Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c8.s1: Sec. i. The Crown Prince

Hindu Administrative Institutions c8.s1

Language
English

Sec. i. The Crown Prince

c8.s1.1

THE Crown Prince is mentioned as one among the eighteen *tirthas* of ancient Indian historical literature.¹

c8.s1.2

¹ The eighteen *tirthas* of Sanskrit literature are *mantrin* (chief minister), *purohita* (adviser in religion), *senāpati* (commander-in-chief), *yuvarāja* (Crown Prince), *dauvārika* (head door-keeper or palace mayor), *antarvaṃśika* (chamberlain), *Praśāsṭṛ* (secretary in charge of prisons), *samāhartṛ* (collector-general), *sannidhātṛ* (finance minister), *pradeṣṭṛ* (chief police officer), *nāyaka* (leader of infantry), *pauravyavahārika* (judge at the capital), *karmāntika* (director of mines and industries), *mantrapariṣadadhyakṣa* (secretary to the council-assembly), *daṇḍapāla* (leader of the army corps), *durgapāla* (the officer in charge of fortresses), *antapāla* (the chief of frontier guards), and *āṭavika* (forest chiefs).[^2] Dr. Nag takes *nāyaka-Paura* as one official and *vyavahārika* as a separate entity (*Les Theories Diplomatique*, p. 38), while Jayaswal makes *nāyaka* (generalissimo), *Paura* (governor of the capital), and *vyavahārika* (Judge) as three distinct *tirthas*. In his classification he has left out *āṭavika* and the reason for the exclusion of this department has not been furnished. (*Hindu Polity*, pt. ii, pp. 133-134; *Arthaśāstra*, i. 12; Trivandrum edition, vol. i, p. 57).

c8.s1.3

It is a general rule that the prince must follow the king, his father, in all acts and deeds. But Kauṭalya says there is a limitation even here. He need not be guided by the advice of the monarch if it would cost his life or would rouse the fiery spirit of the general masses of the people.² In these two cases it would not be disobedience to the rules of *dharma*. Under the second plea Lakṣmaṇa asks Rāma to disobey Daśaratha’s orders of forest life for fourteen years, for all the citizens not excluding women and children were greatly perturbed at the king’s orders to his eldest son;³ and they continued grief-stricken till sometime after Rāma had gone away to the forest. Vālmīki exhibits the Crown Prince Rāma as the idol of the people since he never passed the limits of *dharma*. It would not have been *adharma*¹ for Rāma to disobey even King Daśaratha in the face of strong public opinion in his favour. Rāma actually wanted to set up a higher ideal of a Kṣatriya than by following the rules of *kṣatriya-dharma* like a worldly prince.²

c8.s1.4

² *Arthaśāstra*, i. 17.

c8.s1.5

³ *Ayodhya Kāṇḍa*, ch. 40, 41.

c8.s1.6

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, i. 18.

c8.s1.7

² > क्षात्रधर्ममहं त्यक्ष्ये ह्यधर्मं धर्मसंहितम् ।

c8.s1.8

By mere accident of birth as the eldest son of the reigning king the prince was not accepted a *yuvarāja* or heir-apparent. But the whole gamut of ceremonies was to be gone through before the prince was declared the crown prince. This was the *abhiṣechanam* of a prince to the status of a crown prince. A practical instance of this is seen in the preparations made for Rāma’s *abhiṣechanam* by King Daśaratha.³ This consecration alone secured for the prince the right to ascend the throne after the sitting monarch.

c8.s1.9

³ *Ayodhya Kāṇḍa*, ch. 3–6.

c8.s1.10

As the prince is the future pillar of the state no little attention was paid to the formation of his character and in the teaching of good conduct even when young. To this end the system of education enjoined is mainly responsible. Hence the education of the prince was attended to even from infancy. According to the *Raghuvamśa*⁴ it would appear that as early as

c8.s1.11

⁴ > स वृत्तचूलश्छलकाकपक्षरैर्माल्यपुतैः सवयोभिरन्वितः ।

c8.s1.12

क्षुद्रैर्नृशंसैः लुब्धैश्च सेवितं पापकर्मभिः ॥
(Ayodhya Kāṇḍa, 109. 20.)

