Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Public Administration in Ancient India c10: Chapter VII: The King

Public Administration in Ancient India c10

Language
English

Chapter VII: The King

c10.2

WE have already seen that in ancient times there existed in India several distinct forms of government, and that in the course of time monarchy succeeded in practically supplanting all the other forms.¹ Kingship came henceforward to be regarded as an essential part of society. The limbs of the body politic were said to be seven, namely, (1) the King (Svāmī), (2) Ministers (Amātya), (3) Territory (Janapada), (4) Forts (Durga), (5) Treasury (Kosa), (6) Army (Daṇḍa), and (7) Allies (Mitra);² and of these the monarch became the most important limb. In the Mahābhārata, the people are strongly advised to elect and crown a King, for "in a country without a King, there can be no sacrifice.”¹ The evils of the absence of this institution are thus described in the Great Epic :² “As all creatures would sink in utter darkness if the Sun and the Moon did not shine, so men would have no light to guide their steps by, if the King did not rule. Without a King the position of men would be like that of a herd of cattle without a herdsman. If the King did not exercise the duty of protection, the strong would forcibly appropriate the possessions of the weak. All kinds of property, and even wives, sons, and daughters would cease to exist. Every part of the country would be overrun by robbers; all restrictions about marriage would cease; agriculture and trade would fall into confusion; morality would be lost; the Vedas would disappear; sacrifices would no longer be performed; society itself would cease to exist; famine would ravage the country; and all kinds of injustice would set in.”

c10.3

¹ According to tradition, Prithu, the son of Vena, was the first king of men. Vide Satapatha Brāhmana, V. 3, 5, 4, and also Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva. The names of many Kings are mentioned in the Vedic literature; of these, Ikshvāku, Santanu, Sudās, and Trasadasyu were perhaps the most famous. There are many words in Sanskrit which denote a 'king,' but the words most often used are 'rājan' and 'nṛpati.'

c10.4

² The idea of the seven elements of the State occurs in the Arthasāstra (Bk. VI. ch. 1), and in the Mahābhārata, as also in such comparatively recent works as the Kāmandaki, the Mahāvamsa, and the Sukranīti.

c10.5

¹ Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva. ² Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva, Sec. 68, sls. 8-31. ³ Prof. Macdonell says, “Zimmer is of opinion that while the Vedic monarchy was sometimes hereditary, as is indeed shown by several cases where the descent can be traced, yet in others the monarchy was elective, though it is not clear whether the selection by the people was between the members of the royal family only or extended to members of all the noble clans. It must, however, be admitted that the evidence of the elective monarchy is not strong. As Geldner argues, all the passages cited can be regarded not as choice by the cantons (viś), but as acceptance by the subjects (viś): this seems the more probable sense. Of course, this is no proof that the monarchy was not sometimes elective; the practice of selecting one member of the family to the exclusion of another less qualified is exemplified by the legend in Yāska of the Kuru brothers, Devāpi and Santanu.” Vedic Index, Vol. II. p. 211.

c10.6

In the Vedic times, Kingship seems often to have been elective.³ The following hymn of the Rig-Veda suggests the elective character of Kingship in the early ages: “I have brought thee forward; remain in the midst; may all thy subjects desire thee! May thy dominion never fall away from thee! . . . And may Indra make the subjects devoted to thee alone and bringers of tribute.”¹ Hymn III. 4, of the Atharva-Veda is more explicit. “Let the people (viśaḥ) choose unto Kingship (Rājya) thee these five divine directions; rest at the summit of royalty, at the pinnacle (kakud); from thence formidable, share out good things to us.”² Another hymn of the Atharva-Veda runs thus: “Like a human Indra, go thou away; for thou hast concurred in accord with the castes.”³

c10.7

¹ Rig-Veda, X. 173.

c10.8

² Atharva-Veda, III. 4. The translation of the passage is as given by Whitney.

c10.9

³ Atharva-Veda (Whitney), III. 4.

c10.10

As Kings were elected by the people, they were sometimes deposed by the people.⁴ This is suggested by the Rig-Veda hymn quoted above which also occurs in the Atharva-Veda.⁵ The following hymn refers to the restoration of a King: “Let thine opponents call thee, thy friends have chosen (thee)

c10.11

⁴ “Royal power was clearly insecure: there are several references to Kings being expelled from their realms, and their efforts to recover their sovereignty.” Vedic Index, II. p. 213.

c10.12

⁵ Atharva-Veda, VI. 87.

c10.13

against (them); Indra and Agni, all the gods, have maintained for thee security (kshema) in the people (viś).”¹

c10.14

¹ Atharva-Veda, III. 3.

c10.15

Gradually, however, the system of election gave place to a hereditary Kingship. By the time, possibly of the later Vedic literature,² and certainly of the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, the succession of the eldest son of the last ruler had become the general rule. But the memory of the elective Kingship lingered. That the people were not unfamiliar in the Buddhist period with the idea of an elected King is shown by the story told in the Pancha-guru Jātaka of the Kingship being offered to the Bodhisatva by the people.³ The tradition of ‘Mahāsammata’⁴ (accepted by all), the first king, referred to in the Tibetan ‘Dulva’ and in the Ceylonese ‘Mahāvamsa’ also recalls the elective character of early Kingship.

c10.16

² ‘Daśa-puruṣa-rājya,’ occurring in the Satapatha-Brāhmaṇa, suggests that hereditary rule had already become almost well established.

c10.17

³ Cf. Jātaka Stories, Bk. I. 32.

