A Comparative Study of Ahom Administration With Indian Administration

TITLE:

A Comparative Study of Ahom Administration With Indian Administration









Introduction:





The Ahom are members of the Shan branch of Tai or Thai family of the South East Asia. They entered in early 13th century from the eastern side and ruled Assam for 600 years. In this long 600 years role, they had an organized limited monarchy type of administration. Though this administration was not an adequate one like of modern time but it had certainly something which ensures its continuity for long 600 years. The Ahom administration was different from the modern administration. Though it has differences but we can find out some similarities between these two systems. To be more precise we can say that the Ahom administration had some features of modern democratic administration which India follows. So this paper is an attempt to compare the administration of Ahom with the modern Indian administration. In comparing the two models of administration I adopt several approaches like structural functional approach, political culture, decision making approach etc.





Ahom administration:





As this paper is a comparative analysis of Ahom administration with modern Indian administration so it is important to have an idea of what type of administration Ahom had. The Ahom society was a traditional society with traditional administration. Ahom administration was monarchical with lots of democratic values. Sir Edward Gait in his book “A History of Assam” said about Ahom administration as “monarchy was the normal form the Government although it was somewhat peculiar.” The Ahom administration was partly monarchial and partly aristocratic. N.N Acharyya in his book “The History of medieval Assam” called Ahom administration as “oligarchical monarchy”. The Ahom had a well organized administration which was a hierarchical system with several levels. A discussion about different officials, dignities and portfolios of the administration of Ahom can clear the model of that administration.



a) The King and the Royal families: The king who in Tai language called as Sargadeo was the virtual head of the state. He was the apex structure of the administration. The family from which the king belongs was known as “Royal Family”. Generally the son of the king becomes the next king. If the king had more then one son than the selection of the king was depended upon the collective decision of the Gohains.



b) Council of ministers: The next level in Ahom administration was the council of ministers. “There was council of ministers comprising of five ministers. They were altogether knows as patramantri which included the Borgohain, the Burhagohain, Barpatragohain, Barbaruah and Barphukan.”(Konwar)

a. The Gohains: There were three Gohains in Ahom administration. The king had to consult with these Gohains. The Gohain had the power to determine the succession of the monarch.



b. The BarBaruah and BarPhukan: The BarBaruah had to perform three fold functions- Administrative, Judicial and Military. Barphukan was entrusted with the responsibility of maintenance of diplomatic relations with Bengal, Bhutan etc.





c) Other local governors: They had the tradition of appointing some other local governors like Sadiakhowa Gohain, Marangikhowa Gohain etc. Besides that, Ahom kingdom also allowed some lesser kings who were known as Puwali Rajah.



d) Phukans: Phukan were the subordinate officials of Barbaruah and Barphukan. Both Barbaruah and Barphukan had six Phukan under them.





e) The baruas or the civilians: There were some Baruas allotted with Particular department. They were like Bhandari Barua or bar Bhandar Barua or Bharali Barua (treasurer) Bezbaruah (physician) etc.



f) The Khels: The Khels were the organized form of Paiks with certain gradation. The Khels were conducted by different officials at different gradation. The smallest unit of khel contains of 20 paiks and it is controlled by an officer known as Bora.





g) The paiks system: The paik system was one of the unique arrangements of Ahom administration. Paiks were the labour cum soldier of Ahom administration. The paiks had to indulge themselves in agriculture and other developmental activities in normal situation and in war they had to serve as soldiers. These paiks were organized in Gots. Each Got contained four Paiks.



This was the structure of Ahom administrative system or administration. The functioning of Ahom administration was also peculiar. In Ahom administration king was supreme authority, but he used to discuss with its ministers in the time of taking important decisions. The ministers and other officials had also great power in several fields.











Indian Administration:





Here by Indian administration my focus will be on the Union government, not the state government. India is a democratic nation with decentralize administrative system. It is a nation where there are two heads- prime minister as the real head and president as the nominal head. The structure of Indian administration is modern with separation of power and division of power. The model of Indian administration can be understood by discussing the structure of Indian administration.



1. President and Prime minister: In India prime minister is the head of the government as well as the real head and the president is the head of the state as well as the nominal head. K. K. Ghai in his book “Indian Government and Politics” said about the relation of prime minister with president as “all the powers of the President are exercised by the Prime Minister and the council of minister.” President is elected indirectly where as the leader of the majority party in Lok Sabha is selected as the prime minister.



2. Council of Ministers: Another level in Indian administration is the council of ministers. It is consist of the Prime Minister and such other ministers. They are appointed by the president. Its prime duty is simply to aid and advice the president. But in reality the council of minister enjoys all power meant for president. The members of the council of minister are responsible to the parliament.





3. MPs: Indian parliament is consisting of President and the two houses- Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. In Lok Sabha Members of Parliament are directly elected and in Rajya Sabha members are elected indirectly. MPs of Look Sabha are responsible to the citizen of India.



4. Civil Servants: another important structure of Indian administration is the civil service. It’s recruited on the basis of merit. There are several offices to carry out administrative works. For example there is IAS, IPS, IFS, etc. The nation is divided into several small parts for smooth administration like District, block, subdivision etc. and there are offices like district commissioner, block development officer etc are to carry out administrative work.





