Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c7: Chapter II. The Central Administration

Hindu Administrative Institutions c7

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. The Central Administration

I. General Principles

c7.s1.1

THE executive edifice in ancient India was strong and enduring. It was not complex in character. At its apex stood the king, the executive head who practically controlled the state. The king was not a mere ornamental figure but a true official guiding the destinies of the kingdom. A king is generally known by the expression *rājan*, *nṛpa*. The word *rājan* is derived from the root रञ् to please—implying that a king makes his subjects always happy by ruling justly.¹ The other expression *nṛpa* is from नृन् पालयति, he who affords protection to his subjects. That this was an axiom traditionally acquiesced in is seen from an inscription of the Jain king, Kharavela (165 B.C.), and from a statement in the Buddhist canon ‘*dhammēna parē rañjēti kho Vāseṭṭha rāja*,² *rājā he evatatiyaṃ akkharaṃ Upanibbattam*.’

c7.s1.2

¹ रंजिताश्च प्रजाः सर्वास्तेन राजेति शब्दयते । (Śānti Parvan, lviii. 133.)

c7.s1.3

² Dīgha Nikāya, vol. iii, p. 93 (Aggañña Suttanta).

c7.s1.4

It would be interesting to discuss the origin of the institution of monarchy and consider whether it was hereditary or elective in character, and how far it was arbitrary or amenable to law. The origin of kingship in ancient India is shrouded in mystery. Various theories are advanced to substantiate differing points of view. The generally accepted theories are four and may be stated categorically: (1) divine origin, (2) origin in war, (3) the theory of contract, and (4) the theory of elective kingship.¹

c7.s1.5

¹ *Hindu Polity*, part ii, pp. 3-15.

(i) The Theory of Divine Origin

c7.s2.1

Dr. Ghosal in his *Hindu Political Theories* may be regarded as a notable contributor to this subject without disparagement to other enthusiastic students, who are adding to our knowledge by unfolding the history of ancient India.

c7.s2.2

To begin with, the divine origin of kings was a common notion among the ancient peoples of the world. In a long chapter on the ‘Evolution of kingship’, Dr. Narendranāth Law² critically reviews this subject especially on the basis of Sir James Frazer’s *Golden Bough*, and comes to the conclusion that there had been an age of magic before religion evolved and that the evolution of the latter was due to the growing inefficacy of magic. The belief was that in all Aryan countries the kings possessed magical or supernatural powers by which they could confer material benefit on their subjects. Frazer refers among others to the verse of Manu³ in speaking of the supernatural powers of the ancient Hindu kings. Manu⁴ says that even a baby king should not be disregarded under the impression that he is an ordinary mortal. He is a deity though human in form. Thus there is the one theory that kingship grew out of magic.

c7.s2.3

² *Ancient Indian Polity*, ch. viii and especially, pp. 112-13.

c7.s2.4

³ ' यत्र वर्जयते राजा पापकृद्भ्यो धनागमम् । तत्र कालेन जायन्ते मानवा दीर्घजीविनः ॥ (Manusamhita, ix, 246.)

c7.s2.5

⁴ ' बालोऽपि नावमन्तव्यो मनुष्य इति भूमिपः । महती देवता ह्येषा नररूपेनतिष्ठति ॥ (vii. 8 ff.)

c7.s2.6

The divine theory of kingship is commonly found in the law-books, the *Mahābhārata* and even some of the *Purāṇas*. Brahma created the king for protecting all creatures with justice.¹ We have already drawn attention to Manu's idea of kingship.² As the king is conceived to be a deity in human form, one must not incur his displeasure. His anger is fire that will burn all the family with its hoard. His law or orders, must not be transgressed lest the culprit be consumed by his wrath.³ These views of the Law-giver more or less find mention in the *Śānti Parvan*.⁴ Here Bhīṣma speaks of the king as god Indra himself. The following is the substance of Bhīṣma's speech.

c7.s2.7

¹ दण्डप्रणयनार्थाय राजासृष्टः स्वयंभुवा । देवभागातुपादाय सर्वभूतादि गुप्तये ॥ (*Matsyapurāṇa*, ccxxvi. 1.)

c7.s2.8

² *Supra*, p. 57.

c7.s2.9

³ Manu, vii. 8 ff.

c7.s2.10

⁴ Ch. lxvii. 40 ff.

c7.s2.11

The consecration of the king is the first business of the state. Otherwise there will be trouble from undesirables. There will be anarchy. There is Vedic authority to regard the king as Indra himself. He must be honoured like Indra. In a kingless state there will be no *dharma*. If a king of a neighbouring state invades the kingless country, the people of the latter should not resist him but honour him duly. For the hand of protection of the king will tend towards the welfare of the state. If a superior king should become aggressive he would swallow the inferior powers. The cow that yields milk easily must not be put to trouble during milking. The tree that bends of itself need not be bent by artificial means. Hence the superior power must always be obeyed. In a kingless state property or family will not be safe. Even the wicked will not feel happy. On this account the gods appointed a king. In ancient days when anarchy was rampant the people made an agreement among themselves. He must be abandoned who speaks bombastically, who is cruel in acts, is voluptuous and encroaches on other's property. Sometime after, they approached Brahma, with prayerful respects, for a king. Then Brahma ordered Manu to be the king. The latter refused the offer saying that it would mean shouldering heavy responsibility, and that an attempt to rule over the country which was full of the wicked and the untruthful would be a trying task. On this the people entered into a contract by which they agreed to give him 1/50 of the cows, 1/50 of gold, 1/10 of grains, a beautiful maiden as queen and a bodyguard. In return they asked for the destruction of their enemies so that they might lead quiet lives. He agreed and with a great army set out for the conquest of all quarters. His refulgence and prowess made the people tremble in fear and in consequence they followed their *svadharma*.¹

c7.s2.12

¹ *Śānti Parvan*, cf. 66, *supra*, pp. 16-17.

c7.s2.13

It is said² that subjects must be loyal to the monarch as a student to his preceptor, and the gods to Indra, the lord of Heaven. If a king's subjects be loyal his enemies would be afraid to insult him. To insult the king is to insult the state with all its people. Kings should be honoured with valuable presents. The king must in his turn be true and faithful to his subjects and put on a smiling face and speak soft and sweet words to every one that approaches him. These facts show in no uncertain terms that India did not develop a theocratic state as did mediæval Europe.

c7.s2.14

² *Ibid.*, 66, 34 ff.