c8.s1.13

लिपयेर्थाबद्धगणेन वाङ्मयं नदोमुखेनेव समुद्रमाविशत् ॥ (iii. 28.)

c8.s1.14

the third year of his age when the ceremony of tonsure was generally performed the prince was placed under the guidance of good teachers who instructed him in the alphabet (lipi) and mathematics (samkhyāna). In his eleventh year, the age for investiture ceremony,¹ he was taught a course of higher studies comprising the three Vedas, anvikṣikī or logic, vārtta or economics, and daṇḍanīti or science of politics. There were separate teachers, perhaps specialists, in charge of each subject. The very fact that the latter two subjects which were secular in character were taught by adhyakṣas or heads of administrative departments, vaktāraḥ and prayoktāraḥ, i.e., expounders and administrators of law, affords tangible proof that the educational training was no less practical than theoretical. Nor were these alone the subjects studied and pursued. Education was not considered complete if the prince had not either himself studied, or heard the Itihāsas read to him; besides he was taught the various branches of military science relating to the use and handling of different arms and armaments. Even here there was no indiscriminate learning of this subject now and that afterwards. A time-table was previously drawn up and the studies were pursued according to it. The mornings were generally fixed for learning the theory and practice of arms. The afternoon was devoted to the hearing of the Itihāsa.²

c8.s1.15

¹ Manu, ii. 361.

c8.s1.16

² Apparently this hearing and not study of the Itihāsas has a value of its own. It may be that the prince might not be taxed in his impressionable age with a heavy curricula of studies. The study of the Itihāsas is quite essential for a prince, for he must know the history of his predecessors in his own state and elsewhere; how they had ruled, and how far they had been successful in their policy and administration and what new lines could be chalked out if he were to have an efficient machinery. All these and more are found richly illustrated in the Itihāsa literature not to speak of other texts. The time of studentship would not be sufficient if he

c8.s1.17

The evening and the early portion of the night were devoted to learning new and rare facts and memorising old lessons.¹

c8.s1.18

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, i. 17-18.

c8.s1.19

The prince was expected to finish his higher studies by the end of the sixteenth year when he was legally allowed to enter the *gṛhasthāśrama*. There is evidence to show that education was not at home but at a public place where teachers were available. Away from their parents and deprived of a life of luxury at the palace, they cultivated the regular habits of mind and body. The result was something invaluable. It nurtured in time the virtue of discipline (*vidyāvinīta*). If all his studies could not advance him in the direction of this higher quality of discipline, woe to such studies! It was a practical and moral education that ancient India gave to her young.² Even though the prince had completed the student's course and got married, he was not placed in independent situations. A period of apprenticeship as a subordinate to an administrative head was to be gone through.³ After he was declared competent and worthy of occupying an independent position, he was appointed to responsible posts like the general-in-chief of an army, governor of a province, or consecrated as an heir-apparent.⁴

c8.s1.20

² Cf. Śukra, ii. 41-50; Agni, 225. 1-3.

c8.s1.21

³ *Arthaśāstra*, i. 18.

c8.s1.22

⁴ *Ibid.*, Bk. i. 17.

c8.s1.23

One would ordinarily expect the co-operation of a prince with his father the king. He is to be the right hand, right eye and right ear to the sovereign as the councillors are the left hand, left eye and left ear.⁵ Śukrācārya

c8.s1.24

⁵ Śukra, ii. 12-13.

c8.s1.25

were to study everything. Hence the device of the institution of the sūtas, who narrated the stories to these princes at a certain fixed time of the day. See the author's contribution 'on the Sūta in ancient Indian Literature,' The Swadesamitran English Weekly, March 15, 1925.

