Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c12.s3: Royal Succession

State and Government in Ancient India c12.s3

Language
English

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 Dhṛitarāshṭra and Devāpi were superseded under this rule.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.)

Linked texts (10)