c7.s2.15

It would thus appear that the duty of the protection of subjects by a king is divinely ordained. This doctrine of the divine nature of the king was formulated, according to Dr. Ghosal, with the deliberate object of countering the tendencies inherent in the older theory of kingship.¹ The idea underlying this is that the monarch was the highest official, paid for his services like every other ordinary officer. To counter unhealthy tendencies the authors of the *Dharmaśāstras* and the *Arthaśāstras* contrived to hedge the king with divinity familiar with Hindu political theory.² According to Manu in a kingless state when anarchy became rampant a king was created by the divine will, for affording protection to all creatures, out of elements from Indra, Vāyu, Yama, Sun, Agni, Varuṇa, Moon, and Kubera.

c7.s2.16

¹ *Hindu Political Theories*, p. 172.

c7.s2.17

² > अराजके हि लोकेऽस्मिन् सर्वतो विद्रुते भयात् ।

c7.s2.18

The account of the origin of the king in chapter (lviii) of the *Śānti Parvan* is in keeping with the Vedic tradition found in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*.³ In the latter the very Kṣatriya class (*rājanya*) is described as having a divine origin. The *Bṛhaddharma Purāṇa* mentions that the king assumes not the form of one deity, but the forms of five deities, and therefore, he must be above censure and reproach.⁴ But, according to the *Mahābhārata*, a king becomes a king only after the ceremony of consecration by the subjects.⁵ (The Hindu concep-

c7.s2.19

³ V. 3, 5. 4 and 1.5.14 ; *S. B. E.*, vol. xli.

c7.s2.20

⁴ *Uttarakāṇḍa*, iii. 6-7.

c7.s2.21

⁵ *Śānti Parvan*, lxvi. 2.

c7.s2.22

रक्षार्थस्य सर्वस्य राजानमसृजत्प्रभुः ॥
इन्द्रानिलयमार्काणामग्नेश्च वरुणस्य च ।
चन्द्रवित्तेशयोश्चैव मात्रा निर्हृत्य शाश्वतः ॥ (vii. 3, 4.)

c7.s2.23

tion of the power of the king was, unlike the divine right of the Stuarts, the divinely ordained duty to afford protection to his subjects.¹ Pramathanath Banerjee thinks that only a righteous monarch was regarded as divine,² and notes that the king was not a *devata* but only a *naradevata* and seems to base his conclusion on the authority of Śukrāchārya who says that an unrighteous monarch is a demon.³ But Dr. Ghosal cites the concluding verse of chap. lviii of *Śanti Parvan*, and argues that the king is equal (*tulya*) to a *devata* and not a mere *naradevata*,⁴ adding the remark that Śukra’s theory is peculiar to him and not shared by other Hindu writers. This remark implies that Śukra develops a polity of his own, or rather breaks away from the long continued Hindu tradition. Śukrāchārya has not sacrificed tradition in the least; on the other hand he has greatly amplified the political philosophy of his time. A king is after all a man, an ordinary human being. It is the ceremony of consecration which invests him with sovereign powers and duties, and so long as he maintains this position by the observance of rules laid down he is entitled to respect as a *devata*. He is not, therefore, *devata* in essence, but a *nara-devata*. He is *devata* in the sense that he awards *abhaya* to his subjects, the nature of this *abhaya* being protection from internal and

c7.s2.24

¹ सर्वस्यास्य यथान्यायं कर्तव्यं परिरक्षणं । रक्षार्थमस्य सर्वस्य राजानमसृजत्प्रभुः ॥ (Manu, vii. 2 and 3.)

c7.s2.25

² *Public Administration in Ancient India*, p. 71; see Carmichael Lectures, 1918, pp. 126-27.

c7.s2.26

³ Ch. i, *ślokas* 30-34.

c7.s2.27

⁴ *Hindu Political Theories*, p. 183.

c7.s2.28

ततोजगति राजेन्द्र सततं शब्दितं बुधैः ।
देवाश्च नरदेवाश्च तुल्या इति विशांपते ॥ (ch. lviii, 183.)

c7.s2.29

external enemies of the state. It is not, however, the eternal *abhaya* of the Lord, for it is said that a weak monarch who is also a *naradevata*¹ must succumb before a powerful conqueror. Otherwise the consequences will be the harassing of his subjects and the plunder of his territory. Unless we would perpetuate a hierarchy of weak *devatās* and strong *devatās*, these could not be said to be *devatās*. The theory that a king is a *devata* has no leg to stand on.

c7.s2.30

¹ Such epithets are not peculiar to political literature. We often meet with expressions like राजसिंह and नरशार्दूल meaning, the lion among kings, and the tiger among men respectively.

Origin in War

c7.s2.t1.1

The second theory of the origin of kingship is the Vedic theory of origin in war.² To quote Mr. Jayaswal there was a contest between the *devas* and the *asuras*. The latter were victorious. The *devas* attributed their defeat to the fact that they had no king while the *asuras* had a king. Hence they resolved to elect one. All agreed. Jayaswal comments, ‘if it had a historical reference it would refer to the tribal stage of the Aryans in India and it would suggest that the institution of kingship was borrowed from the Dravidians.’³ This seems to point to a period of culture when people were still leading a tribal life and had not an organized form of government. The text of the *Aitarēya* *Brāhmaṇa* suggests the theory that kingship originated in war. It may provide authority for the theory of election as well.

c7.s2.t1.2

² *Aitarēya Brāhmaṇa*, i. 14. देवासुरा वा एषु लोकेषु समयतंत..........तांस्ततोऽसुरा अजयन् . . . . . देवा अब्रुवन्नराजतया वै नोजयंति राजानं करवामहा इति तथेति ॥.

c7.s2.t1.3

³ *Hindu Polity*, pt. ii, pp. 4-5.

The Theory of Contract

c7.s2.t2.1

Another theory of the origin of the institution of monarchy is the individualistic theory which prevailed in the West in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is well known as the theory of contract. According to it the relationship between the ruler and the ruled was contractual. Such contractual relations find unmistakable expression in the Buddhist canon. From here is traced the origin of human kingship, with its notion of agreement as the basis of the political order.

c7.s2.t2.2

In this connection we cannot refrain from referring to the oft-quoted passage in the *Dīgha Nikāya*.¹ At first there was the original state of nature when everything was perfect and people lived in comfort. When decline began in the perfect state of innocence in nature, people assembled together to elect a king—a powerful individual from among them. He was called the Great Elect (*Mahāsammata*). A somewhat similar conception is seen in the *Mahāvastu Avadāna*.² These ideas correspond roughly to our modern conception of social contract. The idea of taxation and protection is involved here. Ghosal says that the Buddhist theory of contract virtually exists as an isolated phenomenon in the history of Hindu political thought.³ We quote Jayaswal in reply. ‘This theory of contractual monarchy found support in Vedic hymns and songs of royal election, in rituals of royal consecration which were based on elective principles, and in the coronation oath which made the king swear that he would rule according to law.'¹

c7.s2.t2.3

¹ *Aggañña Suttanta*, vol. iii, p. 93, P. T. S. Edition.

