[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [The Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha's Time](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897) › c11 # The Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha's Time c11: Chapter V. The Head of the State The Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha's Time c11 - **Language:** English ### Chapter V. The Head of the State ### [c11.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.2) If our proposition is right, that by the Khattiyas of the Pali texts only the ruling families and not a nobility in possession of land and important military or political offices, are to be understood, it is clear that this class is only represented by its principal representative, the \*râjan\*. Apart from the mention of Khattiyas in general, very little is said of the rest of the members of the ruling class; only, the viceroy, the \*uparâjan\*, appears occasionally by the side of the king, whilst this latter stands in the Jâtaka—one would like to say everywhere—in the centre of action.¹ ### [c11.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.3) ¹ That this phenomenon has its origin solely in the pre-eminent social position of the king, cannot certainly be maintained; this is partly explained by the fact that for a story "the king" is a specially favourite figure. ### [c11.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.4) "The king is the head of men" (\*râjâ mukhaṃ manussânaṃ\*)—this oft-recurring expression in the Pali texts (Sutta Nipâta, p. 107; Mahâvagga VI. 35. 8), the counter-statement in relation to the Brahmanical doctrine, "The Brâhmaṇa is the head of all this" (\*Śatapatha Brâhmaṇa\* III. 9. 1, 14)—finds, as it were, an illustration in the Jātakas. The fabulous pomp with which we think the royal court of an Oriental despot to be surrounded, covers also here the king. "After his entry into the city"—so the Pañcagaru Jātaka (I. 470) describes the royal entry of a prince—" he went to the spacious hall of the palace and took his seat in godly pomp upon a throne ornamented with precious stones, over which the white umbrella was spread; surrounding him, there stood, adorned with all their ornaments, the ministers, the Brāhmaṇas, the Gahapati etc., and the princesses, whilst sixteen thousand dancing girls skilled in dancing, singing and music, sang and played, so that the palace resounded like an ocean with the roar of which was mixed the noise of thunder. ### [c11.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.5) Corresponding to this magnificent exterior, there was not, as in the Indian courts of to-day, an inner want of power; the rājan of that time is not only "the magnificent, shining in royal pomp," he is, as his name signifies, in the first place,¹ "the ruling one." The Brahmanical authorities, no doubt, especially, the lawbooks, see in the king in several ways only "an appendage of the priests"; according to these the king is only there to supply the Brâhmaṇas with what they require.¹ It is different with the Jâtakas. Of a general control of the priestly caste over the administration, no traces are, in my opinion, to be found here or in other Pali literature. Where we meet with instances of a predominant influence on the part of the Brâhmaṇas, the reason is to be sought in the individual circumstances of the king and his spiritual advisers, especially, the royal house-priest, the purohita. ### [c11.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.6) ¹ As the root from which rājan is to be derived, Aug. Fick (Vergleichendes Wörterbuch 4th Edition. Part I, p. 117) indicates rez with the meaning "stretch." To this root are to be traced, among others, the Sanskrit rāj, to rule, Greek 'ορέγω to stretch, Lat. rego, to direct, Goth. uf-rak-jan, to stretch out, Mhd. recken. Sanskr. rāj, rājan, consequently, denotes, exactly like the Latin rex, the Gallic rix in Ambio-rix, ### [c11.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.7) ¹ Cf. Hopkins l. c. p. 72. ### [c11.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.8) In general, the position of the king in the Jâtakas is the same as that in the older portions of ancient Indian epics, unaffected by priestly organisation. Here as there the political and military power rests with the king who is anything but a tool in the hands of the priests; for the power of the latter is here also purely personal. The Brâhmaṇas are dependent upon the king, from him they ### [c11.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.9) the Gothic reiks, originally, "director, guide." The meaning "shine" from Skr. râj seems to have developed as a secondary phenomenon. At any rate, the proposition enunciated by Georg Curtis (Kleine Schriften, Leipzig 1886, Part I, p. 65)—Rajân denotes, "according to the derivation by the Indians, what shines, that which shows princely pomp" and this is "the most external and superficial name and one which does not touch the essence but only the appearance of royal power"—seems to have no real basis. ### [c11.