Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

State and Government in Ancient India c12.s4: Divinity of the King

State and Government in Ancient India c12.s4

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (20)