c7.s2.t2.4

² Senart’s Ed., vol. i, pp. 247-48.

c7.s2.t2.5

³ *Vide Hindu Political Theories*, pp. 118 and 119; the *Mahāvaṃśa*, chap. ii, pp. 10-11.

c7.s2.t2.6

¹ *Hindu Polity*, part ii, pp. 5-6.

c7.s2.t2.7

The notion then of taxation and protection underlying the Buddhist theory is not alien to Hindu literature. *Baudhāyana*² lays down that a king could claim one-sixth in the shape of tax and in return offer protection for the welfare of his subjects, and refers to the Brahmanical notion of the origin of kingship. The idea of compact is further seen from chapter lxvi of the *Śānti Parvan* and is postulated in the *Raghuvamśa*, i. 11 and 18. The *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭalya states thus:

c7.s2.t2.8

² 1. 10. 18. 1.

c7.s2.t2.9

इन्द्रयमस्थानमेतत् राजानः प्रत्यक्षहेतुप्रसादाः । तान् अवमन्यमानान् दैवोऽपि दण्डः स्पृशति तस्मान्राजानो नावमन्तव्याः । (i. 9.)

c7.s2.t2.10

This is commonly believed by scholars to explain the principle underlying the theory of divine origin. Kauṭalya no doubt invests the monarch with divine halo; his object clearly is not to ascribe a divine origin to the king but to describe his position in expressive terms.

c7.s2.t2.11

If any comparison could be made with the views of the modern writers on political theory, then the theory of Hindu writers approaches closely that of Hobbes whilst that of the Buddhist canon resembles the theory of Locke.

c7.s2.t2.12

Whatever may be the origin from which the institution of monarchy took its rise in ancient India, one fact is obvious: the elective principle plays an important part. Even where the character of monarchy is hereditary, the principle of election appears in one form or other. In the very ceremony of consecration we notice how the principle of election is an underlying factor. As a general rule monarchies were hereditary in India though the physical fitness of the succeeding monarch was an essential condition. Ancient India had two important lines of kings: the one of the solar race (सूर्यवंश) and the other of the lunar race (चंद्रवंश). The genealogy of these kings is found in all the Purāṇic texts which F. E. Pargiter has made an attempt to collate in his works *Ancient Indian Historical Tradition* and *Purāṇic Dynasties of the Kali Age*. Kālidāsa's *Raghuvamśa* shows how the principle of hereditary right was recognized and enforced. But still before the coronation, acquiescence of the *Prakṛti* (people) was a necessary factor of the utmost importance. That the notion of election is as old as the Vedic period is however clear. People assembled in what was known as the *samiti* to elect the king. There was to be no dissenting voice. The Vedic hymn of election is found in our oldest literature, the *Rig Veda Saṃhita*:

c7.s2.t2.13

आत्वाहार्यमंतरेधि ध्रुवस्तिष्ठाविचाचलिः ।
विशस्त्व सर्वा वांछंतु मा वद्राष्ट्रमधि भ्रशत् ॥ १ ॥
इहैवैधि मायच्योष्टाः पर्वत इव विचाचलिः ।
इंद्र इवेह ध्रुवस्तिष्ठेह राष्ट्रमुधारय ॥ २ ॥
. . . . .
ध्रुवं ध्रुवेण हविषाभिसोमं मृशामसि ।
अथोत इंद्रः केवलोर्विशो बलिहृतस्करत् ॥ ६ ॥ (x. 173.)

c7.s2.t2.14

More or less the same hymn occurs in the *Atharva Veda*.¹ According to the *Rig Veda Saṃhita*² the king was the sole taker of taxes and was offered a raised throne-seat. Jayaswal reads into this text an important interpretation, namely, that it signifies that the idea of state as an organism was realized even in Vedic days. The king's seat as the highest part in the body-politic is also seen in a text of the *Atharva Veda*.¹ From this

c7.s2.t2.15

¹ vi. 87-88, quoted in *Hindu Polity*, part. ii, p. 7.

c7.s2.t2.16

² x. 173. 6.

c7.s2.t2.17

¹ *Hindu Polity*, part ii, pp. 8-9.

c7.s2.t2.18

त्वां विशो वृणतां राज्याय त्वामिमाः प्रदिशः पञ्चदेव्यः ।
वर्ष्मन् राष्ट्रस्य ककुदि श्रयस्व ततो न उग्रो विभजा वसूनि । (iii. 4. 2.)

c7.s2.t2.19

Jayaswal thinks that there was the re-election of a *Rāja* who had been banished from the state for misconduct or other sufficient reason. Whatever it may be, election of a monarch was a settled idea and prevailed side by side with the hereditary notions of monarchy.

c7.s2.t2.20

In this connection is worth noting the acceptance and the possession by the king of an armlet called *maṇi* made of *palāśa* wood. According to the *Brāhmaṇas* these *maṇis* were presented by the ‘king-makers’, probably the higher officials of the state, namely, the ministers and the councillors. In the Buddhist work *Dīgha Nikāya*² there is an unmistakable reference to these *rājakartas* who belonged to the class of nobility. The jewel was also known by other names *parṇa*, *ratna*. Hence these king-makers went by the name *ratnins*. This was only a later introduction while in early Vedic times it was the custom for the king to receive this armlet from the folkmoot perhaps assembled on the great occasion of his election. Even workmen and artizans engaged in metallurgy and chariot-building had a right to take part in the proceedings of this popular assembly. On the receipt of this armlet from the folk assembled, the king made a speech in reply suitable to the occasion in which he invoked the assistance of all the people for successfully manning the ship of the state.¹ The term *viś* refers to this institution of folkmoot.² The re-election of exiled princes and the deposition of existing monarchs³ were rights enjoyed by the commonalty of the realm.

c7.s2.t2.21

² *Mahāgovinda Suttanta*, vol. ii, p. 233 : *rāja kattāro bhavantaṃ Reṇum rajje abhisin̄ceyyum*.

c7.s2.t2.22

¹ *Atharva Veda*, iii. 5. 6-7.

c7.s2.t2.23

² iii. 4. 6.

c7.s2.t2.24

³ *Atharva Veda*, vi. 8. 7.

c7.s2.t2.25

Historical instances of the deposition of ruling princes are not wanting. The useless and unworthy Vena was deposed and, what was more, executed. The deposition of Richard II was due to similar reasons but he did not meet the same fate as Vena.⁴

c7.s2.t2.26

⁴ *Śanti Parvan*, lviii. 103-10.

