INTRODUCTION

The development of human civilization began with the concept and use of a better governance system. This concept leads to the development of the individual’s state and the state’s state within society. It is believed that democracy, the republic, and parliament are the three concepts of the modern Western political system. But in ancient Indian thought and literature, there is a mention of political institutions related to governance. The word “republic” is mentioned 40 times in the Rigveda and 9 times in the Atharvaveda. The functioning of the Sangh or Parliament has been described in detail in the Shanti Parva, Theology, Smriti, Granth, and Buddhist texts of the Mahabharata. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the development of political institutions like republics and democracy started in India from the Vedic era itself. In the Vedic political system, “sabha,” “samiti,” and “Vidath” are mentioned as representative institutions. It is described in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda. Just as ‘Arcopegus’ was the role of the Sabha and the Samiti in India, in the Greek people, in the ‘Curia’ Romans. The Sabha was also called the “people and the council. In ancient Sanskrit texts, popular institutions like Sabha, Samiti, Vidath, Sangram, and Parishad have been mentioned. 

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

Thinkers have different opinions about the origin and development of “Sabha and Samiti”. In this regard, Altekar believes that it appears that the public understood that the Sabha and the Samiti were God-made institutions. With the development of man’s political life, “Sabha and Samiti” emerged. Altekar has mentioned three types of meetings – Sabha, Samiti, and Vidath– but said that it is difficult to give a definite meaning to these words. It is possible to change its meaning according to time and time. In ‘Parashar Madhava’, Jupiter has described four types of meetings—

1. Achal Sabha, which used to take place in the village,
2. Chal Sabha – The Sabha of learned persons who used to visit,
3. The Empowered Samiti—the Superintendent was its head,
4. Sabha as per command—The king was its head.

Bhrigu has also mentioned some simple meetings in this book which were of certain castes. Charaka has also mentioned two types of meetings; the first is the meeting of learned people, and the second is the meeting of the public. From this, it appears that in addition to important state assemblies like the House and the Samiti, there was also a less important Sabha which belonged to a particular class and which determined the social and religious matters of that society.

Shende has written that the word ‘Parliament’ has been used in place of the House in Atharvaveda and its members have been called corporators. The divine authority of the king is not discussed in the Atharvaveda. The king was elected as the head of state. The body by which the king was elected was called the “Sabha and Samiti”. There is also a mention of witchcraft in the Atharvaveda, which was used to win the house in debates. Schende believes that “Sabha and Samiti” were mentioned together.

Ludwick believes that the meeting was attended by upper class people, such as priests and wealthy people. Ordinary people were members of the Samiti. Jhimr writes that the Samiti functioned as a village institution and as a central council for the entire people. Hille Brand believes that both the Sabha and the Samiti were the same. The place where people gathered was called the Sabha, and the gathering group was called the Samiti. N.N. Law writes that various words have been used for these institutions in Sanskrit texts, such as council, Vidth, Sangati, ““Sabha and Samiti”. In Vedic texts, the gathering is generally described in two ways, the first is the gathering of Vedic people, and the second is the place where people used to gather. In this way, the Samiti also reflects the house, which Hilleband also writes that the Samiti was a meeting in a way. Ghosal, however, called “Sabha and samiti” a parallel institution and described the work of the house as deliberative. Ghoshal further writes that there were two people-loving legislative councils in India in the Vedic period, but it is not possible to describe their work and role with certainty. Generally, it can be said that the Samiti was the highest institution of the Vedic people and held an important place as the advisory institution of the king. The reputation of the Sabha as a common institution was also similar, but initially its role was limited. Both the “House and the Samiti” had the right to debate.

Thus, on the basis of the arguments and opinions given by various scholars, it can be concluded that the Sabha was a village institution where debate on both social and political issues was possible. The Samiti was a political body of scholars whose function was similar to that of the legislature of the central government. It was very effective from the point of view of governance because the future of the king was determined by its cooperation and support. If the Samiti was against the king, it was like a crisis for the king. That is, the influence of the Samiti was also more on the central government and army, including the king. However, there is no clear knowledge of what the situation in practise was.