c10.18

⁴ In the Dulva, an interesting story is told of the rise of kingship in India. The story runs thus: After private property had come into existence, it happened one day that one person took another’s rice without his consent as if it was his own. Then the people thought, “Let us, in view of what has just happened, assemble together, and choose from our midst those who are the finest looking, the largest, the handsomest, and let us make them lords over our fields, and they shall punish those of us who do what is punishable, and they shall recompense those of us who do what is praiseworthy, and from the produce of our fields and of the fruits we gather, we will give them a portion.” So they gathered together, and made one of themselves lord over their fields with these words: “Henceforth thou shalt punish those of us who deserve punishment and recompense those of us who deserve recompense, and we shall give thee a portion of the produce of the fields and of the fruits we gather.” From his receiving the homages of all he was called ‘Mahāsammata’; and as he was lord over the fields and kept them from harm he received the name of ‘Protector of the fields’ or Kshatriya, and as he was a righteous man and wise, and one who brought happiness to mankind with the law, he was called ‘Rājā’ (King). The life of the Buddha derived from the Tibetan Works (Rockhill), p. 7. This theory of a compact between the King and the people is to be found in other books in somewhat different forms. See also Mahāvamsa, Ch. II.

c10.19

Even after the hereditary principle had been fully established, the formal offer by the people of the sovereignty to the King was for a long time held essential.¹ Ancient tradition and history also speak of occasional departures from the hereditary principle.² When the person who claimed the crown by right of hereditary succession appeared to be unsuitable for the office of King, or was disqualified by reason of any special defect, another member of the royal family was placed on the throne.³ Devāpi, for instance, being afflicted with skin disease, declined the sovereignty, and the subjects anointed Santanu King. So also, according to the Mahābhārata, Dhritarāshtra, being blind, was passed over in favour of his younger brother, Pāndu. Again, in troublous times it was often found necessary to appoint a strong man as King in preference to a weak or minor claimant, although the latter might have the best right according to the hereditary principle. In such cases, it seems, the people, not unnaturally, claimed a voice in the appointment of the King. So also, in cases of disputed succession, the views of the people were taken into account. Thus, when the succession was in dispute between Yudhishthira and Duryodhana, the people declared in favour of the former.¹ But more often, it was perhaps the reigning sovereign who nominated his successor. Samudragupta, for instance, on account of his valour and administrative ability, was nominated by his father, Chandragupta, to succeed him to the throne.² On some occasions it was the Ministers who made the choice.³ After the treacherous assassination of Rājyavardhana by the King of Pundra, the Prime Minister Bhandi, with the concurrence of the Council of Ministers and the approval of the people, placed Harshavardhana on the throne.⁴ Not unoften, physical force was the ultimate arbiter in settling questions of disputed succession. To avoid an appeal to force, a partition of the Kingdom was in some instances agreed upon.⁵

c10.20

¹ Vide Brihaddevatā, VII. 157.

c10.21

² Chānakya says: “Except in times of danger (āpadah anyatra) the rule that sovereignty descends to the eldest son is (to be) respected.” Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 17.

c10.22

³ Brihaddevatā, VIII. 1. Vide also Mahābhārata, Ādi Parva, Sec. 141, sl. 25.

c10.23

¹ “Vayaṁ Pāṇḍava-jyeṣṭham abhiṣiñcāmaḥ,” Ādi Parva, Sec. 141, śl. 27. And again, in śl. 32, Duryodhana tells Dhritarāṣṭra : “The citizens want Pāṇḍava (i.e. Yudhishthira) as their lord, passing over you and Bhīṣma.” From the Mahāvamsa account it seems that Asoka was not the eldest son of Bindusāra ; but, as he stood high above his brothers “in valour, splendour, might and wondrous powers,” he succeeded in raising himself to the throne. Vide Mahāvamsa (Geiger), Ch. V. The Mahāvamsa story, however, is not worthy of credence in all details.

c10.24

² Vide Gupta Inscriptions (Fleet).

c10.25

³ Vide Arthaśāstra, Bk. V. ch. 6.

c10.26

⁴ See post, Ch. IX.

c10.27

⁵ That a division of the Kingdom was not looked upon with much favour is shown by the following remark of Sukra : “No good can arise out of the division of a Kingdom. By division the States become small, and thus are liable to be easily attacked by the enemy.” Ch. I. śl. 346.

c10.28

The partition which took place between the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas was the result of the conciliatory policy adopted by Dhritarāṣṭra on the one side and Yudhishthira and his brothers on the other. In comparatively modern times, a partition of the Kingdom of Nepal is known to have taken place between two dynasties, and these ruled simultaneously, having their respective capitals in different parts of the same city.¹

c10.29

¹ Vide Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Gupta Inscriptions, p. 188. The Lichchavi family ruled contemporaneously with the Thākurī family.

c10.30

The succession was limited to males, and as a consequence, the history of Āryan India does not furnish us with many names of female sovereigns. Almost the only instances of reigning queens come to us from Kasmir and Ceylon. Diddā of Kasmir ² and Līlāvatī of Ceylon ³ were practically the only female rulers who occupied any places in Indian history. Both of them were widows of kings, and it was the unsettled condition of the times which raised them to their royal positions.

c10.31

² Vide Rājataraṅginī, Bk. VI. The only other reigning queen of Kasmir was Sugandhā.

c10.32

³ Vide Epigraphia Zeylanica and the Mahāvamsa. Three other queens reigned in Ceylon, namely, Anulā, Sivalī, and Kalyāṇavatī. Queen-consort Sūryamatī was the virtual ruler of Kasmir during the reign of her husband Ananta. Megasthenes speaks of the Pāṇḍyas as “a race ruled by women.”

c10.33

The Kings, as a rule, belonged to the Kshatriya caste, but history furnishes us with the names of some Kings who belonged to the other castes. Mahā- padma Nanda, the founder of the Nanda dynasty, was the son of the last Sisunāga King by a Sūdra woman. Chandragupta also claimed his descent from the Magadhan royal family through a Sūdra mother.¹ The Sunga and Kānva monarchs were probably Brāhmanas. The Kings of Gandhāra, at the time of Fa Hian’s visit and later, belonged to the Brāhmana caste. Hiuen Tsiang speaks of the King of Matipura as a Sūdra. It is suggested by Dr. Fleet that the Guptas of Magadha belonged to the Vaisya caste,² but his argument does not seem to be very convincing.

