INDIA AND DEMOCRACY
ISLAM and Human Rights
by Anwar Shaikh
Chapter 5
INDIA AND DEMOCRACY
Preamble
The bigger they are, the harder they fall, and therefore, the
greater the pain they suffer: history of India proves this adage.
Once upon a time, (the undivided) India was the greatest country
in the world. Unfortunately, the very great Indian past has fallen
extremely low to split into three countries, and all of them
belong to the Third World!
History is the mirror that reflects the past of a nation. The
people struck down by the caprices of time, can find solace in the
glorious memories of the bygone days, and can cure the wounds of
humiliation by equalling their character with that of their
ancestors. The one thing that the people of undivided India never
did was to study their history. Instead, they preferred the easy
options and fell for the foreign cultures. This is what created
formidable religious, social and political divisions among them,
leading to the partition of their Motherland.
The modern age has eagerly chosen the democratic way of life,
which was once, an integral part of the Indian faith. Since it has
become the guiding principle of life, one can be proud of one's
Indian origin. But how many Bhartis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis
know of this honour? If they were aware of their ancestral values,
they would feel close to one another instead of drifting apart.
People of the Indian subcontinent will have a genuine feeling of
mutual belonging if they appreciate their ancestral values. This
feeling is the only panacea that can restore their shattered sense
of national unity and set them on the way to success and glory.
Democracy versus absolutism seems to be the basic law of human
culture because civilisation is the product of the continual
strife between these concepts. Antagonism between the two is as
natural as between bleak and bright or blessing and blight. In
fact, it is a logical relationship because the recognition of
everything depends on the existence of its opposite: truth cannot
be understood without falsehood and black has no meaning without
white.
When we look into it deeply, the concept of democracy versus
absolutism, also appears to have a psychological basis:
Man is born to be free. This is the essence of humanity, and has
been repeatedly expressed by history. Though, to err is human, we
want to go straight. What conducts us on the right path is our
knowledge and moral conscience, coupled with free will, which
goads us to use these two virtues for self-correction. When man's
behaviour is under his own control, he is free. Such a human can
be called a blessed person because no favour, felicity or
festivity is a greater joy than freedom. Of course, freedom is not
a licence. A freeman, being a lover of the concept of freedom,
guards other people's freedom as much as his own. He achieves this
aim through his moral conduct and the force of law, which he
himself legislates through the democratic institutions.
Democracy, usually described as government of the people, by the
people and for the people, is the culmination of human love for
liberty. It is superior to any system of government despite its
numerous weaknesses. However, it must be understood that democracy
is not meant for the society, which is culturally backward and
morally corrupt; it is based on pluralism which denotes collective
consciousness of common good and refers to the old addage:
"Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to
yourself." In a nutshell, democracy and sense of
responsibility go together.
Since pluralism is the foundation-stone of democracy, I may say a
few words about it. Pluralism in its philosophical context means
polytheism, the view, which holds that there are many gods, each
having power over a distinct phenomenon of nature, yet
collectively representing the same final truth. In its
socio-political sense, the word refers collectively to such groups
as churches of various denominations, municipalities, industrial
unions, business corporations, professional organisations, ethnic
minorities, and so on. These entities are different manifestations
of power, which remains distributed among the various organs of
the society, and serves as a check on the tendencies of absolutism
i.e. monarchy, dictatorship or religious autocracy.
Pluralism, represents man's collective consciousness by resisting
the egoistic compulsions of an individual. This is what endeared
Marxism to people for its social care, and this is also what
destroyed it, because pluralism converted itself into absolutism
as the political pyramid of Marxist power reached its apex. In
ancient history, pluralism expressed itself through guilds,
chartered cities, monasteries and similar medieval structures.
Opposed to man's love for liberty is his Urge of Dominance. What
is Urge of Dominance?
This is the drive, that goads man to seek superiority over others
through acquisition of power. As it is the nature of power to
maximise itself without acknowledging any upper limit, it is
averse to being shared; its goal is to secure the highest
commanding position, crowned by absolutism. The Urge of Dominance
operates in many ways: socially, politically and spiritually
(religiously):
1. Its social manifestation can be seen in patriarchy whereby a
male assumes controlling power over his family, and thus decides
the fate of its members even to the minor details. The old
patriarchal laws entitled father to inflict even death-sentence on
his children with impunity. This was done "out of love"
to enhance the familial causes!
2. Politics is the power-game that recognises no law except the
law of self-promotion. What serves in attaining power is lofty,
lawful and laudable but what stands in the way of achieving it, is
the token of insanity, immorality and impropriety. Power is the
only piety in the lexicon of a power-seeker. This is what men like
Alexander, Genghis, Timur, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini believed
in.
3. Religion is the most ferocious trap of power. The power-seeker
brainwashes people with the most cunning dart of faith; it turns
man into a moth, which becomes impatient to cremate itself on the
flame of spiritual trickery that a self- styled god, guru or
prophet ignites with his devices, dodges and deceptions.
The power of a secular suzerain, no matter how great, lasts only
during his life time; once he breathes his last, his power departs
and he cannot tell people what to do. On the contrary, the power
of a spiritual magnate such as a god, guru or prophet, gathers
momentum after his death, and surprisingly keeps accelerating with
the passage of time through a process of exaggeration, which his
followers adopt to mention his miracles, marvels and majesty.
Thus, a holyman commands through his dust or ashes, and the
faithful devise traditions of interpreting the rational as
irrational and vice versa, to hide the shame of their docility,
deviance and distraction. In fact, it is a form of psychosis
induced by the unconscious desire for recouping one's free will
that has been lost to the illusory forces of faith.
The buried or burnt spiritual magnate, usually proclaims his
absolutism through a code of law, which is considered binding by
his followers irrespective of its relevance to real life and
problems. The insane zeal of the followers contributes, not only
to the prestige of the spiritual magnate, but also to the
principle of absolutism that radiates from his Divine Person. The
situation is exacerbated by his lieutenants, who treat him as the
model of morality and government and want to rule absolutely in
his name. In fact, their religious fervour is usually no more than
showmanship; they lay stress on following the Divine Model to
establish their own absolutism; in terms of dominance or
suzerainty, power is to be snatched for the simple reason that
masses love liberty and are reluctant to to surrender their rights
of freedom, but this attitude though pious in itself, appears
profane to the power-seeker because more power for the people
means less power for him. This is the reason that he hates
democracy, the fountain of people's power, and wants to decimate
it with religious sanctions. Since this issue is vital to human
liberties, I may devote a few more pages to explain it more
effectively:
Historians do not seem to have realised the fact that the Arabian
Peninsula is the home of absolutism whereas India is the fountain
of democracy. What I am about to say, has nothing whatever to do
with racism; it is simply a discussion of facts and principles and
requires philosophical explanation of the terms:
"Pluralism" and "Monotheism;" the former means
that there are many gods, each controlling a different aspect of
the physical phenomena, yet representing the Final Truth
collectively. This is the essence of the Indian metaphysics, which
had been practised in Greece and Italy, almost to the letter. On
the contrary, the Semitic theory originating from the Arabian
Peninsula, known as Monotheism, advocates that God is one, who is
Creator, All-powerful and Absolute. Being above the law, He can do
anything, and is accountable to none. He sends guidance through
His Prophet, who being His representative on earth, wields Divine
power singularly and must be obeyed. The Prophet brings the Law of
God, which is everlasting and unchangeable, and must be followed
under all circumstances and during all ages. Man has no choice but
to obey God's Vicar (the Prophet) and his lieutenants i.e. the men
who succeed him (the Prophet) over a period of time. This is total
negation of democracy because man is not allowed to differentiate
between vice and virtue according to his own conscience nor is he
permitted to make his own laws to suit his circumstances. Not only
the standards of right and wrong but laws to deal with different
situations have also been laid down by God through the Prophet,
who might have lived centuries earlier! This is Urge of Dominance
at its apex!
Monotheism is a Semitic theory. For the sake of convenience, one
may call Moses its originator though historically, it is
associated with the name of the Egyptian pharaoh, Akhenaton also
known as Amenhotep IV.
The Jews were originally a polytheistic race, that is, they
worshipped many gods. Yahwe, the Jewish God, gave tablets of law
to Moses, who told the Jews the nature of God and the consequences
of not obeying Him:
" 1. And God spake all these words, saying
2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land
of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them: for I
the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of
them that hate me;
6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep
my commandments."
(Exodus 20: 1-6)
From the above verses, it is quite clear that God is extremely
jealous about His authority and inflicts terrible punishment on
the disobedient. Following His commandments is tantamount to
loving Him and ignoring them counts as hating Him. In other words,
enjoyment of absolute power is the Divine Will.
