The issue of caste census is quite a popular topic in India right now. The opposition is planning to use Caste Census as a Brahmastra against ruling NDA alliance. Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly threatened that Caste Census will have to be done at any cost. At the same time, Lalu Yadav’s party RJD of Bihar is also trying to link this census with caste identity, which can prove fatal for democracy.
The former RJD-JDU government of Bihar also conducted a caste survey in Bihar and on the basis of that, the limit of caste reservation in Bihar was raised to 65 percent. However, this was rejected by the court. Now, Tejashwi Yadav of RJD and Rahul Gandhi of Congress are asking for this caste census in the entire country.
If caste census is conducted, and on that basis the government makes welfare policies for the people, then it will be a very commendable step for society and democracy. Robert Dahl has also said, “The chances of a stable democracy in a country are better if its citizens and leaders strongly support democratic ideas, values and practices.”
However, the way caste calculations are being linked to caste identity to gain power is spreading animosity and bitterness in the society. The way this controversy is being fueled in the country, this step can prove to be dangerous in a country like India. Looking at the ambitions of some politicians at present, it can prove to be a divider rather than an attempt of uniting society.
American politician, lawyer, diplomat, writer John Adams said about 250 years ago, “I do not say that democracy has been more harmful than monarchy or aristocracy overall and in the long run. Democracy has never been and cannot be as durable as aristocracy or monarchy. But, as long as it lasts, it is more bloody than both. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon gets ruined, gets tired and kills itself. There has not been a democracy yet that has not committed suicide.”
Although this idea by thinkers like John Adams may be in the context of Western civilization, where the modern democracy or republic emerged only in the 17th century, India is different in this case. India, especially Bihar, where the seed of caste census was sown, had already spread the tree of democracy centuries ago, which is an important part of today’s major global political system. But, in some cases this statement by Adams is accurate.
In India, about 2600 years ago, the Licchavi Republic emerged in the land of Bihar. It was a part of the Vajji Sangha. This republic had plurality like today’s India. This republic flourished a lot, but eventually internal disputes and conflicts for power started increasing among each republic clan and finally it collapsed.
In fact, next to the Magadh Empire was the Licchavi Republic. Its capital was Vaishali (Bihar). The system of governance here was in the form of Gana or Sangha. This union consisted of about 8 clans, which were called Ashtakul. This union was spread as far as Nepal. The chiefs of all these states, which are called Mahajanapadas, i.e. kings, used to participate in it.
There is a detailed discussion about this in the Buddhist religious text ‘Digha Nikaya’. These kings used to gather in the assembly and discuss the economic, social, political, and strategic aspects of the republic and unanimously work for the welfare of the republic. However, all the 16 republics and monarchies including Licchavi, were headed by Kshatriyas (Rajputs). These also include republics of Shakya, Chedi etc.
During that time, the ruler of the Magadh Empire, Ajatashatru, planned to attack the Licchavi republic. He met Lord Buddha to seek advice along with his minister Vassakar. However, Lord Buddha did not allow this. In this way, the Licchavi republic had become so powerful that no state could conquer it even if it wanted to.
Commenting on the future of the Licchavi republic, Buddha had told his favourite disciple Anand, “As long as they (the clan heads of the Licchavi republic) sit together in their assemblies and take decisions, solve problems through mutual consultation, create consensus, respect their elders, their republic will survive.”
This way, this state continued for about 1000 years. During this time, the states included in this union progressed in every field. Art, literature, knowledge, science, Ayurveda, medicine, philosophy, mathematics, etc. developed a lot. The mutual power of small states made the Licchavi republic invincible. However, mutual conflicts later weakened it.
Guruswami writes in one of his articles, “The king or chief of the republic was always a Kshatriya… The Licchavi, who ruled the Kathmandu Valley in present-day Nepal and a large part of North Bihar, were governed by an assembly of about 7,000 family heads.” In the Licchavi Republic, three main officials worked together – the ruling chief, the deputy chief, and the army chief.
The 8 Mahajanapadas of Licchavi, Chedi, Shakya etc. in the form of the Vajji Sangha were very powerful. However, being a republic, their chiefs used to move forward unanimously on matters of national importance like war, but there used to be frequent tussles between them regarding internal politics and system. The story was the same in the Licchavi, Shakya, Chedi republics.
It is said that the Licchavi Republic included the heads of 7000 elite families, which included people from every class, from traders to the elite.
This led to ideological divisions in these republics. Along with ideological divisions, the power struggle also deepened in them. All this was the result of giving importance only to one’s own class instead of the nation. The result was that all these republics including Licchavi started paying special attention to protecting their power. This made their monarchical neighbours like Magadha and Kosala keep a close eye on them.
Licchhavis became weak due to mutual conflicts and struggles. The mother of democracy had now become weak. Eventually, the Licchavi were defeated in the war with the Magadh Empire. Magadha absorbed all the Janapadas and Mahajanapadas one by one. In this way, the Licchavis and the Vajjis were destroyed in 16 conflicts. Later, it was finally destroyed during the Gupta Empire.
The main reason for the fall of other republics, including Licchavi, was that apart from internal power struggles and the attempt by the influential group to control the throne, their commitment to democratic rule decreased over time. The internal power struggle weakened the unity and collective decision making process of the Licchavi. This paved the way for more autocratic and centralized forms of governance.
The Licchavi republic, which gave the world its first democracy, was weakened and destroyed due to power struggle, and preference for own faction over the nation. Today’s modern politics needs to learn from this. The current system needs to learn that the influence of a faction in power makes it autocratic. Discontent arises in an autocratic society and ultimately ensures its downfall.
In today’s politics, there is a power struggle going on between factions in the name of caste census. In this caste census, no leader said that a survey should be done to find out how many families have been left behind in the development process, and their number should be counted. Rich and poor cannot be determined in today’s society on the basis of caste.
No politician said how many such families are there in this country who are not getting two square meals a day. How many families are there who are not getting health-education. Every political party has said only this that caste census should be done so that it can be ascertained what is the population of castes so that reservation system can be implemented in proportion to that.
This demand is impractical and dangerous for integrity. As we have seen that in other republics including Licchavi, when the influence of a clan (caste in today’s context) increased, then it started thinking about the right to power. On the basis of caste census, more reservation is being demanded for backward classes.
At the same time, from time to time there is a demand to add other castes in backward classes. Other castes are also added to these castes for gaining power, but they do not get the benefit of it, because the castes in these classes which have become rich and capable take advantage of it themselves. This creates the danger of increasing mutual differences and conflicts.
There should be caste census, but it should be for the welfare of the people standing at the lowest level. This should be done to find out how many people belong to each caste in the country and what percent of them are poor and incapable, so that the capable and rich people who take full advantage of that class can be excluded to let the poor and needy benefit. Leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav, who call themselves protectors of democracy, should understand its seriousness.
