Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c12: Chapter V: The Kingship

State and Government in Ancient India c12

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V: The Kingship

c12.2

Although other types of state existed in ancient India, as shown in the second chapter, monarchy was the most common form of government. We shall, therefore, proceed to discuss the various problems connected with the kingship in this chapter.

c12.3

The Vedic literature has some speculations about the origin of kingship. Once upon a time, we are told, there was a war between demons and gods, in which the latter were being constantly defeated. Gods, therefore, assembled to survey the situation with a view to remedy it. After analysing the position, they came to the conclusion that they were being overpowered because they had no king. They then decided to make Soma their king and leader, and then they succeeded in winning victory¹ Elsewhere we are told that Indra was made their king by gods because he was the most illustrious and powerful among them, as also the most senior² In a third place we are informed that Varuṇa wanted to be the king of gods, but the latter would not accept his leadership. He then learnt a particular chant from Prajāpatiti, his father, which made him superior to all other gods; then his kingship was acknowledged by them.

c12.4

¹ अराजन्द्यतया वै नो जयंति राजानं करवामह इति। *A. Br.*, I. 14.

c12.5

² *T. Br.*, II. 2. 7. 2.

c12.6

The above parables indicate clearly that the ancient Indians believed that the kingship arose out of a military necessity, and that a king must be a capable general whose leadership is acknowledged by all. Success in war becomes easy only if the leader of the nation possesses strength, vigour, wisdom and energy. When a person is selected to lead his side on account of these qualities and eventually wins victory for his side, his position becomes stronger and stronger. He eventually attains the status of the king and if he has able sons, his office tends to become hereditary. In the Vājapeya sacrifice performed at the coronation of a king there is a symbolical chariot race in which the king comes out first. This element in the ritual enables us to get a glimpse of that dim and distant past when the military capacity of a leader was sought to be tested by the chariot race,¹ before offering him the kingship.

c12.7

³ *J. Br.*, III. 152.

c12.8

¹ What air-supremacy is in the modern warfare, supremacy in horsemanship and chariot-driving was in the Vedic period.

c12.9

We have seen already how the society in the Vedic period was patriarchal, and how several *kulas* (families) made a *viś* (a local community) and several *viśas* a *jana* (tribe). Those among the *kulapatis*, who were noted for their strength and leadership, used to become *viśpatis*. From among the *viśpatis*, one would rise to the position of the *janapati* for similar qualities, sometimes demonstrated in the chariot race.

c12.10

Early Indian speculations and the known evolution of the Hindu family, therefore, show that kingship arose out of the patriarchal atmosphere prevailing in society. A *kulapati* who was prominent for his bravery and leadership² would become a *viśpati*. The usual tendency, however, was to assume these qualities in the leading member of the seniormost family; an actual election would arise only in a doubtful case, where it was not clear as to who was the proper claimant.

c12.11

² Alexander's historians have observed that the Kathas, who enjoyed highest reputation for courage and skill in the art of war, used to choose the handsomest man as their king (Mc. Crindle, *Ancient India*, p. 38). If true, this may indicate that military qualifications being equal, the handsomer candidate was chosen; it does not show that beauty was preferred to bravery.

c12.12

The Aśvins, we are told, obtained divinity through their medical skill, but the Vedic literature does not refer to a physician becoming a king on account of his professional fame.

c12.13

The Vedic literature is pre-eminently religious; yet it does not suggest that kingship was connected with or originated from the priestly office. It is interesting to note that the Vedic king discharges no priestly functions, nor does he preside over any sacrifices performed for the community as a whole, as was the case with kings and magistrates in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome. Nor is the Vedic king seen, like the Hittite monarch, participating in public rituals after his return from a military campaign.

c12.14

³ *Kṛtyakalpataru*, Chap. 2.

c12.15

The caste system had not become rigid in the Vedic period and so we cannot, strictly speaking, talk of the caste of the Vedic king. Later on when the caste system was fully evolved, the king usually used to belong to the Kshatriya caste. In the course of time however non-Kshatriya *viz.* Brāhmaṇas, Vaiśyas and Śūdras and non-Aryans *viz.* the Scythians, the Parthians and the Hūṇas established their own dynasties and the term *rājan* began to be applied even to non-Kshatriyas who were actually ruling over a kingdom.¹

c12.16

¹ तच्च राज्यमविशेषेण चत्वारोऽपि वर्णाः कुर्वाणा दृश्यन्ते । तस्मात् सर्वे राजानः । *Tantravārtika*, p. 580.

Ceremony

c12.s1.1

² *Śat. Br.*, V. 2 and 3; *Ait. Br.*, VIII. 15.

c12.s1.2

A few words may here be said about the coronation ceremony, which was performed at the time of the accession of the king since very early times. We are not very much concerned here with its ritualistic details; as students of polity we have to understand its constitutional significance. The name of the coronation ritual was Rājasūya and its details are given in the Brāhmaṇa literature; but they continue to be followed for a long time. The ceremony divides itself into three parts, preliminary rituals, the coronation itself and post-coronation ceremonies. Preliminary rituals mainly consisted of the *ratni*-oblations, which the king was usually to offer at the houses of his different *ratnins* or ministers and high officials³ That the king is to visit the houses of these dignitaries for this purpose shows that the approval of his accession by the governing class and its representatives was regarded as essential in ancient times. The ritual performed in the houses of the *ratnins* also served to create a feeling of attachment and loyalty in their mind to the new king.

c12.s1.3

³ *Sat. Br.*, V. 3, 1.

c12.s1.4

The actual coronation followed on the second day. The king was annointed and then seated on a throne covered with tiger skin, where he was sprinkled with sacred waters brought from the holy rivers and seas. The priest, of course, first performed this ceremony with the proper Vedic Mantras, which prayed that God Savitṛi should endow the king with energy and driving power. Indra with ruling capacity, Bṛihaspati with eloquence, Mitra with truth, Varuṇa with the capacity to protect the law. The sacred texts emphasise that the protection of the law was the most sacred duty of the king.

c12.s1.5

It is interesting to note that later on a Rājanya *i.e.* a Kshatriya and a Vaiśya also took part in the king's annointment. The priest, the Rājanya and the Vaiśya were probably regarded as the representatives of the three main groups into which the Aryan society was divided at that time and the association of all of them in the ritual may have been intended to convey a general acceptance of the new king by the community. The *Mahābhārata* records the association of the representative of the Śūdra and lower castes also at the coronation of Yudhishṭhira.