c10.34

¹ In Mudrā-Rākshasa, Chānakya always addresses Chandragupta as ‘Vrishala’ (i.e. Sūdra). Rākshasa, the Prime Minister of the Nanda Kings, addressing the goddess of royal power in a soliloquy, asks: “Was there no chief of noble blood to win thy fickle smiles, that thou must elevate a base-born outcast to imperial sway?” Act II. (Wilson’s trans.)

c10.35

² Fleet, Gupta Inscriptions. In the Satapatha-Brāhmana we are told: “Unsuited for kingship is the Brāhmana.” In the Mahābhārata, the King is always described as a Kshatriya, but we find that Drona, a Brāhmana, was a king.

c10.36

After the establishment of a hereditary Kingship there grew up the theory of the divine origin of the institution. This theory is first hinted at in the later Vedic literature, and afterwards elaborated in the Epics, the Smritis, and the Purānas. The Atharva-Veda³ and some of the Brāhmanas⁴ contain the germs of the theory, and it is soon developed into a sort of political principle. Manu says, “ When these creatures, being without a King (arājake), through fear dispersed in all directions, the Lord created a King for the protection of the world, taking (for that purpose) eternal particles (mātran) of Indra (the King of the gods), of Anila (Wind), of Yama (the god of death), of Arka (the Sun), of Agni (the Fire), of Varuna (the Rain-god), of Chandra (the Moon), and of Kubera (the god of wealth).”¹ So, the Mahābhārata says, “ No one should disregard the King by taking him for a man, for he is really a high divinity in human form. The King assumes five different forms according to five different occasions. He becomes Agni, Āditya, Mrityu, Vaisravana, and Yama.”² And again, “ it is on account of his divine origin that the multitude obey his words of command, though he belongs to the same world and is possessed of similar limbs.”³

c10.37

³ Atharva-Veda, III. 3; III. 4; and IV. 22.

c10.38

⁴ In the Satapatha-Brāhmana, not only the King, but the Kshatriya class is described as having a divine origin. “And as to why a Rājanya shoots, he, the Rājanya, is manifestly of Prajāpati (the Lord of creatures): hence while being one, he rules over many.” V. 1, 5, 14.

c10.39

¹ Manu, VII. 3-4.

c10.40

² Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva, Sec. 68, sls. 40-41.

c10.41

³ Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva.

c10.42

Thus, the King in India was invested with something like a divine halo, but it was only a righteous monarch who was regarded as divine.⁴ The Hindu King’s claim was very different from the divine right— “ the right divine to govern wrong,” to use the words of a famous historian—which was claimed by the monarchs of Europe in the latter part of the Middle Ages. Kingship in India was a political office, and not the sphere of power of a fortunate individual. The King was the chief of the nation, and not the owner of the territory over which he ruled. The State existed for the well-being of the people, and the King held his position as the head of the State only in so far as he was expected to further such well-being.¹ Whatever might be the character of the monarchy on the surface, there is no doubt that at bottom the relations between the ruler and the ruled were contractual. It was in return for the services he rendered to the people that he received their obedience and their contributions for the maintenance of royalty. If it was the duty of the subjects to obey their King,² it was the duty of the King to promote the welfare of his subjects. The conception of the King as the servant of the State was one of

c10.43

⁴ The King was not a ‘devatā’ but only a ‘nara-devatā.’ The Sukranīti says, “ An unrighteous King is a demon (Raksho'msah).” The Sukranīti divides Kings into three classes, namely, Sāttvika, Rājasika, and Tāmasika. “ The King who observes his own duties, protects his subjects, performs all sacrifices, leads his army against his enemies, is charitable, forgiving and brave, and has no attachment to things of this world is a Sāttvika, and he attains salvation. That King who is the reverse of a Sāttvika King, who is devoid of pity, is full of pride and envy, and is untruthful is a Tāmasika King, and he goes to hell. A Rājasa King is one

c10.44

¹ Cf. Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva (R.P.), Sec. 59, sl. 70, where the protection of the citizens and the promotion of the welfare of the State are considered to be the two duties of the King. In the Rig-Veda, the King is described as the protector of the people (gopā janasya).

c10.45

² The Nitivākyāmrita says: “ The royal command should never be disobeyed by anybody.” Ch. XVII.

c10.46

who is vain, greedy, attached to objects of enjoyment, whose deeds are different from his words and thoughts, who is quarrelsome, who is fond of low company and intrigue, who is self-willed and regardless of the rules of Ethics and Politics; such a bad King after death reaches the state of the lower animals and of inanimate things.” Ch. I. sls. 30-34.

c10.47

the basic principles of political thought in Ancient India. Thus Bodhāyana says: “Let the King protect (his) subjects, receiving as his pay a sixth part (of their income).”¹ So also, Chānakya says: “As Kings are remunerated by the people, it is their duty to look to the interests of the State.”² In comparatively modern times, the Sukranīti expresses the same view. “(Brahma) created the King to be the servant of his subjects, and he is remunerated by a share of the produce. He assumes the character (of King) only for protecting (his subjects).”³ When the King failed to perform the duties of his office or injured the interests of society, the subjects were held absolved from their obligations. “A King,” says the Mahābhārata, “who is unable to protect, is useless. If the King fails in his duties, any person, no matter to what caste he belongs, may wield the sceptre of government.”⁴ The Sukranīti offers the following advice: “If the King is an enemy of virtue, morality, and power, and is unrighteous in conduct, the people should expel him as a destroyer of the State. And for the preservation of the State the Purohita (High Priest) should, with the consent of the people, place in his seat a member of the (royal) family who may be possessed of virtue.”⁵

c10.48

¹ Bodhāyana, I. 10, 1: “Ṣaḍbhāga-bhṛto rājā rakṣet prajām.”

