Public Administration in Ancient India c10.19

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