1.9. Ancient Authority

There are indications of complex decisions being taken and implemented in Harappan society. Take for instance, the extraordinary uniformity of Harappan artefacts as evident in pottery (Fig. 1.14), seals, weights and bricks. Notably, bricks, though obviously not produced in any single centre, were of a uniform ratio throughout the region, from Jammu to Gujarat.

The Harappan society displayed a high level of organization and decision-making, as seen in the uniformity of their artifacts. This means that items like pottery and bricks across different locations shared similar characteristics and designs. For example, bricks used for construction throughout the Harappan civilization had the same standardized dimensions, which facilitated building efforts and showed a level of systemic planning.

Think of how a global brand like Apple produces the same iPhone models worldwide. Regardless of whether you buy it in New York or New Delhi, the specifications and quality remain consistent. Similarly, the Harappans must have had an organized system to ensure uniformity across their artifacts.

We have also seen that settlements were strategically set up in specific locations for various reasons. Besides, labour was mobilised for making bricks and for the construction of massive walls and platforms.

Harappan settlements were not randomly placed; instead, they were strategically established based on environmental factors like water availability, trade routes, and natural defenses. This strategic planning indicates a systematic approach to urban development. Labor mobilization for brick-making and large structures further implies a well-organized society capable of coordinating large workforces.

Consider a modern city like Dubai, where construction projects are often strategically located near resources such as water and roads. The careful location of skyscrapers and malls reflects planning that will withstand both environmental challenges and offer accessibility, much like the Harappans who chose their sites wisely.

Who organised these activities? If we look for a centre of power or for depictions of people in power, archaeological records provide no immediate answers. A large building found at Mohenjodaro was labelled as a palace by archaeologists but no spectacular finds were associated with it.

Despite evidence of organized activities, there is no clear indication of centralized power in Harappan society. Archaeologists found a large structure at Mohenjodaro thought to be a palace, but lack of extravagant artifacts complicates the notion of royal authority. The absence of monumental evidence for governance leads to various interpretations about the ruling structure, with some suggesting that perhaps power was decentralized or communal.

This situation can be likened to a successful community project where leadership isn’t always clearly defined. For instance, a neighborhood where everyone cooperates to build a community garden may not have a visible leader, yet the project is still successfully carried out through mutual agreement and collective effort.

Some archaeologists are of the opinion that Harappan society had no rulers, and that everybody enjoyed equal status. Others feel there was no single ruler but several, that Mohenjodaro had a separate ruler, Harappa another, and so forth.

The nature of governance in Harappan society remains a topic of discussion among archaeologists. Some suggest there was no hierarchy, implying a more egalitarian society, while others propose a system with multiple local leaders overseeing different settlements. This debate illustrates the complexity of social structure within Harappan civilization and challenges our assumptions about ancient leadership.

You might think of a small cooperative business. In such a setup, there’s no single boss but a group of individuals working collaboratively, each having a say in the decision-making process. This model mirrors the idea that Harappan society could have functioned without a singular ruler.

It is likely that the Harappans practiced some sort of democratic system. Some of the structures with their given features were created apparently for utilitarian purposes.

The presence of structures designed for common utility suggests that the Harappans may have had elements of democracy, where decisions were made for the community's benefit. By building facilities and structures used by all, these communities may have prioritized collective needs over individual authority, fostering a shared sense of governance.

Consider a town hall meeting in modern communities where residents gather to discuss and vote on local issues. Such meetings reflect democratic principles where everyone has a voice. Similarly, Harappan structures may indicate shared responsibility and democratic tendencies.

--