c7.s2.t2.27

Examples again corresponding to the glorious Revolution of 1688 are not unknown to Indian history. There are several cases in which the reigning king was expelled and a new dynasty was founded by the general will of the people. When king Nāgadāsaka pursued the path of *adharma* the anger of the people led not only to his deposition, but to the condemnation of the whole of his family as unfit to hold the reins of government. On this the Śiśunāga dynasty was established in B.C. 602.⁵ The same reason led to the dethronement of the royal family of the Nandas in Magadha and the founding of the Maurya dynasty by Kauṭalya and other responsible persons as could be gathered from the *Vāyu* and *Matsya Purāṇas*.⁶

c7.s2.t2.28

⁵ *Mahāvaṃśa*, chap. iv, p. 19.

c7.s2.t2.29

⁶ > ततः प्रभृति राजानो भविष्य्याः शूद्रयोनयः

c7.s2.t2.30

एकराट् स महापद्म एकच्छत्रो भविष्यति ।
. . . . .
सहस्रस्तत्सुता ह्यष्टौ समा द्वादश तेनृपाः ।
महापद्मस्य पर्याये भविष्यन्ति नृपाः क्रमात् ॥

c7.s2.t2.31

Another case of popular election¹ is that of Gopāla (c. 730-40) the son of a successful soldier who was asked by the people to accept the throne. Gopāla thus became the founder of the Pāla Empire of Bengal and Eastern India. This is what is meant by the following and other similar statements:

c7.s2.t2.32

¹ B. K. Sirkar, *Political Institutions*, p. 85.

c7.s2.t2.33

‘Thy opponents shall call thee. Thy friends have chosen thee.’²

c7.s2.t2.34

² *Atharva Veda*, iii. 3, 5.

c7.s2.t2.35

These demonstrate the fact that the office of the king was a creation of the people and the king held the throne conditionally, that is, under definite terms. Any violation of these agreed terms would lead to the banishment or deposition of the ruler. But this principle of election did not negative that of hereditary right. This was not interfered with except in extreme circumstances. The eldest son of king Nahuṣa turning an ascetic, his next brother Yayāti became the king. Dhṛtarāṣṭra being blind, Pāṇḍu his junior became the king. Bharata was installed the crown prince though Rāma was the eldest. Devāpi who suffered from skin disease was declared by the people as unfit to succeed as king, though his father the Kuru King Pratīpa wished for it. His second son Bāhlika having been adopted by maternal uncle, became also unfit to be the legal heir. Hence the third

c7.s2.t2.36

उद्धरिष्यति तान् सर्वान् कौटिल्यो वै द्विरष्टभिः ।
भुक्त्वा महीं वर्षशतं नन्देन्दुः स भविष्यति ॥
चन्द्रगुप्तं नृपं राज्ये कौटिल्यः स्थापयिष्यति ।
चतुर्विंशत्समा राजा चन्द्रगुप्तो भविष्यति ॥ (*Vāyu*, ch. 37. 321 ff.)

c7.s2.t2.37

*Bibliotheca Indica*, vol. ii, p. 449. Cf. *Matsya*, ch. cclxxi. 18, 22 (*Ānandaśrama* series, p. 553), *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*, Bk. xii, ch. i.

c7.s2.t2.38

and the last, Santanu was elected king by the people.¹ The rule was that by legal authority the younger brother had no right of succession when there was the elder.² But there were exceptions to this rule.³ From the foregoing accounts of Pratīpa and others we can safely conclude that kings were legally powerless in the matter of deciding their successors. They could, however, nominate one provided the nomination likely to be acceptable to the common will.

c7.s2.t2.39

¹ Mahābhārata, Udyoga Parvan, cxlix. 14-29.

c7.s2.t2.40

² इक्ष्वाकूणां हि सर्वेषां राजा भवति पूर्वजः । पूर्वेनावरः पुत्रो राज्येऽभिषिच्यते ॥ (Rāmāyaṇa, ii. 110. 34.)

c7.s2.t2.41

³ एवं ज्येष्ठोऽप्यथोत्सिक्तो न राज्येऽभिजायते । यत्रोयां सोपि जायन्ते राज्यं वृद्धोपसेवया ॥ (Udyoga Parvan, cxlix. 13.,

c7.s2.t2.42

Professor Hopkins holds that physical defects were no serious bar to succession to the throne. We cannot follow the learned scholar. Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s ruling the country for a short time after Pāṇḍu’s death, and Bharata’s being installed as the crown prince temporarily were inevitable, having been the result of causes beyond human control. As temporary measures people acquiesced in these arrangements. These would undoubtedly have met with vehement opposition from the public if these had been permanent measures.⁴

c7.s2.t2.43

⁴ J.A.O.S., vol. xiii, pp. 143 and 144; see Ancient Indian Polity, pp. 58-59.

c7.s2.t2.44

There is the other interesting question whether kings were elected for life or for a period of time. Kingship does not appear to have been limited in ancient India to any fixed period though such limitation was insisted on in other countries. Kingship was undoubtedly for life. But a king might abdicate the throne voluntarily.¹ Besides the theory of abdication in the *Kauṭalīya*, there is, in the *Mahāprasthānika Parvan* of the *Mahābhārata*, a practical instance of abdication where Yudhiṣṭhira abdicates in favour of Parīkṣit.² People did not at first consent to his abdication, but after much persuasion it commended itself to their approval. Then Yudhiṣṭhira, his brothers and Draupadī laid aside all royal ornaments and robes, and, dressing themselves in garments of fibre, started for the woods. Such abdications were usual in cases of extreme old age, or other physical disability, or because of a strong inclination for the performance of penance. Śīradhvaja Janaka, the father of Sītā and father-in-law of Rāma, went to the forest to do penance after relinquishing his throne. His is only one case among many who practised likewise. Otherwise there seem to have been no definite cases where the office of monarchy was fixed to any periodical limits.

c7.s2.t2.45

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. v. 6.

c7.s2.t2.46

² *Mbh.*, Bk. xvii, ch. 1.

c7.s2.t2.47

But periodical interregnums seem to have been a feature of our ancient Indian governments. Kauṭalya says³ let a kingless state be governed by a *kula*. If not there would be the evil consequences of a state without a head, namely, anarchy. Again in the *Mahāvaṃśa*⁴ after the death of the king of Lanka, Vijaya, the ministers took the reins of government for a period of one year till the nephew of the late king who was absent in India, was crowned king on his return.

c7.s2.t2.48

³ कुलस्य वा भवेद्राज्यं कुलसंघो हि दुर्जयः । अराजव्यसनाबाधः शश्वदावसति क्षितम् ॥ (Bk., i, sec. 17.)

c7.s2.t2.49

⁴ Ch. viii, p. 67.

