Central Assembly – Ancient India
Chapter – 7
- The Central Government in a modern state includes the Head of the Executive (King or President), his Council or Cabinet, and a Legislature or Central Assembly that controls the executive and enacts laws.
- Questions arise about the existence and nature of a Central Assembly in Ancient India, including whether it resembled modern democratic Parliaments, its historical presence, and the election of its members.
- Vedic literature indicates the presence of Popular Assemblies that controlled kings in the small states of ancient Afghanistan and the Punjab.
- States during the Rigvedic period were small, akin to city-states, with villages having their own popular assemblies (sabhā) and a central assembly for the whole state (samiti).
- Sabhās and samitis were highly regarded in Vedic society, seen as almost divine institutions related to the community’s political life.
- Vedic assemblies are referred to by three terms: Vidatha, sabhā, and samiti; their precise meanings and functions remain debated among scholars.
- Ludwig suggests that sabhā may have functioned like an Upper House (priests and wealthy), while samiti resembled a Lower House (commoners).
- Other scholars propose different interpretations, with Jayaswal suggesting samiti as a national assembly and sabhā as its standing body.
- Vidatha seems less relevant to political life, focusing more on learned gatherings.
- Evidence suggests sabhā and samiti were separate bodies, with the sabhā likely acting as a village assembly handling local disputes and communal safety.
- The sabhā may have been associated with the king and could function in political capacities, indicated by references to members having royal status and receiving tithes.
- While some texts suggest samiti could be a social gathering, it generally referred to a political assembly central to governance, influencing a king’s power.
- The samiti was powerful, impacting military and executive affairs, though its exact relationship with the king is unclear.
- Uncertainty remains about the samiti’s constitution: whether it was official or popular, elective or hereditary, and the length of members’ terms.
- It is suggested that, like republican assemblies, samitis under monarchies were likely aristocratic, consisting of prominent military and aristocratic families.
- Priests may have also been represented in the samiti, reflecting their significant role during this period.
- Members of the samiti were influential, high-status men who participated in the administration and attended meetings in their full grandeur, riding horses or in carriages