c12.s1.6

There is no doubt that before the coronation the sacred texts require the king to take an oath. Some writers have argued that this corresponded to the coronation oath of the modern times, wherein the king bound himself to govern righteously and refrain from oppressing the people.¹ The text and context of the oath, however, make it quite clear that it was an oath by which the king bound himself not to do harm to the priest in view of the sacred powers which he was invoking at the time of the coronation for the prosperity and safety of the king.²

c12.s1.7

¹ *E. G. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity*, 1st Edi., II, p. 28.

c12.s1.8

² *Cf. Ait. Br.* VIII. 15 :—एतेनेन्द्रेण महाभिषेकेन क्षत्रियं शापयित्वाऽभिषिचेत्। स ब्रूयात्सह श्रद्धया याञ्च रात्रिमजायेऽहं यां च प्रेतास्मि तदुभयमन्तरेण इष्टापूर्तं मे लोकं सुकृतमायुः प्रजां वृञ्जीथा यदि ते द्रुह्येयमिति। 'ते' obviously refers to the priest performing the ccronation ritual.

c12.s1.9

The coronation of Yuvarāja is referred to by some later writers like Śukra (II. 2.5). The Allahabad Pillar Inscription would suggest that it was performed in the Gupta dynasty; the Rāshtrakūṭa records show that Govinda III was sanctified by this ritual at the time of his formal selection as a crown-prince. Kalachūri king Karṇa himself performed the coronation of his crown-prince Yaśaskara in the 11th century (*C.I.I.*, IV, p. 294)

c12.s1.10

In Eastern Chālukya dynasty Bhīma II and Vijayāditya III had been coronated as Yuvarājas and were invested with a *kaṇṭhikā* or necklace in token thereof. Kings used to be invested with Paṭṭabandha or diadem.

c12.s1.11

There is nothing in the texts or their context to show that the officiating priest was regarded as a representative of the society. In later times, however, the king was formally required to take an oath at the coronation that he would never transgress provisions of Dharma.¹ What was to be done if this vow was not kept is nowhere indicated.

c12.s1.12

¹ Compare the oath administered to king Vena; *Mbh.*, XII. 58. 115-6;

c12.s1.13

After the coronation ritual was over, the king went out for a state drive either in a chariot or on an elephant. On his return a Durbar was held where the representatives of the different classes came and offered their homage to the new king. This was followed by a game of dice and a chariot race in the Vedic period and by other suitable festivals in later times.

c12.s1.14

The coronation ceremony underwent considerable changes after about the 8th century A.D. The Vājapeya sacrifice, the chariot race and the oblations at the houses of *ratnins* were silently omitted from the ritual as a natural consequence of the disappearance of the Vedic culture. Instead the besmearing of the king's body with several auspicious types of earth-dusts and his bath with the waters of several sacred rivers became very important.² What is constitutionally very significant is that the ceremony no longer contained any oath to be taken by the king either with reference to his duties to the people or to the priest. The king's position had become stronger and

c12.s1.15

² *Kṛtyakalpataru*, *Rājadharmakāṇḍa*, Ch. 2.

c12.s1.16

प्रतिज्ञां चावरोहस्व मनसा कर्मणा गिरा ।
पालयिष्याम्यहं भौमं ब्रह्म इत्येव चासकृत् ॥
यश्चात्र धर्म इत्युक्तो दण्डनीतिव्यपाश्रयः ॥
तमशंकः करिष्यामि स्ववशो न कदाचन ॥

c12.s1.17

stronger, and so it was felt incongruous that he should be required to take any oath.

c12.s1.18

Pauranik religion was getting into ascendancy at this time and we find that many of the gifts recommended in the Purāṇas were given at the time of the coronation. The Rāshtrakūṭa king Indra III gave away 400 villages at the time of his coronation. Kṛishṇadevarāya of Vijayanagar weighed himself against gold, pearls and silver, besides giving the usual Mahādānas. We may well presume that such gifts had become the order of the day from *c.* 800 A. D.

Was Kingship Elective?

c12.s2.1

There is considerable difference of opinion as to whether the kingship was elective in ancient India. There is no doubt that it was so *in some cases* in the early Vedic period. A passage in the *Ṛigveda* seems to refer to the people (*viśas*) electing a king¹; another passage in the *Arthaśāstra* expresses the hope that the king to be coronated may be elected by the people.² But very probably not the whole population voted on these occasions. A passage in the later Vedic literature tells us that he alone becomes a ruler whose leadership is accepted by other kings³; a prayer at the coronation prays that the king should become preeminent amongst his peers.⁴ It is, therefore, very likely that not the whole population but its leaders like the *kulapatis* and the *viśpatis* had a voice in the election of the king; people in general, like the curiae in Rome, may at the utmost, have ratified the choice of *viśpatis*. The cases of election were, however, the exception rather than the rule; the usual tendency was to accept the leadership of the seniormost member of the seniormost family and formally elect him as the king.

c12.s2.2

¹ ता ईं विशो न न राजानं वृणाना बीभत्सवो अप वृत्रादतिष्ठन् । X. 124. 8. This passage no doubt expressly describes the people as *electing* the king, but its face value is to some extent disclosed by its describing the people as being afraid on the occasion. If the king was to owe his crown to the votes of the people, why should the latter be afraid of the former, as were the celestial waters of Vṛitra, their captor, even after his overthrow?

c12.s2.3

² त्वां विशो वृणतां राज्याय । III 4. 2.

c12.s2.4

³ यस्मै वै राजानो राज्यमनुमन्यन्ते स राजा भवति न स यस्मै न । *S. Br.*, IX. 3. 4. 5.

c12.s2.5

⁴ Hence the absence of enthusiasm and the presence of some apprehension in their minds, as described in the Vedic passage quoted in note No. 1 above.