SABHA

In the Vedic and post-Vedic periods, the workings of political and national life were revealed through the then people-loving meetings and institutions. The Sabha was an important and popular institution. The general meaning of the house is to be light, which means that the learned and distinguished people are members, and the house is adorned with their qualities and activities. The place where they used to gather has been called a meeting. In Vedic texts, the word Sabha has been used in different meanings, such as: building, gaming, place, royal court, and royal court. Regarding the Sabha, it is believed that it originated in the last period of the Rigveda. The House was also called Narishtha, which resolution of many people which cannot be abolished and which cannot be violated. It is also written in the Atharvaveda, addressing the gathering in the name of Narishtha— 

“विद्य ते सभे नाम नरिष्टा नाम वा असि ।

ये ते के च सभासदस्ते मे सन्तु सवाचासः ।।”

This verse means, “O Sabha, we are familiar with you there.” Your name is Narishtha. All those who are gathered here spoke in harmony with me. K.P. Jaiswal has written that the House was probably a permanent house of certain people who functioned under the control of the Samiti. The house was a very popular house. Cohesion has been given importance in the House. The way it is written in the verse, it is proved that Assam was not a place for Jasya and Assam was considered negative in the Sabha.

There is no authentic mention of the House’s composition and composition, such as the number of members in the House, the tenure, the qualification or criteria, and whether the members were elected or nominated. There is also no direct evidence of how the House functioned. Regarding membership, Diktar has written that the members of the Sabha were noble, Brahmin, and Madhavan. In the Samhita of Rigveda, the word ‘Sujata’ has been used for the members of the Sabha, which means that women of good ancestry also participated in the meeting. The Sabha of Kuru state is mentioned in the Mahabharata’s Sabha parva, and it is written that brahmins and kshatriyas predominated in this Sabha. There is nothing clearly written in the Vedic texts about the ability of the members of the Sabha, but the context of Draupadi in the Mahabharata is important. Draupadi had stated –

“न सा सभा यत्र न सन्ति वृद्धाः न ते वृद्धा ये न वदन्ति धर्मम् ।

न सी धमों यत्र न सत्यं मस्ति न तत्सत्यं यच्छलेनानुविद्वम् ।।” (महाभारत)

This means that the Sabha, not the Sabha where there is no old, not the old who does not speak the word of religion, not the religion which is not based on the truth, and the truth is meaningless with which deception is associated. In some texts, the members of the House have been called “Sabhaya.” The member who presided over the session was called the “Chairman” or “Sabhapal. In one verse of the Rig Veda, it has been described as going to the meeting of the members riding on a horse or chariot. Thus, the Sabha structure had an institution smaller than the Samiti but was the focal point of the social groups.

The Sabha was formed as an established institution in all the states and districts of the Vedic period. It is written in the Rig Veda that ‘You make your house civilized, your voice is gentle, you should be a member of the Sabha for a long time. All kinds of religious and political issues were discussed in the meeting. In general, the House appeared to be equivalent to Parliament by name, but there were special judicial functions; that is, the House was very important in the role of the judiciary. In the Rig Veda, the word ‘Kil vish-sprit’ has been used for the Sabha, which means: the institution to correct sin or crime. There was also a possibility in the meeting that the members who are participating in the judicial process may also have sin or injustice, so in Yajurveda, the mantra describes the prayer for their freedom from sin and crime. The original Sabha functioned as a judicial institution, in which the king acted as a judge, heard cases, and also gave judgments. Thus, the nature of the Vedic Sabha was more just and legal. Over time, the nature of the Sabha changed, its judicial role increased.