c7.s2.t2.50

The character of ancient Indian monarchy was both hereditary and elective. It was elective in the sense that people acquiesced in the choice.¹ The principle of election worked not in conflict but in mutual harmony. We can call it a democratic monarchy because the *sabha*, the *viś*, and then the *samiti*, and then the *purohita* body decided the validity or otherwise of the succession to the monarchy. Even after election these exercised a check and influence over the conduct of the king. Each of these was a representative body of the whole people in the true sense of the term. It was democratic in the sense that the people had real control over the conduct of the king and even exercised rights of exclusion. The Atharva Veda hymn already quoted² refers undoubtedly to the re-entertainment of an exiled king. When the elected monarch had gone through the ceremony of consecration, the people felt it their duty to render unquestionable and full obedience to him. They paid him ungrudgingly the taxes that were due, and showed him the honours which one renders only to a deity. Therefore the theory of the divine right which James I of England claimed was not in India pushed to its extreme limits. People accepted divinity in a king only so far as he conducted himself properly and in a constitutional manner in the affairs of state. It was for the people to respect him because he possessed that divinity in him. It was not for the king, however, to abuse that right because it was accorded to him by general consent. There was thus an elasticity about the whole system. If the monarch proved to be absolute or despotic and therefore overruled the principle of protection, then the people entered an emphatic protest and asked him to redress their grievances. Failing this they rose in revolt and removed him.

c7.s2.t2.51

¹ J. A. O. S., vol. xiii, p. 143.

c7.s2.t2.52

² Supra, p. 65.

c7.s2.t2.53

in his exalted position. This fear made ing to the laws of the land while the people made them save themselves from emies to render unquestionable obedience

c7.s2.t2.54

general impression still prevails that the an monarchy was despotic in character. It mpression and does not rest on any valid of fact.¹ Distinguished savants like the late r. V. A. Smith and Mr. S. M. Edwardes hold of early Indian kings. How slender their t is, is in evidence from the following state- e late Mr. Edwardes. In the course of a letter d March 17, 1926, Mr. Edwardes writes:--

c7.s2.t2.55

¹ *Public Administration in Ancient India*, p. 74. Dr. Banerjee points the idea of an autocratic (*svatantra*) ruler was not congenial to the ind; also *Carmichael Lectures*, 1918, pp. 131-39.

c7.s2.t2.56

I am ready to admit that the Indian autocratic c 300 B.C. when faced by grave financial embarrass- was forced to resort to practices which we should as tyrannous and unjustifiable. This necessity rom the fact that at that early date and in a state or es of states despotically ruled and only prevented isruption by a very firm hand, the idea of patriot- ich now leads people voluntarily to support the ment in emergencies was wholly non-existent.'

c7.s2.t2.57

all examine the financial aspects of Hindu adminis- in a subsequent chapter where we shall answer estion whether the ancient financial practices rannous. But what we are concerned with at pre- the two assertions of the learned scholar, namely, e Indian state was an autocraey; and that the idea iotism was wholly non-existent. Our legal and *śāstra* literature furnish various checks and balances imposed upon the central government of the country. In spite of them if a king would have recourse to high-handed measures, open revolt, deposition, and choice of another king were weapons ready to hand to fight a refractory monarch with. Under these circumstances he could not conduct himself as an autocrat in any manner. Despotic monarchs have ruled in all countries and the history of the world furnishes many a name of despotic kings. Notwithstanding the growth of political consciousness for centuries in European countries we cannot say we have got rid of autocracy completely. It might be now and then, that one monarch or another was despotic or autocratic. But such despotism or autocracy did not go unnoticed. Manu says explicitly, ' That foolish monarch who is arbitrary and tyrannous is soon got rid of and loses his life with that of all his relations. A king loses his life through the torturing of the kingdom as the life of an ordinary human being is ruined through torture of the physical body.'¹ Chandragupta, the first Maurya king, is characterized by historians as a despotic emperor with no evidence whatsoever.

c7.s2.t2.58

¹ मोहाद्राजा स्वराष्ट्रं कर्षयत्यनवेक्षया । सोऽचिराद्भ्रश्यते राज्याज्जीवित्वाच्च सबान्धवः ॥ शरीरकर्षणात्प्राणाः क्षीयन्ते प्राणिनां यथा । तथा राजांमपि प्राणाः क्षीयन्ते राष्ट्रकर्षणात् ॥ (Manu, vii. 111 and 112.) Cf. Mbh., Santi Parvan, xcii. 8-10.

c7.s2.t2.59

It is strange that Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar who admits the existence of popular monarchy in the pre-Mauryan period points out to the absolutism of the Mauryas including Aśoka. He quotes the following in support of his theory: ' All men are my children and just as I desire for my children that they may obtain every kind of welfare and happiness both in this and the next world, so do I desire for all men' (Aśoka in the separate Kalinga Edicts). This is said to agree with the *Arthaśāstra* where the relation of the king to his subjects is mentioned to be that of the father to his children.¹

c7.s2.t2.60

¹ *Aśoka* by Dr. Bhandarkar, p. 63.

c7.s2.t2.61

तान् पितृवाननुगृह्णीयात् । (*Arthaśāstra*, ii. 1.)

c7.s2.t2.62

The paternal conception of the king's duty that underlies these notions is said to point to royal absolutism. This is further explained: 'Just as children are solely dependent upon their parents who can do with them just what they like, the subjects were at the mercy of the king who was thus no better than a despot.' Surely we do not agree with the learned professor in his conclusion. In our own view the passages in question warrant a contrary conclusion altogether. They undoubtedly refer to the great interest which the Mauryan monarchs displayed in governing their kingdoms. Rather they perfectly understood and realized the true conception of duty that devolved on them as the accredited guardians of the land. To compare the conduct of parents towards children as in any manner tyrannical or despotic is to disregard all the joy and peace of the family life which one ordinarily expects in the course of a normal life. We regret to say that Dr. Bhandarkar is just begging the question and spins out a theory on a mere analogy. It is commonly conceded that Chandragupta carried on the government under the regulations laid down by Kauṭalya. If the position of Dr. Bhandarkar were admitted Kauṭalya must have commended autocracy. As a matter of fact Kauṭalya is a great teacher of political morality. He has not sacrificed principles to gain his objects. He is a follower of the established schools of law. What he has preached is only the *svadharma* of the Kṣatriya which could not be put to the test of modern ethical and moral standards. In judging a question which belongs to nearly twenty-three centuries ago we must take into consideration the practices and convictions that guided the people of those days. Again in India everything was *dharma*—moral and legal—provided it had the authority of either the Vedas or the Smṛtis—the latter being merely commentaries on the Vedas.