c12.s2.6

This formal election of the king by the *kulapatis* and *viśpatis* was, however, getting antiquated even in the early Vedic period. Majority of the passages that are quoted in support of the election theory refer to a state torn by parties and factions among the aristocratic *kulapatis* and *viśpatis*, which often led to the expulsion of the king. They express the hope¹ that the king, who is *elected by his friends* may remain firm on the throne in spite of the challenge of the opponents ; or that the king, who is being restored after expulsion, may become *acceptable to the people*. These passages cannot prove that monarchy was really elective in the Vedic period in the modern sense of the term, though they no doubt show that it was to a much greater degree dependent on the support of the aristocracy than became the case in the later times. That the formality of the election had become antiquated in the Vedic period would become evident when it is remembered that in the vast majority of cases, kingship is seen to be hereditary even in the *Ṛigveda*. The kingship is known to have passed from the father to the son for at least four generations among the Tṛitsus and for a still longer period among the Pūrus. In the story of the Sṛiñjaya king Dushṭarītu Paumasāyana, there is a reference to a kingdom inherited through ten generations (*daśapurushaṁ rājyam*),² and the formal proclamation at the time of the coronation, as described in the later Vedic literature, refers to the new ruler as himself a king and also the son of a king.³

c12.s2.7

¹ ह्वयन्तु त्वां प्रति जना प्रति मित्रा अवृषत । *A. V.*, III, 3. 6

c12.s2.8

² *S. B.* VII 5. 3. 1-13

c12.s2.9

³ *Rājānaṁ rājaputram, A. Br.* III. 12

c12.s2.10

There is thus no doubt that monarchy had become normally hereditary long before the later Vedic period. The arguments advanced to show that it continued to be elective in some states down to even the 8th century A. D. are hardly convincing.⁴ The *rājakṛits* mentioned in the *Atharvaveda* (III. 6. 7) and *rāja-* *kartāraḥ* referred to in the *Rāmāyaṇa* (II. 67. 2) are not king-electors but the Brāhmaṇas, who were entrusted with the duty of offering the coronation ablutions to the king.¹ When kings Pratīpa and Yayati offer the crown to their younger sons Śantanu and Puru respectively, setting aside the claims of the elder brothers, people assemble before the palace and call for an explanation. This does not, however, lend any support to the view that they had a voice in the selection of their king. In each case they simply want to know why the claims of the eldest son, supported by the law of primogeniture, have been set aside, and they return home quite satisfied when a proper explanation is offered by the reigning king.² Both the incidents clearly show, not that the people had any voice in the election of the king, but that they had accepted primogeniture as the normal law for the succession to the throne. The chapters in the *Rāmāyaṇa* referring to the proposed installation of Rāma to the post of the heir-apparent (II. 1.2) do not also lend colour to the view that people had any voice in the matter. Daśaratha had summoned for the occasion not the notable citizens of his kingdom but his important feudatories and neighbouring monarchs.³ They approved of the choice of Rāma as a mere formality ; that their consent had no practical value would become quite clear from the circumstance that it could not prevent the banishment of Rāma to the forest. The genealogy of the Ikshvāku family shows that for several generations both before and after the reign of Rāma, the crown was passing hereditarily and that people had no power to elect the king.

c12.s2.11

⁴ R. C. Majumdar—*Corporate Life*, pp. 107-113 K. P. Jayaswal—*Hindu Polity*, Part II, pp. 10 ff

c12.s2.12

¹ Sāyaṇa explains *rājakritaḥ* as *rājānaṁ kṛṇvanti*, *rājyebhishiñchanti*. The commentator on the *Rāmāyaṇa* explains *rājyakartāraḥ* as *rājābhishekakārtāraḥ*. That this explanation is correct becomes quite clear when we read the names of *rājakartāraḥ* given in the next few verses of the *Rāmāyaṇa*. They are the names of famous Vaidika Brāhmaṇas only; no secular officers or leaders figure among them.

c12.s2.13

² They were told that Devāpi, the elder brother of Śāntanu, was set aside because he was suffering from leprosy, and that the elder brothers of Puru had been disinherited because they had declined to exchange their youth with the old age of their father.

c12.s2.14

³ > समानिनाय मेदिन्याः प्रधानान्नृथिवीपतीन् । > न तु केकयराजानं जनकं वा नराधिपः । > त्वरया चानयामास पश्चात्तौ श्रोष्यतः प्रियम् । > अथोपविष्टे नृपतौ तस्मिन्परबलार्दने । > ततः प्रविविशुः शेषा राजानो लोकसंमताः । II. 1. 46-8 It is thus clear that the feudatory kings, were invited and not the notables of the realm ; the reading of the Calcutta edition समानिनाय मेदिन्याः प्रधा-नान्नृथिवीपतिः । is shown to be untenable by the verses following quoted above.

c12.s2.15

It is sometimes argued that Rudradāman (*c.* 130 A. D.), Harshavardhana (*c.* 606 A. D.) and Gopāla (*c.* 750 A. D.) owed their throne to their election by the people.¹ It is no doubt true that Rudradāman and Gopāla are expressly described as being elected to the kingship by their people²; but these statements occur in panegyric documents composed by their court poets and cannot be taken too seriously. Rudradāman's record, relied upon in this connection, elsewhere states that he had become a king by his own prowess³ and describes how he had conquered and annexed a number of provinces. The claim put forth on behalf of such a famous conqueror by his court poet that he owed his throne to his election by the people can hardly be accepted by the historian. Gopāla, the founder of the Pāla dynasty, had put an end to the anarchy and restored law and order in Bengal; he was the founder of his dynasty and his claim to kingship is sought to be strengthened by the fiction of his being elected by his subjects. The crown used to pass hereditarily in his family and none of his successors cares to profess that he owed his throne to his people's votes. It is no doubt true that Harsha owed the crown to election; but it was the crown, not of his hereditary kingdom of Thāneshwar, but that of the Maukhari kingdom of Kanauj, which belonged to his deceased brother-in-law Grahavarman, and to which he had no claim. After the death of Grahavarman, there was no competent heir left for the Maukhari throne. The Maukhari ministers, therefore, decided to offer the crown to the brother of their widowed queen. This instance shows that when there was a failure of heirs, the ministers and other high dignitaries used to elect a suitable successor from among the relations of the deceased king.¹ There are some such instances in the Jātaka stories too.² But they cannot show that the kingship was elective in normal times. Epigraphic and literary evidence shows that almost all the dynasties subsequent to *c.* 600 B. C., of which we have any knowledge, were passing the crown on the principle of heredity. The very idea of the election of the king appeared totally strange to the historians of the 12th century.³

c12.s2.16

¹ Majumdar, *Corporate Life*, p. 112

c12.s2.17

² सर्ववर्णैरभिगम्य रक्षणार्थं पतित्वे वृतेन । Junagad inscription; मात्स्यन्यायमपोहितुं च प्रकृतिभिर्लक्ष्म्‍याः करं ग्राहितः । *E. I.* IV. p. 2

c12.s2.18

³ स्वयमधिगतमहाक्षत्रपनाम्ना रुद्रदाम्‍ना । Junagad Ins

c12.s2.19

¹ This holds good also of the so-called election of the Pallava king after the death of Parameśvaravarman II.