This Jewish rule of absolutism served as the model for subsequent
Semetic Prophets and became a spiritual tradition of the Middle
East, subjecting people to the will of monarchy in the name of
God. It is not surprising that in 1 Samuel: 5-6 people themselves
ask for the establishment of kingship. Saul, the first king of
Israel, who reigned during 1021-1000 B.C. was chosen by the people
themselves. David, who became Saul 's eventual successor, was also
an elected monarch but thereafter Jewish monarchy lost its
elective element and became hereditary.
The Christianity started with the Jewish doctrine of absolutism:
"And I (Jesus) say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earlh shall be loosed in
heaven." ( St. Matthew 1 6: 18 -19 )
It is considered the exclusive fountain of Peter's primacy.
Despite many contests on the subject, it came to be established
that Christ himself appointed Peter as Prince of the Apostles and
Head of the Church. This primacy was not merely a matter of honour
but carried true authority compatible with the Petrine divine
responsibilities. Not only that, Christ's establishment was to
pass in perpetuity to his successors, the successive Bishops of
Rome, who came to be known as the Popes of Christendom. Thus, the
establishment of the Bishop of Rome was gradually defined as the
Holy Apostolic See; supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, acknowledged
as the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, true Vicar of
Christ, was given authority all over the world. This is how he was
assigned the full powers of Lord Jesus Christ to nourish, rule and
govern the universal church.
This glory of Pope as successor and representative of Peter was
legitimised at grassroot level by giving it analogy with the Roman
law of inheritance. This is what entitled Pope to wield Peter's
powers. Since Peter had been accorded principatus (primacy) over
the Church, Popes interpreted it that they were entitled to use
his ( Peter's ) prerogative in the monarchical style, which is
absolute and cannot be challenged. Despite this manipulation,
under the influence of the Roman constitutional traditions, papacy
remained elective in character, but in exercising powers, it
became as absolute as the Good Lord Himself. According to the
proverb: "power corrups and absolute power corrupts
absolutely, " papacy, the practical absolutism, weaved the
myth of infallibility about itself: it means, Pope can do no
wrong, even someone like Pope Alexander VI, who had incestuous
relationship with his own daughter, remained pious, pure and
prophetic. This process of divine lust for power, which started in
the third century, culminated during the period of Pope Gregory
VII when the Church came to operate wwithin a unified Christian
society expunging the distinction between state and Church as
separate entities. Popes claimed greater spiritual powers than
Christ himself and exercised jurisdictional supremacy over the
Christian emperors.
Here is a short description of the Papal absolutism, which
destroyed the constitutional and democratic traditions of Rome and
Greece to nourish itself. To convey the full meaning of this
statement, I may quote from my book, "Taxation And
Liberty:"
"A Papal excommunication meant a command to the Christian
faithful to rise against the renegade ruler, who wielded authority
over his subjects during pope's pleasures, owing to the fact that
the Holy Father exercised complete control over the mind of every
Christian because of his divine powers as the Vicar of Christ.
Again, the Church was also a temporal state in its own right; in
755, Peipin, the Short, laid its foundation when he gave the Pope
the territories he had won from the Lombards. Stephen II was the
first Pope to become a mundane sovereign, as well. At Reims in
October 816 when Stephen IV crowned Louis I, the Pious, and his
wife as Emperor and Empress, papacy became the divine agency of
crowning through its exclusive prerogative of anointing. From this
precedent arose the papal theory of government that the monarch
anointed by the Pope was his lieutenant and secular arm. St.
Nicolas I (the Great) claimed the right to legislate for the whole
of Christendom and asserted to be the supreme judge with final
authority to settle all doctrinal disputes."
" During 1050 and 1060, the Latern Palace, that is, papal
residence was reconstituted and the temporal splendour hitherto
associated with the secular courts entered the holy realm: the
Pope was afflated by St. Peter to act in his name as a feudal
lord, enter contractual obligations and accept military services
and money payments in return for affording protection to his
feudatories. By the end of the 13th century, the Pope became the
largest feudal lord in Europe: Sicily, Sweden, Denmark, Arragon,
Poland, England and Ireland were parts of his feudal empire."
The immense authority prompted Popes to interfere even in the
matrimonial affairs of the Christian rulers such as Philip II,
Augustus of France, Peter II of Arragon and Alfonso IX of Leon.
William I conquered England with the papal blessing. When the
Conqueror married Matilda, daughter of Baldwin, Count of Flanders,
Pope Leo IX in 1049, forbade the marriage expressly and it was not
until 1050 that Pope Nicholas II accorded it legitimacy through a
special dispensation on the condition that they each built a
monastery for the atonement of their sins. Henry II of England,
had to do penance at Canterbury for the murder of Archbishop
Becket: he allowed the monks to scourage him! Henry IV of Germany
incurred excommunication, and as a price for apostolic mercy, he
had to strip off all his regalia, wear woollen clothes and stand
barefooted for three days before the gate of the castle at Canossa
in 1077. It was then and only then that the burning humility of
his sighs and tears broke through the frigid barrier of the papal
compassion, which took him back into communion, and restored his
kingdom. Frederick Barbarossa, the Holy Roman Emperor was forced
to kiss publicly the feet of Pope Alexander III for the sin of not
acknowledging him as Christ's vicar: just kneeling was not
sufficient to secure forgiveness of the Holy Father. "
This was the plight of the Christian monarchs at the hand of the
Papal absolutism! What about the Christian masses? Their pathetic
conditions are represented by what is known as Inquisition. What
was Inquisition?
It was an uninvited enquiry into people's beliefs to establish
whether or not they held exactly the same doctrines and opinions
as officially sanctioned by the Church. With a view to enlarging
the Papal net of authority-alchemy, witchcraft, sorcery,
devil-worship, adultery and incest were also included in the
Inquisition. During the first three centuries of Christianity,
penalties inflicted on heretics were spiritual, but as it became
the established religion, the dissenters were treated as enemies
of the state, and laws were passed to subject them to such
punishments as flogging, confiscation of property, exile and
death. Until about 1000 A.D. rigours of the Inquisition remained
tolerable, but as the Clerical pressures of dominance increased,
the despotic process of Inquisition became foul, fierce and
frightening. During the 11th and 12th centuries, evils of the
Papal absolutism increased in severity and ecclesiastical decrees
condemning heretics became the fashion of the day, indicating the
corruptive influence of unbridled power. The Papal writ ran
through all the Christian countries, and the secular rulers who
practically held their dignity subject to the pleasure of the Holy
Father, vied with one another in executing decrees of the Vatican
and the Church Council; they would prosecute heretics for trivial
offences: it was a heresy to say "marriage is as good as
celibacy." The clerics, who were theoretically celibate but
practically enjoyed the favours of the nuns, treated it as an
insult to Christ who did not marry.
Inquisition was an efficient organisation, equipped with supreme
Papal authority, assisted by notaries, police and counsellors. The
inquisitors roamed through cities hunting heretics, who were
expected to present themselves for "correction." Since
this correction could involve severe penalties, the force of faith
was not always sufficient to make dissenters kiss feet of the
Inquisitor. Those who knew about the heretics, were required under
pain of excommunication to act as informers. The heretic-hunting
became an obsession of the clergy, when in 1252 Pope Innocent IV
authorised use of torture to obtain confession from the suspects.
The Ecclesiastical tribunal called Roman Inquisition set up in
1542 by Pope Paul III to combat Protestantism, and the similar
organisation known as the Spanish Inquisition founded in later
part of the 15th century to deal with the apostate Jews and
Muslims, were, in fact, the forerunners of the Nazi gas chambers.
The first Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition, Thomas de
Torquemada, qualifies as the Divine Ganghis Khan for burning
thousands of innocent people at the stake to demonstrate the glory
of God, who is All-love, All-grace and All-munificence!
Eventually, it was the French and the English rulers, who made a
dent in the most infamous edifice of the Ecclesiastical
absolutism: the Concordat of 1516 delivered the French Church into
the hands of the French monarch, reducing the Papal despotism in
France. Henry VIII of England ranks as the Patron of democracy for
taking England comp!etely out of the Papal pale and enabling
Parliament to legislate for the country.
Religion and secularism, have ceased to be a unity in Christendom
for a long time, leading to the growth of democratic institutions
in the world but Islam, a Semitic religion, still continues to be
the ambassador of absolutism. A detailed examination of the
Islamic political theory is necessitated by the fact that the
Muslim scholars falsely project this religion as the guarantor of
human liberties and democratic institutions. They do so to promote
their self- interests whereas the stark fact is that Islam is the
worst opponent of human liberty and democracy. See for yourself:
"To God belongs all that is in the heavens
and in the earth, and God encompasses everything."
