CreateDebate


Debate Info

40
8
YES, THEY ARE NO, THEY ARE NOT
Debate Score:48
Arguments:20
Total Votes:63
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES, THEY ARE (15)
 
 NO, THEY ARE NOT (5)

Debate Creator

aviel(21) pic



Is the government in ancient india good

YES, THEY ARE

Side Score: 40
VS.

NO, THEY ARE NOT

Side Score: 8
6 points

The word `governance' has been used with different meanings in different parts of India during different times. Ancient India had seen many forms of governance and government during different periods in the region. Even within a given territory there were many kingdoms with different ways of governance.

Archaeological excavations have brought to light the remains of a highly developed urban civilization in ancient India, that stretched across approximately 1520 kilometres, extending from the area on the upper Sutlaj in contemporary Punjab to Lothal in Gujarat. Historians are of the view that this civilization flourished in the third millennium before the birth of Christ. The Harappa and Mohanjodaro perhaps had democratic government setup with no evidence of monarchy being found.

The decline of the Indus Valley civilization saw the arrival of Aryans in India. From their original settlements in the Punjab region, they gradually began to penetrate eastward, clearing dense forests and establishing "tribal" settlements along the Ganga & Yamuna plains between 1500 and ca. 800 B.C. By around 500 B.C., most of northern India was inhabited and had been brought under cultivation, facilitating the increasing knowledge of the use of iron implements, including ox-drawn plows, and spurred by the growing population that provided voluntary and forced labor. As riverine and inland trade flourished, many towns along the Ganga became centers of trade, culture, and luxurious living. Increasing population and surplus production provided the bases for the emergence of independent states with fluid territorial boundaries over which disputes frequently arose.

The rudimentary administrative system headed by tribal chieftains was transformed by a number of regional republics or hereditary monarchies that devised ways to appropriate revenue and to conscript labor for expanding the areas of settlement and agriculture farther east and south, beyond the Narmada River. These emergent state governments collected revenue through officials, maintained armies, and built new cities and highways. By 600 B.C., sixteen such territorial powers--including the Magadha, Kosala, Kuru, and Gandhara--stretched across the North India plains from modern-day Afghanistan to Bangladesh.

However the kingdom of Magadh one of the 16 great janapadas - polities - had established paramountcy over other kingdoms of the Ganges Valley. The fluid political situation, made it possible for Chandragupta Maurya (reign - 322 - 298 B.C.) to oust the oppressive ruler of Magadh and found his own dynasty. India attained political unity for the first time under him. According to folklore Chandragupta Maurya laid the foundations of a powerful empire assisted by a Brahmin called Vishnugupta, also known as Kautilya or Chanakya,who wrote the Arthasastra. His treatise on art of governance became very famous. The Arthashatra is the epitome of ancient india government.

One of the eminent historians of Indian History, D D Kosambi, has observed that the title Arthasastra means `the science of material gain for a very special type of state, not for the individual. The end was always crystal clear. Means used to attain it needed no justification. There is not the least pretence of morality or altruism. In the Arhtasastra the only difficulties ever discussed, no matter how gruesome and treacherous the methods, are practical, with due consideration to costs and possible effects... The Arthasastra recommends espionage and the constant use of agent provocateurs on a massive and universal scale. The sole purpose of every action was safety and profit of the state. Abstract questions of ethics are never raised or discussed in the whole book. Murder, poison, subversion was used at need by the king's secret agents, methodically and without a qualm... Chanakya treats strife for the throne as a minor occupational hazard. No regard to morality or filial piety is ever questioned. He quotes a predecessor's axiom; `Princes, like crabs, are father eaters. The eleventh book of the Arthasastra is devoted to the methods of systematically breaking up free, powerful, armed tribes of food producers that had not yet degenerated into absolute kingdoms. The main technique was to soften them up for disintegration from within, to convert the tribesmen into members of class society based upon individual private property. The right of a king to his throne, no matter how it was gained, was usually legitimized through elaborate sacrifice rituals and genealogies concocted by priests who ascribed to the king divine or superhuman origins. The use of absolute power grew even worse under the caste system, which classified people into separate categories on the basis of birth.

sourcehttp://www.thisismyindia.com/ancient_india/ancient-india-government.html

Side: YES, THEY ARE
4 points

In the beginning of the Vedic age people did not have a settled life and were nomads but with development in agriculture people started to settle down in groups. The organization was mainly tribal and the head of the tribe was supposed to be the raja or the King, though the concept of King had yet not developed. With the passage of time large kingdoms started to grow and by the 6th century BC there were 16 Mahajanapadas (Kingdoms).