c12.s2.20

² See Jātaka, Vol. I p. 470; Vol. V p. 187 etc.

c12.s2.21

³ When the Utpala dynasty came to an end in Kashmir in 939 A. D., one Kamalavardhana managed to get the effective control of the government machinery. When instead of crowning himself king immediately, he asked the Brāhmaṇas of the capital to elect somebody to the kingship, thinking that they would naturally support his claim, Kalhaṇa, the Kashmir historian, says that it was the most foolish procedure that could ever have been thought of, comparable to the conduct of a person who does not accept the love offer of a lady of exceptional beauty coming herself to his house under intoxication to beg to be accepted, but sends a messenger the next day to enquire whether she would come. In this particular case, the Brāhmaṇas went on arguing for five or six days without coming to any decision. In the meanwhile another claimant to the throne, Śūravarman, came and occupied the capital and the Brāhmaṇas then hastend to acclaim him as the king. *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, VII. 773 ff

Royal Succession

c12.s3.1

We may now passingly refer to a few points of constitutional importance connected with a hereditary monarchy. In the case of ordinary families, property was divisible among brothers according to the Hindu law; the law of primogeniture, however, prevailed in the case of monarchy. It was realised that the division of a kingdom among different brothers would make it weak and lead to its eventual destruction.⁴ The crown, therefore, usually passed to the eldest son,⁵ but his brothers were generally appointed to responsible posts in the government like governorships or viceroyalties.¹ We get several such instances both in the Jātaka stories and actual history.

c12.s3.2

⁴ राज्यविभजनाच्छ्रेयो भूपानां न भवेत्खलु । अल्पीकृतं विभागेन राज्यं शत्रुञ्जिधृक्षति ॥ *Śukra*, I. 345

c12.s3.3

⁵ *Śukra*, I, 346-8

c12.s3.4

¹ C . इक्ष्वाकूणां हि सर्वेषां राजा भवति पूर्वजः पूर्वजेनावरः पुत्रो ज्येष्ठो राजाभिषिच्यते । *Rāmāyaṇa* II. 110. 36 कथं ज्येष्ठानतिक्रम्य कनीयान्राज्यमर्हति *Mb*। 1.85. 22

c12.s3.5

Sometimes the status of the brothers of the ruling monarch was that of a sub-king which often produced the impression,—as in the Pāṇḍya state of the 13th century, of the kingdom being divided among the brothers or of several brothers ruling together. Hindu political thinkers did not approve of the division of the kingdom and the case of the Pāṇḍya kingdom mentioned above appears to be that of several brothers ruling as sub-king.

c12.s3.6

If the eldest son was unfit to rule owing to blindness, deafness, etc., then he was of course not allowed to succeed. Dhṛitarāshṭra and Devāpi were superseded under this rule.

c12.s3.7

The attraction of pomp and power was, however, often too strong, and younger brothers would sometimes seek to wrest the crown by starting internecine wars. These are known both to folk lore stories as well as to sober history. When, however, we take a survey of the ancient Indian history as a whole, we have to admit that they were rather an exception than the rule. Very often a compromise was effected by giving a small feudatory kingdom to the younger brother. The creation of the Rāshtrakūṭa branch in Gujarat and the Chālukya branch in Veṅgi were due to this policy.

c12.s3.8

Great emphasis has been given to the proper training of the heir-apparent. Kingship may be divine, but it did not dispense with the necessity of proper training. Special schools were organised for the education of princes, though we sometimes see them being sent for training along with commoners to famous University centres like Takshaśilā. In early days the study of the Vedas and philosophy loomed large even in the princely curriculum,² but gradually economics and politics became the main subjects of theoretical study.¹ Some writers go to the extent of declaring that princes need study no other subjects. One can understand this position, because society believed that its proper functioning and progress depended upon an efficient government machinery.² Practical education included training in administration and the military art and tactics. Above all the prince was to be a good bowman, a skilful horseman and an expert controller of the elephants.³ The skill which some of the princes aquired in the military arts was often of a very high order. The *Śāstravinoda* section of the *Mānasollāsa* (12th century) shows that some of the kings were such noted experts in archery etc. that they would hold special functions to make a display of their skill. People were invited to a stadium in order to see the military feats of their rulers, who would show how they could pierce two objects by one arrow, or shoot through a target revolving over their head by merely looking at its reflection in a water basin below. There were similar displays of the mastery in the use of the sword, the spear and the mace. Probably not all the kings used to attain such high skill, but at least some did possess it.

c12.s3.9

² *Arthaśāstra*, I. Chap. 2 : *Manusmṛiti*, VII. 43

c12.s3.10

¹ *Kānandaka*, II. 2-5. Bārhaspatya school held that the study of the Trayī was undesirable, as it acted as a screen obscuring the vision of a king who should know the ways of the world.

c12.s3.11

² Cf. सर्वा विद्या राजधर्मेषु युक्ताः सर्वे लोका राजधर्मे प्रविष्टाः। सर्वे धर्मा राजधर्मप्रधानाः । *Mbh*., XII. 63. 26.

c12.s3.12

³ धर्मकामार्थशास्त्राणि धनुर्वेदं च शिक्षयेत् । रथे च कुञ्जरे चैव व्यायामं कारयेत्सदा ॥ शिल्पानि शिक्षयेच्चैनं नाप्तैर्मिथ्याप्रियं वदेत् ॥ *Agni P*. Chap. 220, 2-3 It is interesting to note that Bāṇa agrees with the *Agnipurāṇa* on the scope of the training of the prince. See *Kādambarī*, p. 55 (N. P. edition)

c12.s3.13

When the training was complete, and the prince had attained majority, he was formally appointed as heir-apparent. He was then entrusted with considerable functions in the administration, which he discharged in consultation with his father.

c12.s3.14

South Indian polity attached great importance to the regent. It has been suggested that the expression *trairājya* that occurs in some south Indian inscriptions, refers to Mahārāja, the ruling king, Yuvarāja, the heir-apparent and Muṭurāja the senior-male member of the royal family, who was the prospective regent in the case of necessity.