(Women, IV: 125)
Because of His proprietory rights:
"To God bow all that is in the heavens and the earth
willingly or unwillingly."
( Thunder XIII - 15 )
Thus, it is the destiny of everything to bow, bend and bemoan
before God. There is nothing that He loves more than submission,
slavery and servitude. It is the Lord's attitude that dictates
man's purpose of creation. Therefore, Allah addressing mankind,
remarks:
"What, did you think that We created you only for
sport ....." (The Believers XXIII: 115)
No, man has not been created as a sport. What has he been created
for then?
"I have not created ..... mankind
except to worship Me." (The Scatterers LI: 55)
It is man's purpose of life to have no desire, dignity or
destination of his own. He is on the earth only to worship God. To
make sure that man seeks no status other than servility, Allah has
allotted the lowest birth to man so that he should not feel proud
and pompous or seek prestige and priority of any kind:
"He (Allah) made his (man's) seed from a draught
of despised fluid." (The Prostration XXXII: 8)
Thus, man's purpose is nothing but prostration before God: virtues
like self-development, moral uplift and concern for human rights,
have been declared alien to his birth. The more servile a man is,
the nearer to God he becomes. It is in this context that man is
considered God's viceroy on the earth, and not for any intrinsic
virtue.
In fact, the Koranic point of view is a poor adaptation of the
Biblical concept:
"And God said, Let us make man
in our image, after our likeness; and let
them have dominion ..... over all the earth ....."
So God created man in His own
image, in the image of God created He him;
( Genesis 1: 26 - 27 )
The Bible says that God created man in His own likeness, and it is
this likeness which makes him superior to everything on earth. The
Koran copies this Biblical myth in so far as God made man out of
clay and breathed his own spirit into Adam, but when it comes to
the progeny of Adam, his seed, the semen, is declared "a
draught of despised fluid" to heap indignity on the human
specie. Just see, how God taunts man about his low birth:
"So let man consider of what he is created;
He is created from a gushing fluid
That issued from between the loins and ribs."
(The Night Star LXXXVI: 5-7)
Here Allah deliberately insults man by alluding to the seminal
discharge, which brings a human to life. Further, Allah condemns
man for his nature (which He Himself allotted him as the
Creator!).
"Perish man! How unthankful he is!
Of what did He create him?
Of a sperm drop .."
(He Frowned LXXX: 15-17)
It should be noted that in these verses Allah is again sarcastic
about the low birth of man, owing to a sperm drop i.e. the
despised fluid. As Allah declares his intention of creating man,
the angels protest:
"And when thy Lord said to the angels,
'I am setting in the earth a viceroy.'
They said, 'What, wilt Thou set therein one
who will do corruption there, and shed blood?' "
(The Cow II: 25)
According to this Koranic statement, man is corrupt by nature and
therefore he is prone to bloodshed and similar heinous crimes
whereas Biblically, Adam's disobedience is a fall which proves his
high birth the same way as darkness proves light and blindness
vouches for vision.
Is it not surpsising that the most righteous Allah has appointed
the most wicked man as His viceroy on earth? Astonishing it may
be, but Allah has used the device of viceroyalty to curb the
natural desire of man to be free. It is because, according to the
Koran, an evil person becomes good by fearing God and doing what
he is told by Him. God tells man what to do through the system of
revelation, that is, He sends guidance through a Prophet, who acts
as His Messenger:
"We (Allah) said, Get you down out of it, all
together, yet there shall come to you guidance from
Me, and whosoever follows My guidance, nor fear
shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow ...."
(The Cow II: 35)
To understand the meaning of this Koranic statement, one must bear
in mind its background: Adam and Eve, his wife, have disobeyed
Allah, and thus defied His guidance, that is, His instructions
about what to do and what to shun. As a punishment, Allah is
driving them out of paradise where there is no pain, no ageing, no
illness, no worry of sustenance and no fear of death. They have
disobeyed Allah's instructions because they find them hurtful to
their sense of freedom, which is so dear to them that they prefer
it to the paradisiac mirth and immortality. Yet Allah is so
obsessed with curbing man's liberties that He undertakes to send
Adam and Eve guidance through His Messengers despite the fact that
they have turned it down scornfully. What a Divine stratagem it is
to frustrate man's democratic dreams!
This is the fundamental Islamic principle that those who do not
believe in the Koran, Allah's guidance, they are the most sordid
folks, who will serve as the fuel of hell. Such people are
technically known as Kafir (the unbelievers). The Koran declares:
"God is an enemy to the unbelievers."
(The Cow, II: 90)
This is the reason that Allah treats all non-Muslims the same way
as someone treats his worst enemies. A non- Muslim, in an Islamic
state becomes a dhimmy, who almost loses human rights available in
a democratic country, and after death goes to hell, where
everything is extremely sadistic.
The essence of "Divine Guidance" is that it ranks as the
Eternal Law. Thus, man is deprived of legislating for himself
though it is the major feature of democracy. He must do what is
laid down in the Scriptures, which may be centuries old, and thus
lose all relevance to the modern problems. This is the reason that
the Koran lays down:
"And fear the Fire prepared for the unbelievers, and
obey God and the Messenger; haply so you will find
mercy." (lhe House of Imran III: 125)
The Islamic code of law is constituted by obedience to Allah and
Muhammad (the Messenger) as depicted in the Koran and Hadith.
Those who do not follow this Guidance, and make their own laws,
they are the unbelievers, who will eternally roast in the Fire
especially prepared for them.
Allah's way is absolutism, and therefore, He clearly declares:
"He (Allah) associates in His government no one."
(The Cave XVIII: 25)
All, Allah allows is the setting up of a consultative body, which
cannot come to binding conclusions or pass any laws:
"And (O Prophet) take counsel with them
in the affair; and when thou art resolved
put thy trust in God."
(The House of Imran III: 150)
The Muslim exegetists pretend that this verse is the foundation of
the Muslim democracy. The truth is that all a Muslim ruler (the
Caliph), who is technically, the lieutenant of Allah, can allow is
the formation of a consultative body, whose verdicts are not
binding on him; he takes counsel from its members only to resolve
himself and not to follow them. He must put his trust in God, that
is, do what he thinks fit as Allah's representative.
This is the true meaning of this verse, and is attested by the
fact that the Prophet Muhammad himself was not an elected leader
of the people; he ruled as the Messenger, appointed by God, and
God is God because He is Absolute, and therefore not bound by
anybody's advice. In fact, it is absolutism, which makes one God
by freeing him from all sorts of accountability.
Absolutism is the basis of Islam because it places entire power in
the hands of one person. Allah is All- powerful, therefore,
Muhammad, who is His representative, possesses similar authority
in relation to mankind; nobody can be a Muslim without believing
in Muhammad; faith in God alone is as useless as an eye is without
vision, cloud without rain or land without fertility. In fact,
"one" is the major word in Islam; millions of Muslims,
even if they all be extremely pious, cannot achieve salvation
without the agency of one man, called Muhammad. This is the reason
that there is no room in Islam for democracy, which is a form of
pluralism, that is, distribution of power among several
individuals and bodies.
When we look at history, we find no democratic principle in Islam.
The. Prophet Muhammad claimed to be the Divine Model of Behaviour.
Since he did not offer himself for election, he repudiated
democracy as the form of government. He left no instructions for
electing his successors. The Shia sect of Islam has always claimed
that the Prophet had appointed Ali, his son- in-law, as his
successor, and this contention eventually proved to be the bane of
Islam. Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, who succeeded the Prophet
Muhammad got appointed through the political skill of Umr, the
Great, but the faithful call it an election. In fact, it was an
inter-tribal dispute to settle the right of succession. The second
Caliph, Umr, the Great was an appointee of Abu Bakr; Uthman, the
Third Caliph was given this dignity by a small committee nominated
by Umr. At the death of Uthman, war broke out between Ali and
Muaawia to settle the issue of succession; the latter won, and
thereafter monarchy became the fundamental rule of governrnent,
which is compatible with the spirit of Koran:
"God gives the kingship to whom He will."