There were many small republics also in ancient India. These republics had some elements of democracy in their administration. The king (raja) was the supreme head of the legislative, executive and judiciary branches. He was assisted in administration by a number of officials. The members of the council of minister could give advice to the king, but final decisions were left to the king. The ministers and other officials were directly appointed by the king.

During the Mauryan period there existed both civil and military officials. They were paid a salary in cash. The highest official was paid the salary of 48000 panas (Unit of money) per year. The soldiers were paid 500 panas per year. There were officials who maintained the records of population, income and expenditure of government. We find reference to officials and clerks who collected income tax and custom duties. Spy system was an important feature of Mauryan administration.

The royal agents and the spies could contact the king at any time and they reported to the king about various developments in his kingdom. The empire was divided into many provinces and each one of these provinces was governed by a governor and council of ministers. In the provinces there were local officials called rajukas, who became more powerful during the reign of Ashoka. There were certain departments which decided certain important matters of administration. There existed a standing army which was again controlled by certain committees.

Administration structure during the Gupta period was exceptionally good in spite of large empire. During the Gupta period also the administration was more or less like the Mauryas. The most important difference between the Gupta and Mauryan administration was centralization and decentralization of administration. In the Gupta administration, the governors of the provinces were more independent as compared to the Mauryans, where the administration was highly centralized sources: http://www.culturalindia.net/indian-history/ancient-india/ancient-government.html

Side: YES, THEY ARE
Ivolio(4) Banned
4 points

They were really creative and they created some things in a time where technology itself was an infant. With a lot of manpower and zero machines the mohenjo daro civilisation built an advanced underground drainage system. It is truly a wonder how their civilisation was so well-planned and perfect. Their streets meet at perfect right angles. Arguably, ancient India was one of the best civilisation.

Side: YES, THEY ARE
4 points

If you take a close look at the ancient India government you will be surprised at the meticulous processes they followed. Ancient Indians were one huge nomadic tribe, but with agriculture seeping in they began to live in groups with a leader of the tribal in charge.

Slowly the concept of a ‘king’ began to evolve and by the 6th Century BC, 16 kingdoms were formed which later on went upto an enormous number as small princely states began to arise.

In the Mauryan period the army officials were paid a salary. The highest official got paid around 48000 panas annually – the unit of money that was then the currency. While the soldiers made around 500 panans annually. The Mauryan dynasty had appointed officials for every task, that included taking the census, collecting taxes. Each region had an official appointed and he would report the developments to the higher central government. Spies were very much in demand during this reign; they could contact the king at any given time to tell them of any new updates.

During the Gupta reign, the government was even more effective as compared to the Mauryan era, inspite of the large empire, as they were given the authority to take decisions. This sped up the work and brought efficiency.

With the impact of the many dynasties that invaded the country and ruled it, many cultures have been developed. Hence ancient India cultures vary from region to region. It is visible in the regular festivals, cuisines and etiquettes.

Ancient India food was even tastier than the food today as they were cooked in earthen pots and mud ovens. Food was rich in quality as they were home grown in natural soils.

And of course with good food comes good times that were expressed in various art forms. Ancient India art had poetry which was at an all time high with shayaris and baithaks. Sanskrit and Urdu were the languages that were spoken. Both the languages were phonetically developed and were used to write and speak.

Side: YES, THEY ARE
Ivolio(4) Banned
4 points

The history of India begins with evidence of human activity of Homo sapiens as long as 75,000 years ago, or with earlier hominids including Homo erectus from about 500,000 years ago.[1] The Indus Valley Civilization, which spread and flourished in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent from c. 3300 to 1300 BCE, was the first major civilization in India.[2] A sophisticated and technologically advanced urban culture developed in the Mature Harappan period, from 2600 to 1900 BCE.[3] This Bronze Age civilization collapsed before the end of the second millennium BCE and was followed by the Iron Age Vedic Civilization, which extended over much of the Indo-Gangetic plain and which witnessed the rise of major polities known as the Mahajanapadas. In one of these kingdoms, Magadha, Mahavira and Gautama Buddha were born in the 6th or 5th century BCE and propagated their śramanic philosophies.

Almost all of the subcontinent was conquered by the Maurya Empire during the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. It subsequently became fragmented, with various parts ruled by numerous Middle kingdoms for the next 1,500 years. This is known as the classical period of Indian history, during which India has sometimes been estimated to have had the largest economy of the ancient and medieval world, controlling between one third and one fourth of the world's wealth up to the 18th century.

