Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c11.s1.t2: Section 2. The Origin of the King's Power

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c11.s1.t2

Language
English

Section 2. The Origin of the King's Power

v1.c11.s1.t2.1

While the Vijayanagara monarchs recognized the need of agreeing with the ancients that the general lines on which administration was to be conducted were to be those which were based on Dharma, there was one important detail in the observance of which mediaeval practice was allowed to transgress completely ancient tradition. This was in connection with the origin of the king's power. From the Vedic age had been handed down the belief in the divinity of the kings.² In olden times it was “preeminently associated with his participation in the great political sacrifices”.³ The earlier writers agreed as regards assimilating the functions of the king to those of various specified deities.⁴

v1.c11.s1.t2.2

This notion of the divine nature of the king, however, gave place to new dogmas in later times when Hindu political writers took a more rational view of sovereignty. They inculcated the older notions of the paramount importance of the king,⁵ but dwelt less frequently on his divine nature. It took some time before the old principle—which was understood in the Purāṇas as referring to the king, in the form of a mortal, with a divine body⁶—was finally modified to suit the changing times. The later Hindu writers maintained that the duties of the king were no longer limited to Kshatriyas only. This was the view of Mēdhātithi, amplified by Vijñānēśvara.¹ According to Mitramiśra, the duties of kingship were extended to all the rulers, and even to subordinate officials.² When royalty was thus no longer the monopoly of the Kshatriyas,³ a modification of the classical ideas was bound to follow. Hence we find in the *Sukranīti* the dying echoes of the earlier doctrine of the divinity of the king side by side with the enunciation of the new principle in the following words: "The ruler has been made by Brahmā a servant of the people, getting his revenue as remuneration. His sovereignty, however, is only for protection".⁴ Then again: "From the very moment a man attains the position of a king through skill, might or valour, no matter whether he is properly anointed and duly installed or not, he shall begin to rule his subjects according to Niti, being always above board and ever the holder of the sceptre".⁵ And the classical theory of the divine nature of the king received its death-knell in the following statement of Sukrāchārya: "The king is honoured because of these qualities. It is not birth that makes a king. He is not respected so much because of his ancestry, as for his prowess, strength and valour".⁶ Thus was promulgated a principle which justified monarchial authority on the sole ground of merit.⁷

v1.c11.s1.t2.3

¹²⁴ (2nd ed.) ³ Ibid., (1st. ed). ⁴ Śānti Parva, LXVII, p. 215; Ghosal, ibid., pp. 174-5, (1st. ed.). p. 127 seq (2nd. ed.). ⁵ Ghosal, ibid., p.

v1.c11.s1.t2.4

²¹⁷ (1st. ed.); p. 176 seq. (2nd. ed.) ⁶ Ibid., pp. 224-5, (1st. ed.); p. 184 (2nd. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t2.5

¹ Ghosal, *Hind. Pol. Theor.*, pp. 234-5 pp. 234-5 (1st ed.); pp. 193, 197; seq. (2nd. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t2.6

² *Ibid.*, pp. 262-3. (1st. ed.): pp. 223-4. (2nd. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t2.7

³ *Infra* Volume II, Chapter III. Brahmans. See also Acharya, *Dicty. of Ind. Arch.*, p. 60.

v1.c11.s1.t2.8

⁴ *Sukraniti*, I, l. 375, p. 24.

v1.c11.s1.t2.9

⁵ *Ibid.*, I, ll. 52-4, pp. 6-7.

v1.c11.s1.t2.10

⁶ *Ibid.*, I., ll. 363-4, p. 24.

v1.c11.s1.t2.11

⁷ Ghosal, *ibid.*, pp. 254-5 (1st ed.); p. 214 (2nd. ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t2.12

