Historic city One Republic, Many ‘Republics’: Rethinking Ancient Indian History

What is a republic?

The defining characteristic of a republic is that it is non-monarchical: it is not ruled by a hereditary king. Instead, governance is run by representatives who act on behalf of the people. However, who counts as “the people” has varied widely over time and place.

In ancient Athens – often cited as one of the earliest republics – only free (i.e. non-enslaved) adult males were recognized as citizens. Political participation and representation was limited to this narrow group, while the vast majority of the population, including enslaved people, had no right to vote. This system emerged around the sixth century BC. However, the Athenian example was not unique; Many other city-states operated in a similar manner, with political power concentrated among a small elite of men who ruled in their own interests. There are other examples from the ancient world, such as from ancient Phenicia (modern Syria, Lebanon and Palestine-Israel). City-states such as Tire and Sidon also had oligarchic republics similar to Athens.

Also read: a permanent republic

The development of republican and democratic forms of government has been a long and uneven process. Early republics, such as the Roman Republic (509 BC–27 BC), established key institutions such as consuls, senates, and popular assemblies, and distributed power among various bodies rather than concentrating it in a single king; However, these systems still balance oligarchic influence with limited popular participation rather than universal political equality.

Democracy and republicanism did not develop in a straight line and, as noted above, political rights were limited to narrow groups for most of history. Modern ideas of universal rights and equal citizenship, regardless of gender, class, race, religion or other status, developed gradually, especially since the Enlightenment, and became widely realized with the expansion of suffrage in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Although many scholars and advocates argue that democratic and republican systems are desirable because they are based on consent, accountability, and the rule of law, not all countries that hold elections or call themselves democracies fully adhere to these principles in practice. Some authoritarian or hybrid regimes hold formal elections and express a commitment to democratic norms while concentrating power in the executive, suppressing dissent, or manipulating institutions to remain in power.

Our oldest known ‘republic’

In the Indian subcontinent, while monarchy eventually became the dominant political system, other forms of rule also existed in the early historical period. Oligarchy, in which power was held by a group of elite people rather than a single ruler, was common, and forest tribes and chieftains played important roles, although much of what we know about them comes from state-produced texts and inscriptions. According to Jagadish P. Sharma in Republics in Ancient India 1500 BCE–500 BCE, the Pali canon of southern Buddhists, Sanskrit Buddhist texts, the sacred literature of the Jains, the Mahabharata, and texts such as Pāṇini’s Arthashastra and Ashtadhyayi provide the main evidence for the northward republics of the late Vedic period.

Later Vedic texts, epics and Puranas describe many kings and dynasties of early historical North India, but the historicity of the early rulers remains difficult to assess. From the sixth century BCE onwards, the outlines of North Indian political history become clear, and figures mentioned in various textual traditions – kings as well as religious teachers – can often be identified as historical. In South India, the early historical phase is usually placed around the 3rd century BCE, although evidence of writing in the far south may date to the 4th century BCE or earlier.

The sixth and fifth centuries BCE saw the emergence of state politics and society in a wide swath extending from the Malwa region from Gandhara in the northwest to Anga in the east. The inclusion of Asaka (Ashmaka) in the upper Godavari valley in the list of major kingdoms suggests that similar processes were going on in trans-Vindhya India.

Also read:Remembering the heroes of our resilient republic

Buddhist and Jain texts describe sixteen powerful kingdoms, or Solasa-Mahajanapadas, which flourished as early as the 6th century BCE. (Janapada refers to an area comprising urban and rural settlements and its inhabitants.) Small states, chiefdoms and tribal principalities also existed. In the Anguttara Nikaya the Mahajanapadas are listed as Kashi (काशी), Kosala (कोशल), Anga, Magadha, Vajji (Vrijji), Malla, Chetiya (Chedi), Vamsa (Vatsa), Kuru, Panchala, Machha (Matsya), Shurasena, Asaka (Ashmaka), Avanti, Gandhara and Kamboja. The Mahavastu gives a similar list, but substitutes Shibi (Punjab) and Dasharna (central India) for Gandhara and Kamboja, while the Bhagavati Sutra provides a somewhat different, possibly later, list.

Mahajanapadas included both monarchical (kingdoms) and non-monarchical states called ganas or sanghas. With the exception of at least two states which had an aristocracy, the sixteen Mahajanapadas were highly monarchical. These terms, used interchangeably in texts such as the Ashtadhyayi and the Majjhima Nikaya, have sometimes been translated as “republic”, but they were originally oligarchy, where power was held by a group of clans. Therefore, to say that democracy in India first emerged in the form of Gana-Sangha is an exaggeration of the available evidence and an oversimplification of these complex state systems.