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.10) receive their property in the shape of cattle and land which serves only to raise particular individuals to distinction but not the whole caste.¹ ### [c11.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.11) ¹ See Hopkins l. c. p. 72. The later priestly author of the epic represents naturally the relation between the king and the priest differently. According to him, their relationship is one of mutual dependence. When moreover, Hopkins (p. 152) quotes Mahâbhârata V. 37.52 sq. as a proof of this where the power of the king is represented as five-fold and his chief strength as lying in his wisdom and where it is further said: And this wisdom is the hoard of the priests: it is to be remembered that one cannot read so much in the original source. We meet with exactly the same words in the Jâtakas (V. 120), where an auxiliary meaning which might refer to the peculiar position of the priest as adviser of the king, is inadmissible. The verses are only a proverbial, everywhere current garb of the thought that the king can do nothing with physical strength and riches when he lacks intelligence. ### [c11.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.12) Just as in the epic, through the varnish which the priestly authors give to the original picture and by which they soften down its colour, the picture of the old unrestrained king appears who lets himself be guided by nothing except his own, often extremely selfish desires, so also the king shows a double face in the Jâtakas which is to be traced to the Buddhistic account of the original legends. To some extent he assumes the virtues of a pious layman obeying the moral law. The ten duties of the king (dasarâjadhamme) mentioned in different ways (III. 274, 320) are nothing else than prescriptions of the general Buddhistic morality applicable to all lay disciples :— ### [c11.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.13) Giving alms, a moral course of life, sacrifice, truthfulness, mildness, self-denial, forgiveness, not to cause any pain to anybody, patience, a yielding disposition. ### [c11.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.14) If the king follows these prescriptions as a rule of conduct, this necessarily takes much from his character as an absolute despot. As a matter of fact, with the gradual spread of Buddhism, the teachings of Buddha came to be not without influence upon the conduct of kings : Candragupta’s grandson Asoka who ruled in the third century B. C., “the god-beloved king Piyadasi,” as he calls himself in his stone edicts, shows himself here as a ruler who in several respects comes close to the ideal picture given in the Jâtakas. ### [c11.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.15) This ideal of a virtuous Buddhistic layman, the king in the old stories does not always follow. Very often we see in him an unrestrained tyrant guided by his own whims and caprices, “who oppresses and puts down his subjects by punishments, taxes, torture and robbery, as one pounds sugar in a sugar mill, who is as odious to them as a particle of dust in the eye, as a particle of sand in the rice or as a thorn that has pierced the hand” (II. 240). To the virtues mentioned under Dasarâjadhamme of the idealised ruler there stand in opposition as many vices; ### [c11.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.16) these form, as it were, a legend on the reverse side of the coin, the side which depicts the true picture of the king—drunkenness and cruelty (in the Khantivâdi Jâtaka, II. 3919; in the Culla-dhammapâla Jâtaka, III. 178 sq.), corruptibility (in the Bharu Jâtaka, II. 169 sq.), untruthfulness and unrighteousness (in the Cetiya Jâtaka, III. 454 sq.). Neither obedience to the written laws,¹ nor to the customs that have become law through tradition seems to have prevented the king from realizing his whims and desires. Only the virtuousness of his counsellors in spiritual and worldly matters (atthadhammânusâsaka amacca), whose spiritual superiority sometimes (as in the Kukku Jâtaka, III. 317 sq.) triumphs over the weaknesses of the ruler, might be in a position to curb his arbitrariness and tyranny. Where this opposite force was absent and the ministers or the purohita only helped to carry out the desires of their ruler, there often arose circumstances which forced the people to take recourse to the only method available, namely, force, open rebellion. In the Padakusala-mânava Jâtaka (III. 501 sq.) there is probably a germ of history; in spite of its legendary garb it may have preserved the memory of actual facts. It is there narrated how a young Brâhmaṇa after he has discovered by magic the treasures stolen and concealed by the king and his purohita calls the king a thief in the presence of the assembled people and cries out: ### [c11.