NCERT Solutions for Class 9th Social Science Chapter 5 Assemblies during Vedic Period — THINK ABOUT IT

Yes — the principle is similar, but the mechanism is not. The similarity is real and worth taking seriously; the difference is just as important, and a good answer states both.

What is genuinely similar. The rājā did not stand alone. The Ṛigveda and Atharvaveda name three assemblies, and each had a distinct role:

So the rājā's power was exercised alongside bodies that discussed policy, judged disputes and included people beyond the chief's own family — which is the same underlying principle as a legislature and a judiciary today: power that must be exercised in the presence of others. The chapter adds a second piece of evidence that the rājā was not absolute — while kingship was generally hereditary, there are references to kings being elected or even expelled.

What is different, and must be said. A modern parliament rests on a written constitution, on elections by universal adult franchise, and on legally enforceable limits. The Vedic assemblies rested on custom. The sabhā was made of select elites, not of elected representatives. Nothing in the chapter says the assemblies could legally overrule the rājā.

Yes — the chapter's evidence for participation is unusually strong, because it runs from one end of the period to the other. Lay the evidence out as a chain and the continuity is hard to miss.

1. Vedic period. The vidhata was a popular gathering attended by members of the community (janas), and the samiti represented the broader population. Women also attended social gatherings including the sabhā.
2. Empire. The king governed through a mantri-pariṣhad, and an Aśhokan inscription records the council taking decisions during the emperor's absence — independently, in the public interest.
3. District level. District officers often made decisions after consulting important residents — bankers, caravan leaders, artisans and scribes. The Damodarpur copper plates of Kumaragupta I show this in a fixed form: the district office had five members — the head district officer, the chief banker, the chief caravan trader, the chief artisan and the chief of revenue collection. Three of those five are representatives of trades, not royal officials.
4. Village level. Village assemblies were responsible for revenue collection, land management, irrigation, road construction and record maintenance, and functioned as independent, self-reliant institutions not dependent on the government for patronage. Their committees (variyams) handled irrigation, gardens, temples, justice and taxes.
5. An actual election. The Uttaramerur inscription of Parantaka I (10th century CE) describes the Kudavolai or 'ballot pot' system: names of eligible candidates written on palm leaves, placed in a large pot, and drawn one by one by a young child at a public gathering — the draw held in full view of the community, often at a temple, to ensure fairness.