c8.s1.26

explains how a prince ought to behave towards the king and his subjects.¹ The prince was generally under the control of the sovereign, and if he would prove useful he must be advanced gradually to occupy the throne seat. But there may be cases where the prince would behave lawfully and still would be an eye-sore to his father. In such cases it is laid down that the prince could extricate himself to some place beyond the power of his father's sovereignty. One such was to take to forest life.² Rāma's going to the forest is justified by the handmaid of Kaikeyī, the queen, representing that Rāma was a diplomat attributing a motive to which he was alien.³ In much later days we find Shah Jahan's preparedness to go to Mecca against the ill-treatment of Jahangir and Nur Jahan.

c8.s1.27

¹ Śukra, ii, 35-50.

c8.s1.28

² Arthaśāstra, i, 17.

c8.s1.29

³ तथाप्युत्पद्यतमन्यस्मिन् पुत्रे दारेषु वा स्निह्यन्तं अरण्यायापृच्छेत् ।

c8.s1.30

If again an honest prince would apprehend imprisonment or secret death at the hands of his father, he might ally himself with a good *sāmanta* chieftain, contract influential marriages, collect an army and win over parties in the state. When the Pāṇḍavās were sent on the *vāranāvada-yātra* with the ultimate design on the part of Duryodhana to bring about their destruction, Vidura scented the danger awaiting them and made mention of it to the Pāṇḍavās. Through a secret underground passage the latter escaped to the forests where

c8.s1.31

एवं गृहाविरोधेन राजपुत्रो वसन् गृहे ॥
विद्यया कर्मणा शोलैः प्रजाःसंरंजयन् मुदा ।
त्यागो च सत्वसंपन्नः सर्वानुकुर्यात्वशेस्वके ॥

c8.s1.32

Bhīma married the *āṭaviki* Hiḍimbi and begot on her a son Ghaṭotkacha. In the disguise of Brahmans the Pāṇḍavās again reached the Pañchāla territory where the king of that land had arranged for a *svayamvara* (marriage by choice) for his daughter (प्रवीरपुरुषकन्या). Arjuna married her and fought along with his brothers for their rights backed by the Pañchāla king. The *sāmanta* who was of help to them was Vetrakīya.¹

c8.s1.33

¹ *Mbh.*, *Ādi Parvan*, ch. 154 ff.

c8.s1.34

Further those princes who are unjustly treated by the kings could leave the state and work in gold or ruby mines, or join with their maternal relatives and begin intriguing against the monarch.² By way of illustration we can say that the Pāṇḍavās took to various callings at *Virāṭa nagara* and joined finally Kṛṣṇa who was their near relative through their mother.

c8.s1.35

² एकचरस्सुवर्णाकरमणिरगहेमरूप्यण्याकरकर्मान्तानाजीवेत् ।........ मातुः परिजनोपग्रहेण वा चेष्टेत । (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i. 17.)

c8.s1.36

On the other hand if the prince would misbehave and the king was impartial he could be conciliated in the first instance by diplomacy and promise of sovereignty if he happened to be the only son. If he could not get rectified he might be sent on dangerous foreign expeditions so that he might not prove a source of anxiety and mischief. Even if this were impossible he could be imprisoned, or, as a last resort, may be put to death.³

c8.s1.37

³ *Ibid.*, Bk. ix, Sec. 3.

c8.s1.38

Bharadvāja advocates secret murder of really refractory princes. But the sage Viśālākṣa takes a different view and recommends that they must be kept under restraint in certain isolated places. If this method were not pursued there would be the extinction of the Kṣatriya race as it were.¹ In fact Aśvathāma’s killing of the child in the womb of Uttara would have extirpated the military race almost but for the timely help of Kriṣṇa. He gave life to the dead child and the latter was the famous king Parīkṣit. According to Parāśara these recalcitrant princes could be removed to the frontier and kept far away from the activity of the state. Yayāti sent his rebel sons to the care of the frontier guards. But the sage Kauṇapadanta is of opinion that it was not a proper line, for it would give a sure handle to the enemy-king. The latter would endeavour to pursuade these princes and would make mischief against their father, the king. This is well seen in the case of the later Mughal Emperors. So it is recommended that they could be placed under their maternal relations. Mādhavagupta and Kumāragupta were sent to the court of Prabhākaravardhana, the father of Harṣa. Kauśika’s sons were sent to their uncle Dakṣaprajāpati. Kauṭalya is not satisfied with these methods. Practical man that he was he believed in the moral value of the special training and good discipline born of healthy influence of environment and association. He says that a prince should be taught both in dharma and artha so that he would not fall into immoral temptations of an alluring nature.²

