Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c12.s2: Was Kingship Elective?

State and Government in Ancient India c12.s2

Language
English

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

Linked texts (9)