The results of elections held in Bihar are coming today. Bihar has been a strong base of democracy since its early days. Bihar has also been a prosperous state from historical point of view. In such a situation, it is necessary to take a peek into the past. The pages of history should be turned. Come, let us understand this whole matter. After all, how were leaders elected in Pataliputra?
In the ancient history of India, the name of Pataliputra appears not just as a city, but as an important center of power, administration and democratic traditions. Today’s Patna was once Pataliputra and this city was the capital of Magadha, Maurya and Gupta empires. In the era of modern Bihar elections, when we talk about votes, candidates and democracy, the natural question that arises is whether there was any tradition of elections even during the time of Patliputra? if so, how? To understand this topic we will have to look at two things separately.
- One: Institutions like ancient republic and assembly committee
- Two: Appointment of rulers and officials during the imperial period (Maurya, Gupta etc.)
The history of Pataliputra does not directly show us elections like modern democracy, but it clearly shows that public opinion, local assemblies and the consent of the elite class were important even in those times.
The capital of power was Pataliputra and Magadha.
Pataliputra was founded around the 5th-6th century BC, when the Magadha Empire was emerging. Bimbisara, Ajatashatru, Shishunaga, Nanda, Maurya, all these dynasties made Pataliputra the center of power in one way or the other. Later it remained an important capital in the Gupta Empire also. In Magadha, kings were elected hereditary (within the family). But this does not mean that the public had no role. At the local level, villages, towns and business groups had their own assemblies, through which leadership emerged and administrative decisions were taken. That is, even though at the top level the throne kept changing within the family, but at the lower and middle levels of the society, the leadership was selected through mutual consent, consultation and group decision.
Assembly, Committee and Tradition of the Republic
Gana and Sangha are mentioned in the texts of Buddhist period and in the accounts of Greek travelers in Bihar and its surrounding areas. These were political communities where important decisions were taken in councils and assemblies. Sabha and Samiti were two important institutions that came from the Vedic tradition.
- gathering: Generally a council of senior, experienced and elite people.
- Committee: A relatively broad body, in which more people participated.
Although these institutions had changed in many forms by the Pataliputra period, the basic idea was that the ruler does not take decisions alone. There was an advisory board around him. And in many cases this board also controlled the power of the king.
Many judicial, tax and local administrative decisions were taken through these councils. Council members generally came forward in three ways.
- Members of families called hereditary influence were considered automatically influential.
- Wealth and prestige: Traders, landlords and philanthropists had a high position.
- People with knowledge and ability, scholars, commanders and administrative experience were also included in the council.
This was not a general election in the modern sense, but the emergence of leadership on the basis of prestige, service and ability in the society was a kind of selection process.
Pataliputra during the Maurya period
When it comes to Pataliputra, many people directly remember Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka. During the Maurya period, power was highly organized and centralized, a detailed description of which is found in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. During the Maurya period, kings were hereditary. Inheritance often went to the eldest son, but sometimes ability and political support also played a role. The education of the princes, war skills, administrative understanding and the consent of the council were considered important. Here elections were not held by public vote, but with the consent of the royal family, council of ministers, generals and big clans.
ministers and senior officials
There were different levels of officers in the Maurya administration. They were known by the names Mahamatya, Amatya, Yukta, Rajuk, local Gramika etc. There were some important things in the selection of these officers. The final decision rested with the king. There was a tradition of appointment based on knowledge of economics, justice, accounting, military science etc. Before appointment to many important posts, decisions were taken after taking advice from the Council of Ministers. Here the center of power was the king, but the backbone of management and governance were the appointed officials, who in practice played the role of leaders for the people. His main responsibilities were to collect taxes, law and order, public works, resolve disputes etc.
How was the administration of village and city run?
Pataliputra was not just a city of palaces; It was a city of traders, craftsmen, labourers, farmers, scholars, sages and also the common people. All of them had their own organized groups. At the village level, the selection of leadership was relatively more communal. The Gramik or Pradhan of the village often came from a locally influential family, but if he was incompetent or tyrannical, both the society and the higher authorities could together remove him. Here the selection process was not based on informal voting, but based on the consent, reputation and behavior of the community.
Craftsmen and Traders Association
In a big city like Pataliputra, merchants’ associations, artisans’ associations, monks’ associations (Buddhist Sangha etc.) had their own internal rules and leaders. In these unions, meetings were called to elect members to key posts, proposals were made, recognition was given to individuals on the basis of seniority, honesty and leadership ability. This process resembles today’s internal organizational elections, such as the selection of the president of a trade union or professional association today.
Ashok and communication with the public
The question of society’s acceptance and public interests came to the fore more sharply during the time of Ashoka. In the inscriptions of Ashoka, he calls himself Devanampriya and Priyadarshi and repeatedly appeals to the people for moral conduct, tolerance and non-violence. Ashoka’s rule was not a modern democracy, but he recognized that the stability and strength of the regime depended on the satisfaction and moral support of the people. He did not want to carry out his orders relying only on military power, but was a strong advocate of carrying out his orders by winning over the hearts of the people. Seen from this point of view, ancient Pataliputra gives us the message that the legitimacy of a leader is determined not only by his position but by his behavior and public support.
From ancient Pataliputra to today’s Bihar elections
Today’s Bihar, whose capital is Patna, is the new identity of the same Pataliputra. The difference is that at that time the top leaders of the state were hereditary. Today leaders are elected by direct voting of the public. Yet some similarities run deep. At that time the ruler needed the approval of the royal family, soldiers, traders and public. Today candidates need votes from every caste, class and region. Then the assembly and councils used to advise the king.
Today the Legislative Assembly and Parliament not only advise the government but also make it accountable. At that time, leaders of villages, towns and unions used to convey their views to the government. Today, Panchayats, municipal bodies, party organizations and social groups influence the democratic process through their leaders. Ashoka proved that a state can be run not only by force but also by moral leadership. Even today, the people of Bihar are looking for leaders who are honest, sensitive and visionary.
History’s message for today’s voter
In the context of Bihar elections, the history of Pataliputra teaches us three important lessons. A leader is made not just by position but by acceptance. Even in ancient times, those rulers who ignored the council, the people and local groups could not survive. Accountability has always been there, just the form has been changing. Earlier the accountability was before the royal court, the elite class and the local society. Today the same accountability is directly before the public opinion. Names like Ashoka and Chandragupta are remembered because they were concerned not only about power but also about policy and justice. Even today, only those leaders get respect in history who unite the society and not divide it. And not just elections, we work keeping in mind the future of the coming generations.
Also read: Bihar…when does one round of vote counting complete, what does it mean?