c8.s1.39

¹ ‘नृशंसमदृष्टवधः क्षत्रबोजविनाशश्चेति’ विशालाक्षः । तस्मादेकस्थानावरोधः श्रेयानिति । (Arthaśāstra, Bk. i, Sec. 17.)

c8.s1.40

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. i, Sec. 17.

c8.s1.41

There are scholars who make capital out of these recommendations of the Arthaśāstra by characterising them as immoral. Judged by theoretical standards of ethics they may be described as unmoral. But it must be remembered that *dharma* in India is wedded even to secular arts. The administration of the state to be efficient, to be beneficial, must depend on the character of the monarch guiding its destinies. If a prince, the king of to-morrow, is devoid of character (*dharma* and *nīti*) he could not but be treated as an enemy to the state.¹ We have innumerable examples to show how princes like the sons of Yayāti and Viśvāmitra became menials owing to the violation of the orders of the king, and how on the other hand Paraśurāma and Rāma who showed unquestioning obedience to their parents became successful ultimately in life.²

c8.s1.42

¹ नोतिवियुक्तः पुत्र इवशत्रुः । (*Bṛhaspati*, ii. 50.)

c8.s1.43

² *Śukra*, ii. 83-85 and 78-79.

c8.s1.44

But a prince duly honoured by the king and esteemed by the citizens enjoyed the confidence of the state. He was made the crown prince and drew a handsome allowance of 48,000 paṇas yearly, the highest remuneration equal to that of the *purohita*, commander-in-chief, king's mother, and queen.³ Further he enjoyed the rare privilege of not being watched by the Intelligence department with the *purohita* and the commander-in-chief. All the other fifteen *tīrthas* were liable to be watched by the members of that Intelligence department.

c8.s1.45

³ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. v. 3.

c8.s1.46

Usually each was endowed with a small territorial unit over which he was the head but still answerable to the monarch. The position was equal to that of a Governor or a Viceroy of a province of the modern days. This is evident both from the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*. In the former Bharata's two sons were given rulerships of Takṣaśīla and Puṣkalāvati, two small states in the country of Gandhāra; Satrughna's two sons to be the governors of Mathura and Vidiśa;

c8.s1.47

Lakṣmaṇa’s two sons were heads of two cities in the state of Kampatha and Rāma’s two sons over the northern and southern portions of Kosala-deśa.¹ The *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*² mentions details as to the division of the empire of Yayāti under his sons. Yadu got the south of the empire, Turvasu the west, Druhyu the south-west, and Anu the north, while Purū was the emperor of all parts.

c8.s1.48

¹ *Rāmāyaṇa*, vii. 101. 11; 108. 9-11; 102. 1; 107. 17.

c8.s1.49

² ix. 17. 21-3.

c8.s1.50

In the empire of Aśoka again the princes of the blood royal commonly designated Kumāras were appointed provincial Governors. Four such Kumāra viceroyalties are mentioned in the edicts of Aśoka, one in Takṣaśīla in the frontier province of Gandhāra, a second at Svarṇagiri (*Kanakagiri*?), third at Tosali (*Dhauli*) in Kalinga, and the fourth at Ujjain.³ These princes were entrusted with the right of appointing their own district officials ‘as no doubt was the practice during the Gupta rule’. Though these princes enjoyed certain privileges still their power did not go unchecked by higher authorities. The mention of the term Mahāmātras in the edicts shows that the Kumāra did not act by himself but always took counsel of the Mahāmātras⁴ or the council attached to these princes.

c8.s1.51

³ D. R. Bhandarkar, *Aśoka*, pp. 49-50.

c8.s1.52

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 52.

Linked texts (7)