c10.49

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. II.

c10.50

³ I. 255.

c10.51

⁴ Śānti Parva, Sec. 78, sl. 36. Vide also Manu, VII. 111-112.

c10.52

⁵ Ch. II. sls. 234-235.

c10.53

The powers of the King were limited. The idea of an autocratic (svatantra) ruler was not very congenial to the Hindu mind. An eminent writer on legal philosophy remarks: "Among the Āryan peoples there has never arisen that despotism which blots out man as in Egypt, Babylon, China, and among the Mussulman and Tartar tribes—or if it has appeared it has not been of long duration." ¹ This remark is as true of the Āryan people of India as of the Āryan races of the west. The King in India was never regarded as being "above the law." ²

c10.54

¹ Miraglia, Comparative Legal Philosophy, quoted in N. C. Sen Gupta's Origin of Society in India.

c10.55

² That the idea that the King was not above the law had a firm root in the minds of the people is made clear by the following story heard by Hiuen Tsiang about King Bimbisāra. In order to prevent fires in the capital, which had become rather frequent at the time, the King passed an ordinance to the effect that any person in whose house a fire should break out, would be banished to the "cold forest." One day a fire broke out in the Royal Palace. Then the King said to his Ministers: "I myself must be banished"; and he gave up the government to his eldest son and retired to the forest saying, "I wish to maintain the laws of the country. I therefore myself am going into exile." Buddhist Records, Bk. IX.

c10.56

It was the duty of the King always to act according to the rules laid down in the Sāstras, and in the practical application of these rules he had to follow the advice of the great Officers of State and, in cases of difficulty, to accept the guidance of the learned Brāhmanas. ³ The Aitareya Brāhmana prescribes the following oath for the King: "Whatever good I may have done (during my life), my position (in the next world), my life and my progeny be taken from me if I oppress you.”¹ The Mahābhārata tells the King: “Take the oath in mind, word and deed, namely, I shall always look to the welfare of the country regarding it as the Supreme Being. Whatever is law and whatever is prescribed by the rules of Ethics and Politics, I shall always abide by. I shall never be independent.”² “In governing his kingdom,” says Manu, “let him (i.e. the King) always observe the rules (vidhāna) : for a King who governs his kingdom well, easily prospers.”³ The Nitivākyāmrita is very emphatic as to the necessity of the King following the advice of his Ministers. It says: “He is not a King who acts without (or against) the advice of his Ministers.”⁴ The Sukranīti goes further in its condemnation of the independent action of a monarch when it remarks: “That King who does not listen to the advice of the Ministers is a robber (dasyu) in the disguise of a King, and is a thief (apahāraka) of the wealth of his subjects.”⁵ And it adds: “When the King acts independently (of his ministers) he brings ruin upon himself; he is deprived of his sovereignty and is turned out of the State.”¹ It should, however, be noted that in the latter part of the Hindu Period of Indian history, the power of the monarch was much greater than in the earlier, and that such increase of power did to some extent receive the sanction of the writers on Law and Politics; but at no time was the royal power, in theory at least, quite absolute. In practice, it is true, some Kings acted in an autocratic manner, but this must be regarded as a usurpation and abuse rather than a normal exercise of authority.

c10.57

³ Manu says: "Let the King, after rising early in the morning, worship the Brāhmanas, who are well versed in the threefold sacred science and learned (in polity), and follow their advice." VII. 37.

c10.58

¹ VIII. 4, 1, 13. I am indebted for this suggestion to an article in the Modern Review of Calcutta (1913) contributed by Mr. K. P. Jayasval.

c10.59

² Sānti Parva, Sec. 59.

c10.60

³ Manu, VII. 113.

c10.61

⁴ Somadeva Sūri’s Nitivākyāmrita, Ch. X. : “Na khalvasau rājā yaḥ mantriṇo ’tikramya vartate.”

c10.62

⁵ II. 257.

c10.63

¹ The Sukranīti adds: “The King who performs his duties in accordance with the rules of the Sāstras and practises self-control, becomes happy in this world and in the next.” I. 123.

c10.64

In the people lay the strength of the King, and it was their well-being to which he was expected to devote his constant attention. It was held unrighteous and inexpedient to excite popular discontent. The duties of the King, according to the Mahābhārata,² were: (1) to please the people;³ (2) to protect them; (3) always to seek their welfare; (4) to establish all his subjects in the observance of their respective duties; (5) to punish wrongdoers; and (6) to practise the virtues of promptitude, energy, truthfulness, self-restraint, humility, righteousness, fortitude, and compassion. The following passage, which occurs in the Milinda-panha, also gives us an idea of what the people thought to be the duties of the King. It runs thus: “The sovran overlord gains the favour of the people by the four elements of popularity (viz. liberality, affability, justice, and impartiality). . . . The sovran overlord allows no robber bands to form in his realm . . . travels through the whole world even to its own boundary, examining into the evil and the good . . . is completely provided with protection, both within and without.”¹

c10.65

² Arthasāstra, Bk. V. ch. 6. Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva (R.P.), Sec. 68.

c10.66

³ The advice to the King to please the people occurs again and again in the Rāmāyaṇa, in the Mahābhārata, and in works like the Arthasāstra, the Kāmandaki, and the Sukranīti. The Mahābhārata derives the word ‘rājan’ from ‘ranj’ (to please). The real meaning of the word, however, seems to be ‘one who shines.’

c10.67

¹ Questions of King Milinda (Rhys Davids), VII. 3.

