History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c11.9

v1.c11.9

And these families did not attain to kingly position by the consent or approbation of the people or by hereditary rights of several generations even, but by divine favour obtained, it was believed, by reason of austerities performed by certain individuals in their past lives. Under this superstitious view any body might become king or had the right to become king if only he succeeded in establishing himself on the throne by hook or crook. For, the people's consent or acceptance was never thought of as having anything to do with the affair. The story related by Kalhana about how Ranāditya (Raj. III) became king is typical of this popular superstition. The Harsha Charita also relates how Pusyabhūti obtained a boon by assisting in a Pāśupata sacrifice, that a Chakravarti would be born in his family. When the Brahmin Chacha usurped the throne of Sind, he is said in the Chachanāma to have observed "It is written in the books of Hind that whenever a person who has trained his soul to austerities dies, his soul transmigrates to the child of a king or a great man in return for his good deeds." The people thus had not only no political rights but had no hand whatever in the acceptance of kings, as persons became kings by reason of their austerities performed in former lives. Under such a view of the organization of a state, there can scarcely be born that national vitality which is the essential factor in the strength of nations. Naturally enough patriotism was a virtue which never arose in India. There are, in Indian history, no noble examples of patriotic sacrifices such as are to be found in Greek, or Roman history or in the later history of the European nations. The feeling of love of the country or the nation cannot arise when the nation itself has no existence. The place of patriotism was supplied by the feeling of loyalty. The king being the absolute master of the state or the people, appointed by divine will, the people could naturally be actuated only by the feeling of loyalty or love to the divine king. Loyalty has been the distinguishing characteristic of the people of this country from the most ancient times. In the Harsha Charita we find many such examples recorded by Bāṇa and in these servants or officers give up their lives simply for the grief they felt on the death of their sovereign. And if the royal family continued steady on the throne for generations it did so not by the patriotism of the people but by the loyalty of their servants and officers. The people generally were also loyal to the reigning king. But their loyalty must always have been lukewarm and they were generally willing, or felt no concern, when one rule was substituted by another.