c12.s3.15

The regency had its own advantages and was an obvious necessity in the case of a minority administration. Many regents like Pātālamalla in the case of Rāshtrakūṭa king Amoghavarsha I and Vijayāditya in the case of the Gaṅga king Śivamāra II discharged their duties disinterestedly. But some regents would try to usurp the throne for themselves, as happened in the case Maṅgalīśa, the regent of Pulakeśin I and Kṛishṇa in the case of the Yādava ruler Rāmachandra.

c12.s3.16

King Khāravela of Orissa was a minor at the time of the death of his father; his formal coronation was postponed till his attaining the age of 24. It is however doubtful whether this practice was generally followed; there are cases of formal coronation at a much earlier age. King Kārikāla of Saṅgama age is said to have been crowned king when he was only five. Avinīta Koṅganivarmā was crowned king when he was still a child in his mother's lap. Nandivarman Pallavalmalla was 12 at the time of his coronation. When the system of regency was developed, no objection was probably felt to the formal coronation of even a child.

c12.s3.17

When the heir-apparent was a minor at his succession, the administration was carried on by a council of regency. The evidence of the Jātakas,¹ dramas² and inscriptions shows that usually the dowager queen presided over this council. India can proudly point to several dowager queens like Nayanikā (*c*, 150 B. C.) and Prabhāvatīguptā (*c*. 380 A. D.), who successfully carried on the administration of extensive kingdoms during the long minority of their sons.

c12.s3.18

¹ IV pp. 109, 487 In the last case the king of Banaras became a hermit and his subjects request the queen to undertake the royal duties. is was the usual practice; cf. *Anno rājā no hoti*

c12.s3.19

² During the captivity of king Udayana of Kauśāmbī, his mother carried on the administration; *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa*, Act I

c12.s3.20

Hindu law, however, did not permit an only daughter to succeed her father as the ruling queen. Bhīshma, no doubt, advises king Dharma to sanction the coronation of the daughters of those kings, who had died in the war, and left no male issues behind.¹ This, however, was not the general opinion. The vast majority of the constitutional writers opposed the succession of women to the throne, because they felt that on account of their natural limitations, they cannot become efficient administrators.²

c12.s3.21

¹ कुमारो नास्ति येषां च कन्यास्तत्राभिषेचय। *Mbh* XII. 32. 23

c12.s3.22

² दुट्ठं तं जनपदं यत्य इत्थ परिणायिका। *Jāt.* I. 155 अनवकाशं यमित्थी राजा अस्स चक्कवर्ती। *M. N.* III. 65-66

c12.s3.23

What therefore happened when the only heir to the throne was a daughter was that her husband succeeded to the kingdom of his father-in-law. In such cases, the daughter was sometimes regarded also as the regnant queen, as is suggested by the joint coinage of Chandragupta I and his Lichchhavi queen Kumāradevī. Usually however the heiress also became merely a queen consort.

c12.s3.24

In south India, especially under the Chālukyas and the Rāshtrakūṭas, princesses in the royal family were appointed frequently to important administrative posts. We shall refer to only two cases by way of illustration ; Revakanimmadi, a daughter of Amoghavaraha I and the wife of Erragaṅga, was the governor of the important district of Edatore 2,000 in *c.* 850 A. D., and Akkādevī, an elder sister of Jayasiṁha III, was ruling over the district of Kisukuda in 1022 A. D. Such cases, however, are not known to northern India.

c12.s3.25

We have a solitary case of an Alūpa ruler of south Kanara stating that he rules jointly with his Chief Queen. This however does not seem to have been a common practice even in the South.³

c12.s3.26

³ T. V. Mahalingam, *South Indian Polity*, p. 37

c12.s3.27

In conclusion we shall passingly refer to the position of the queen. In the Vedic period, she figured in the list of the *ratnis* or important state officers, but her function in the administration is not known. Constitutional writers do not allot to the queen any part in the administration, but in actual practice, it may have been often influenced by her views and personality. This was the case to a greater degree in south India, where we often find queens making land grants on their own authority or functioning as viceroys over extensive provinces.¹ There is ample evidence to show that princesses and queens used to receive administrative and military training to be of use to them in the case of necessity.

c12.s3.28

¹ A. S. Altekar, *The Position of Women*, pp. 186-8 (2nd Ed.)

Divinity of the King

c12.s4.1

It is interesting to note that the doctrine of the divinity of the king, which became so popular in India in the first millennium of the Christian era, was unknown to the Vedic period. Kingship at that time was a purely secular institution. The king in his official or public capacity was not required to perform any sacrifices for the promotion of the public weal or the removal of a tribal or national calamity.

c12.s4.2

In the *Ṛigveda*, one king alone Purukutsa has been only once described as *ardhadeva* or semi-divine (IV. 42. 8-9); and one solitary and late passage of the *Atharvaveda* (XX. 127. 7) describes king Parīkshit as a god among men (*Yo devo martyān adhi*). These passages, however, do not prove the acceptance of the divinity of the king by the age; Purukutsa was called semi-divine, probably because his widowed mother got him as a special favour of the gods Indra and Varuṇa. Parīkshit is called a god among men in a hymn which is out to panegyrise him; as no other king is ever so described in the Vedic literature, we may take it that the theory of the king's divinity was yet confined to the imagination of a few grateful courtiers. When a Samiti (popular assembly) could depose a king, the theory of the latter's divinity was not likely to take root in society.

