History is not about inculcating pride — or prejudice, says former JNU professor
Ranabir Chakravarti, former professor of ancient Indian history and culture at JNU, takes a look at southern and eastern India to buttress his point, in this dialogue with Subhoranjan Dasgupta, professor of human science, that the political systems in ancient and medieval India cannot be considered precursors to modern democratic systems.
Q: Let us look to the south. Neelkantha Sashtri, perhaps the greatest historian of south India, suggested that the Cholas had the Byzantine system of monarchy in combination with vibrant, local self-rule. The Chola monarchs functioned through the institution of local, elected assemblies. What was the real picture, did it approximate an actual democratic polity?
Chakravarti: One often hears about local self-rule in rural Tamil Nadu even under the formidable Chola kings, especially in the famous 10th-century Uttiramerur inscription of the Chola ruler Parantaka. The epigraphic mention of annually “elected” members of the village assembly and various committees thereof (including one looking after local irrigation) cannot obfuscate the fact that this related exclusively to a sabha of a Brahmana rural settlement (Brahmadeya). The features of a sabha in a south Indian Brahmana village were not replicated in non-Brahmana settlements (ur).