c10.68

Translated into the language of modern Politics, these and other similar accounts would mean that the chief duties of the King were three-fold, namely, executive, judicial, and military. The King was the executive head of the State and the chief custodian of political authority,² and as such the most important of his duties was to preserve peace and security in the realm.³ It was as his servants that the State officials worked for the prevention of crimes and enforced the observance of the laws of the kingdom. All officers of the State were appointed and removed—directly or indirectly—by the King; they acted according to his commands, and were accountable for the exercise of their functions to him. The administration of justice was carried on in the name of the King, and sometimes he himself presided over the Royal Court of Justice.¹ It was he who gave effect to the judgments of the Law Courts, and exercised his prerogative of mercy in suitable cases. Though legislation was not among the powers entrusted to the King, yet royal edicts, at least so far as they related to administrative business, had the force of laws.² The King was also the supreme commander of the military forces of the country, and, not unfrequently, he personally led the army on the field of battle.³ The fame of a victorious warrior was much coveted by Kings of old, and there were not a few among them who were renowned far and wide for their prowess in battle.⁴ Among the minor duties of the King may be mentioned the guardianship of infants and the custody of the property of minors and others who were unable to take care of their own things.¹ The King was also, in a sense, the head of the society. He was the protector, though not the head, of religion;² and in his executive capacity he guided, and to some extent controlled, the religious and moral life of the people.

c10.69

² Kautilya says: “The King is the centre of the State (Kūṭa-sthānīya).” Arthasāstra, Bk. VIII. ch. 1.

c10.70

³ In the Satapatha-Brāhmana, the Kings are described as the realm-sustainers, “for it is they who sustain realms.” IX. 4, 1, 3.

c10.71

¹ See the Chapter on the Administration of Justice for a fuller treatment of this subject.

c10.72

² Cf. Macdonell, Vedic Index, II. p. 214. "There is no reference in early Vedic literature to the exercise of legislative activity by the King, though later it is an essential part of his duties."

c10.73

³ "Kings should acquire proficiency in Dharmasāstra, Arthasāstra, Nitisāstra, and in the arts of war. It is their paramount duty to fight and to do their utmost to win." Rāmāyana, Sundara Kānda, Sec. 48, sl. 14. According to Manu, "not to turn back in battle" is one of the best means for a King to secure happiness. VII. 88. Manu further says: "A King must not shrink from battle." That Manu's advice was followed in practice by Kings even in comparatively modern times is shown by the following extract from an inscription from Belgaum (1204 A.D.): "All the folk applaud him for his love for the spirit of liberty, a course (enjoined) by Manu associated with the triple domain, a nature by which he captured foemen's fastnesses . . . glorious was Kārtavīrya."

c10.74

⁴ See the Chapter on Conquest and Defence, in which this subject has been fully dealt with. The inscriptions found in different parts of India are full of the records of victories won by warrior-Kings.

c10.75

¹ Gautama, X. 48; Vasistha, XVI. 7-9; also Agni Purāna, Ch. CCXXII.

c10.76

² Asoka, however, made himself almost the head of the Buddhist Church. Some of the Kings of Ceylon also assumed something like supreme authority over the Church.

c10.77

The chief possessions of a King which, according to Chānakya, would enable him to properly perform his duties were: Noble birth, godlike intelligence, valour, ability to see through the eyes of experienced persons, love of virtue, truthfulness, straightforwardness, gratefulness, comprehensiveness of outlook (sthūla-laksha), enthusiasm, want of procrastination, resoluteness of spirit, and a Council of a fairly large size (akshudra-parishatka). Chānakya also mentions the following as the most important of the regal qualities: profound knowledge; good memory; a strong mind; enthusiasm for work; versatility; ability to confer rewards and inflict punishments; capacity to guard against dangers and calamities; dignity; foresight; readiness to avail one’s self of opportunities; ability to decide upon peace and war and to take advantage of the weak points of an enemy; ability to be humorous without loss of dignity; freedom from passion, wrath, greed, obstinacy, fickleness, and hatred; possession of a smiling countenance; and observance of customs enjoined by aged persons.¹

c10.78

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. VI. ch. 1.

c10.79

The Mahābhārata lays down the following thirty-six principles for the guidance of the King: The King should observe duties without malice and wrath; acquire wealth without persecution; never abandon kindness; pursue pleasure without attachment; utter what is agreeable; be brave without being boastful; be liberal; show prowess without cruelty; make alliances, avoiding those that are wicked; never act with hostility towards friends; never employ persons not devoted to him as his spies and secret agents; ever accomplish his objects without persecution; never disclose his purposes before persons that are wicked; speak of the merits of others but never of his own; take wealth from his subjects but never from those that are good; never employ or take the assistance of persons that are wicked; never inflict punishment without careful enquiry; never disclose his counsels; give away his wealth but not to covetous persons; repose confidence in others, but never in those who have injured him; never cherish malice; protect his wedded wives; be pure; never be melted by compassion; without pride pay respect to those that deserve it; serve his preceptors and seniors with sincerity; worship the gods without pride; seek prosperity, but never do anything that brings disgrace; wait (upon his seniors) with humility; be clever in business, but always wait for the proper moment; comfort men, and never send them away with empty speeches; never abandon a person who has once been taken into favour; never strike in ignorance; having slain a foe, never indulge in sorrow; display wrath, but only when there is an occasion; be mild, but never to those who have offended.”¹

c10.80

¹ The following extract from Abul Fazl’s summary of the duties of a King, according to Hindu Polity, is interesting as showing that the principles were widely known for long ages and that they were meant to be acted upon: “It is incumbent on a monarch to divest himself of avarice and anger by following the counsels of wisdom and not to debase himself by the commission of any of the crimes described above. If he unfortunately suffers injury from others it behoves him to be moderate in his resentments. It is his indispensable duty to fear God; to be just and merciful to himself, and to excite the like disposition in others; to pay particular respect to men of exalted rank, and behave with kindness and condescension towards subjects of every description. He should be ambitious to extend his dominions; and protect his subjects from the oppressions of his officers, from robbers and other evil doers, proportioning the punishment to the offence. In everything that concerns himself he should be patient, and forgiving of injuries.” Gladwin, Ayeen Akbery, p. 492.