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.17) ¹ Written laws are mentioned often in the Jâtakas. In the Tuṇḍila Jâtaka the Bodhisatta after the death of the king of Benares causes a book to be written "on the right decision" (vinicchaye potthakaṃ likhâpetvâ II. 292) and exhorts the people to see this book for the decision of law suits. In the Tesakuṇa Jâtaka, the ministers make the succession devolve upon the senâpati, he gives up the royal dignity, causes the "doctrine of truthfulness" to be written on a gold tablet (vinicchayadhammam suvaṇṇapaṭṭe likhâpetvâ V. 125) and orders the people to form their decisions in accordance with it. It may remain a disputed question whether we can infer from this mention of "law books" and "law tablets" in the Jâtakas the existence of written laws in earlier pre-Buddhistic times; none of these passages has any reference to the purpose of this story and both can be conceived as later additions. ### [c11.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.18) “May the householders and citizens assembled here listen to me! What should be water is fire, where safety is expected, from there comes danger. ### [c11.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.19) The king plunders the land as also the Brâhmaṇa, the purohita. Be on your guard; from your protector is your evil generated.” ### [c11.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.20) The people understand that the king who should protect them is himself a thief and in order to throw the blame from off his shoulders, has hidden the treasure and tries to discover the thief; they determine to kill the bad king so that he may not plunder them any more. With sticks and hammers they go out and beat the king and the purohita till they are dead. ### [c11.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.21) The young Brâhmaṇa is elected king and placed in power. ### [c11.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.22) Another example of such a violent removal of the unrighteous king is found in the Saccam-kira Jâtaka (I. 326). Here also the king is driven out of the town by the enraged Khattiyas, Brâhmaṇas and other citizens and in his place a Brâhmaṇa is installed king. ### [c11.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.23) Whether in this arbitrary, capricious and vicious despot of the Jâtakas we have to look for the true picture of the rájan of the older Buddhistic age, cannot be determined with certainty. Individual dispositions for giving the ruler unlimited power, now exclusively for his own ends, now for the good of his subjects come as much into view—though it should not be forgotten that we have to do not only in the literature but also in the history of India more with types than with individuals—as the attempt of the narrator to give the hoary legends as much an antiquated and primitive character as possible. In any case, this very little flattering picture of the rájan seems to me to come nearer the truth than the portrait of the ruler as sketched in other places and idealised under the influence of Buddhistic morality. ### [c11.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.24) The already-mentioned ten duties of the king give us, little as they contain a true picture of the king, no idea of the essence of the kingly power, of the obligations or functions of the rājan, because they, as already said, contain universal prescriptions of morals applicable to the whole Buddhistic laity. From these Dasarája-dhamme the special obligations of the king demanded by his position as ruler are essentially different; the traditional duties of the ruler to which the kings of the Jâtakas also are subject, consist above all in the protection of the subjects from external and internal enemies and the safety of their person and property, as assured by punishment of all violation of these. ### [c11.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.25) Frequent wars seem, even in the period described in the Jâtakas, to give the king an opportunity to exercise his duty as protector of the people. It is true he is no more the robber and plunderer, as the oldest epic narrative depicts,¹ who earns his livelihood by plundering expeditions; he lives no more permanently in the borders of his land, always ready to fall upon his neighbour, but lives with his court in a fortified town in the centre of his territory supported by regular taxes from the people. The people live in peace in their new residences and have the frontiers strongly protected; gradually, with growing civilization there come other interests into the foreground as the king's cares: the land is made fertile, cities are built, trade and commerce flourish. Nevertheless, there is no lack of warlike expeditions which are caused partly by the quarrels of the neighbouring kingdoms—as between Kosala and Kâsi (I. 262, 409)—but mostly by the rebellions of the intermediate bordering tribes. Of such insurrections we read very often (1. 