(The Cow II: 245)
Again, democracy is a national affair, but the Prophet Muhammad
confined the right to rule to his own tribe i.e. the Quresh, and
thus disqualified the rest of the Arabs to hold this honour:
1. "The prerogative to rule shall remain vested in the Quresh,
and whoever is hostile to them Allah shall destroy him .." (Sahih
Bokhari, vol. 4)
2. "The Quresh are the rulers of men in vice and virtue until
the Day of Judgement." (Sahih Tirmzi, vol. 1 )
3. "The right to rule shall belong to the Quresh even if two
men existed." (Sahih Bokhari vol. 9)
So far, I have concentrated on the fact that democracy is no part
of the Semitic Sciptures i.e. the Bible or the Koran. Since
Judaism, Christianity and Islam preach monotheism, that is,
oneness of God, who is jealous, All-powerful and Absolute, the
system of government they advocate, cannot be anything but
monarchical or dictatorial. It is only a religion or philosophy
that believes in pluralism, can advocate the principle of
power-sharing called democracy.
There are three major centres of pluralism known to the ancient
history, namely, Greece, Rome and India. It is naturally these
territories where the doctrine of democracy flourished; the people
who were free from the absolutism of one God, had the natural
desire to be free from the absolutism of one ruler. I salute all
these hubs of freedom but it is interesting to know which of these
is the fountain of democracy. This honour is usually ascribed to
Greece, but is it the whole truth? With a view to finding out the
size of the Indian contribution to democracy, I may further
enquire into the political forms of:
1. Greece,
2. Rome, and
3. India.
1. GREECE
Polytheism is the fountain of pluralism, which gave birth to the
doctrine of democracy. Greece was one of the lands of antiquity,
which ranked as one of the major centres of polytheism; it gave
birth to certain democratic traditions but it was not the fountain
of polytheism, also known as paganism. This principle encourages
belief in several gods, each having control over a separate
phenomenon of nature, yet being part of the Final Unity. This
doctrine is also known as "One-in-all and all-in-one."
Apart from its mystical connotations, it also means that the
administration of state cannot be left in the autocratic control
of one person: the political power must be shared by all its
members.
For proper understanding of the Greek contribulion to democracy,
we ought to realise that the period c. 900 to 700 B.C. is called
the Geometric period (The World of Homer). Historians have
surmised that this is the period when elements from the arts of
the Near East entered the Greek culture as a result of her trading
ventures in the eastern Mediterranean introduction of iron and
writing, which brought Greece into the light of history, belongs
to this era, and corresponds to the dawn of Upanishads in India.
What is known as the classical period of Greece, associated with
arts and sciences, starts circa 500 B.C. i.e. when the Geometric
or Archaic period ends. However, the period of three centuries
preceding the great migrations of c. 1100-c.1000 B.C. is often
referred to as Ihe Greek "dark ages" because little is
known about it. These migrations are termed as "the Dorian
Invasion" but the ancient cultural history of Greece defies
this assumption because the migrants practised the same
polytheistic traditions as did the people of India. Even if these
migrants did not come direct from India, they must have migrated
from a place, which had been originally colonised by the Indians.
This concept of Greek "dark ages" has proved very
convenient to hide this fact.
A special feature of the Archaic period was the growth of urban
life and political institutions. Each polis or urban settlement
had a political institution consisting of a king, a council and an
assembly. To check the autocratic powers of the king, each city
annually elected dignitaries, who existed alongside the kingship.
The king was not necessarily a hereditary ruler: even he could be
the subject of election in some places, including Athens. Of
course, we hear of "tyranny and tyrant" in the Archaic
Greece. A tyrant was not always a cruel ruler; he was someone who
exercised unhindered political influence without any legal title.
This condition, gradually dwindled. Even in Sparta, where two
hereditary kings were drawn from two royal families, had to decide
foreign policies in the public assembly, by the later decades of
the 5th century. In home affairs, the kings were themselves
members of the council.
The council consisted of thirty members. The other twenty-eight
councillors had to be at least sixty years old. They enjoyed
life-long membership. Any male adult could attend the public
assembly. In addition to councillors, the public assembly also
elected Ephors, who exercised ultimate choice on questions of
legislation and policy. The method of voting has been described as
acclamation: this procedure occasionally allowed some discretion
to the presiding officer.
Rhetra or enactment provided that the measures were to be
introduced by the council but the final decision had to be made by
the assembly. It has been argued that this two- tier procedure for
making decisions was not necessarily a Spartan invention; it was
found in other Greek states, and similar procedures were also
found in the Roman Republic where all measures were brought to the
Senate before they were presented to the assembly. More or less
the same situation existed among the ancient Germans. It shows
that the old democratic institutions had a common origin, but
where did it lie?
Democratic traditions flourished better in Athens, which had been
once ruled by kings. Eventually, the major political institutions
of Athens comprised an executive board, which consisted of
"nine archons," a council and a public assembly. One of
the archons continued to be called "king" in accordance
with the old tradition. However, it is Cleisthenes, who came to be
regarded as the founder of democracy in the second half of the 5th
Century B.C. owing to the reforms that he had introduced into the
political and social life of Athens.
Like the Indian culture, the Athenian society was also divided
into four classes according to ownership of property; the
class-divisions were hereditary and the social conditions were no
better than what prevailed in India owing to the Caste System. The
reforms of Cleisthenes abolished the old Class (tribal) system,
which was governed by the religious element. The corner-stone of
his reform was what is called the deme i.e. a village or a parish.
His reformative genius enabled the different classes to mingle
together as citizens of different districts and thus broke down
the social and local barriers.
The other major reform of Cleisthenes was the Council of Five
Hundred. The members of this Council were chosen by lot and were
entitled to hold office for one year. Each tribe supplied fifty
members to the council.
However, it should be remembered that the Athenian democracy had a
very limited scope. It was for the Athenians only; their colonials
had no share in it. Even the Athenian women and slaves, who formed
at least three- quarters of the population, could not participate
in this system of government.
2. ROME
When the Gauls burnt down the city of Rome in 390 B.C. the
patriotic zeal of its citizens assumed a new flight of imagination
to award it a historical origin, which the art of history itself
cannot acknowledge as the truth.
When Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, completed his
services to the city through a long reign, one day, a mighty
whirlwind carried him to heaven, where he became the god that was
to be worshipped as Quirinus by the people of Rome. As the story
goes, Romulus was succeeded by a member of the Sabine tribe,
namely, Numa Pompilius; he is said to have been chosen by the
city-elders, who belonged to the important tribes and have also
been referred to as Senatories.
Numa ruled for forty years. He brought unity and stability to his
people through religious devices. According to a tradition, Lucius
Tarquinius, supposed to have been chosen to rule the city by a
coalition of Etruscan families, was the first, who desired
hereditary kingship and openly canvassed for it. His thirty-years
rule, did increase the kingly powers over the patricians, who
arranged his assassination to nip the evil in the bud, but their
attempt did not succeed in securing its goal. Servius Tullius
Servius, who ascended the throne through the efforts of his
mother, was the first person to hold royal power without being
chosen by the people. Even Servius was not an autocrat; he was
bound by the law. When he was accused of ruling illegally, he
called for a plebiscite and secured a unanimous vote of approval.
As the Romans did not like monarchy, he was assassinated.
As the patricians (aristocracy) thought of the rex (king) as the
chief priest of religion, members of the senate, were unnerved by
the fact that under Tarquinius Superbus ( "the Proud" ),
monarchy had become absolute. However, when another Tarquinius
became king of Rome, the Senate was able to dismiss him in 508
B,.C. and took over the reins of power.
This is a short history of royal Rome, but it is devoid of
credibility. The struggle for establishing democracy that started
in 508 B.C. and lasted until 264 B.C. is too long to be described
in this article. However, I may call it a great human triumph
because it demonstrates man's burning desire for liberty and human
rights, which can be acquired only by keeping under check the
domineering evils of despotism whether it is exercised through
totalitarianism, by a king, a dictator, or God.
With a view to completing this narrative, I ought to add that the
Roman Senate was the supreme governing body. In fact, it was
executive, legislature and judiciary in one. Yet power was
exercised through a system of checks and balances. There were
three Assemblies, namely, Curial, Centurial and Tribal with
various prerogatives and functions. Then there were consuls,
censors and tribunes, having authority, discretion and the will to
maintain the integrity of freedom, justice and public weal.
Membership of the Senate was unique: though it was for life, a
corrupt member could be dismissed. Its eminence lay in the fact
that it was not elected by the people but the excellence of the
member's character thal had distinguished him by his services to
the community. Most of the Senators were the men, who had served
in the past as magistrates, administrators, commanders and
proconsuls. The Senate was also a great place for teaching virtues
of administration, justice, law-making, and the art of democracy
because the Senators were allowed to bring to its sessions their
sons who would sit quietly and attentively, absorbing the wisdom
collected over a period of centuries.
There is no democracy without law. The Roman Law was based on the
Twelve Tablets which lasted for nine hundred years. As in Greece,
Caste System was also found in Rome and was preserved by law which
forbade the marriage of a patrician with a plebeian.