c10.81

Every morning it was the custom for the King to repair to the Assembly Hall and enquire into the grievances of the people.² A good and wise King was expected to regulate his daily business according to a fixed time-table. Chānakya advises the King to divide the day and the night into eight equal parts each, and to arrange the daily duties in the following manner : 1

c10.82

² In one of the Ajantā paintings, the King is represented as seated on the throne with his usual female attendants behind him, and his Prime Minister seated on a low stool in front of him. A crowd in front is lodging a complaint against one who seems to be brought as a criminal. Fergusson and Burgess, Cave-temples of India, p. 313. From the Mudrā-Rākshasa, we know that Kings used to be guarded by female attendants (pratihārī).

c10.83

*I. Day-time :*

c10.84

(1) Deliberation upon the means of defence.
(2) Enquiry into the grievances of the people.
(3) Bath, meal, and study.
(4) Receiving accounts from cashiers and other officers.
(5) Meeting of the Privy Council.
(6) Recreation or taking Counsel with Ministers.
(7) Supervision of the elephant force, the cavalry, and the armoury.
(8) Consultation with the Commander-in-Chief about military matters.

c10.85

*II. Night-time :*

c10.86

(1) Receiving reports from the spies.
(2) Bath, meals, and study. (3), (4), and (5) Sleep.
(6) Reflection upon the Sāstras and upon Kingly duties.
(7) Taking counsel with Ministers and sending out spies.
(8) Performance of religious ceremonies.

c10.87

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 19. Chānakya says that this division should be made with the help of water-clocks (nālikā) or by observing the size of shadows (chhāyāpramānena). The Sukranīti also gives the King similar advice, but the time-table suggested therein is somewhat different. The twenty-four hours of the day and night are to be divided into thirty parts (muhūrtas), thus: Consideration of income and expenditure, 2 muhūrtas; Bath, 1; Religious observances, 2; Physical exercise, 1; Distribution

c10.88

It is not to be supposed that this time-table was followed in its entirety by any King, but there is little doubt that many monarchs performed their daily duties in accordance with a more or less fixed routine. But all monarchs, it seems, attended to urgent business at any hour of the day.¹

c10.89

¹ Kautilya says: “All urgent business he must attend to at once, and never put off, for when postponed, they will prove difficult or even impossible of accomplishment.” Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 19. According to Hiuen Tsiang, Harshavardhana “divided each day into three portions. During the first he occupied himself with the business of government; during the second he practised himself in religious devotion without interruption.” Buddhist Records (Beal), Bk. IV. p. 216.

c10.90

The standard by which Kings were judged in Ancient India was thus very high. This standard could only be reached, when, in the words of Plato, “philosophers are Kings, or the Kings and Princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom melt in one.”² Fortunately, tradition and history do furnish us with examples of such philosopher-kings in India. Tradition enshrines the memories of Rāma and Yudhishthira as the highest ideals of virtuous monarchs. Kālidāsa depicts Dilīpa as a great and wise King who always found his happiness in that of his subjects.³ In historical times, rulers like Asoka and Harshavardhana

c10.91

² Plato’s Republic (Jowett), V.

c10.92

³ Raghuvamsa.

c10.93

of rewards, 1; Receiving accounts from Officers of State, 4; Dinner, 1; Reflection on old and new events, 1; Consultation with judges, 1; Hunting and sport, 2; Parade of troops, 1; Religious observances, 1; Evening meal, 1; Business with spies, 1; and sleep, 8. Vide also Manu, VII. 145, etc., and Agni Purāna, Ch. CCXXXV.

c10.94

are known to have worked strenuously and unceasingly for the well-being of the State.¹ Asoka was an ascetic on the throne, whose principle of government was "protection by the Law of Piety, regulation by that Law, felicity by that Law."² "For the welfare of all folk," said Asoka, "is what I must work for—and the root of that again is in effort and the dispatch of business. And whatever exertions I make are for the end that I may discharge my debt to animate beings, and that while I make some happy here, they may in the next world gain heaven."³ Though Asoka worked exceedingly hard, he never felt full satisfaction in his effort and dispatch of business, and therefore he made the arrangement that "at all hours and all places—whether I am dining, or in the ladies' apartments, in my bedroom, or in my closet, in my carriage, or in the palace gardens—the official Reporters should report to me on the people's business, and I am ready to do the people's business in all places."⁴ Harsha also, like Asoka, was a royal ascetic. He personally supervised the affairs of his vast empire, and for the transaction of State business was incessantly on the move through his wide dominions.¹ Of him the admiring foreign traveller records, " His qualifications moved heaven and earth ; his sense of justice was admired by Devas and men. . . . His renown was spread abroad everywhere, and all his subjects reverenced his virtues."² "Through him," says the poet, "the earth does indeed possess a King (rājanvatī)."³

c10.95

¹ Kāmandaki says that the King should try his best to promote the welfare of the State in every possible way. Ch. VI. sl. 3; also Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva.

c10.96

² Rock Edict I.

c10.97

³ Rock Edict VI. Asoka adds: "For this purpose have I caused this pious edict to be written, that it may long endure and that my sons and grandsons may exert themselves for the welfare of all folk."

c10.98

⁴ Rock Edict VI.

c10.99

¹ Hiuen Tsiang says: "If it was necessary to transact business, he employed couriers who continually went and returned. If there was any irregularity in the manners of the people of the cities, he went amongst them. Wherever he moved he dwelt in a ready-made building during his sojourn. During the excessive rains of the three months he would not travel thus. . . ." Buddhist Records, Bk. IV. King Harsha was visiting different parts of the country, when he came to know of Hiuen Tsiang's presence in Kāmarūpa. In one of the Ceylon inscriptions we find that King Nissanka Malla not only "constantly viewed with the eyes of spies his own kingdom," but went on a tour of inspection through the three Kingdoms of Ceylon, visiting the villages, towns, cities and palaces difficult of access through water, hills, forests and marshes." Epigraphia Zeylanica, Vol. II. No. 1713.

