The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c17.49

v1.c17.49

So far, our sources of knowledge, if imperfect, have given us material sufficient to sketch the main outlines of Vedic society. Unhappily, when we turn to consider more closely the details of the political organisation proper, the evidence becomes painfully scanty and inadequate. The tribes of the Rigveda were certainly under kingly rule: there is no passage in the Rigveda which suggests any other form of government, while the king under the style ‘Rājan’ is a frequent figure. This is only what might be expected in a community which was not merely patriarchal—a fact whence the king drew his occasional style of *viçpati*, ‘Head of the *viç*’—but also engaged in constant warfare against both Āryan and aboriginal foes. Moreover, the kingship was normally hereditary: even in the scanty notices of the Rigveda we can trace lines of succession such as that of Vadhryaçva, Divodāsa, Pijavana, and Sudās, or Durgaha, Girikshit, Purukutsa, and Trasadasyu, or Mitrātithi, Kuruçravaṇa, and Upamaçravas. In some cases it has been argued that election by the cantons was possible¹; but this interpretation rests only on the improbable view that *viçaḥ* denotes not 'subjects' but 'cantons'; and the idea has no support in later literature. The activity of the sovereign on which most stress is laid is his duty of protecting his subjects; and even the Rigveda, despite its sacerdotal character, allows us to catch some glimpses of the warlike deeds of such men as Divodāsa, Sudās, and Trasadasyu. Of the king's functions in peace the Rigveda is silent, beyond showing that he was expected to maintain a large body of priests to perform the sacrifices for him and his people. From his subjects he was marked out by his glittering apparel, his palace, and his retinue, which doubtless included the princes of the royal house as well as mere retainers. To maintain his state he had the tribute paid by conquered tribes and the gifts of his people, which, once proffered freely, had doubtless become fixed payments, which the king could exact, if denied. Doubtless, too, when lands were conquered from the aborigines or from other Āryan tribes, large booty in land and slaves and cattle would be meted out to the king; but the Rigveda contains no hint that he was considered as owner of the land of the people. Nor in that Saṃhitā is there any trace that the king has developed from the priest: if that was the case in India the distinction lies far beyond the period of the Rigveda.