Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c10.s6: Vesting of the Sovereignty in Ancient Indian State

State and Government in Ancient India c10.s6

Language
English

Vesting of the Sovereignty in Ancient Indian State

c10.s6.1

It would be convenient to make a few observations about the vesting of sovereignty in the Ancient Indian State. It has first to be noted that the modern conception of sovereignty was probably not fully developed. There is no Sanskrit term exactly corresponding to it, though *svāmitva* in the *Arthaśāstra* may be partly approaching its meaning. In the Vedic period sovereignty was probably vested jointly in the king and the Samiti; in the republican states it was vested in the Central Executive, which worked under the general superintendence of the republican Parliament, where however only the aristocracy was usually represented. When Samitis or Parliaments disappeared, the sovereignty became vested in the king alone. In the republican state, the presidents tended to become more and more powerful; their posts often became hereditary and they began to enjoy royal titles also. Republics however disappeared from India at *c.* 400 A. D.; and the king's position became very strong from this time.

c10.s6.2

One school held that the king was not above the law or Dharma; but that the latter constituted the essence of kingship. Dharma was the sovereign over the sovereign¹ and it may therefore be said that the sovereignty vested in it.

c10.s6.3

¹ १. तत् (ब्रह्म) श्रेयो रूपमत्यसृजत् धर्मम् । तदेतत्क्षत्रस्य क्षत्रम् यद्धर्मः। तस्माद्धर्मात्परं नास्ति । *S. Br.* 1. 4. 14.

c10.s6.4

But though the king was below the Dharma and was bound by it, though it was the law (Dharma) which made the king, the ancient Indian polity provided no constitutional means or checks to call the king to account if he transgressed the law.

c10.s6.5

Another school however pronounced the king to be *adaṇḍya* or above punishment.² If he broke the law, the punishment was left to God. In extreme cases extra-constitutional remedies like the rebellion or regicide were suggested ; but they were usually impracticable. Village councils and town corporations often enjoyed almost complete freedom in their local affairs ; the courts, whether royal or popular, usually administerd the traditional law as embodied in the *jātidharama* (caste rules), *śreṇidharma* (guild rules) and *janapadadharma* (local customs). But a wilful king could set all these at nought and rule in a tyrannical way, as is shown by the pages of the *Rājatarangiṇī* dealing with the history of medieval Kashmir. From *c.* 400 A. D. the sovereignty was vested in the king and it was not controlled by constitutional checks of the modern types. Of course it should not be forgotten that most of these checks were evolved in Europe only in the post-Reformation period.

c10.s6.6

² अथैनं पृष्ठतः तूष्णीमेव दण्डैर्ध्नन्ति । तं दण्डैर्ध्नन्तो दण्डवधमतिनयंति । तस्माद्राजाऽदण्डयो यदेनं दण्डवधमतिनयंति । *Ibid,* V. 4. 7.

c10.s6.7

Manu no doubt pronounces¹ that a king was to pay a fine of a thousand coins when an ordinary man had to pay that of one coin only, but he does not specify the offence, nor indicate the agency which was to try the king. The commentator Kullūka says that the fine was to be self-imposed and was to be given to Brāhmaṇas or to be thrown into water in the name of Varuṇa.² It is thus clear that Manu's statement is a merely idealistic one and hardly provides any real and practicable constitutional check.

c10.s6.8

¹ कार्षापणो भवेद्दण्डयो यत्रान्यः प्राकृतो जनः । तत्र राजा भवेद्दण्डयः सहस्रमिति धारणा । VIII. 336.

c10.s6.9

² स्वार्थदण्डं त्वप्सु प्रवेशयेद्ब्राह्मणेभ्यो वा दद्यात् । ईशो दण्डस्य वारुण इति वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् ।

Linked texts (4)