c10.100

² Life of Hiuen Tsiang, p. 83. And again, "He is virtuous and patriotic ; all people celebrate his praises in songs." Ibid.

c10.101

³ Harsha-charita, Ch. II. Bāna describes Harsha in the most eulogistic terms: "This, then, is the Emperor Śrī Harsha, that union of separate glories (tejasām rāśiḥ), of noble birth, of befitting name, the lord of the earth bounded by the four oceans—the surpasser of all the victories won by all Kings of ancient times." Ch. II. And again, "No reign has been stainless except that of Harsha, King of Kings, sovereign of all countries." Ch. III. I have in the main followed the translation of Cowell and Thomas. Devānampiya Tissa of Ceylon is described in the Mahāvamsa as "the dispenser of happiness to his own subjects bearing the profoundly significant title of Devānam-piya (the beloved of the gods), exerting his powers to the utmost, and making Lankā overflow with rejoicings." Ch. XI.

c10.102

But while there were rulers who approached the grand ideal of what Kings should be, the majority of monarchs must have been men of the average type. And some of them even fell below the average. Indian history unfortunately preserves accounts of Kings whose incompetency and misdeeds brought destruction upon themselves and ruin on their country. Diodorus speaks of the King of Gangaridai as “a man of quite worthless character, and held in no respect.” ¹ Some Kings lived a life of dull idleness and ease, and were fond of a disgusting sort of pomp and luxury. Curtius says: “The luxury of their Kings, or, as they call it, their magnificence, is carried to a vicious extent without a parallel in the world.” ² “When the King,” records the historian, “condescends to show himself in public, his attendants carry in their hands silver censers and perfume with incense all the road by which it is his pleasure to be conveyed. He lolls in a golden palanquin garnished with pearls which dangle all around, and is robed in fine muslin embroidered with purple and gold. Behind his palanquin follow men-at-arms, and his bodyguards. The palace is adorned with gilded pillars clasped all around by a vine embossed in gold, while silver images of those birds which most charm the eye diversify the workmanship.” ³

c10.103

¹ Alexander's Invasion (McCrindle), p. 282.

c10.104

² Curtius, McCrindle's Alexander's Invasion, p. 188.

c10.105

³ Alexander's Invasion (McCrindle). As a rule, when the King went on procession he rode an elephant. The retinue of a Rājā is given in one of the cave-paintings at Ajaṇṭā. There he is described as going out on a large elephant with the Umbrella of State over his head and the ankuśa in his hand. Burgess, Buddhist Cave Temples.

c10.106

Nor were all Kings equally righteous in conduct. Some were greedy, not a few were tyrannical. “Kings are grasping,” says Milinda, “the princes might, in the lust of power, subjugate an extent of territory twice or thrice the size of what they had, but they would never give up what they already possessed.”¹ Again, Nāgasena says, “Some people have left the world in terror at the tyranny of Kings.”² The Rājataranginī, while it describes in glowing terms the splendid achievements of Lalitāditya and the beneficent administration of Avantivarman, also records the cruelty of Tārāpīda, the fiscal exactions of Sankaravarman, and the misrule of Harsha.

c10.107

¹ Questions of King Milinda, IV. 22. ² Questions of King Milinda, II. 1, 6. ³ “Rājyaṁ hi nāma rājadharmānuvṛtti-paratantrasya bhūpater mahad a pritisthānam.” Mudrā Rākshasa, Act III. ⁴ Mudrā Rākshasa, Act III. (Wilson’s trans.). Some of these lines are practically a quotation from Kāmandaki’s Nītisāra, Ch. VI. sl. 15.

c10.108

The position of a King in ancient times was not a very easy one. In the Sanskrit drama Mudrā-Rākshasa, Chandragupta is made to describe the difficulties of the King’s position in these words:

c10.109

“How irksome are the toils of State to those
Who hold their tasks as duties.³ Kings must have
Their own desires, and for the general good,
Forego their own advantage. But to lose
My own for others’ benefit makes me a slave,
And what would slaves know of sincere regard?
Fortune makes Kings her sport, and vain the hope
To fix the fickle wanton in her faith.
She flies the violent, disdains the mild,
Despises fools, the wise she disregards,
Derides the cowardly, and dreads the brave.”⁴

c10.110

Besides, the King’s life was constantly threatened by plots. Chāṇakya describes in detail the measures that had to be taken to ensure the safety of the King.¹ Although Strabo perhaps went a little too far when he asserted that the King at night was obliged from time to time to change his couch for fear of treachery, yet there can be little doubt that “in the midst of all the gold and glitter, and in spite of the most elaborate precautions, uneasy lay the head that wore the crown.”²

c10.111

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 21. Vide also Kāmandaki and Sukranīti. Manu says: “Let him mix all his food with medicines (that are) antidotes against poison, and let him always be careful to wear gems which destroy poison.” VII. 218. Hiuen Tsiang describes an attempt on the life of King Harshavardhana at the end of the great religious festival at Prayāg. Vide Buddhist Records (Beal).

c10.112

² Vincent Smith, Early History of India (1904), p. 11.

c10.113

Kings were of various grades, and were known by different titles according to their renown and extent of territory. The Sukranīti says that a ruler who receives a revenue of more than one lakh and less than three lakhs of silver karshas without oppressing his subjects, should be called a Sāmanta; one with an income of over three but below ten lakhs, a Māṇḍalika; one with up to twenty lakhs, a Rājā; up to fifty lakhs, a Mahārāja; up to a crore, a Svarāt; up to fifty crores, a Samrāt; and he who rules the whole earth should be known as a Sārvabhauma.³ It is not to be supposed, however, that the terms were ever used in these strict senses.