It is written at one place in the Rig Veda that the cow and its utility were the main topics of the Sabha talks. The Sabha was not an institution of all groups or people in society, but most of the public matters were decided in the Sabha. In some texts, the Sabha has been portrayed as an Amod-Pramod, i.e., an entertainment place. People used to go to the meetings and gamble. A mantra of the Rig Veda reads, “The gamblers used to go to the meeting and understand that they would be the ones who would be victorious.” Considering the House as a separate entity from the Samiti, Bandopadhyay wrote that it is not easy to determine the actual nature of the meeting. The metal from which the word “Sabha” originates means the union of the people of the clan or the people. Initially, the Sabha was such, but over time, the basis of membership in the Sabha was not limited to lineage or locality. The meeting took the form of a group in which people gathered for any event related to sports, religious purposes, debates, or local subjects. There was a close relationship between the Sabha and the king. On the basis of various types of evidence, it can be said that in addition to various types of locallevel meetings, there was also a political Sabha as a best gathering, which was directly related to the king. The king acted on the advice of the members of the Sabha. The Sabha was an advisory body as well as carrying out various types of functions.

The role and importance of the Sabha is evident from the fact that during the Ramayana period, King Dashrath announced in the Sabha to make Rama the crown prince. In the Shantiparva of the Mahabharata, a gathering has been described in the name of Parliament. The meeting, in which all the ordinary citizens were also present. For this reason, it was also called the People’s Parliament, where there were free debates without any hindrance. ShukranitiSaar describes a gathering whose members were called corporators. Today, just as there is a Parliament House in the capital, an Sabha building was built for the Sabha. Thus, on the basis of the sources received regarding the House, it is concluded that the role of the House as a legislative and judicial institution was very important.

SAMITI

Prajapati’s two duties include the Sabha and the second Samiti, in which the Samiti was the largest and most important institution in the Vedic social and political system. The Samiti, which is the sum of sam+iti, which means to gather, i.e., where people of the whole society used to gather. The Samiti was an important political body of central government in which the ruler was also present in the House as an ordinary citizen. The Samiti included all citizens. Instructions have been given in a mantra of Rigveda to ensure that the king goes to the Vaithaka of the Samiti. The Samiti had complete control over the king or ruler, so the king could never be autocratic. At that time, the Samiti was the institution of the entire citizenry, i.e., the whole world. The command of the government was also in its hands. The Samiti’s displeasure towards the king was like a crisis for the king. 

Keith writes that the Samiti was the institution where people’s needs, and their actions were carried out. There is no clear mention of the composition of the Samiti. Scholars have different views on the basis of the evidence mentioned in different texts. K. P. Jaiswal writes that all the people were considered present or members of the meeting. But when particular philosophical or political topics are discussed in the Samiti, it does not seem possible that all the people will be present in the Samiti without any reason, as is also mentioned in the case of Shwetketu. AlTekar has written on this subject that we cannot say anything about the formation and structure of the Samiti. Whether the Samiti was a government body or a nongovernment, whether elected or nominated, what was the basis of it? Whether it was elected, whether it was for a particular class or for the general public, On the basis of the Samitis of the then republics or of the upper classes, it is possible that the formation of Samitis related to the monarchy may also have been related to the upper classes. Like the Greek city-states, the size of the states in India was small. From this, it appears that eminent people and family members of society, warriors and scholars must have been members of the Samiti. Looking at the importance of the priest, it seems that he must have been a member of the Samiti because in Vedic society, religions and priests were more important than war. It is mentioned that villagers, sutkars, and rathkars were also its members.

The main function of the Samiti was to elect the king, but what were the rules of the election? What was its basis? It is not mentioned in detail. The Samiti was also used to remove the king, i.e., to remove the deposed and re-elect the expelled king. The Samiti also had discussions on questions related to politics and governance, debates, and collective issues. Thus, most of the work of the current Parliament was done by the Samiti at that time. Every member of the Samiti had freedom of speech and could express their views. It is mentioned in the Rig Veda that “I accept both your idea and your Samiti. It is possible that the Samiti will do religious, political, and social work equally. Through debate and discussion, the members of the Samiti wanted to persuade other members in their favour through their arguments. It is written in Atharvaveda that “I accept the knowledge, talent, and speed of the members present in the Samiti. O Devendra, make me the leader of this great house. If your mind has gone towards someone else, or has changed on some issue or thing, I want to change that mind from there, so that that mind becomes favourable to me and me.” 