437; II. 74); the aboriginal tribes driven into the mountains and probably subjugated only in name, gave the Aryan invaders surely much to do. Not always the troops stationed in the frontiers (paccante ṭhitayodhâ) are sufficient to quell the rebellion. After fighting several battles with the rebels, as narrated in the Bandhana-mokkha Jâtaka (who are called corá robbers), they send information to the king that they cannot carry on the war. Then the king collects an army (balakâyaṃ saṃharitvâ, I. 437) and takes the field. ### [c11.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.26) ¹ Cf. Hopkins, l. c., p. 76. ### [c11.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.27) In times of peace the principal work of the king seems to be to take part in the administration of justice, and indeed, from our texts we get the information that this participation was no merely formal matter. When in the Râjovâda Jâtaka it is said of the king, “ He gave decisions in law-suits ” (vinicchayam anusási, II. 2), it is clearly meant that the final administration of law rested with the king, that the final decision in law-suits as well as the final word regarding the punishment for breaking the law remained with him. With this there agrees what we learn from Pali texts about the manner of administering justice. According to the account given in the commentary on the Mahâ-parinibbâna Sutta concerning the administration of justice in Vesâlî, the chief town of the Licchavis, the process of law from the institution of a suit to its final decision was a considerably complicated affair.¹ But here also the final decision remained in the hands of the king. In the Jâtakas, where apparently the more primitive conditions of a much earlier age, which presuppose a much more simple legal apparatus, are described, the criminal is brought direct before the king and generally sentenced by him without previously consulting the opinion of the ministers. An ascetic, who on a false suspicion of theft is arrested by the owners of the stolen property, is brought before the king and the latter pronounces the sentence without further examining the case: "Go and impale him" (IV. 29). Also in other narratives (for example, in the introduction to the Vaṭṭaka Jâtaka, I. 433, in the Avâriya Jâtaka, III. 232) the king alone pronounces the judgment; it happens, however, that a protest is made from the side of the minister of justice (vinicchayâmacca) against an unjust judgment of the king. Occasions for such protests frequently arose, especially, when charges were brought by men in high position and favourites of the king against common people. A typical example of this is afforded by the following narrative: "In ancient times"—so begins the Rathalaṭṭhi Jâtaka (III. 104. sq.)—"when Brahmadatta reigned, the Bodhisatta was his minister of justice (vinicchayâmacca). Once the purohita of the king drove in his carriage to the village from which he used to collect his rents (bhogagâma) and when he came to a corner of the road he met a caravan. "Move your wagons out of the road, move them out of the road," he cried. As nobody yielded, he became angry and threw his spiked stick¹ at the driver of the nearest wagon. The stick struck the shaft of the wagon, returned and struck him on the forehead, so that there was a big bump. The \[p. 72.\] purohita returned and complained to the king that he was assaulted by the drivers. The king who was seated in his court-room asked the drivers to be brought before him and pronounced the judgment, without inquiring into the matter: "You have assaulted the purohita, so that he has got a bump on his forehead; you must give up all your horses." Then the Boddhisatta said to him, "O great king, without inquiring into the matter you make these give up all their horses. There are, however, men who, when they themselves strike, say, "I am struck by another." Therefore, a ruler should not act without investigation; when he has heard a matter, he should act." With these words, he recited the verses: ### [c11.