therefore, that when Indians think of village republics, what
occurs to them is not what the word ‘republic’ implies in
substance; but, instead, the visual images of its shell, the
elected assembly, the system of voting, etc.
What Charles Metcalfe, and especially Henry Maine wrote
on this point was primarily on the basis of the earlier British
information, i.e. what had been derived from the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth century British travellers, administrators,
etc., as well as from the writings of other Europeans before
them. It implied (and, quite naturally, the British had no
particular reason to spell it out for us Indians) that the ‘village’
(it is immaterial how they defined it), to an extent, had all the
semblance of the State: it controlled revenue and exercised
authority within its sphere. How this ‘village’ State was
constituted, (whether in the manner of an oligarchy, or by the
representation of the various castes, crafts, or other groups
within it, or by representation of all families, or in some other
manner), while important in itself as a subject for exploration,
was not its basic element. The basic element of this ‘village
republic’ was the authority it wielded, the resources it controlled
and dispensed, and the manner of such resource utilisation.
Notwithstanding all that has been written about empires—
Ashokan, Vijayanagar, Mughal, etc., and of ‘oriental despotism’
it is beyond any doubt that throughout its history, Indian society
and polity has basically been organised according to non-
centralist concepts. This fact is not only brought out in recent
research. The eighteenth and early nineteenth century European
reports, manuscript as well as published writings also bear
evidence to it. That the annual exchequer receipts of Jahangir
did not amount to more than 5% of the computed revenue of his
empire, and that of Aurangzeb (with all his zeal for maximising
such receipts), did not ever exceed 20% is symptomatic of the
concepts and arrangements which governed Indian polity.
It can be argued of course that such a non-centralist polity
made India politically weak; or, rather, soft in the military
sense—given that only hierarchical and centralist states are
politically and militarily strong and viable. This may all be true
and is worthy of serious consideration. Nonetheless, the first
requisite is to understand the nature of Indian society and polity
especially as it functioned two or three centuries ago. Further,
its various dimensions and contours, strengths and weaknesses
need to be known, and not only from European writings but
much more so from Indian sources; that is from sources rooted