Regarding the work and duty of the king, it is written in the Atharvaveda that the Samiti should not cooperate with the king who snatches the property of Brahmins. Although an auspicious desire for the king to always cooperate has also been expressed, it is written in a mantra of Atharvaveda. It is also written in the same book that after the coronation, the priest used to say that the king should sit on the throne and the Samiti should be loyal to him. This makes it clear that the Samiti was a people’s Sabha and coordination with it was important for any ruler. Bandyo Padhyaya wrote on the subject: • The Samiti was a group of all the people of the community.

• It was the Sabha of the entire nation.
• There was a close relationship and coordination with the king.
• The Samiti was usually held at the time of all important purposes, such as at the time of the king’s coronation, war or crisis.

Thus, in the pre-Vedic period, the Samiti was an important and influential central public body. At one place in the Atharva Veda, it is described that the Samiti could not live according to the king who tried to be a dictator or an autocrat. This means that the Samiti also used to control the king’s innocence.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN “SABHA AND SAMITI”

There is a difference of opinion among scholars on the subject of what should be the relationship between the Vedic-era people-loving representative institutions, the Sabha and the Samiti. HillBrand has written that the Samiti, which was an institution and where it was held, was called a meeting, but this idea is not valid. Ludwig says that the Samiti is a lower building, and the house is a higher building like the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha today.

Zimmer called the Sabha a local, i.e., village institution, and described the Samiti as a central body. Keith is of the same opinion as HillBrand, who wrote that the Samiti catered to the tasks and needs of the masses and the place of the Sabha session where all members could have their own views. Most scholars believe that the Samiti was a higher body than the Sabha. It was also more important in matters related to governance. Whatever the constitution, authority, nature, and function of the above two houses, it is clear that in the Vedic period, they had an influence on the administration. Both the Samiti and the Sabha were so important as an institution that the king or the head of the government could not refuse to heed its advice. Thus, people saw “Sabha and Samiti” as Prajapati’s two daughters and considered her as the result of divine legislation, i.e., as a divine institution. As a divine institution, the “Sabha and Samiti” protected the king.

COMPARISON WITH MODERN PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS

It is clear from the comparison of the functioning, powers, and roles of “Sabha and Samiti” with modern democratic institutions such as Parliament, UNG, Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, and Panchayati Raj Institutions that “Sabha and Samiti” existed as a public representative institution in Vedic times. First, if we look at the similarity of the Sabha and the Samiti with modern institutions, then like Parliament, the “Sabha and Samiti” are also used to do the work of convention, debate, control over governance, election of the ruler and control with responsibility. Even after the above similarities, many facts are not the same because, from the Vedic period to the post-Vedic period, there was no similarity in the form of governance, the formation and shape of the “Sabha and Samiti”. There is also no clarity based on membership. There is also no evidence of the rules by which the House and the Samiti were governed or of which subjects they had jurisdiction. There was no provision like the rule of modern law. The king was the head of both the rule and the judiciary. On this basis, it was not at all the same with modern institutions in the Vedic period. Having publicloving representative institutions is very important in the matter of Indian governance. “Sabha and Samiti” reflect the glory of the Vedic period.

Paura-Janapada was an important institution in Ancient India, both during the Vedic period and after. It played a crucial role in the governance and administration of the early Indian societies. Here’s a detailed explanation of Paura-Janapada, covering its origin, nature, members, powers and functions, decline, and influence on the modern world.

Origin and Nature

Paura-Janapada refers to the urban and rural units of governance in Ancient India. The term “Paura denoted urban settlements, while “Janapada” referred to rural territories. These units were the basic political and administrative entities in the early Indian civilization. The Paura-Janapada system emerged during the later Vedic period and continued to evolve in the subsequent centuries.

Members

The Paura-Janapada system comprised various members who played distinct roles in governance. In urban Pauras, the governance was led by a council of elders or a king, while in Janapadas, the governance was often decentralized, with local chiefs or tribal leaders exercising authority.

Powers and Functions

The Paura-Janapada system had several powers and functions, including:

• Administrative Governance: Both urban Pauras and rural Janapadas had administrative structures responsible for maintaining law and order, collecting taxes, and managing public affairs.
• Judicial Functions: They also served as judicial bodies, resolving disputes and enforcing laws within their respective territories.
• Military Authority: Paura-Janapadas often had their own military forces to defend their territories and maintain security.
• Economic Management: They regulated economic activities such as trade, agriculture, and crafts within their domains.