c7.s2.t2.63

The fact was that the people felt the necessity for the office of the king to ensure their welfare; and the ruler equally felt that the subjects were as necessary for his prosperity.¹ This mutual understanding of both the people and the crown gave no occasion for the outbreak of civil wars which often disfigured the even course of history in other countries. Where would then be the room for the display of autocracy when there was no particular stimulus to call it into existence? An autocracy again could only be maintained by a strong king possessing a regular standing army. Hindu monarchy was not military but civil in character.² Their various

c7.s2.t2.64

¹ > राजा प्रजानां प्रथमं शरीरं

c7.s2.t2.65

² > नराधिपश्याप्नुशिष्यमेदिनों

c7.s2.t2.66

प्रजाश्च राज्ञोऽप्रतिमं शरीरम् ।
राज्ञा विहोना न भवन्ति देशाः
देशैर्विहोना न नृपाः भवन्ति ॥
(*Śānti Parvan*, lxvii. 59.)

c7.s2.t2.67

दमेन सत्येन च सौहृदेन ।
महद्भिरिष्ठा क्रतुभिर्महायशाः
त्रिविष्टपे स्थानमुपैति शाश्वतं ॥ (*Ibid.*, 61.)

c7.s2.t2.68

wars were fought not out of earth-hunger, but for a higher principle, viz., the attainment of Indra’s heaven. Even Samudragupta was imbued¹ with this principle as can be proved from the evidence of his coins.

c7.s2.t2.69

¹ ‘राजाधिराजा पृथ्वोम् अवजित्य दिवं जयति अप्रतिवार्यवीरः ’ Vide *Journal of Indian History*, vol. vi, part ii; *Studies in Gupta History*, p. 32. ² Sidgwick, *Development of European Polity*, p. 10 (Macmillan & Co., 1903).

c7.s2.t2.70

This was not a pious aphorism laid down by one king or another. It was the ruling principle of every monarch. The absence of militarism and the essentially civil character of the monarchy dominated by the paramount law was one of the reasons which gave a long lease of life to the Hindu state in general. Thus with the law above and the *paura-jānapada*, the council, etc., by his side, the king could not dream of an autocratic form of administration. Kauṭalya says the wrath of the people had led to the killing of the monarchs.

c7.s2.t2.71

प्रायशः कोपवशाः राजानः प्रकृतिकोपैः हताः श्रूयन्ते ।

c7.s2.t2.72

This means Kauṭalya had heard of cases wherein kings had fallen victims to the people’s outburst of anger. In the light of these observations if one could compare the interpretation given to the term despotism or absolutism in modern political parlance, ‘what is meant by calling him (a monarch) “absolute” is that there is no established constitutional authority—no human authority that his subjects habitually obey as much as they obey him—which can legitimately resist him or call him to account’,² there need be no hesitation in accepting that the democratic principle of the welfare of the people underlay obviously the monarchical governments of ancient India. The fact was that kingship was a sacred trust and the king existed for the welfare of his subjects and not they for his welfare. The king-in-council must promote interests tending to the common good of the community.¹ The sacredness of the mutual trust led to united endeavours towards the material and moral progress of the community. The best type of a culture-state was almost realized under the Emperor Aśoka who belonged also to the ‘vanished epochs’ of Hindu India.

c7.s2.t2.73

Another criticism offered is that the idea of patriotism was not a phenomenon realized in ancient India but is one entirely of modern growth. The statement is undoubtedly true of the Western countries where the idea of a state as a nation grew only very recently. In England the common sentiments of nationality were reckoned only after the Reformation. In other countries of Europe it was only a later idea of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This was not so in ancient India, which had realized an organized state composed of organized nations long before the dawn of the historical period. The oneness of the country and the ideal of every monarch to make a *digvijaya* and achieve sole rule over the world extending from the Cape Comorin to the Himalayas indicate beyond doubt the existence of a strong national feeling in the country. Intercourse between the southern regions and the north of India was sufficiently frequent as is evident from the two epics the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata*, not to speak of other literature. Towards a common enemy all the nations of India, north and south, could be called to join arms.

c7.s2.t2.74

प्रजासुखे सुखं राज्ञः प्रजानां च हिते हितम् ।
नात्मप्रियं हितं राज्ञः प्रजानां तु प्रियं हितम् ॥
(Arthaśāstra, Bk. i, sec. 19.)

c7.s2.t2.75

Every ambitious conquering monarch was actuated by the legitimate aim of a *digvijaya*, a victorious progress through the country.¹ Evidence, literary and epigraphical, is not wanting to corroborate these statements as embodying a common feeling or general sentiment. What is patriotism if it is not the love of the native land! Here it was sung ages ago and it is still a common place among the people that² mother and motherland are greater than heaven itself. What a grand conception for a nation bent upon the ideals of *mokṣa* or heaven. The fact was the ideal of *mokṣa* was only one of the four *puruṣārthas*, and that, the ultimate. *Mokṣa* comes to those who have fulfilled three *puruṣārthas*,—*dharma*, *artha*, and *kāma*, properly and rightly. The conception of motherland being equal to the mother herself is a lofty ideal for a nation's progress. In the face of this testimony could we maintain that the ancient Hindus were devoid of patriotism?

c7.s2.t2.76

¹ Kālidāsa describes the victorious tour of Raghu who attained the title of *samrāt* and performed the *viśvajityajña* (*Raguvaṃśa*, ch. iv).

c7.s2.t2.77

² जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी ।

(ii) Titles and Gradations of Monarchy

c7.s3.1

In the *Rig Veda Saṃhita* we meet with the following titles of kingly power: *rājan*, *samrāj*, *adhirāj*, *ekarāj* and *virāj*. The *Amarakośa* explains the term *samrāt* as one³ who has performed the *Rājasūya* sacrifice, who is the overlord of a *maṇḍala*, and who has under his control, feudatory and mandatory ruling princes. The *Śukranīti* calls him a *samrāt* whose income ranges from one to ten crores of silver karṣas.¹ Sāmrajya is a title higher than that of a rājan. It often occurs in Vedic texts² and connotes distinctly a grade superior to that of an ordinary king. The adhirāja is also another superior title found in the texts.³ Professors Macdonell and Keith interpret the term as overlord. This overlordship must be undoubtedly over kings and princes of the ordinary rank. The learned professors further comment⁴ that they could not bring themselves to believe that a real ‘over king’ existed taking the political conditions of the times when great states were still in formation. This is based on a mere assumption in the absence of definite data. The assumption may be right or wrong but could hardly be accepted without authority. This ‘overkingship’ or ‘overlordship’ was, however, a factor to be reckoned with in the Vedic period. The states in themselves may be small and the extent of the territory known may again be limited. But still among the known world of their days, one state might easily have aspired to an adhirājya, another sāmrajya and the third remain content with a rājya. Or it may even, as N. N. Law suggests, signify degrees of power or rank among the kings created by the victories and defeats in battles in which they engaged themselves frequently.⁵ Another early Vedic title of the king is ekarāja.⁶ This term is a significant one and denotes literally an only king, sole sovereign. It demonstrates that there is no second ruler over a particular circle. This is further made clear from a passage in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa⁷ where it is mentioned ‘a ruler whose domains extend all over the earth from sea to sea’. Aśoka was an *ekarāja* according to the *Mahāvaṃsa*. Weber who had occasion to explain this expression gives its meaning as a king over a *maṇḍala*.¹ In the *Brāhmaṇas* we meet with the same and similar titles like the *mahārājya*, *rājādhirājya*, *parameṣṭhya*, *ādhipatya*, *svāvaśya*, *atiṣṭhā*. Some more are *bhoja*, *svarāja*, *virāja*. Of these the *mahārāja* signifies a ruler over a large kingdom.² These numerous references to the term warrant the inference that the conception of a great kingdom was realized even in very early times. The *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* has the following: ‘Before the slaying of Vṛtra he was Indra it is true. But after slaying Vṛtra he became Mahendra even as a *Rājan* or king becomes a *Mahārāja* after obtaining the victory.’³ That the later idea of large states is clearly anticipated in the epoch of the *Brāhmaṇas* is manifest. The term *rājādhirāja* indicates a paramount sovereign. The other titles mentioned are further examined by Professors Macdonell and Keith who are of opinion that these epithets of sovereigns embody a sound tradition.⁴