After briefly tracing the roots of the Greek and Roman democracy,
I may add that democracy, particularly, the doctrine of election,
is not indigenous to Greece or Rome but to India. According to a
broad agreement between the historians, which I shall discuss
later, the people of India, Rome and Greece belong to the same
racial stock. In view of the size and population of India, it is
reasonable to assume that the Romans and Greeks must have migrated
from India to these tiny city-states. It is obviously famines or
local strifes that forced people leave their homeland and seek
settlements abroad. Again, the religious beliefs and cultural
practices of the three groups clearly demonstrate that the Greeks
and Romans received their polytheistic culture and the doctrine of
democracy from India.
It is absurd to call the Romans as the Etruscan migrants and the
Greeks as the Dorian Invaders. Let me explain this truth with
reference to the paganism that prevailed in the three countries.
Like many great things such as steel, mathematics, cotton, rice,
mysticism etc., paganism is yet another Indian contribution to
civilisation but the followers of monotheism - the despotic way of
life - have presented it in the worst possible form; they call it
idolatry whereas, in fact, it is symbolic nature-worship based on
a sound philosophy, seeking to raise the dignity of humanity to
that of divinity.
India is the fountain of paganism, which was the ascendant faith
of mankind until the advent of the Semitic concept of monotheism.
However, Greece may be mistaken as another contender for this
honour. Of course, Hellenism or Greek culture has made a fair
contribution to the world's way of life, but it has remained
unacknowledged that Greece herself drew cultural inspiration from
India. This is a tragedy of history for which the Indians
themselves are chiefly responsible. The truth is that India is the
origin of paganism and any Greek claim can be refuted by examining
the (a) mythology and (b) philosophy of the two countries:
a. Mythology
As a general proof, I may add that paganism is as indigenous to
India as Magna Carta is to England. It is because belief in gods
and goddesses in Greece ceased to exist many centuries ago but it
is still as prevalent in India as ever. When we realise that one
thousand years of determined persecution by the Islamic tyrants
failed to eradicate it in this land of the Vedas, one cannot
ascribe the origin of paganism to any country but India.
Again, the Rgveda is the oldest Scripture known to mankind but it
is dedicated to the pagan philosophy through the adoration of
several gods and goddesses, and it is these Vedic deities that
appear in the Greek and Roman mythologies. Let us enumerate a few
to establish the truth:
1. Sky (heaven) and earth have been the greatest source of awe and
wonder to the early man. It is the Vedas that called sky or dyaus
as Dyaus-Pitar, who had a female counterpart (earth). In India,
they named her Aditi (the Infinite Expanse) which eventually
became the mother of all gods. Following the Indian principle, the
Greek deities were male or female and had consorts. The Middle
Eastern countries were equally indebted to the Vedas for the
adoption of this principle.
The Indian Dyaus-Pitar (I: LIV - 2) also called Indra, became the
Zeus of Greece and Jupiter Pluvius of Rome. Agni, the Vedic god of
fire appears as Ignis in Rome, and the Vedic Surya as Helios in
Greece; the Vedic Usha, the goddess of dawn, was remembered as Eos
in Greece, and the Vedic Yama, god of the departed, assumed the
title of Pluto, who commanded the Greek hades.
The Rgveda ( I: XIII - 9) mentions three goddesses, namely Ila,
Saraswati and Mahi, who preside over the fine arts such as poetry,
music, drama, dance, painting and sculpture. In Greece they became
the Three Graces, namely Aglaia (Brightness), Euphrosyne
(Joyfulness) and Thalia (Bloom). They were considered the patrons
of arts, beauty and charm. Thus, all the Western arts are actually
rooted in the Indian paganism.
Tvastar of the Vedic pantheon (I: XIII - 10) is the Hephaisto or
Vulcan of the Greek mythology. He is an ideal artist and workman
of divine qualities, which enable him to indulge in most wonderful
contrivances.
In the Rgveda (I: XXIII - 19) we find Amrit, which is repeated
frequently. It has a great healing power and also confers
immortality. In Greece it is called Ambrosia.
Zeus, the chief god of Greece like its Indian prototype, Indra,
also uses thunderbolt as his weapon to subdue the disobedient. (Rg.
Book I: GXXX - 4).
Atharvan, the priest of the Rgveda (I. Vl: XV: 17) becomes the
Greek god, Prometheus, who stole fire from heaven to benefit
mankind.
In Greek mythology appears the dogs of Pluto, the god of the
underworld; they are in fact, the watch-dogs of Yama, the god of
the dead. (Rg. 7: LIBV - 2).
Varuna, the Vedic Law Lord, appears as Ouranos in the Greek
mythology. (Again, it is Varuna's counterpart, Mitra, who appears
as Mithra in the Persian mythology.)
Lord Kama, who holds a significant position in the Rgveda, appears
as Eros in Greece and as Cupid in Rome with the same function of
producing love with his amorous arrows.
Dionysus also called Bacchus, is a minicopy of the Vedic god Siva
for his rituals of the phallus, which was celebrated in Greece
with the same fervour as the Sivities still do in India.
Finally, to demonstrate that the Greek mythology is an extension
of the Indian mythology, I invite a comparison between the unvedic
Indian legend of Indra in relation to Ahalya, and of Zeus
concerning Alcemene. Both Indra and Zeus are chief gods, both use
thunderbolt as their chief weapons and both are held as womanisers.
In the tales referred to above, semblance between the two is so
great that, apart from difference of names, they both look one and
the same person.
In a nutshell, Ahalya was wife of the Saint Gautama. She was the
most beautiful woman ever born. Indra fancied her. Assuming the
form of Gautama, he pretended to be Ahalya's husband and thus
succeeded in seducing her.
Alcemene was the wife of Amphitryon. She was an extraordinary
beauty of olive complexion and large, intoxicating black eyes.
Zeus fancied her. He did exactly what Indra had done. He changed
his form to look like her husband, and thus deceptively became her
bed-mate for a whole (extended) night.
This brief description of mythologies should establish the truth
that the Greek mythology, in essence, is a copy of the Indian
mythology, and thus the Greeks actually worshipped the Indian
gods. This is further borne out by the Greek philosophy, which is
very much like the Vedic philosophy. Here is a brief comparison of
the philosophical development in the two countries:
It has been remarked that the Greek philosophical speculation led
to the pantheistic nature of the universe i.e. the world is a
unity through myriads of form.
However, the early Greek philosophy tends towards plurality and
not unity; it is because the divine is held as an element, which
is destined to animate the other elements that constitute the
world. This attitude is known as Hylozoistic pantheism (Greek hyle
"matter" and zoe "life"). Thus divine being
immanent in the universe, provides the motivating force for
movement and change. Finding matter and life as inseparable, the
hylozoistic thinkers, such as Thales, proposed water as the
fountain of life.
Gradually, the Greek speculation moves from plurality to
immanentistic pantheism. It means that, though God is only a part
of the world, He is immanent in it and thus His power extends
throughout everything that exists. Zenophanes, the first Greek
thinker, provides a reflection of monistic pantheism because he
suggests the existence of the Absolute God with a changing world,
believing that it does not attenuate reality of either.
Anaxagoras believed in Nous (or Mind) as the principle of order
for all things as well as the principal of their movement. Nous,
he held, is the finest and purest of things and is diffused
throughout the entire cosmos. This point of view is a further
annotation of the immanentistic pantheism.
Plato is said to have believed in an absolute and eternal God,
whose perfection is not affected ty his relationship with the
world of forms, along with a World- Soul which is responsible for
containing and animating the universe. He emphasised that this
World-Soul is as divine as a changing thing can be. This attitude
is interpreted to mean that Plato held "a dual principle of
the divine, uniting both being and becoming, absoluteness and
relativity, permanence and change, in a single context."
The Stoics adored the principle of reason, the logos, which
provides order as well as animation to all things. In addition,
they advocated the role of a World-Soul which permeates everything
in the world. Since the Stoics were materialits, their World-Soul
is held as an extended form of subtle matter. As the universal
reason is the supreme theme running through everything, the Stoic
philosophy is also held pantheistic.
This brief sketch clearly states that the Greek philosophy is
mainly pantheistic i.e. revolving round the principle of unity
through diversity. However, I cannot see how Plato could believe
in an absolute God, who is obliged to create according to the
Forms or eternal prototypes. Since He has no inventive choice, He
is not the Creator but the procreator; his Theory of Forms is a
copy of the Vedic doctrine of existence and becoming:
"He of whom all this world is but the copy who
shakes things moveless, He, O men,
is Indra." (Rg. II. XII - 9)
Again, "In every figure he hath been the model:
this is his only form for us to look on.