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.28) ¹ The meaning of the passage in question is, according to the English translation given by G. Turnour in the "Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal" Vol. 7, Part 2, 1838, p. 993, Note, this: When in ancient times a criminal was brought before the rulers of the Vajjis (i.e., the Licchavis), they made him over at first to the vinicchaya-mahâmattas. These then tried him and if they were convinced that he was innocent, set him free. If they, on the other hand, held that he was guilty, they made him over to the vohârikas, without pronouncing any sentence. The latter examined the matter and set him free in case he was innocent; if, on the contrary, he was guilty, they took him to the suttadhâras (probably, they should be called suttadharas, "knowers of the Sutta, the law") who proceeded in the same way with him. From there he was taken to the aṭṭhakûlakas (probably, aṭṭhakulakas, by which, according to Lassen's supposition, a court consisting of eight heads of families is to be understood) who in their turn left the decision to the senâpati; from there, the accused was made over to the uparâjan and from him to the râjan. The latter then investigated the case and set the accused, if he held him innocent, at last free; if he, however, found him guilty he pronounced the judgment in accordance with the paveṇipotthaka, the "book of customs"—Cf. also Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, 2nd Edn., Vol. 2, p. 86 sq. ### [c11.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.29) ¹ Patodalaṭṭhi, "stick for driving animals." ### [c11.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.30) “Although he has struck, he says he is struck; although he oppresses he says he is oppressed.¹ He who speaks, first, O King, should not at all be believed. ### [c11.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.31) ¹ The text has: Jetvâ jino ti bhâsati, “although he has conquered, he says, ‘I am conquered;’” but what we are concerned with is probably derivatives of the verb ‘jyâ,’ to oppress, fleece, and jino is to be changed into jîno. ### [c11.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.32) Therefore, one hears, O wise man, the other also; when one has heard both sides, one acts, as is proper. ### [c11.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.33) A lazy fellow, given to sensual indulgence is not good, an ascetic who does not control himself is not good, a king is not good who acts without investigation, a wise man who is angry is also not good. ### [c11.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.34) The king should act after he has heard, and not before he has heard, O ruler! Honour and fame fall to the lot of him who acts after investigation, O King.” ### [c11.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.35) After the king heard the speech of the Bodhisatta, he decided rightly and in the right judgment blame was thrown upon the Brâhmaṇa. ### [c11.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.36) From this one case in which the king, influenced by the vinicchayāmacca, revises an unjust judgment, to infer a general power of this minister to pronounce an opinion upon the king's judgments, would be going too far. The right inference would be to suppose that the ministers, especially, the \*vinicchayámacca\* and also the \*purohita\* and the \*senápati\*, who, as we \[p. 73\] shall see, both took part in the administration of justice, advised the king and in some cases, had some influence upon his judgments. Also we are not in a position to draw a line between cases where the king alone pronounced the judgment and those which were judged by the ministers. That the entire province of the administration of justice did not lie in the hands of the king, although in the earliest times this might have been the case, is self-evident; the more complicated State organisation became, with a growing population and with the extension of territory, the more pressing must the necessity for a division of work have been felt, the more must the king have delegated his powers to the ministers. The legal life of the smaller towns and villages passed very much out of the direct sphere of action of the king and remained a matter for his representatives, as long as no appeal was made against the judgments of these to the king, looked upon as a higher authority. Quite in keeping with this, we also meet with a series of examples in the Jâtakas in which no mention is made of the participation of the king in the administration of justice (II. 182; V. 229). In both the narratives, the question is of quarrels between two parties, of civil cases, not of the punishment of crimes.¹ ### [c11.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.37) ² Cf. Manu, VIII., 1: “A king who wishes to investigate a lawsuit should go to the court-room in a modest attitude with the Brâhmaṇas and ministers who know how to advise.” ### [c11.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.38) ¹ Even the circumstance that in the Rathalaṭṭhi Jātaka stress is laid on the participation of the king in the administration of justice with regard to the drivers against whom the purohita preferred a charge (\*rājā sayam vinicchaye nisīditvā\*, III. 105), signifies that under usual circumstances in cases of such little importance as the one in question, the king did not preside over the administration of justice. Still it is to be noted that Brahmanical law books did not alone assign to the king the task of personally conducting law-suits: "the Greek reports, the Indian epics, the inscriptions and numerous works of Indian princes on \*vyavahāra\* show that the Indian princes often exercised judicial powers in person." Jolly in the "Zeitschrift der Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellschaft," Vol. 44, p. 344. ### [c11.