Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c11.s1.t2.2

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