c12.s4.3

The growing sway of religious ideas and notions produced an atmosphere in the Brāhmaṇa period which was more favourable to the notion of the divinity of the king. Victories of the king began to be attributed to the favour of Indra, and very often the latter's epithet began to be transferred to the former.² At the time of the royal coronation the priest averred that it was at the command of god Savitar that the coronation ablution was being given, and that too, not with his human hands and arms, but with the hands of god Pūshan and the arms of god Aśvins. Gods Agni, Savitar and Bṛihaspati were believed to enter the person of the king, when he was being annointed at the coronation. Some of the sacrifices he performed like the Aśvamedha and the Vājapeya were declared to enable him to obtain parity with gods¹ The mystery of the multitude obeying one king was sought to be explained by some on the ground that he was the veritable visible symbol of Prajāpati, the chief of gods.² Brāhmaṇas were claiming divinity (*bhūdevatva*) for themselves and were, therefore, not disposed to deny it to the king, who was expected to uphold their privileges. The political thinkers began to advocate that the age of anarchy came to an end, when at the request of the suffering humanity, the Creator made a Code of Law and appointed a king to administer it. This view about the origin of the state conceded a quasi-divinity to the king. The *Mahābhārata* states the god Vishṇu himself entered into the body of the first king (XII. 39. 128). It further maintains that if a person despises a king, his penance and sacrifices will bear no fruits. All these circumstances and factors created an atmosphere during the post-Vedic period, which was very favourable to the doctrine of the divinity of the king. The advent of the Kushāṇa dynasty in the 1st century A. D. further strengthened the tendency to regard the king as divine. Owing to the influence of the Chinese tradition, kings of this house claimed to be the sons of gods (*devaputra*) and represented themselves on their coins as descending from clouds and surrounded by divine flames.³ Temples were also built by the Kushāṇa emperors in honour of their dead predecessors whose statues were worshipped there as gods or demigods.

c12.s4.4

² *A Br.*, VIII. 2

c12.s4.5

¹ *S. Br.*, XII. 4. 4. 3; *T. Br.*, XVIII. 10. 10

c12.s4.6

² एष वै प्रजापतेः प्रत्यक्षतमं यद्राजन्यः। तस्मादेकः सन्बहूनामीष्टे। *S. Br.*, V. 1. 5. 14

c12.s4.7

³ *The Catalogue of Coins in the Punjab Museum*, Vol. I. Pl XVII. 31, 33

c12.s4.8

Divinity has been definitely claimed for the king by some Smṛitis and Purāṇas. Manu avers that the king is verily a great divinity in the human form; his very body is formed by the Creator by taking particles from the bodies of the divine guardians of the eight quarters.¹ The *Vishṇupurṇa*² and the *Bhāgavata* say that a number of divinities reside in the person of the king; the latter goes to the extent of averring that Veṇa, the first king, had actually some of the marks of Vishṇu on the different limbs of his body.³ The convention of regarding the king as divine has become quite general; even the Buddhists in later times regarded the kings as *sammutidevas* (gods by convention or public opinion). Sanskrit dramatists use the word *deva*, when a king is to be addressed, and the efforts of the medieval dynasties to trace their origin to gods Brahmā, Rāma or Lakshmaṇa also presuppose a desire to emphasise their divine origin and character.

c12.s4.9

¹ यस्मादेषां सुरेन्द्राणां मात्राभिर्निर्मितो नृपः । तस्मादभिभवत्येष सर्वभूतानि तेजसा । *Manu*, VII. 5. 4

c12.s4.10

² ब्रह्मा जनार्दनो रुद्र इन्द्रो वायुर्यमो रविः । हुतभुग्वरुणो धाता पूषा भमिर्निशाकरः । एते चान्ये च ये देवाः शापानुग्रहकारिणः । नृपस्यैते शरीरस्थाः सर्वदेवमयो नृपः ।।। *Vishṇu P.*, I. 13-14

c12.s4.11

³ जातो नारायणांशेन पृथुराद्यः क्षितीश्वरः । वेणस्य दक्षिणे हस्ते दृष्ट्वा चक्रं गदाभृतः पादयोररविदं च तं वै मेने हरेः कलाम् । *Bhāg.*, IV. 13. 23

c12.s4.12

When the Avatāra theory became popular, kings began to be regarded as incarnation of gods. Thus kings Chandra and Govindachandra of the Gāhadawāla dynasty were regarded as the incranations of Brahmā and Hari respectively (*I. A.*, XVIII. 15; *E.I.* IX. 319) The *Pṛithvirājavijaya*, VII. 62 describes its hero as an *avatāra* of Rāma.

c12.s4.13

The divinity of king was thus accepted by some Smṛitis and Purāṇas. It is, however, the view of only a small minority among them, which maintains that the king is the deity incarnate. The vast number of the Smṛitis and the Purāṇas merely content themselves by drawing attention to the *functional resemblance* between the king on one side and the various deities on the other.

c12.s4.14

Thus the *Mahābhārata*¹ (XII. 67. 40 ff.), the *Nāradasmṛiti* (XVII. 26 ff.), the *Śukranīti* (I. 73 ff.), the *Matsya* (ch. 22), the *Mārkaṇḍeya* (27. 21. ff.), the *Agni* (225. 16), the *Padma* (I. 30. 45 ff.) and the *Bṛihaddharma* (Uttarakhanda, 3. 8) *Purāṇas* point out how the king resembles god Fire, because he burns the wicked by his power, the god Sun because he sees every thing through his spies the god Yama because he metes out just punishment, the god Kubera, because he showers wealth on the deserving, and so on.¹ The majority view thus points only to the functional resemblance between the king on the one side and the various divinities on the other. It does not say that the *king is himself a god*, but observes that *his functions are similar to those of some gods*. Most Hindu writers have thus advocated the divinity, not of the person of the king but of his office, because of the resemblance between his functions and those of some deities. *Varṇāśrama-dharma* which the king was expected to enforce was also regarded as divine and it was probably felt that the theory of the divinity of king would enable him to discharge this duty better. It was felt that the king's status would become higher and the tendency to obey the state's orders stronger, if its head was represented as divine. But when the question of the duties and responsibilities of the king was at issue, his divinity did not afford him any immunity or privilege. If he was bad in character and remiss in performing his duties, he became demoniac and not divine.

c12.s4.15

¹ कुरुते पंच रूपाणि कार्ययुक्तानि यः सदा। भवत्यग्निस्तथादित्यो मत्युर्वैश्रवणो यमः ॥४१॥ यदा ह्वासीदतः पापान्दहत्युग्रेण तेजसा । मिथ्योपचरितो राजा तदा भवति पावकः । ४२॥ यदा पश्यति चारेण सर्वभूतानि भूमिपः । क्षेमं च कृत्वा व्रजति तदा भवति भास्करः ॥४३॥ अशुचींश्च यदा क्रुद्धः क्षिणोति शतशो नरान् । सपुत्रपौत्रान्समात्यांस्तदा भवति सोऽन्तकः ॥४४॥ यदा त्वधार्मिकांन्सवांस्तीक्ष्णैर्दंडैर्नियच्छति । धार्मिकांश्चानुगृह्णाति भवत्यथ यमस्तदा ॥४५॥ यदा तु धनधाराभिस्तर्पयत्युपकारिणः । तदा वैश्रवणो राजा लोके भवति भूमिपः ॥४७॥ *Mbh.*, XII. 67. 41 ff.