Much of northern and central India was once again united in the 4th century CE, and remained so for two centuries thereafter, under the Gupta Empire. This period, witnessing a Hindu religious and intellectual resurgence, is known among its admirers as the "Golden Age of India". During the same time, and for several centuries afterwards, southern India, under the rule of the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas, and Pandyas, experienced its own golden age. During this period, aspects of Indian civilization, administration, culture, and religion (Hinduism and Buddhism) spread to much of Asia.

The southern state of Kerala had maritime business links with the Roman Empire from around 77 CE. Islam was introduced in Kerala through this route by Muslim traders. Muslim rule in the subcontinent began in 712 CE when the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Sindh and Multan in southern Punjab in modern day Pakistan,[4] setting the stage for several successive invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 15th centuries CE, leading to the formation of Muslim empires in the Indian subcontinent such as the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire.

Mughal rule came from Central Asia to cover most of the northern parts of the subcontinent. Mughal rulers introduced Central Asian art and architecture to India. In addition to the Mughals and various Rajput kingdoms, several independent Hindu states, such as the Vijayanagara Empire, the Maratha Empire, Eastern Ganga Empire and the Ahom Kingdom, flourished contemporaneously in southern, western,eastern and northeastern India respectively. The Mughal Empire suffered a gradual decline in the early 18th century, which provided opportunities for the Afghans, Balochis, Sikhs, and Marathas to exercise control over large areas in the northwest of the subcontinent until the British East India Company gained ascendancy over South Asia.[5]

Beginning in the mid-18th century and over the next century, large areas of India were gradually annexed by the British East India Company. Dissatisfaction with Company rule led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, after which the British provinces of India were directly administered by the British Crown and witnessed a period of both rapid development of infrastructure and economic decline. During the first half of the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and later joined by the Muslim League. The subcontinent gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, after the British provinces were partitioned into the dominions of India and Pakistan and the princely states all acceded to one of the new states.

Side: YES, THEY ARE
2 points

Improve

The most common form of government in ancient India was monarchy.

Monarchy is a form of government in which supreme power is actually vested in an individual, who is the head of the state, often until death or abdication. Raja(a king), maharaja(a great king), samrat(an emperor) are the different terms by which kings were designated according to their power and prestige.

Oligarchy has also been found in some states wher power is vested in a council of nobles.

Republican government also existed in the vedic period. A republic is a state that is not led by a hereditary monarch, but in which the people have an impact on its government.

sourceshttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_type_of_government_did_ancient_India_have

Side: YES, THEY ARE
2 points

ancient india has good military to protect its state from invasions

Side: YES, THEY ARE
2 points

i support government in ancient india good. what i say is my openion

Side: YES, THEY ARE
1 point

but they have GUTS to save their own civilisation from enemies

Side: YES, THEY ARE
1 point

The history of India begins with evidence of human activity of Homo sapiens as long as 75,000 years ago, or with earlier hominids including Homo erectus from about 500,000 years ago.[1] The Indus Valley Civilization, which spread and flourished in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent from c. 3300 to 1300 BCE, was the first major civilization in India.[2] A sophisticated and technologically advanced urban culture developed in the Mature Harappan period, from 2600 to 1900 BCE.[3] This Bronze Age civilization collapsed before the end of the second millennium BCE and was followed by the Iron Age Vedic Civilization, which extended over much of the Indo-Gangetic plain and which witnessed the rise of major polities known as the Mahajanapadas. In one of these kingdoms, Magadha, Mahavira and Gautama Buddha were born in the 6th or 5th century BCE and propagated their śramanic philosophies.

Almost all of the subcontinent was conquered by the Maurya Empire during the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. It subsequently became fragmented, with various parts ruled by numerous Middle kingdoms for the next 1,500 years. This is known as the classical period of Indian history, during which India has sometimes been estimated to have had the largest economy of the ancient and medieval world, controlling between one third and one fourth of the world's wealth up to the 18th century.

Much of northern and central India was once again united in the 4th century CE, and remained so for two centuries thereafter, under the Gupta Empire. This period, witnessing a Hindu religious and intellectual resurgence, is known among its admirers as the "Golden Age of India". During the same time, and for several centuries afterwards, southern India, under the rule of the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas, and Pandyas, experienced its own golden age. During this period, aspects of Indian civilization, administration, culture, and religion (Hinduism and Buddhism) spread to much of Asia.

