this “cabinet” for a solution. Often, all these issues were to be discussed in an open gathering of people (specifically male denizens) of entire village. Even, all people were at liberty to share their opinion on the “issue” concerned. Every opinion were heard with attention and after that separately pondered over by “village Chief and his cabinet.” By keeping in mind the opinion and suggestions of all people, some concrete decision was taken. This was the “real democratic pattern” that persisted and existed in our Indian social fabric for thousands years. The election procedure of today, in true sense is the refined and another facet of the same coin.

Here, I intend to say, the old system of village community meeting contained the soul of democratic pattern from the very beginning. This system remained alive in the social system “directly or indirectly. Along with, an another system also happened to work in parallel within this village community in every village. That too followed the democratic pattern. India has ever been the land of diversities. Here, in the same village, people of various castes, sub-castes and different religions and faith had been living in unison. Now if there occurred some religious or customary issues of some particular casts or community, then how it was to be resolved?

For this purpose, every caste or community had their own “head man and cabinet” for this purpose separately and they happened to take decisions according to their own prevailing norms and moorings. Still in our remote rural areas, such type of “community committees” exist and sort out the local issues. Surprisingly, our this olden system was never intervened or disrupted neither by Mughals nor Britishers.

When we got the independence, at that time more than 85% of population happened to live in rural areas. Basically we have been an agricultural society. Still about 65% of our total population dwells in rural area. Now we are destined to live in a “mixed social system.” Our this system of “village committee” concept too duly been accepted and annexed as part of the Constitution under the head of “Punchayat Raj system” or “local self government.” After the Independence, this system was promoted and inspired properly.

In a way, this system ever helped “to vent the pant up feelings” of people at large. This produced a significant effect in the way that always in our Country, the “change of regime” was done by “ballet papers.” There is no evidence of “anarchic change of regime’ in our modern history (i.e, after Independence.) Though some anarchist elements happen to exist in every social system and they ever try to implement their agenda through unlawful modus operendi. But the deep rooted concept of democracy which has been embedded in our genetic code for thousand years always foil their “scheming.” Penned by– Vinay pharasi —