Indra moves multiform by his illusions;
for his Bay Steeds are yoked, ten times
a hundred." (Rg. VI: XLVII - 18)
Also:
"Kindled in many a spot, till One is Agni;
Surya is One though high over all he
shineth.
Illumining this All, still One is Usas,*
That which is One hath into All
developed." (Valakhilya X: 2)
The last quotation proves the oneness of the universe through
diversity of forms. It is this Vedic principle that appears in
Greece as the Parmenedian doctrine: One-in-all and all-in-One.
This, along with the Platonic idea of Forms, conclusively proves
the Indian origin of the Greek philosophy.
To understand the meaning of these references one ought to realise
that Plato is famous for his Theory of Forms or Ideas. It means
that everything that exists is a reflection of the Forms i.e. the
eternal prototypes. For example, when we say that rose is
beautiful, it means that the rose partakes of the form beauty.
Since rose withers away, its beauty is not real but the
Form-beauty is real. Therefore, one must strive for the Reality
that lies behind a thing, and not the thing itself, which is just
an illusion for being transitory.
When we delve into the above quotations, we find that Greece
inherited from the Vedas, the philosophy that Plato and his
predecessors had developed:
The Rgvedic quotation: "Indra moves multiform by his
illusions" clearly shows that Indra is the reality behind
everything, and the thing that exists is a reflection of the Forms
i.e. the eternal prototypes. For example motion and direction
itself is no more than an illusion. It also means that he is the
animating force of everything that supplies motion and direction.
Plato adapted this Vedic Theory to gain the international fame. It
might have been his spontaneous thinking but considering that the
Greek mythology is an offshoot of the Indian mythology, it is
likely that he had direct or indirect knowledge of the Vedas.
Thale's speculation that life started from water is also an
extension of the Vedic statement:
"The deathless Waters, born in Law, receiving,
protected all the germ in the beginning -
Waters divine who had the God above them ...."
(A.V. IV: 2, 6)
It is a candid assertion of the fact that, not only life springs
from water but, also the "water (is) born in Law," that
is, Water is water only becasue it obeys that Law of Nature, which
is known as H2O. Considering the antiquity of this statement, the
Biblical and Koranic declarations to this effect, are only of
secondary importance.
Anaxagoras' Nous (Mind) and Stoics' Logos (Reason), which provide
animation, movement or order to things, are nothing but
differently stated the Vedic principle called Rta: it is the
nature, as well as the natural law, which governs the universe
with complete force, wisdom and authority, necessary for
successful accomplishment of the Cosmic Order, and has been
referred to in the Rgveda some 130 times.
The Greek thinkers also borrowed their Concept of the World Soul
from the Rgveda: Hymn XC (Purusa) states that the universe came
into being "from that great general sacrifice" of Purusa.
What is Purusa? "The Purusa is all that yet hath been and all
that is to be ( 2 ) ." This is the germ and the motivating
force of the world, which cannot be increased or decreased, and
has been referred to as the Universal Soul.
This is only a glimpse of the Vedic influence: it shows that
Greece received from India its pagan culture, which had spread in
the East and West through the Indian migration and conquest. It
persisted so long in these lands that it began to look as a native
doctrine, though it had originated in India; it is still practised
in its land of birth with increasing fervour. This is yet another
proof of its Indian nativity. It died in Greece because it was not
a Greek baby: only its true mother, India, would not part with it
despite the 1000 years' persistent cruelty of the monotheistic
snatchers.
Pluralism is the practical manifestation of paganism i.e.
polytheism.
As polytheism is the division of power among gods, democracy is
the distribution of authority among humans. Wherever the Indian
paganism was ascendant, the political tendencies of the people
were towards democracy, which is abhorred by those whose behaviour
is motivated by the Urge of Dominance: they desperately need a
concept, which may enable them to justify personal or dynastic
despotism. Monotheism is such a concept, which is in fact, a
revolt against democracy, signifying usurpation of human rights by
God, who wants to be obeyed to the letter and tolerates no
participation in His government, which may be based on the laws,
made totally irrelevant by the passage of time. Here is the trick:
since God, the Absolute, cannot be contacted, His power is wielded
by one man, who claims to be His representative on earth i.e. the
Prophet, the Messiah or the Imam.
Monotheism is essentially the method of government by one man in
the name of one God, according to "His" laws, which lose
their relevance to man's social needs over a period of time, and
become the source of superstition, sorrow and slavish attitudes.
This concept was born in the Arabian peninsula as a revolt against
paganism, which had travelled from India and became deeply rooted
in the Middle Eastern countries. How did it happen? Here is the
short description of this historical event, which is substantiated
by the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
The Kassites penetrated Mesopotamia in early part of the second
millenium, but were repulsed by Hammurabi's son. However, they
succeeded in securing a foothold in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley on
the northern frontiers but later established the second Babylonian
dynasty. Thus, their rule started in the heart of the Semitic
civilisation about the middle of the 18th century B.C. and lasted
for 576 years.
Nobody knows with certainty the real home of the Kassites but
there can be no doubt about their cultural and religious identity.
Their gods were called Indas, Surias and Maruttas (which in the
Vedic language are: Indra, Surya and Marutah); they were a
Kshatriya clan for being members of a small military aristocracy.
It is they who introduced the horse in Babylonia, and showed
reverence to this animal, which dragged their war-chariots.
Again, a treaty between the Hittites and the Mittannis was signed
c. 1400 B.C. The latter invoked the Vedic gods: Indara, Unuvna,
Mitira and Nasatiya i.e. the Vedic Indra, Varuna, Mitra and
Naksatras. One should also remember that the clay tablets dating
back to c. 1400 B.C. written at Tell-EI-A Marna in Babylonian
cuneiform, describe the names of princes as Biridashva and
Artmanya, which betray their Indian origin.
Also noteworthy are the old Indian technical terms of
horse-breeding, which are to be found in the records of these
dynasties along with the war chariots. The aforementioned gods and
their chariots drawn by splendid horses are the special feature of
the Rgveda: Indra's chariot was pulled by 100 horses of the
greatest magnificence. Irrespective of what the Western and Arab
historians say, this is the irrefutable evidence of the Vedic
culture in the Arabian peninsula; it was ascendant there until the
advent of the Prophet Muhammad. It means that the Vedic paganism
had ruled the Middle Eastern mind at least for 2,000 years. No
wonder that the stern Mosaic monotheism could not dislodge the
traditions of the Vedic paganism.
The modern scholarship has established that the Patriarchal Age,
which refers to Abraham Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, dates back to
early 2nd millenium, which is coextensive with the arrival of the
Kassites. This is the time when Abraham, the acknowledged leader
of the three major monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity
and Islam, appears in the pages of history, protesting against
paganism to establish himself as the first monotheistic pioneer.
His strong protests against idols indicate the significance of the
Indian influence on the Middle Eastern countries but the modern
scholarship does not acknowledge him as a monotheist because of
the pagan traditions in which he grew up. Though he confessed to
being a monotheist, he practised monolatry, which means worship of
one among many gods. This is quite compatible with the Vedic
tradition, which holds that there are several gods but a person
can elect one of them to suit his own inclinations.
According to the Koranic tradition, Aazar, Abraham's father, was
an idolator. Though he rebelled against his paternal faith i.e.
paganism, he could not completely free himself from it. The most
he could do was, to become monolatrous, that is, choose one god
for worship out of many that a person believes in. The Bible is
quite frank on the subject. Yahwe, the Jewish God says:
"Thou shalt not revile Gods, nor curse the rulers of
thy people." (Exodus 22: 18)
On polytheism, the Bible contradicts the Koran because the former
clearly states that Solomon, acknowledged as a major Prophet by
Islam, worshipped many gods.
"For it came to pass, when Solomon was old that his wives
turned away his heart after other gods .." "And Solomon
did evil in the sight of the Lord and went not fully after the
Lord, as did his father." "Then did Solomon build an
high place for (god) Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill
that is before Jerusalem, and for (god) Molech, the abomination of
the children of Ammon."
"And likewise did he (Solomon) for all his strange wives,
which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. "
"And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was
turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him
twice."
(I Kings II, 11: 6-9)
This was the influence of the Vedic polytheism on the Middle
Eastern mind, exerted by the Kassite and Mittanni warriors' who
practised the Indian cultural traditions, which show that if they
did not come directly from India, they must have migrated from
this country to settle elsewhere whence they raided the
Mesopotamian lands. It has a striking analogy with the Arabs who
made incursions into European lands from Spain.