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.39) 15. Criminal jurisdiction seems, according to the Jātakas, to be exclusively exercised by the king. That any person other than the king can pronounce a sentence of death seems to be nowhere mentioned in the Jātakas. Serious crimes, such as theft, adultery, bodily injury were punished by \*rājāṇā\*,² i.e., by the punishment inflicted by the king. ### [c11.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.40) ² The word denotes, according to its etymology, as it is a compound of the Sanskrit words rāja and ājñā, properly, "the king's command." Whether in the Pali, a special technical meaning is attached to the word, I cannot say. In the Culladhammapāla Jātaka it is narrated that the king causes, with the help of the executioner, the hands and feet of the prince to be cut off. The executioner asks when he has carried out the order, "Have I, O King, executed the \*rājāṇā\*" (\*kim deva katā rājāṇā\*, III. 180). Here \*rājāṇā\* probably means only "the king's ### [c11.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.41) Beyond this power of inflicting punishment, the king’s authority does not seem, according to the Jâtakas, to have extended to the person of the subjects. We read nowhere in our texts of any right which the king had to force his subjects to military or other service; on the contrary, the limitations of the king’s power are distinctly pointed out, when the king in reply to the request of the yakkhini,¹ who was made his chief consort, to give her unrestricted power over the whole kingdom, says, “My love, in no way do all the subjects of my kingdom belong to me, nor am I their lord (mayhaṃ sakala-raṭṭhavâsino na kiñci honti, nâhaṃ etesaṃ sâmiko, I. 398 ); only over those who rise ### [c11.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.42) ¹ Skr. Yakshini, a female \*yaksha\*, a supernatural being, a demon. ### [c11.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.43) command.” In other passages, on the other hand, the expression seems to be employed as a \*terminus technicus\*. A ferryman who has assaulted an ascetic and his pregnant wife is brought before the king and the latter, after he has pronounced the judgment, causes the \*râjâṇa\* to be executed (III. 232). What the punishment consisted in, is not further mentioned; I suppose that either the capital sentence or some other serious corporal punishment, such as mutilation, is to be understood here. To this points also the introduction to the Vaṭṭaka Jâtaka (I. 438), where the son of a \*seṭṭhi\* who was suspected of having made short work of a prostitute, is brought for judgment by the \*râjâṇa\*. The hands are tied behind his body and he is dragged in execution of the \*râjâṇa\*. The whole town turns out in excitement as the report of the sentence upon the \*seṭṭhi\*’s son spreads and a large crowd follows him beating the breast and mourning loudly. As the girl, however, in the meantime appears, the \*râjâṇa\* is not executed, but the circumstances mentioned point to this, that the sentence was one of capital punishment. ### [c11.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.44) against the king and do wrong am I lord. Therefore, I cannot give you unrestricted power over the whole kingdom.” ### [c11.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.45) Still the subjects of the king were not only reminded in times of war, when the king’s army protected the frontiers of the land, and through the administration of justice exercised by him and by those authorised by him, of a power standing above them and surrounding and protecting them all; the people had duties which made them realize very clearly the fact of their being citizens of the State.¹ Whilst the king has for his care the securing of protection against external enemies and the preservation of internal order, the people also, as a counter-duty on their part, bear the cost of administration of the State, the army and the Court by payment of taxes. Similar conditions we have probably to suppose for the Vedic period; at least there seems no reasonable ground for understanding by the Vedic \*bali\* anything else than a fixed tax.