Democracy vs. Rajtantra 1

Swami Vivekananda was not very comfortable with the concepts of Western democracy, although he was aware of the merits. He saw various democracies from close quarters and felt that in their present form they would not be ideal for India. Because in a democracy, people should be intelligent and educated enough to understand the nuances of various decisions. Otherwise there is an inherent risk of an unintelligent or honest majority being taken for a ride by a cunning, devious but shrewd minority.


Swami Vivakananda also felt that a democracy run by bureaucrats, is unsuitable as bureaucracy is normally heartless. Bureaucrats go strictly by policies and procedures and peoples’ woes do not matter to them. In an informal discussion with his disciples he cited the examples of many innocent persons from India who lost everything, including their lives, while nurturing a vein hope of going to England to lodge their complaints with the Queen and getting their problems resolved. He said that this had always been the culture of India – that people having a last refuge, in the form of the king, whom they could always approach and they came from the remotest places of the kingdom to the capital to lodge their grievances with the highest authority. Not that their wishes were always fulfilled, but the key thing was that they had a supreme authority whom they could trust. However, in democracy in its present form there is no supreme authority. There is no single decision making body and almost nobody at the helm is accountable to people although the very basis of democracy is accountability.

Swami Vivekananda also said that India devised its own unique form of Rajtantra in the ancient period where the king, by virtue of being the highest decision maker, was also accountable to the subjects through a council of elderly and wise who monitored the day to day affairs. The wise men who were acquainted with the principles of “Nyaya Dharma” or virtuous deeds, ensured that such procedures were followed and that the subjects were not under duress because of king’s proclamations and policies. There were other checks and balances as well, in the form of peoples’ representatives at the grass root level like village panchayat leaders who were elected by their good deeds and popularity and not by money or muscle power, the important citizens and respectable members of the societies who wielded influence, the wealthy who lent money in the event of warfare or natural calamities, the Brahmins or the priestly class who controlled the religious and spiritual affairs. They all ensured that the king functioned well and did not become a tyrant. In the extreme case when a king became a repressor the subjects revolted and there are several instances in Indian history of dethroning the king when a suitable substitute leader was found, or one (stronger and popular) dynasty replacing another (weaker and unpopular) one – e.g. Mauryas replacing the Nandas, after the tyrant Dhanananda was hunted and killed by popular ire orchestrated by Chanakya. In some cases the subjects may also have switched loyalty to appeal to a neighbouring state to come to their rescue. Unjust and unpopular monarchs might also have been toppled by their own ministers and armies.

The point is that, in all cases, subjects exerted tremendous infuence, contrary to the popular belief that the king was all powerful in a Rajtantra.