State and Government in Ancient India c12.s2.6

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