² Probably, in the oldest times there were voluntary presents—according to Zimmer,¹ the only tax which the Vedas prescribed that the people should pay to the king—principally for meeting the cost of the king's Court, and when we find mention of the offer of such presents in the epics² and also here and there in the Jātakas, this is to be considered a survival of the old custom. On the occasion of the coronation ceremony (chattamaṅgala), described in the Kummāsapiṇḍa Jātaka, we find among the people surrounding the throne citizens with various kinds of presents³ (\*nānāvidha-paṇṇākārahatthe nagaramanusse\*). Petitioners expected obviously a favourable reception of their prayer when they did not appear before the king with empty hands. The Brāhmaṇa who goes to the king with the request that he will replace the second dead ox, gives him a present (raṇṇákāra II. 166) with the words, “May the king be victorious.” ### [c11.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.46) ¹ This supposition seems to me justified by the fact of a tax imposed upon the whole land and by the institution of the \*gâmabhojakas\* who represented the king in their village and collected taxes for him, and I don’t understand how Senart will reconcile his theory with this fact when he denies the idea of the State to ancient India and never admits any beginnings of State-consciousness (\*Revue des deux mondes\*, Vol. 125 p. 343 sq.). ### [c11.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.47) ² For the Brâhmaṇa period the existence of taxes is certainly shown in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa VII. 29, where the Vaiśya is characterised as “one who pays taxes to another (\*anyasya balikṛit\*), who is to be employed by another and taxed according to another’s pleasure.” ### [c11.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.48) ¹ Altindisches Leben, p. 166: "Fixed taxes the people didn't pay the king, they brought to him voluntary presents." Zimmer compares this with the old German conditions which are mentioned in Tacitus, Germania 15: "Mos est civitatibus ultro ac viritim conferre principibus vel armentorum vel frugum, quod pro honore acceptum etiam necessitatibus subvenit." ### [c11.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.49) ² Cf. Hopkins, l. c., p. 90 sq. ### [c11.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.50) ³ The word \*paṇṇākāra\* means, since it is derived from Skr. \*parṇa\* + \*ākāra\*, "having the form of a leaf" and points to the custom, which is still common in India, of carrying fruits, sweets, etc., in the leaves of the banana or some other tree. Originally used in connexion with such offerings, the word came to acquire later the general sense "present." Cf. Childers, Pali Dictionary. ### [c11.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.51) In the age we are considering, the taxes formed in every case the principal sources of revenue of the king; they were an impost fixed by law, and were, if not brought voluntarily by the people themselves, collected forcibly by the king’s officers (II. 240; IV. 224; V. 98). Still the Jâtakas contain, so far as I have seen, no fixed rule concerning the nature of these taxes nor concerning the amount of the king’s share.¹ ### [c11.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.52) ¹ According to Manu VII. 130, of the corn, an eighth, sixth or twelfth part belongs to the king. In X. 120, the eighth part is indicated as the lawful and permissible tax in peace times; in times of need, the king can take a fourth part (X. 118). According to Gautama, the tax of the agriculturists is a tenth, an eighth or a sixth part of the produce. According to Vasisṭha (I. 42), Baudhâyana, (I. 18. 1) Nârada (XVIII. 48) and Viṣṇu (III 22), the sixth part is universally given as the lawful share and this is in agreement with what occurs in the epics where the king is repeatedly described as “ṣaḍbhâgin,” “a sharer of the sixth part.” ### [c11.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.53) Only the fact that of the corn reaped a fixed portion fell to the king’s share, appears from several passages. An over-conscientious seṭṭhi who has plucked from his rice field a handful of blades, in order to make out of them something with which to bind the twigs, has scruples about his conduct and reflects, “From this field I must give the king his portion (rañño-bhága II. 378) and I have taken a handful of corn without making over this portion.” In the same passage of the Kurudhamma Jâtaka it is narrated how the tax-collecting official of the king (\*doṇamápaka\*, properly, “measuring with the \*doṇa\*, a certain dry-measure”) measures at the door of the royal granary the rice paid to the king (\*rájabháge víhim minápento\*) and proceeds in this way, that he takes a grain out of the unmeasured heaps of rice and employs it as a marker. At that moment, it begins to rain. The official counts the markers and sweeps away with the words, “So much measured rice is there,” the grains which have served him as markers and throws them over the measured heap. Then he rushes indoors and stands on the doorway. Here the thought occurs to him: “Have I thrown the markers over the heaps that have been measured or over those that have not been measured? If I have placed them over the heaps that have been measured, I have without any reason increased the king’s share and diminished that of the owner (\*gahapatika\*).”