c7.s3.2

³ येनेष्टं राजसूयेन मण्डलस्येश्वरश्रयः । शास्ति यश्चाज्ञया राज्ञः स सम्राडथ राजकम् ॥ (ii. 9, ll. 5 and 6.)

c7.s3.3

¹ i. 184-7.

c7.s3.4

² R. V., iii. 55. 7; iv. 21. 2; vi. 27. 8; viii. 19. 32.

c7.s3.5

³ R. V., x. 128. 9; A. V., vi. 98 1 : ix. 10. 24.

c7.s3.6

⁴ Vedic Index, vol. i, pp. 19-20.

c7.s3.7

⁵ Aspects of Polity, p. 13.

c7.s3.8

⁶ R. V., viii. 37. 3; A. V. iii. 4. 1.

c7.s3.9

⁷ viii. 15.

c7.s3.10

¹ *Über Die Konigsweihe, den Rājasuya* in the *Abhandl. d. Königlich Prussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Zu Berlin*, 1893, p. 141, n. 2, quoted by N. N. Law.

c7.s3.11

² *Ait. Br.*, vii. 34-9; *Kaus. Br.*, v. 5: *Śata. Br.*, i. 6. 4, 21 and ii. 5. 4, 9.

c7.s3.12

³ Prof. Eggeling, i. 6. 4, 21; *S.B.E.*, vol. xii, p. 182.

c7.s3.13

⁴ *Vedic Index* vol. ii, p. 433.

c7.s3.14

In this connection are worth noting other titles of sovereignty. *Virāj* is a king who possesses great and distinguishing qualities. Sāyaṇāchārya comments on the term *vairājyam* thus:

c7.s3.15

इतरेभ्यो भूपतिभ्यो वैशिष्ट्यं.

c7.s3.16

In the *Rig Veda Saṃhita* Indra is a *samrāṭ*, and, *Varuṇa*, a *svarāṭ*.⁵ It is contended that the titles *parameṣṭhyam*, *rājyam*, *mahārājyam* and *svāvaśyam* are of the heaven world. But a close study of the inscriptions demonstrates that earthly monarchs bore most of these titles. Hence they were not titles exclusively applicable to monarchical rulers of the other world only. These once signified qualities and came later on to mean gradations depending on the annual income of the state or a king. For the *Sukranīti*, generally regarded to be a later work on Polity, has the following interesting gradation according to incomes. The titles of kings in order are *Sāmanta*, 1 to 3 lakhs, *Maṇḍalika* 4 to 10 lakhs, *Rājan* 10 to 20 lakhs, *Mahārāja* 21 to 50 lakhs, *Svarāj* 51 to 100 lakhs, *Samrāj* 1 to 10 crores, *Virāj* 11 to 50 crores, and *Sārvabhauma* above 51 crores.¹

c7.s3.17

⁵ vii. 82. 2.

c7.s3.18

¹ > सामन्तस् नृपः प्रोक्तो यावलक्षत्रयावधि ।

c7.s3.19

N. N. Law who has referred to this mentions also another later work *Varadātantra* from the *Śabdakalpadruma* where again a scale of income is given. Other epithets occurring in the inscriptions are: (1) *chakravartin* (the great emperor), (2) *paramēśvara* (the great lord), (3) *paramabhaṭṭāraka* (the most supreme), (4) *mahā-*

c7.s3.20

तदूर्ध्वं दशलक्षान्तो नृपो मण्डलिकस्मृतः ॥
तदूर्ध्वं तु भवेद्राजा यावत्विंशति लक्षकः ।
पञ्चाशलक्षपर्यन्तो महाराजः प्रकीर्तितः ॥
ततस्तु कोटिपर्यन्तो स्वराट् सम्राट् ततःपरं ।
दशकोटिमितो यावद्विराट् तु तदनंतरं ॥
पञ्चाशत्कोटिपर्यन्तस्सार्वभौमततःपरं । (*Sukra*, i. 184-7.)

c7.s3.21

*rājādhirāja* (emperor of emperors), (5) *sārvabhauma* (the world-emperor), (6) *akhaṇḍabhūmipa* (the lord of all earth), (7) *rāja-rāja* (king of kings), (8) *viśvarāja* (the king of the circle), (9) *caturanteśa* (the lord of four quarters).

(iii) The Consecration Ceremony

c7.s4.1

By celebrating the sacrifice of *rājasūya* one becomes a king and by the *vājapeya* an emperor (*samrāṭ*). And the office of the king is the lower and that of the emperor the higher.¹ The *abhiṣeka* ceremony forms the central feature of the *rājasūya Yajña*. The superiority of the *vājapeya* to the *rājasūya* is attested by the law-giver Kātyāyana.² *Vājapeya* is not a political ceremony as the *rājasūya* is. The *adhikārins* for its performance are members of the first two castes—the Brahmans and the Kṣatriyas. But the *rājasūya* is intended for the Kṣatriyas alone as the *bṛhaspatisava* for the Brahmans. According to the *Taittirīya Saṃhita* (v. 6. 2. 1) and the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa* (ii. 7. 6. 1) the *vājapeya* is a ‘*samrāṭsava*’ or the ceremony of the consecration of a king to the imperial position. And the *rājasūya* is a *varuṇasava* or the ceremony of the consecration of the universal sovereignty of Varuṇa. It would appear that the *vājapeya* and the *bṛhaspatisava* were ceremonies by which the *purohita* was installed and consecrated as the court-priest in its broader sense, while the *vājapeya* and the *rājasūya* are ceremonies by means of which the king gets consecration and attains paramount authority over a number of smaller and less powerful kings.