c10.114

³ II. 181-187. Besides these, in the inscriptions we come across some other terms, such as ‘Mahāmaṇḍalesvara’ and ‘Mahāsāmanta.’

c10.115

It was the custom for the would-be King to go through a period of apprenticeship as Crown Prince (Yuvarāja). On his attaining the proper age, the heir-apparent received a special inauguration.¹ Great importance was attached to the training of a Crown Prince in order that when he ascended the throne he might be able to discharge the duties of Kingship properly. As a knowledge of Politics was regarded as indispensable for Kings,² instruction in that science was imparted to him by distinguished professors and administrators.³ But what was more important was that he received practical training in the art of administration by being associated with the actual work of government.⁴ The Crown Prince was an important member of the Great Council, and, very often, he was the Governor of a Province or a Commander of the Army.⁵ Asoka, for instance, held the position of Governor in two provinces in succession during the lifetime of his father. Samudragupta acquired his renown as a warrior while he was still a Prince.¹ Rājyavardhana was sent by his father King Prabhākara-vardhana as the Commander-in-Chief of the army to fight against the Huns.² If the Crown Prince showed conspicuous ability, he was sometimes chosen to act as a sort of Sub-King (Uparāja) or Prince Regent with almost all the powers of a Sovereign. Occasionally, an old King would retire from the worries of Kingship and abdicate in favour of the Crown Prince.³

c10.116

¹ The main plot of the Rāmāyaṇa commences with Dasaratha’s preparations for inaugurating Rāma as Crown Prince. In the Mahābhārata, Yudhishthira is inaugurated as Yuvarāja.

c10.117

² According to the Sukranīti, a knowledge of Political Science was held absolutely essential for a King. “The primary duties of the King are the protection of his subjects and the punishment of wrong-doers; but neither of these duties can be performed without the help of the Nītisāstra.” Ch. I. sls. 14-15; see also Kāmandaki.

c10.118

³ Kautilya says: “The Prince should be instructed by professors and practical administrators (vaktrprayoktrbhyaḥ).” Vide also Agni Purāṇa, CCXXV.

c10.119

⁴ “In the Mahāvamsa, Vijaya is described as a Prince Regent whose mal-administration led to discontent and ultimately to his own banishment. The Crown Prince used to have his own Minister whose title was ‘Kumārāmātya’.” We come across this term in many of the inscriptions.

c10.120

⁵ Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 17.

c10.121

¹ Vide Gupta Inscriptions (Fleet).

c10.122

² Vide Harsha-charita.

c10.123

³ In the Rājataranginī, we read accounts of such abdication. Yudhishthira’s abdication is thus described in the Mahābhārata : “ Yudhishthira arranged that Parikshit should rule in Hastinapura. He summoned all his subjects and informed them of his intentions. The citizens as well as the inhabitants of the provinces, hearing the King’s words, became filled with anxiety and disapproved of the proposal. ‘This should never be done,’ said they to the King. But he at last succeeded in persuading the people to sanction his proposal. Then Yudhishthira and his brothers and Draupadī all cast off their ornaments and clothes, wore the bark of trees, and set out for the forest.” Mahāprasthānika Parva, Sec. I. Nissanka-Malla of Ceylon, for instance, is described in an inscription as a Sub-King before his accession to the throne.

c10.124

So much about the institution of Kingship. We shall conclude this chapter with a short description of some of the ceremonies connected with Kingship. Great importance was in early times attached to those ceremonies. The most important of the sacrifices performed by Kings were Rājasūya, Vājapeya, Asvamedha, and Aindra Mahābhisheka. The Rā-sūya or Consecration sacrifice is thus described in the Satapatha-Brāhmana : First of all, hymns are chanted, and prayers are offered to the gods with libations of soma. Then a throne-seat is brought for the King which the Priest (Adhvaryu) spreads before him with the words, “This is thy Kingship,” whereby he endows him with royal power. He then makes him sit down, with the words, “Thou art the ruler, the ruling lord!” whereby he makes him the ruler, ruling over those his subjects. Then he says, “Thou art firm and steadfast!” whereby he makes him firm and steadfast in the world. Thereupon taking hold of the sacrificer by the right arm, the Adhvaryu mutters, “May Savitṛ quicken thee for (powers of) quickening (ruling). . . . Quicken him, O Gods, to be unrivalled. Quicken him, O Gods, so as to be without an enemy,—for great chiefdom, for great lordship, for the ruling of men.” He then presents the sacrificer to the people with the words, “This man, O ye (people), is your King, Soma is the King of us Brāhmaṇas.” Then the Priest sprinkles him with water and utters mantras. He then invests the King with the consecration garments, and hands to him a bow and three arrows with the words, “Protect ye him in front! Protect ye him behind! Protect ye him from the sides! Protect ye him from all quarters!” Thereupon he makes him pronounce the avid (announcement) formulas. He thus announces him to Prajāpati, to the priesthood, to the nobility, to Mitra and Varuna (the upholders of the Law), to Heaven and Earth, and to the deities, and they approve of his consecration, and approved by them he is consecrated.¹

c10.125

¹ Satapatha-Brāhmana (Eggeling), Bk. V. The Rājasūya sacrifice of Yudhishthira is described in Mahābhārata, Sabhā Parva (Rājasūyika P.), Secs. XXXIII.-XXXVI. On this occasion, the greatest Rishis are said to have officiated as priests, and all the great Kings and chiefs are said to have been present.

c10.126

Another sacrifice was the Vājapeya, which used originally to be performed by a King who aspired to the imperial title. “By performing the Rājasūya one becomes King (Rājā), and by the Vājapeya, Emperor (Samrāt); and the position of the King is (obtained) first, and thereafter that of Emperor.”² In later years, however, the Vājapeya seems to have lost its importance and to have become a sacrifice preliminary to the Rājasūya.

First 125 of 132 passages. Read on

Linked texts (26)