Sharma, in his criticism of nationalist writers, said, “It is a serious mistake on the part of students of ancient political institutions to interpret ancient terms, concepts and institutions in a modern context. Jaiswal, Bhandarkar, Majumdar and to some extent Altekar have also been guilty of imposing twentieth-century democratic ideas and institutions on early Indian politics. They seem to have set out with a motive which was, no doubt, a natural reaction to nineteenth-century criticism. The imperialist writers who Undermining various aspects of Indian achievements and their past culture, and were based on the assumption that if there were democratic institutions in Greece and Rome, then there must have been them in ancient India also.”

As Romila Thapar states in Early India: From the original to 1300 AD, the compound words gana-sangha or gana-rajya combine gana, which refers to a group whose members claim equal status, with sangha, meaning an assembly, or state, denoting rule. She claims, “It was once thought that they were democracies, but this is hardly justified, given that power was vested in small ruling families and they alone participated in governance. The vast majority of people living in the region had no rights and were denied access to resources.” For this reason, the term republic came to be preferred: it acknowledged the presence of social stratification, distinguishing these monarchies from monarchies.

Structure of Gana Sanghas: Chiefdoms and Oligarchies

Upinder Singh, in A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, writes that there were two Mahajanapadas – Vajji and Malla-Sangha. Several other ganas are also mentioned in Buddhist texts, including the Shakyas of Kapilavastu, the Koliyas of Devadaha and Ramagrama, the Bullis of Alakappa, the Kalams of Kesaputta, the Moriyas of Piplivana and the Bhaggas centered on the Sumasumra hill. In particular, most of the politically important ganas were located in or near the Himalayan foothills of eastern India, while the major monarchies dominated the fertile alluvial plains of the Ganges valley.

The gana-sanghas were organized either as single clans, such as the Shakyas (the dynasty in which the Buddha was born), Koliyas and Mallas, or as confederations of clans, examples of which include the Vrijjis and Vrishnis. The Vrijji confederacy, centered at Vaishali, consisted of independent tribes of equal status who retained their distinct identity. Although these were Kshatriya clans, their political systems did not necessarily follow the varna system. They preserved strong clan traditions, particularly collective rule through gatherings limited to clan or family heads.

In comparison to the states, the Ganas retained strong elements of tribal organization. Some appear to have evolved from older tribal structures, while others emerged through change or rejection of monarchical rule. For example, the Videhas appear to have shifted from monarchy to gana status by the sixth century BCE, while the Kauravas, who were originally a monarchy, became gana several centuries later. Two broad types of ganas can be identified: those based on a single clan or part of a clan, such as the Shakyas and Koliyas, and confederations of several clans, such as the Vrijjis and Yadavas. These associations point to a developed and self-conscious political identity among the ganas.

Also read: Paintings, dances and tableaux: Vande Mataram at the center of Republic Day Parade 2026

Origin legends of gana-sanghas often emphasize claims to high status, often linking ruling families to exiled elites or myths emphasizing purity of lineage. Their departure from Vedic orthodoxy is reflected in Brahmanical sources, which criticized them as fallen Kshatriyas or even Shudras for rejecting Vedic ritual and varna stratification. Socially, the gana-sanghas were organized into two main groups: the ruling Kshatriya royal clan and the dasa-karmakaras (slaves and labourers), who had no political rights or representation.

Governance was collective and centered on an assembly of clan representatives, headed by a king who served as chief, rather than a hereditary king. Decisions were debated and, if necessary, voted on. Supporting officials included advisors, a treasurer, and a military commander, with later sources describing more detailed judicial procedures. Political power was firmly held by Kshatriya representatives, a fact reflected in Buddhist texts that often place Kshatriyas above Brahmins in the social ranking.

The rejection of monarchical authority also allowed the Gana-Sanghas to break away from Brahmanical political theory. Buddhist texts offer a rational account of the origins of the state, which resembled a social contract, in which governance arose to manage conflict and maintain justice. This was in contrast to the Brahmanical view of kingship, which was divinely appointed and tasked with maintaining the ritual system and varna hierarchy.

The history of the ganas of ancient India spans at least a millennium. Their ultimate military defeat by monarchical states can be attributed to the limitations of their systems of governance and military organization in response to the demands of territorial expansion and empire-building. In contrast, the ambitions of monarchical states were clearly expressed in the political vocabulary of the period through concepts such as cakravarti, emperor, and sovereign, all of which reflected the ideal of a universal or “world” ruler. As Singh says, “After several centuries, the rulers of Magadha succeeded in turning the idea of ​​an empire into reality.”

(HistoryCity is a column by writer Vale Singh that tells the story of a city that is in the news by going back to its documented history, mythology and archaeological digs. Views expressed are personal.)