In fact, the impact of the Indian culture on the Arabian peninsula
has been more persistent than the stammering tongue of the ancient
history can reveal. This truth is demonstrated by the Vedic
principle of Triad (Trimurti) that originally prevailed in
southern Arabia i.e. Yemen. It refers to the tradition which
represents one god in three figures, and three-in-one. The
Christian Trinity is a good example of this fact. Again, the
people of Yemen believed in a triad of astral deities representing
the Moon god, the Sun goddess and the Venus god; a triad of gods
was also found in Palmyra: it consisted of Bell, Yarhibol (a solar
deity) and Aglibol (a lunar deity).
This triadic tradition of the south travelled to Mecca and is
testified by the Koran, which describes the triad of three
goddesses, namely, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat! This is the reason
that Kaaba was a temple of the Indian style where these goddesses
along with many deities were worshipped regularly. One of these
idols was called Allah. Small wonder that democratic traditions
prevailed in pre-Islamic Mecca.
Democracy is the expression of man's natural urge for freedom. It
is associated with paganism the same way as rays are with the sun,
stars with the sky and sweetness with honey. It is because
paganism is the belief in many gods, each having power within his
own sphere of the natural phenomena, yet constituting a part of
the Final Truth or Power. This Divine power-sharing acts as an
inspiration for humans to have share in the political
power-structure of the community. This is what democracy is all
about. There are plenty of people who yell at the weakness of this
system, but forget that democracy requires certain moral standards
backed by the force of law. This is not the way of life suitable
for crooks, criminals and charlatans.
Since the Vedas are the product of India and happen to be the
oldest Scriptures of mankind, it is reasonable to assume that
polytheism i.e. mythology as a formal faith originated in India.
From the observation of the natural phenomena such as the sky, the
sun, the stars, the wind, the fire, the water, the dawn, the
sunset, etc., the Indian sages came to the conclusion that there
was a controlling power behind each phenomenon; this is what they
termed as god. They further realised, as all these natural forces
were well disciplined, they must be under the binding rule of
natural law. This is the polytheistic message of the Vedas, which
was spread by the Indians as they migrated to the foreign lands. I
have already narrated this fact in a previous article: "India
in Europe."
Now, I may describe the Vedic principle of:
1. The Democratic theory, and
2. Practice.
The Vedas do not hold man as product of sin, nor do they advocate
that man is the slave of God:
"O undivided Heaven and Earth, preserve
us, us the Lofty Ones, your nobly-born
descendants." (Rg. VII: LXII - 4)
Here "us" means man who being "nobly born" is
not mean, malovelent and miscreant but magnificent, majestic and
masterful despite being erroneous occasionally.
The Vedic man is not a slave of gods:
''Ye, O ye gods, are verily our kinsmen;
as such be kind to me who now implore you."
(Rg. II: XXVIII: 4)
Gods are man's relatives, and it is in this capacity, he implores
their help and, not as a menial.
Man implores and shows devotion to gods because:
"That we with simple hearts may wait upon the
gods, we ask for freedom and complete felictiy."
(Rg. X: C - 3)
Here it is made clear that freedom is happiness and happiness is
freedom, and securing this blessing is the reason for man's
devotion and praying to gods. Again, the concept of happiness is
not exclusive to one person but everyone is entitled to be happy:
"Our God, make all of us to dwell in happy
habitations." (Rg. VIII: LXX iii - 6)
Here, habitation means people of a locality. They all deserve to
be happy through freedom, which is possible by practising the
Elective Principle only: Here is the Elective Doctrine, described
in a way that admits no interpretation. It should also be
remembered that the Vedas are the only Scriptures that make
monarch subject to election and strict laws of governance:
"The tribesmen shall elect thee for the Kingship."
(A.V. III, IV: 2)
Of course, it is the tribesmen who elect the King, but "women
and their sons" must also be favourably inclined to the
person to be elected as the King. It is surely a family check on
the voters, who must consult their women and sons before
exercising their choice:
"Let women and their sons be friendly. Thou mighty
one, shalt see abundant tribute."
(A.V. III, IV: 3)
Again, it should be noted that a Vedic king is not an appointee of
God but being an elected monarch is treated as human:
"Guard and protect this man, all Gods .... Over him
keep ye watch and ward ...." (A.V. I - XXX: I)
The Rgveda in chapter X: GXXIV: 8 gives impression that the
Elective Principle was an integral part of the faith of the Indian
people:
"And they, like people who elect their ruler,
have in abhorrence turned away from Vrtra."
Vrtra means the chief cloud demon and refers to the sources of
evil as the word "Satan" in the Koranic mythology
alludes to wickedness. This verse makes it clear that those who
believe in the Elective Principle, are the pious people because it
is tantamount to turning away from the horrors of Vrtra i.e. the
atrocities of despotism.
In ancient India, tribe was the basic political unit, and the
kingdoms were usually small in size like the city- states of Rome
and Athens, though the Rgveda also provides evidence of bigger
states, which might have come into existence through conquest or
confedracy.
To check the despotic tendencies, there came into being three
institutions:
a. Sabha
b. Samiti and
c. Brhamanism.
a. Sabha ( Council ) as an integral part of the government appears
in the Rgveda (VI. 28-6; Viii 4-9). It refers to a hall of meeting
where more important members of the community such as Brahmans and
rich people were convened for deliberations. When the hall was not
required for the state purposes, it could be used for other
functions such as the game of dice. The elected Chief or president
(Ganapati, Ganaraja) ruled with the advice of the council elders.
b. Samiti had a wider scope of reference than Sabha because it
consisted of both the elite, and ordinary people, who commanded
majority. I shall discuss "Parisad" in its Buddhist
context, later. Its members were summoned by the sound of
kettledrum.
Though later corrupted by autocrats, the original Indian system of
government was based on the elective principle, which was a part
of the religious faith. This fact is fully attested by the Rgveda.
"Let every mortal man elect the friendship
of the guiding god." (V.L - 1 )
It is clear that God cannot impose himself on any man; as there
are several gods, man should elect one of them to guide him. This
is why polytheism is the root of democracy. It is this sanctity of
the Elective Principle that makes it the guiding principle in
political affairs.
To strengthen the elective Principle, the ancient Indian code of
law, Manusmrti, lays down:
1. The King must be humble. (7: 39)
2. The King must give a deep bow to his councillors. (8: 23 )
3. The King is more subject to law than ordinary people. If a
layman is fined a "scratch-penny" for theft, he should
be fined a thousand. (8-336)
4. The King should appoint seven or eight hereditary advisers who
must be highly knowledgeable. (7: 54)
5. The King must know the Scriptures, science of politics,
punishment, philosophy and psyche. (7 - 43)
c. Brahmanism.
The Vedas bestow extraordinary privileges on Brahmans, who
restrict the authority of the King:
"To him, the people with free will pay homage, the King with
whom the Brahman hath precedence.
The Gods uphold that King with their protection who helps the
Brahman when he seeks his (King's) protection." (Rg. IV, 50:
8-9)
The Manusmrti adds:
1. The King must be guided by a Brahmn (chief minister). ( 7: 58 )
2. The Brahman is the best of all classes of men. (10-1 )
3. "A ten-year-old priest and a hundred-year-old ruler should
be regarded as father and son, and of the two of them, the priest
is father." (2: 136)
This is what strikes King's mind with Brahman's superiority and he
begins to believe in the immensity of his spiritual powers, which
can guide him in ordinary life, give him victory in the
battlefield, save him from vicious friends, multiply his progeny
and reward him with health, wealth, long life, happiness, and
ultimately, the heavenly bliss.
This discussion ought to explain why the political system of India
had to be democratic. Of course, there are instances of despotism
but they mark nadir of the system and not its zenith:
2. Practice
Having explained the theory of the Indian democracy, now I may add
briefly that democracy in India has not just been a mental
attitude but a genuine practice since inception of civilisation.
In fact, the idea of Social Contract is of the Indian origin
though erroneously or wilfully ascribed to the modern European
philosophers, namely, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Thomas Hobbes,
an English political absolutist held that "state of nature
was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Therefore, it
amounted to a state of war, which could be ended only if men
entered into a social contract to hand their liberty to sovereign,
who was thence forward absolute provided he guarded his subjects'
life and property. Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that in the
state of nature, man was unwarlike and somewhat undeveloped.
However, when men agreed for mutual protection to surrender
individual freedom of action and establish government, they
acquired a sense of moral and civic obligation.