c7.s4.2

¹ *Sat. Br.*, v. 1.1. 13 ; *S.B.E.*, vol. xli, p. 4.

c7.s4.3

² xv, 1. 1-2.

c7.s4.4

The *rājasūya* then is the inauguration ceremony of a monarch. The *Śrauta Sūtras* elaborately describe a series of sacrificial rites to be performed during the sessions. The *sattras* or sessions of this *yajña* continue for a period of two years and three months. Continuing for such a long period this whole sacrifice could not but be complex in its nature and character. From this complexity one can envisage distinctly seven minor sacrifices—(1) the *pavitra*, (2) the *abhiṣechanīya*, (3) *daśapeya*, (4) *keśavapānīya*, (5) *vyuṣṭhi dvirātra* (*agniṣṭoma*), (6) *vyuṣṭhi dvirātra* (*atirātra*) and (7) the *kṣatra dhṛti*. Though the *Śrauta Sūtras* deal with these rituals with instructions in sufficient detail, they still find clear exposition in several of the *Brāhmaṇas*. We will confine ourselves to the details found in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* and the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*. Into the details of this elaborate ceremonial we will not enter here. Suffice it to examine a few rituals which have a direct bearing on the political development of the state. The offerings are called *ratnahavis* which were performed in the houses of the *ratnins*. The Vedic index explains the term *ratnin* thus: ‘those people of the royal entourage in whose houses the *ratnahavis* was performed in the course of *rājasūya*.’¹ It is interesting to examine who these *ratnins* were. They were the commander of the army, *purohita*, *kṣatra*, queen, *sūta* (chronicler), *grāmaṇī*, *kṣattṛ* (chamberlain), *saṅgrahītṛ* (treasurer), *bhāgadugha* (collector-general), *akṣavāpa* (superintendent of accounts) *gōvikartana* (huntsman), *pālāgala*, and *parivṛkti*. In the *Taittirīya Saṃhitā*² the list of *ratnins* is different. These are court chaplain, *rājanya*, *mahiṣī*, favourite wife or queen, discarded wife, commander of the army, *sūta* (ministrel), *grāmaṇī*, *kṣattṛ* (chamberlain)

c7.s4.5

¹ *Vedic Index*, vol. ii, pp. 199-200.

c7.s4.6

² i. 8. 9; see *H. O. S.*, vol. xviii, p. 120. Here Dr. Keith gives different interpretations for some of these terms.

c7.s4.7

or superintendent of the seraglio, according to Eggeling), *saṃgrahītṛ* (treasurer), *bhāgadugha* (collector-general), *akṣavāpa* (superintendent of accounts). Some of them were representatives of the people or a class of people and this must lead to the conclusion that the people enjoyed and shared the powers of the state.

c7.s4.8

The *rājasūya* is given in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*.¹ To Indra and Agni oblations are given for the former is fiery spirit and the latter is vigour and energy. In the fourth *Brāhmaṇa* different offerings are mentioned. Three horses, the warrior and the charioteer, these are five breaths.² The fire brand is mentioned as encountering the arrays or battles to beat off the enemy³ and even slay him. In the fifth *Brāhmaṇa* is given the *triṣanyukta* offering. In the first *Brāhmaṇa* of the third *adhyāya* the *ratnahavis* is offered. The third *Brāhmaṇa* of the third *adhyāya* is the *abhiṣechana* or consecration ceremony. This word literally means the ‘sprinkling’, and corresponds to the anointment of the present day. It is performed for five days. In the fourth *Brāhmaṇa* different kinds of water symbolical of vigour are collected. These are for sprinkling in front and from behind and afterwards to be rubbed all over the body of the king.⁴

c7.s4.9

¹ *Śat. Br.*, v. 2.

c7.s4.10

² *Ibid.*, v. 2. 4. 9.

c7.s4.11

³ *Ibid.*, 16.

c7.s4.12

⁴ *Ibid.*, v. 4. 2.

c7.s4.13

The consecration ceremony takes place at the midday. Pṛthu Vainya was the first among men to be anointed. This is done by the *purohita*, one of his kinsmen, an ally, a Vaiśya. He is adorned with gold *pavitras* (strainers?), *tārpya* garments; also undyed wool. He wears a mantle. The bow and the ends of the bow are then addressed. Three kinds of arrows, *dṛvā* (for mere shooting), *rujā* (for piercing an enemy) and *kṣumā* (missing his aim) are handed over to him. The bow is truly a Kṣatriya’s strength.¹ The residue of waters anointed is offered to the Brahman and his son, and according to Āpastamba his favourite son, and lastly the queen. Then he takes down a chariot yoked with four horses² to be freed from all dangers. Hence this king is called Indra and Arjuna. Here again the chariot-warrior and charioteer are mentioned.³

c7.s4.14

¹ *Śat. Br.*, v. 3. 5.

c7.s4.15

² *Ibid.*, v. 4. 3.

c7.s4.16

³ *Ibid.*, v. 4. 3.

c7.s4.17

Then the king takes the throne-seat of *khadira* wood spread over by a tiger skin, pleasant and soft of touch. According to the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, the king after the *pūrṇābhiṣeka* (renewed anointing) takes the throne-seat of *udumbara* wood,⁴ and pays homage to the holy power or Brahman. For when the lordly power falls under the influence of the holy power the kingdom is prosperous, rich in heroes : in it an heir is born.⁵ Afterwards the king descends from the throne,⁶ and follows the magic rites for defeating an enemy.⁷ The *adhvaryu* and his assistants silently strike him with sticks on his back to indicate that he is *adaṇḍya*, exempt from all punishment. Then he addresses the Brahman, of course the *purohita* for blessing and the latter blesses him that he is also Brahman. . . . Varuṇa of great power, mighty Indra, kindly Rudra, and closes with calling him by auspicious names much-worker, better-worker, more-worker.’ This suggests that by fulfilment of his *svadharma* in a true spirit he would make the land flow with milk and honey.

c7.s4.18

⁴ *viii*. 8.

c7.s4.19

⁵ *viii*. 9.

c7.s4.20

⁶ *Ibid.*

c7.s4.21

⁷ *viii*. 10.

c7.s4.22

The *purohita* again presents him with the sacrificial sword implying that a kṣatriya is weaker than a Brahman, but stronger than his enemies. He in his turn offers it to his brother, he to the *sūta* (ministrel) or to the governor. Each in his turn to the *grāmaṇi*, the latter to the *sajāta* (tribesman). This man prepares the playground.¹

c7.s4.23

¹ *Śat. Br.*, v. 4. 4.

First 159 of 294 passages. Read on

Linked texts (35)