c12.s4.16

In Europe the doctrine of the divinity of the king was first advanced when Alexander the Great was deified in his life time in *c.* 324 B. C. Roman emperors were deified after their death and temples were built in their honour. Christianity conceded real divinity to the Pope and it was believed that he could transfer it to the king at the time of his coronation. The Reformation movement, which attacked the powers and privileges of the Pope, indirectly gave a fill-up to the divinity of the monarch. Later on the conflict between the Pope and the king came to an end and the kings started to utilise the theory of their divinity in their struggle against the people. In this connection four propositions were advanced, (1) that the monarchy is a divinely ordained institution ; (2) that the hereditary right is indefeasible; (3) that kings are accountable to God alone; (4) that non-resistance and passive obedience are enjoined by God. King’s divinity began to be advocated in defence of royal tyranny. In ancient India, Nārada is the solitary writer who at one place went to the extent of maintaining that the person of even a wicked king was inviolable because of his divinity.¹ His view, however, was not generally accepted. The wicked king Veṇa claimed exemption from punishment on the ground of his divinity, but angry sages killed him immediately after he had advanced this impious plea. It is further necessary to emphasise that only good and pious kings were regarded as divine by ancient Hindus ; bad and impious ones were dubbed as demoniac.² The view of Gregory the Great that even bad kings are divine and responsible to God alone was clearly not acceptable to most of the ancient Indian thinkers. Even Manu, who advocates the divinity of the king in the extreme form, warns him that he will suffer and meet with punishment in this very life if he misbehaves and misgoverns. He further points out that the divinity of the king does not confer infallibility on him. As a matter of fact, says Manu (VII. 45), he is more liable to err and fall than ordinary men, as he is exposed to greater temptations; he should, therefore, take greater precautions to see that he does not become a prey to different vices and calamities that arise out of *kāma* (passion) *krodha* (anger) and *lobha* (greed). A few kings misled by the surrounding flatterers, it seems, claimed infallibility on account of their so-called divinity; how they became buts of public ridicule has been well described by Bāṇa,¹ the biographer of king Harsha.

c12.s4.17

¹ राजनि प्रहरेद्यस्तु कृतागस्यपि दुर्मतिः । शूले तमग्नौ विपचेद् ब्रह्महत्याशताधिकम् । XVIII. 31 *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, 1.72 also enjoins regard for even a vicious king, cf. नावगण्यः स दुष्टोपि विदुषा भूतिमिच्छता ।

c12.s4.18

² गुणिनुष्टस्तु यो राजा स ज्ञेयो देवतांशकः । विपरीतस्तु रक्षोंशः स वै नरकभाजनः ॥ *Śukra* 1. 87 Cf also *Mbh*, 67,

c12.s4.19

³ दंडो हि सुमहत्तेजा दुर्धरश्चाकृतात्मभिः । धर्माद्विचलितं हन्ति नृपमेव सबान्धवम् । VII. 28

c12.s4.20

¹ प्रतारणकुशलैर्धूर्तः अमानुषलोकोचिताभिः स्तुतिभिः प्रतार्यमाणाः आत्मन्यारोपितालीकाभिभानाः मर्त्यधर्माणोपि दिव्यांशावतीर्णमिव सदैवतमिवातिमानुषमात्मानमुत्प्रेक्षमाणा प्रारब्धदिव्योचितचेष्टानुभवाः सर्वजनस्योपहास्यतामुपयांति । *Kādambari*, Śukanāsa’s advice to Chandrāpīḍa

c12.s4.21

The view of Blackstone that the king is not only incapable of doing wrong but also of thinking wrong was clearly not subscribed to by the ancient Indian thinkers. As a matter of fact they regarded him as more exposed to errors and temptations than ordinary human beings. Nor was king’s divinity construed as necessitating passive obedience even to wicked kings. Bishop Bossuet contended that open impiety on the part of a prince did not exempt the subjects from the obedience which they owe to him; Calvin held that kings, unworthy of honour, must nevertheless receive most respectful submission. Ancient Indian thinkers did not usually subscribe to such views; they were not even prepared to recognise the divinity of unworthy kings. They have bluntly described them as demoniac and have permitted their subjects to rebel openly against them, as will be presently shown. The view of James I that the wickedness of a king can never make subjects that are ordained to be judged by him, to become his judges, was not acceptable to ancient India. It will be thus seen that Willioughby’s observation that ‘in all the vast Asiatic monarchies of the early days, the rulers claimed a divine right to control the affairs of the state and this was submitted to by people with but little question,' does not hold good of ancient India.¹

c12.s4.22

¹ *Nature of State*, pp. 42-3

c12.s4.23

It has been argued by Dr. Jayaswal that the theory of the Divinity of King was advanced by *Manusmṛiti* to support the Brāhmaṇa empire of Pushyamitra² and to counteract the Buddhist theory of the origin of state by contract. Our discussion above must have made it clear to the reader that the theory of the king's divinity was gradually gaining ground and it cannot be ascribed to Manu alone. The contract theory was also perfunctorily advanced by a few writers, both Hindu and Buddhist, and it was hardly suspected that it was in opposition to the theory of king's divinity.

c12.s4.24

² *Hindu Polity*, Part II, pp. 54-7

c12.s4.25

Before concluding this topic, we may briefly survey the views of some ancient civilisations about the divinity of the king. In ancient Egypt Pharoha was regarded as the son of the god Sun (Ra). He officiated at public sacrifices and he alone could supplicate to God for favour or mercy. In ancient Babylonia and Assyria, kings were regarded as viceregents of God and were thus awarded divine honours. In ancient Greece king was believed to be descended from a divine ancestor; he was Zeusborn and Zeus-nurtured. He alone possessed the knowledge of the divine infallible decrees. After 10 A. D. Rome began to deify her emperors; they were proclaimed divine after their death and temples were built in their honour. The views of the 17th and 18th century thinkers of Europe have been referred to already.

c12.s4.26

We have so far examined the notion of king's divinity. Let us now examine some other notions associated with kingship in order to understand properly the position of the king.