The southern state of Kerala had maritime business links with the Roman Empire from around 77 CE. Islam was introduced in Kerala through this route by Muslim traders. Muslim rule in the subcontinent began in 712 CE when the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Sindh and Multan in southern Punjab in modern day Pakistan,[4] setting the stage for several successive invasions from Central Asia between the 10th and 15th centuries CE, leading to the formation of Muslim empires in the Indian subcontinent such as the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire.

Mughal rule came from Central Asia to cover most of the northern parts of the subcontinent. Mughal rulers introduced Central Asian art and architecture to India. In addition to the Mughals and various Rajput kingdoms, several independent Hindu states, such as the Vijayanagara Empire, the Maratha Empire, Eastern Ganga Empire and the Ahom Kingdom, flourished contemporaneously in southern, western,eastern and northeastern India respectively. The Mughal Empire suffered a gradual decline in the early 18th century, which provided opportunities for the Afghans, Balochis, Sikhs, and Marathas to exercise control over large areas in the northwest of the subcontinent until the British East India Company gained ascendancy over South Asia.[5]

Beginning in the mid-18th century and over the next century, large areas of India were gradually annexed by the British East India Company. Dissatisfaction with Company rule led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, after which the British provinces of India were directly administered by the British Crown and witnessed a period of both rapid development of infrastructure and economic decline. During the first half of the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and later joined by the Muslim League. The subcontinent gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, after the British provinces were partitioned into the dominions of India and Pakistan and the princely states all acceded to one of the new states.

Side: YES, THEY ARE
1 point

It's basically, Yes they were! In fact India has witnessed invasions since ages. Starting beyond the Aryans and the Dravidians. There were the Hindu rulers and then appeared the Muslim rule. The administration, the trade and the military conquests were all well known for.

As far as the government as you mention goes... The king almost always remained a head. Though most of this took a back seat during the reign of Ashoka or Samudra Gupta. But, the sole authority was vested upon his shoulders. There were almost always ministers. And Kautilya's 'Arthashastra' reveals the best of the Kingdoms then. The rulers divided the rule and classified it into smaller units leading into what is now called the Panchayat Raj.

Peace however as unstable as the World history goes was unavoidable and conquests and competition among the rulers was always on a hike. And there was also the internal politics to which the greatest of Mughal rulers fell prey.

After the Europeans entered the scene changed and foreign politics played a role. However, the administration was taken over by the Queen much later and the government looked much like what it is today.

In conclusion. Ancient India had several rulers who sought similar ways and before advent of the Europeans India was self satisfied with enough to trade, with rich education in the vernacular.

Side: YES, THEY ARE
1 point

India had royal blood and had the one of the best weapon makers in the world thaey fought for power and also they respected woman. In some wars in india they were fully runned by woman.

Side: YES, THEY ARE
2 points

many kings were regarded as being divine or god-like. So, the people that kings ruled under treated like gods.

Side: NO, THEY ARE NOT
1 point

The whole of India was only untied three times through out its history.

Side: NO, THEY ARE NOT
1 point

when a drought or famine occurs, the kings did not bother about the poor. as a result, most of the poorer people died of famine.

Side: NO, THEY ARE NOT
92nida(1425) Disputed
1 point

when a drought or famine occurs, the kings did not bother about the poor. as a result, most of the poorer people died of famine

The British didn't give a shit bout the famine in Bengal either.

Side: YES, THEY ARE
2 points

"The British didn't give a shit bout the famine in Bengal either."

Ya, when the Irish patatoe famine struck Ireland, Ireland remained a net exporter of food to Britain (who owned the land, i.e. its landlords), I have even heard that this may have been enough food to feed the entire population

Over 1 million people starved to death during patatoe famine, whuch was a lot for a country of 6 million (at the time). Nearly double that figure left the country, and in all the years since, even when the mass influx of hundreds of thousands imigrants, refugees, etc. from the joining of the European Union, and the fact that the country was more or less a catholic (who don't condone contraception) theocracy for the entirety of the 20th century are factored in, the countries population has still never approached the pre-famine figure of 6 million.

Side: YES, THEY ARE
1 point

Most of the kings use their power for lust,money and all kinds of bad stuff I can imagine.They are ruthless to people that disagree with him and will not show mercy.

Side: NO, THEY ARE NOT
-1 points

The king were all fighting for space thus leaving the Border zone untouch, that i think that it is very unresponsible as they are one nation it does not mean that they can be left out

Side: NO, THEY ARE NOT
Ivolio(4) Disputed Banned
3 points

You are so wrong my dear friend. You are in a misconception about wars and fighting which took place in India many many years ago. Wars and fights took place in many civilisations, does that mean that all civilisations are lousy? Think again my dear friend.=)

Side: YES, THEY ARE