Decline

The decline of the Paura-Janapada system began with the rise of large empires in Ancient India, such as the Mauryan and Gupta empires. These empires centralized power and administration, leading to the gradual decline of the decentralized Paura-Janapada governance model.

Influence on the Modern World

The Paura-Janapada system had a lasting influence on the modern world, particularly in terms of its impact on governance and administration. Many principles of local self-governance and decentralized administration in contemporary democracies can be traced back to the Paura-Janapada system. The idea of local autonomy and grassroots democracy has its roots in the ancient Paura-Janapada institutions.

In conclusion, the Paura-Janapada system was a fundamental institution in Ancient India, shaping the political and administrative landscape of the time. Its legacy continues to resonate in modern governance systems, highlighting its enduring significance in the evolution of political institutions.

Introduction

The Vidhatha was an important socio-religious institution in Vedic India, particularly during the Rigvedic period (1500–1000 BCE). It played a crucial role in various aspects of early Aryan life, including governance, administration, military affairs, religious ceremonies, and social gatherings. The term “Vidhatha” is frequently mentioned in the Rigveda, the earliest known Sanskrit text, indicating its significance in early Aryan society. Unlike later administrative structures such as the Sabha and Samiti, the Vidhatha was more inclusive and functioned at multiple levels of society.

Functions and Role in Society

The Vidhatha served multiple purposes and was not limited to a single function. Some of its major roles included:

• Religious and Ritualistic Functions: It was primarily a religious gathering where the Aryans performed sacrifices (Yajnas) and rituals to please their gods. Women actively participated in these ceremonies, which indicates that the Vidhatha was more inclusive than other contemporary institutions.
• Political and Administrative Role: The Vidhatha also acted as an early governing body that discussed and managed affairs related to the tribe (Jana) and its welfare. It functioned as an assembly where leaders deliberated on important matters such as war, peace, alliances, and disputes.
• Military Organization: It played a role in military mobilization, where warriors and common people gathered to discuss battle strategies and make collective decisions regarding warfare. The mention of “Vidhatha” in a military context in the Rigveda suggests its role in organizing armed forces and planning tribal defense.
• Economic and Social Contributions: Apart from religious and political aspects, the Vidhatha was also associated with economic activities like cattle rearing, agriculture, and the distribution of resources. It served as a platform where people discussed and coordinated economic efforts for the sustenance of their tribe.
• Involvement of Women: Unlike the later Sabha and Samiti, where women’s participation became restricted, the Vidhatha allowed both men and women to take part in its proceedings. This highlights a more egalitarian approach in early Vedic society.

Comparison with Sabha and Samiti

The Vidhatha was distinct from the Sabha and Samiti, two other important assemblies in Vedic society:

• Sabha: A smaller and more exclusive body, generally comprising elders and influential members of society. It was a deliberative assembly where important decisions were taken by experienced individuals.
• Samiti: A larger, more democratic gathering of the entire community, which included common people and was responsible for making decisions that affected the entire tribe.
• Vidhatha: Unlike these two, the Vidhatha was a multifunctional institution that served religious, military, social, and administrative purposes simultaneously.

Decline and Evolution

With the later Vedic period (1000–600 BCE), the importance of the Vidhatha gradually declined. The Sabha and Samiti gained more prominence as the political landscape of the Aryans evolved into more structured kingdoms (Janapadas). The increasing monarchical system centralized power, reducing the need for collective assemblies like the Vidhatha. Over time, it lost its political and military significance, and its functions were absorbed by other institutions.

Conclusion

The Vidhatha was a unique and significant institution in early Vedic society, playing a crucial role in religious, political, military, and social domains. It was one of the earliest known assemblies in ancient India, allowing participation from both men and women. Over time, as political structures became more hierarchical, the role of the Vidhatha diminished, giving way to the Sabha and Samiti, which became the dominant governing institutions. However, its existence highlights the early democratic tendencies in Vedic society and provides valuable insights into the socio-political evolution of ancient India.