Mahajanapada Period:

Que. Describe Gana-Sanghas (non-monarchical state systems). Why did they decline? [Practice Question]

Approach:

(1) Give a brief on Gan Sanghas.

(2) Enumerate different Gana-Sanghas. Explain political, social, economic and cultural conditions of Gan sanghas. Give reasons of their decline.

(3) Conclude on neutral grounds.

Introduction:

From the sixth century B.C. onwards, the widespread use of iron in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Western Bihar, as evidenced from excavations at Raj ghat and Chirand, led to the formation of large territorial states called Mahajanapadas.

The Buddhist literature, particularly the Anguttara Nikaya lists the sixteen mahajanapadas mahajanapadas can be divided into Monarchies (Rajyas) and Republics/Non-monarchical (Ganas or Sanghas). The compound term gana-sangha has a connotation of gana, those claiming equal status and sangha-an assembly.

These were the systems, where the heads of families of a clan governed the territory of the clanthrough an assembly. The Mahajanapadas of Vriji, Malla, kuru, Panchal and kamboj were republican states and so were other smaller states like Lichhavi, Shakya, Koliya, Bhagga and Morya.

The Sources and Characteristic Features of Gana Sanghas:

(1) Sources of Gana Sanghas:

Indian literature comprising Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain texts mention different types of non-monarchical states called Ganas or Sanghas, and this account is corroborated by the statements of the Greek historians of the Alexander’s campaigns in India. Buddhist texts clearly indicate that the Sakya assembly gathered to discuss important business such as forging alliances, embarking on war, and concluding peace. More details on ganas are provided by Buddhist and Jaina texts than Brahmanical ones. This is because kingship was central to the Brahmanical social and political ideology, and kinglessness was equated with anarchy.

(i) Arthasastra: Arthasastra mentions several corporations such as the Lichchavikas, Vrijjikas, Madras etc. They had an assembly whose members were called Rajas.

(ii) Panini’s Ashtadhyayi and the Majjhima Nikaya: The terms gana and sangha are used as synonymous political terms in some literary sources like Panini’s Ashtadhyayi and the Majjhima Nikaya.

(iii) Coins: Coins also offer information on republics. The term gana on coins of the Yaudheyas and Malavas points to their non-monarchical polity.

(iv) Greek Accounts: The existence of republics is also proved by testimony of Greek writers. Megasthenes says that most of the India cities of his time had a democratic form of government and also mentions several tribes who were free and had no kings. He also refers to the small state of Nysa as having an oligarchical form of government.

(2) Characteristic Features of Gana Sanghas:

(i) Non-Hereditary Office: The chief executive of the tribal state was not hereditary, and he was more a chief than king. This is indicated in later Buddhist story Simha, in spite being the youngest son senapati Khanda, was allowed to succeed his father to office. When Simha wanted step aside favour of his brother, the member’s assembly plainly told him that the office not belong his family but to the assembly of the tribe.

(ii) Collective Decision: All important issues placed before assembly, no decision was taken the absence unanimity among members. This has given rise to much trumpeted historians that non-monarchical states of the post-Vedic period were truly democratic in character.

(iii) Corporate character: The central feature republican government was its seemingly corporate character. The representatives sat public (santhagara) the capital. The tribal assembly was presided over by one of the representatives called the raja or senpati.

(iv) Meetings at the Santhagara: Meetings at the santhagara of the ganas were probably announced by the beating of a drum, and there may have been a regulator of seats. Voting was done with pieces of wood known assalakas. The collector of votes was the salaka gahapaka, chosen for this job on account of his reputation for honesty and impartiality. Thegana-purakawas responsible forensuring the presence of a quorum, which was required for major deliberations.

(v) The Administrative Machinery: The administrative machinery of the Sakyas and Lichchhavis was simple. It consisted of raja, uparaja (vice-king), senapati (commander) and bhandaganka (treasurer). The elder members of the aristocratic families (rajakulas) formed the core of the assembly in one case the rajakulas are credited with the right of declaring war. These republican states had a Gana-parishad or an Assembly of senior and responsible citizens. This Gana-Parishad had the supreme authority in the state. All the administrative decisions were taken by this Parishad. 

(vi) Land Ownership in Ganas: In a gana sangha land was owned by the clan, but the hired labourers and slaves worked on it. The Kshatriya political elite were probably also the largest landowners in the ganas. Walter Ruben suggests that the clan of Sanghas exercised rights over land, and private property may have been absent.

(vii) Society: The gana sanghas had two divisions in the societies-the kshatriya rajakula or the ruling families and the Dasa karmakara or slaves and labourers. Gana sanghas did not observe a varna society. The gana sanghas tolerated individual and independent opinions and unorthodox views.

(viii) Oligarchy System: The assemblies were dominated by oligarchs. The real power lay in the hands of tribal oligarchies. The absence of monarchy did not really mean the prevalence of democracy in the true sense of the term. Effective executive power and day-to-day political management must have been in the hands of a smaller group. The political system of the ganas seems to have been a compromise between government by assembly and by an oligarchy within this assembly.

Factors Responsible for the Decline of Gana Sanghas:

(1) Caste Arrogance and Caste System: 

Caste arrogance and the caste system was one of the reasons for the decline of the republics because the republics could not accept the people born in other castes on the basis of equality. As a result, despite having democratic ideology the republics could not bring about unity in their own state.

(2) Strong Monarchical States: 

The republican tradition became feeble from the Maurya period. Even in pre-Mauryan times, monarchies were far stronger and common. The history of the ganas of ancient India spanned a thousand years or so. They were eventually defeated by the monarchical states. Their military defeats at the hands of monarchical states can be seen as a result of the inability of their system of governance and military organization to meet the challenges of empire building.

(3) Decision Making System: 

Their greatest asset, governance through discussion – proved to be their greatest weakness as well because it paved the way for internal dissension, particularly when threatened by the aggressive monarchies.

(4) Internal Disputes: 

The chief cause of decline of the republics was internal disputes between clans and groups in the state. Due to internal conflict only, great republics of Andhaka-Vrishnis, the Vajjis and the Videhas were destroyed.

(5) Lack of Meritocracy: 

Republics did not stick to the principle of the election of the most meritorious person as the leadership was given to the person on the basis of birth and the principle of hereditary succession was slowly introduced, sacrificing the foundation principle of the gana sanghas.

(6) Concentrated Power Within the Hands of Few Clans: 

Power in the republics was concentrated in the hands of a few clans who were not ready to give to other sections of the society. The Kshatriyas did not consider other classes of society equal to them, hence, they were not in a position to increase the circle of their influence. As a result, compared to their monarchical counterparts their power essentially remained modest.

(7) Lack of Resources: 

The republics, due to their small size and limited resources could not match the strength of monarchies. Most of the ganas, especially the politically important ones, were located in or near the Himalayan foothills in eastern India, while the major kingdoms occupied the fertile alluvial tracts of the Ganga valley. Due to this ganas lacked resources vis-a-vis monarchies.

(8) System of Governance and Military Organization: 

The ambitions of monarchical states, spurred their military victories over the ganas, whose system of governance and military organization were unable to meet these challenges. Unlike the monarchies, standing armies might not have existed in the ganas The Lichchhavis had a strong army but, when not engaged in battle, the soldiers probably retired to their lands.

Conclusion:

Following the decline of the Mauryan Empire, republics experienced a revival and thrived for a few centuries. However, the imperial Guptas, driven by the ambition to expand their empire and annex neighboring states, eventually destroyed these republican states. Chandra Gupta I, Samudra Gupta, and Chandra Gupta II played significant roles in the destruction of these republics.