Kautilya, the Indian sage, held that as a consequence of the fact
that the bigger fish swallows the smaller fish, the people were
affected with the evils of anarchy. They, including hermits,
banded together and first elected Manu, son of Vivasvat, to be
their king, and allotted him one-sixth of their grains and
one-tenth of their merchandise as his share. They declared: "
It is a tax payable to him who protects us."
It is quite clear that an Indian King was an elected guardian, who
was paid taxes to serve his people.
The Buddhist philosophy states that in the beginning, man was
righteous but became corrupt as time went by. So, men entered into
a contract to elect a king to punish, revile and exile those who
deserved it. The man elected was called Mahasammata, and because
he delighted others through righteousness, he was called Rajan.
In both the above instances, the state of nature became corrupt
and had to be put right by common consent, which was 1he real
source of power. The ruler was, therefore, an elected appointee,
who was there to protect people's life, property and all those
rights, which guarantee happiness.
India had several republics during the 7th and 6th centuries
before the advent of Christ. Some of them were known as Koliyas,
Moriyas, Jnatrkas, Sakyas and Licchavis. The Lord Mahavira, the
founder of Jainism, belonged to the republic: of Jnatrkas and the
Lord Buddha came from the republic of Sakyas.
Rgveda, the oldest Scripture of mankind, is the first to describe
the Elective Principle. So great is its significance that it
applies even to the choice of a God, who is not allowed to impose
himself on man. To popularise the doctrine of democracy, the
Rgveda lays stress on consultation and consensus:
1. "Assemble, speak together; let your minds be all of one
accord. "
2. "The place is common, common the assembly, common the
mind, so be their thoughts united."
3. "One and the same be your resolve, and be your minds of
one accord. "
4. "United be the thought of all that may happily
agree."
Since the Rgveda was composed in the Punjab, it is reasonable to
assume that the democratic ideal first emerged in this territory,
and it is from here that it spread to the other parts of the
world. Its Indian journey has been revealed by professor D. R.
Bhandarkar. According to him, the Pandyas were a Punjabi tribe. By
the time of Magesthenes, they had settled down in Jumna and
Mathura. Their capital was known as Moddura. i.e. Madura, which
was also "the principal town of the district of the same name
in the Madras Presidency; the fact that the Pandyas of the south
called their capital Madhura clearly shows that they came from the
North from some country whose capital was Mathura.
These Pandu or Pandya were highly adventurous people. They kept
moving in the South; wherever they went, they called their capital
city Mathura. This is the reason that there was a third Matura in
Ceylon and a fourth in the Eastern Archipelago.
During 900 B.C. to 600 A.D. India was a conglomeration of
villages, towns and provincial corporations, each managing its own
affairs almost autonomously. Besides, there were trade and craft
guilds. Some of them were so powerful that they had their own
armies and even lent money to the king.
These guilds or Srenis ranked as republics, and sovereignty was
vested not in any individual but in the whole body. Panini, the
grammarian, has mentioned several of them, some situated in Vahika
and Trigarta, both parts of the Punjab. It is such independent and
semi-independent institutions that served as a check on despotism.
This is the reason that the king of Takshasila (Taxila), who had
madly fallen in love with a Yakshini (a beautiful sorceress),
could not oblige her when she asked him to give her authority over
whole of his kingdom. He replied "My love, I have no power
over the subjects of my kingdom, I am not their Lord and Master. I
have only jurisdiction over those who revolt or do wrong."
About the time of the rise of Buddhism, the democratic form of
government that existed side by side with monarchy in North India,
is known as Sangha or Gana. It means a "corporate collection,
an aggregation of individuals for a definite purpose." Since
in a Sangha or Gana, sovereignty belongs to the whole body and not
to any particular individual, it is also a form of guild with a
special purpose.
Various historians of antiquity such as Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius
and Orosius have described with different names a tribe of Gujrat,
which inhabited the lower Akesines (the river: Chenab) in the
Punjab. Curtius says "they were a powerful Indian tribe where
the form of government was democratic and not regal."
Arrian mentions another three tribes of the Punjab, namely,
Kathanians, Oxydrakai and Malloi. They all were independent
republics. As Malloi surrendered to Alexander, the Great, they
inform him, "they were attached more than any others to
freedom and autonomy, and that their freedom they had preserved
intact from the time Dionysos came to India until Alexander's
invasion."
Arrian has described another Punjabi tribe which was settled in
Nyasa. As the Nyasians surrendered, "they sent out to him
(Alexander) their President whose name was Akouphis and along with
him thirty deputies of their most eminent citizens to entreat him
to spare the city .... when he enquired about their laws, he
praised them because the government of their state was in the
hands of the aristocracy. "
When we look at the Buddhist form of Sangha, we realise that the
Indian system of democracy was far ahead of what was practised in
Greece and Rome. This is no fairy tale but the truth based on
theVinaya-Pitaka of the Buddhist Scriptures, which have preserved
the code of procedure that regulated the meetings of the Buddhist
congregation. Here is a glimpse of it:
1. Seats in the assembly hall were arranged in the order of
precedence, that is, the attendants sat according to their dignity
and seniority. There was a special officer whose duty it was to
carry out these arrangements.
2. There was a Speaker of the assembly. His job was to announce
the proposed motion. All questions to the Sangha had to be
channelled through him.
3. During the debate, any difference of opinion was resolved
through the majority vote. This procedure was called Yebhuyyasika.
What is amazing is the principle of confidentiality. The members
were given tickets (Salakas) for this purpose and were collected
by the Bhikshu (monk) known as Salaka-Gahapaka.
4. The member, who could not attend the meeting owing to a genuine
reason such as illness or a pre-engagement, was entitled to an
absentee vote known as Chhanda.
5. The meeting could not take place without the necessary quorum.
For this prupose, there was an officer called Ganapuraka, the
equivalent of modern "whip."
The most important point to remember is that the Buddhists had
adopted many things from the local customs that had existed in
India long before the advent of the Lord Buddha. The democratic
vocabulary of the Buddhists such as Salakas, Vebhuyyasika, Chhanda,
Ganapuraka, etc., were not coined by the Buddhist Sanghas but had
been inherited by them from the Vedic Age. This shows the
antiquity of the democratic traditions in India.
The "Village Pancayat" is an ancient form of grass- root
democracy in the Indian subcontinent. It is a local assembly of
the villagers, consisting of five members who are usually elected
but sometime hereditary. The Pancayat ( Panchayat ) was the local
forum for discussing communal problems and pronouncing decisions,
which carried authority of the law.
The Pancayat System came to an end in Pakistan, but it is still a
part of the rural life in India. The gypsies, who originated in
the Punjab and spread all over the world, might have carried this
democratic tradition to the other parts of the world as they did
the Indian iron technology.
Previously, I have argued that both Greece and Rome received their
polytheistic traditions from India, where they are as much alive
today as they were in antiquity. Now, I may add another dimension
to this discussion:
The advancement of a culture may be judged by the level of the
language that acts as its medium of expression. Sanskrit is the
language of the Rgveda, which was composed in the Punjab.
Therefore, it is an Indian language, and it is a false attempt to
shift its origin to Europe on the pretext that it belongs to the
Indo-European group of languages. According to Sir William Jones,
Sanskrit is "More perfect than the Greek, more copious than
the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either." It
establishes the precedence of Sanskrit over both the Greek and the
Latin, which represent the Greek and Roman cultures.
During the 18th century, the European scholars were struck by the
grammatical similarities found in the said three languages. Thus,
they came to the conclusion that the people of India, Greece and
Rome belong to the same racial stock. Obviously, the new settlers
of Greece and Rome migrated from India and took their polytheistic
and democratic traditions with them. This conclusion cannot lack
the truth because during the period 500 B.C. the populations of
Rome and Athens hardly reached the 200,000 mark whereas India
housed fifty million people. It is mad to think that people moved
from these two tiny city-states to India. The migration must have
taken place from India to Greece and Rome.
Unfortunately, it has become customary to believe that India has
always been a primitive country. The truth is quite the opposite.
India is the fountain of civilisation, and this fact can be easily
verified from the study of the Rgveda, which represents the Indian
way of life simmering with a warrior's zest, love of adventure and
appetite for learning.
This is the heritage of all Indians whether they live in Bharat,
Pakistan or Bangladesh.
+++++++++++++++
* The Greek Eos, the goddess of dawn in none else but the Vedic
USAS, who represents the doctrine of unity in diversity.
Considering the ancient means of communications, she could not
have enetered the Greek culture unless the Greek had migrated from
India. It should be borne in mind that the geographic descriptions
of the Rgveda prove it beyond a shadow of doubt that it was
composed in the Punjab (India).
If you enjoyed this article, please visit: http://www.hinduunity.org
|