King as Upholder of the Moral Order

c12.s5.1

From the Vedic times downwards, the king has been regarded as the supporter and upholder of the law. The Vedic age held that the ideal king was to be *dhṛitavrata*, dedicated to law and piety like the great god Varuṇa. The king may be divine, but the law was still more so, and must, therefore, be respected by him. The essence of rulership lies in *dharma*; the king should realise that there is nothing higher than *dharma* and always abide by it.¹ The first king Veṇa had to take the oath that he would scrupulously follow the *dharma* prescribed in the authoritative works on the subject and never act wilfully.² The responsibility of the the king was particularly great. He was the first citizen and his subjects were naturally prone to follow his example. His conduct, therefore, should be always exemplary. Unhappiness, misery and pestilence among the subject swere attributed to failure in duty on the part of the king. ‘When kings are unjust’ says one writer, ‘even sugar and salt lose their flavour.’³ The popular notion on this subject is well illustrated by the Jātakas. The ox of a ploughman is struck accidentally by his plough-share; for this the king is to blame; a milkman is killed by a vicious cow, the blame is assigned to the same quarter; even a frog does not spare the king when it is bitten by hungry crows.⁴ Happiness, it was believed, depended upon virtue and piety, and these could prosper only if the king set a proper example and standard. Under a good king prosperity will prevail.⁵

c12.s5.2

¹ तदेतत्क्षत्रस्य क्षत्रं यद्धर्मस्तस्माद्धर्मात्परं नास्ति । *Br. Up*, I. 4. 14

c12.s5.3

² यश्चात्र धर्म इत्युक्तो धर्मनीतिव्यपाश्रयः। तमशंकः करिष्यामि स्ववशो न कदाचन ॥ *Mbh.* XII. 59. 116

c12.s5.4

³ *Jātaka*, Vol. III, p. 111

c12.s5.5

⁴ *Ibid*, V, pp. 101-7.

c12.s5.6

⁵ सर्वत्र नो वार्तभवेहि राजन्नाये कुतस्त्वय्यशुभं प्रजानाम् । सूर्ये तपत्यावरणाय दृष्टेः कल्पेत लोकस्य कथं तमिस्रा ॥ *Rv.* V. 10

c12.s5.7

An early South Indian work, *Maṇimekhalai*, VII. 5. 8-12 expresses itself in a similar strain :—

c12.s5.8

If the king did swerve from his righteous path
The planets would all change their course;
If the planets errant turn,
Would dearth of rain surely ensure.
If dearth of rain there were,
Nothing on earth would then survive.

King as a Public Servant

c12.s6.1

The next important notion about the king was that he was *the servant of the people*. An early Dharmasūtra writer¹ observes that the king is really a servant, the 16% tax being his wage. Kauṭilya at one place points out how the king was on the same footing as his soldiers, both receiving their different wages and both being entitled to share the assets of the nation.² Nārada also regards the taxation as the king's pay for the protection of his people. No one ever makes a payment, says Aparārka, without expecting a return; the taxes, therefore, are paid only as a return for the protection expected from the king.³ Since the people pay him the proper wage, the king must serve them as a servant, nay even as a slave.⁴ This is of course a hyperbolic statement; the reality is hinted by Śukra when he describes the king both as a master and a servant of the people.⁵

c12.s6.2

¹ १. षड्भागभृतो राजा रक्षेत्प्रजाम् । *B. D. S.*, I. 10. 6.

c12.s6.3

² २. निर्दिष्टकालो धर्मिष्ठः संहृत्य ब्रूयात् । तुल्यवेतनोज्स्मि । भवद्भिः सह भोग्यमिदं राज्यम् । X. 3. (p. 367).

c12.s6.4

³ ३. सर्वो हि धनं प्रयच्छन्नात्मसमवायि प्रयोजनमुद्दिशति । न च करदानस्य स्वगुप्तेरन्यत्प्रयोजनमस्ति । तस्मात्करमाददानेन प्रजापालनं विधेयमिति सिद्धम् । On *Yāj.* I. 366.

c12.s6.5

⁴ ४. सर्वतः फलभुग्भूत्वा दासवत्स्यात्तु रक्षणे । *Śukra*, IV. 2. 130

c12.s6.6

⁵ ५. स्वभागभृत्या दास्यत्वे प्रजानां च नृपः कृतः ।

King as a Trustee

c12.s7.1

The notion of *the kingship as a trust* was also there in ancient India. The king was particularly enjoined to note that the treasury was not his private or personal property. It was a public trust to be utilised for public purposes. If a king misappropriated public funds and diverted them to his personal use, he would be guilty of sin and be condemned to hell.⁶ To put

c12.s7.2

⁶ बलप्रजारक्षणार्थं धर्मार्थं कोषसंग्रहः । परत्रेह च सुखदो नृपस्यान्यस्तु दुःखदः ।। स्त्रीपुत्रार्थं कृतो यश्च स्वोपभोगाय केवलम् । नरकायैव स ज्ञेयो न परत्र सुखप्रदः ।। *Ibid.*, IV. 2. 3-5.

c12.s7.3

पौरजानपदार्थं तु ममार्थो नात्मभोगतः । *Mbh.*, V. 118. 13

c12.s7.4

ब्रह्मणा स्वामिरूपस्तु पालनार्थं हि सर्वदा ॥ IV. 2. 137

c12.s7.5

it in a nutshell, the king must regard his own happiness as indissolubly connected with that of his subjects.¹

c12.s7.6

¹ प्रजासुखे सुखं राज्ञः प्रजानां च हिते हितम् । नात्मप्रियं हितं राज्ञः प्रजानां तु प्रियं हितम् ॥ *Artha.* I. 19

c12.s7.7

According to some political thinkers, however, the duties of the king are even more onerous and exacting than those of a trustee. The latter is expected to take scrupulous care of the trust ; it is sufficient if he promotes the welfare of the trust and refrains from taking any direct or indirect advantage from his position as a trustee. He is not required or expected to make any self-sacrifice for promoting the interest of his trust. The ideal king, on the other hand, is required to do this. Just as an expectant mother sacrifices her own desires and pleasures, lest they should be harmful to the child to be born, the king must sacrifice his own conveniences, inclinations and pleasures in order to be of the maximum help and service to his people.² The body of the king is not meant for enjoyment of pleasures ; it has to put up with great troubles and worries while carrying out the royal duty of protecting the subjects and fulfilling the *dharma*.³

First 129 of 184 passages. Read on

Linked texts (37)