5. Governor: The governor is the head of the state. He is appointed by the president as the agent of the center in the state. He is the nominal head of the state.







A comparative study:



From the above study we can have a rough idea about the administration or administrative system of India and administrative system of Ahom. With the help of these ideas we can have a comparison between the two. For that we can use several approaches.





A) Structural Functional Approaches:





The structural functional approach explains various kind of political structure with respect to their performance in the administration. The society is treated as a single inter connected system in which each part of the social system has its own distinct features. This approach assume that administration is merely a subsystem of main social system which performs the function of making legitimate policy decisions. As the vary title of this approach suggest, it revolves around two key concepts – a) structures and b) functions. By structure it refers to those arrangements within the system which performs the functions. These are the institutional arrangement. On the other hand functions are those observed consequence which make for the adaptation or readjustment of a given system.



From this approach there are lots of similarities and dissimilarities between Ahom administration and the Indian administration. Similarities of Ahom and Indian administration are:



1. Both have some similar offices like the Phukans, Baruas of Ahom and District commissioner and block development officers of Indian administration.

2. As Indian administration has the position of governor in Ahom administration also there was a tradition of appointing some other local governors like Sadiakhowa Gohain.

3. In both administrations we can see the council of ministers. In Ahom they were the Gohains where as in India they are the ministers who assist the executive.



These are the similarities from structural point of view. Some dissimilarity is also there. These are:



1. India is a democratic nation where as Ahom administrative was a monarchial nation.

2. In Indian administration there are two heads but in Ahom administration there was only one head.

3. In Indian administration the council of ministers are elected and they are responsible to the parliament but in Ahom neither council of ministers are elected nor they responsible to anyone apart from the king.

4. Khel and Paik systems are some unique features of Ahom administrative structure but it is not seen in Indian administration.

B) Political Culture Approach:





Political Culture is the set of attitudes, believes sentiments and norms which give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behaviour in the administration. We can also compare the Ahom administration with modern Indian administration with the help of analyzing political culture of both.



The comparison of political culture of both Ahom administration and Indian administration indicates the following similarities:



1. It both the administrations there were at least some level of democracy with at least some level of decentralization of power.

2. In Ahom administration the king was generally from royal family and generally the son of the king becomes the next king. In Indian administration also there is such a tradition of family politics, where the son of a political leader becomes leader of the next generation. For that we can refer the Gandhi family.

3. Another similarity between the two governments, from political culture approach is that in booth the apex authority (in Ahom administration, the King and in Indian administration the Prime minister) has a tradition of consulting with its ministers.



These are the major similarities between Ahom administration and Indian administration from political culture approach. Apart from these similarities there is some dissimilarity also. These are:



1. Both have different level of political participation. In India the level of political participation is more than the Ahom.

2. Another difference between the two is that the tradition of Paik system is not visible in Indian administration, which is an important feature of Ahom administration.

4. Most important difference between the Ahom administration and the Indian administration is that one had faith on monarchy and the other have democratic norms and believes.





3) System Approach:





The system approach envisages the administration as a subsystem of the larger social system which is constantly engaged in communication with entities and systems outside its own boundaries. From system approach also there are some similarities between the Ahom administration and Indian administration. These are:



1. Both follow a hierarchical administration system. In Ahom administration the king was in apex level and Paiks were in bottom level. And in India also prime minister and president is in top level and others are inferior to him.



2. In Indian administration we can see the specialization of functions. For example the auditor general is for audit, the members of planning commission is for planning etc. Like that in Ahom administration also the Bhandari Baruah was for treasure, to look up the health of the royal family there was Bezbaruah.



These are the similarities from system approach. The system approach also highlighted some differences between the two administrative systems. These are:



1. Indian administration is characterized by separation of power. Here executive is separate from judiciary. But in Ahom administration there was no separation of power.



2. If we comparatively discuss the Military system of Ahom and India, we will find lots of dissimilarities. The Ahom military system was based on Paik system but Indian military structure is a modern one.







Conclusion:





The comparative study between Ahom administration and the Indian administration shows that both the administration has some similarities as well as dissimilarities. The Ahom administration was the pre modern administration whereas the Indian administration is a modern administration, the Ahom administration is a monarchical administration whereas India is a democratic nation. Despite of such dissimilarities both have some similarities like the position of king and the Prime minister, the role of council of ministers etc.

So to conclude with one can say that Indian administration has some features which were also in Ahom administration. It also implies the nature of Ahom administration. The observation also highlights how both have similarities in structure, function; political culture, political behaviour etc and also we can see the dissimilarities in that area.















Reference list:

1. Acharyya, N.N, “The History of Medieval Assam”, Western book depot, Guwahati, 1966.

2. Avasthi, A. P, “Indian Administration” Educational Publishers, Agra, 2001.

3. Gait, Edward, “A History of Assam” Bina Library, Assam, 1905.

4. Ghai, K.K, “Indian Government and Politics”, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 2003.

5. Gogoi, Lila, “Tai Sanskritir Ruprekha” Banalata, Dibrugarh 1994.

6. Konwar, Narayan, “Society and Politics in Assam” Bookland, Panbazar, 2006.

7. Ray S.N. “modern comparative politics, approaches, methods and issues. Prentice hall of India, New Delhi, 2003.