Sukrāchārya's conception of kingship anticipates the origin of the mediaeval monarchy of southern India; and one may have applied the statement of Sukra to the sons of Saṅgama were it not for the difficulty one finds in reconciling the theory of Sukrāchārya with that of the celebrated writer Mādhavācharya, whose influence was profound in the early days of the Vijayanagara Empire. Mādhava is inclined to give a dogmatic interpretation to the old theory in his commentary on Parāśara, thus: "Now the word *rājan* applies to Kshatriyas alone, and not to one qualified for kingship".¹ This assertion, which is at variance not only with the principle of Sukrāchārya but also with the actual facts about the origin of the very founders whose kingdom Mādhavācharya himself helped to stabilize, is to a certain extent qualified by the following words of the same high authority: "As the divine incarnation in the form of Rāma and others came into being for punishing the mighty Rāvaṇa, and others like him, so the divine incarnation in the form of the king (Rājāvatāra) is born for the purpose of punishing lowly beings like thieves and the rest".² The theory of the divine incarnation in the form of the king is reflected in the following words of Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya, who writes: "Manu, Daṇḍadhara and others became known as addicted to Dharma only by finding out the mistakes of the subjects and punishing them. The anointed king who is equal to God and who is created by God (Prajāpati) in various forms for the purpose of ruling the subjects is known by various terms which are sanctioned by the vēdas, as Virāṭ, Samrat, and should put up with the trouble and relieve the sufferings of the world. If he does not do this, the purpose of his creation is not fulfilled".³ The term Samrāṭ carries us to the Vedic conception of the position of the universal monarch⁴; the idea of the anointed king

v1.c11.s1.t2.13

¹ Ghosal, Hind. Pol. Theor., pp. 260-2 (1st ed.); p. 220, (2nd. ed.). The reference is obviously to the following by Parāśara:

v1.c11.s1.t2.14

² Parāśara-samhita, I, p. I, Āchāra-kaṇḍa, Adhyāya, 1, vv. 60-2, p. 445. For Mādhava's explanation of the point in question, ibid, p. 449 (ed. by Pandit Vaman Sāstri Islāmapūrkar); Parāśara-Mādhaviya-Dharma-sastravu, Āchāra-kaṇḍa, Adhyāya, 1, vv. 61-3, pp. 259, 262-3. (Veṅkaṇṇaiyya).

v1.c11.s1.t2.15

³ Ghosal, ibid.

v1.c11.s1.t2.16

⁴ Amuktamālyada, v. 285; J.I.H. IV, P. III, p. 76.
* Macdonell, Vedic Mythology, p. 24; Ghosal, ibid., p. 34 (1st ed.)

v1.c11.s1.t2.17

अन्रता ह्यनधोयाना यत्र भैक्ष्यचरा द्विजाः ।

तं ग्रामं दण्डयेद्राजा चोरभक्तप्रदो हि सः ।

क्षत्रियो हि प्रजा रक्षन् शस्त्रपाणिः प्रदण्डवान् ।

निर्जित्य परसैन्यानि क्षितिं धर्मेण पालयेत् ।

पुष्पं पुष्पं विचििनुयान्मूलच्छेदं न कारयेत् ।

मालाकार इवारामे न यथाऽङ्गारकारकः ।

v1.c11.s1.t2.18

created by Prajāpati, to the dogmatism of Vidyāraṇya; and the purpose for which the king is created, to the saner views of Śukrāchārya. It is in the last detail that Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya truly confesses the needs of the times.¹ The basis of the king's authority in the Vijayanagara age is to be sought, therefore, not in the dogma of the divine nature of the king, which was inapplicable either to the sons of Saṅgama or to Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya himself, but in the solution of the fundamental question of the times—the protection and encouragement of the Hindu Dharma.²

v1.c11.s1.t2.19

¹ As regards Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya's idea of protection, see supra, Chapter IV on Revenue Administration.

v1.c11.s1.t2.20

² The Vijayanagara monarchs as patrons of, and participators in, great sacrifices may be said to have fulfilled one of the conditions of divinity mentioned in the Brahminical canons. See Ghosal, Hind. Pol. Theor., p. 30. (1st ed.)

Cites (3)