Political System of Harappa Civilization | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

Warfare and Conflict

Compared to contemporary Mesopotamia and Egypt, the Harappan civilization appears to have weaker elements of warfare, conflict, and force.

• Weapons are not prominently featured in the artifacts discovered at Harappan sites.
• There are limited representations of conflict in the narrative reliefs on terracotta and faience tablets.

However, fortifications, particularly the impressive ones at sites like Dholavira, cannot be ignored.

Political Stability

• The fact that the Harappan civilization endured for around 700 years with relatively unchanged artifacts, traditions, and symbols suggests a strong degree of political stability.
• It is likely that various cities had groups of rulers responsible for maintaining city facilities such as walls, roads, drains, and public buildings.

Debate on Political System

• Scholars debate the nature of the Harappan political system, focusing on whether a state existed and if so, what kind of state it was.
• Views range from a centralized empire to a merchant oligarchy or a network of city-states.

Different Views Regarding Harappan Political System

A Centralized Empire Ruled by Autocratic Priest-Kings

• Representative Historians: Stuart Piggott and Mortimer Wheeler.

Arguments for this view:

• Piggott (1950) proposed that the Harappan state was a centralized empire governed by priest-kings from the twin capitals of Mohenjodaro and Harappa.
• This view was supported by features such as uniformity in material traits, a common script, standardized weights and measures, urban planning, and monumental public works.
• The granaries at Mohenjodaro and Harappa were seen as evidence of the rulers' control over grain storage for times of scarcity.
• Urban planning and public works implied the mobilization of a specialized labor force.
• The lack of warfare between settlements suggested unity under a single rule.

Arguments Against This View

• Walter A. Fairservis contended that the Harappans did not have an empire or even a state.
• He pointed out the absence of evidence for priest-kings, slaves, standing armies, or court officials.
• Fairservis argued that Mohenjodaro was a ceremonial center, not an administrative one.

Note: In ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, rulers are depicted extensively in art and their power is proclaimed through monumental architecture. In contrast, the Harappan case is different. The stone bust labeled 'priest king' from Mohenjodaro and the damaged seated figure from Dholavira do not provide clear evidence of priest-kings. Large houses in Harappan sites do not match the idea of palaces, although some buildings on citadels might have served a similar function.

An Elaborate Village Administration

• Representative Historian: Walter A. Fairservis.
• Fairservis argued for the existence of an elaborate village administration in the Harappan civilization.
• He acknowledged some degree of centralized control and class structure but emphasized that interdependence, religion, and tradition were the main regulators of social behavior.

Chiefdom State

• Malik suggested that the Harappan polity was at the chiefdom stage, transitional between kinship society and civil state society, arguing against the idea of a strong, centralized state.

Recent Writings

• Shereen F. Ratnagar(1991) suggested that the Harappan civilization was an empire based on archaeological evidence and cross-cultural parallels with early state societies.
• Jim Shaffer(1982) viewed the civilization as a chiefdom with a well-established trade network, emphasizing the absence of royal tombs, palaces, and significant social differentiation seen in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.
• Jacobson(1986) proposed that the Harappan state was early, characterized by a benevolent sovereign, a military component, and weak economic stratification.
• G. L. Possehl(2003) emphasized the corporate character of Harappan society, suggesting governance by councils rather than kings.
• J. M. Kenoyer(1998) proposed that the Harappan state comprised competing urban elites with different levels of control, with clan symbols represented by animals on seals.

Conclusion

• While the Harappan civilization lacked the social and economic disparities seen in Egypt and Mesopotamia, it likely had a state structure, evidenced by communication systems, artifact standardization, labor mobilization for public works, and cultural homogeneity.
• The civilization exhibited centralized control, though the nature of this centralization and the existence of an empire or interconnected states remain to be conclusively determined.