¹ ### [c11.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.54) ¹ The story is told as an example of excessive conscientiousness. The official is seized with repentance at the thought that the grains which he swept away as markers, for the purpose of determining how much corn he has measured, from the unmeasured heap, were placed over the heaps that had been measured. ### [c11.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.55) The tax on the produce of the land mentioned here and consisting in a certain portion of the reaped corn constituted, according to the lawbooks and epic texts, together with other natural products of the cow, etc. The only taxes which could be collected from a proprietor of land. Of a tax which was imposed on the land and which must be paid in the form of a rent, no mention is made here; the tax was fixed upon the annual produce. On the contrary, according to the Greek accounts, the agriculturists occupied the land as the king’s tenants. The amount of the rent goes into the king’s treasury, together with a fourth part of the produce as tax.¹ What do our texts say on this question? It seems as if the statements of the Greek messengers receive confirmation from the Jâtakas. Among the ministers of the king, as we shall see, the “surveyor” (rajju-gâhaka amacca) occupies an important position; in the enumeration of the persons found in the court of the Kuru king, he is mentioned immediately after the house priest (purohita). Moreover, it is mentioned in the Kâma Jâtaka that officers of the king (râjakammikâ) come to a village to measure the fields (\*khettrappamāṇa-gahaṇatthāya\*, IV. 169), whose owners (so it is said immediately after this) pray for a remission of taxes. Most probably these surveys were undertaken in order to fix the quantity of land and with this the amount of contribution which was calculated upon the land and which had to be paid, irrespectively of the annual produce, as rent to the king. No doubt this inference of the existence of rent, from the simple fact that the land was measured, is not perfectly valid. Surveys would be necessary, even if the tax consisted in a portion of the produce, simply to give the officials some means of calculating the average produce and thus checking the accounts of the occupiers of the land. ### [c11.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.56) ¹ So also, according to Diodorus, II. 40.5, Strabo, on the other hand, only says that the agriculturists are tenants of the king and pay a fourth part of the corn as tax. Arrian speaks in extremely general terms of φόροι which the agriculturists had to pay to the kings or the autonomous states, without giving any particulars regarding the nature of the taxes and their amount. ### [c11.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.57) Who were these tax-paying tenants? It seems that even in the eastern lands the Khattiyas and the Brâhmaṇas—this in spite of their wealth and in spite of the undisputed fact that the greater portion of the land was in their hands—were free from taxes, for in all passages in question the tax-payers are mentioned as belonging to the middle classes.¹ Thus, in the above-quoted Kurudhamma Jātaka, \*doṇamāpaka\*, the royal tax-collector, who measures the corn to be paid to the king, is afraid lest he should encroach upon the property of the \*gahapatika\*; to this class also belongs the \*seṭṭhi\* who is mentioned as the tax-payer (II. 378; IV. 169). ### [c11.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.58) ¹ The conditions described in the epic Hopkins characterises (l.c., p. 89) with the words: "The latter (the warriors) are as a matter of fact exempt from the taxes; the priests are so by Divine law." ### [c11.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.59) Exemption from taxes was occasionally obtained by pleading before the king. A \*seṭṭhi\* living in the frontier requests the brother of the king to send a letter to the king asking him to grant exemption, upon which the king grants him this (IV. 169). ### [c11.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.60) The taxes are paid to the official who represents the king in the province allotted to him; in the village they are given to the \*gāmabhojaka\*, the village superintendent, who "enjoys the revenue of the village." If the subjects did not pay willingly or if the king wanted—as seemed often to happen, according to the instances narrated (II. 240; III. 9; IV. 224)—to harass the people by enhancing the taxes, he sent his officials who had to use force in filling the coffers of the king. These tax-collectors (\*balipaṭiggāhakas\*, \*niggāhakas\*, \*balisādhakas\*), according to the Jātakas, did not play an unimportant part in public life; how they were looked upon by the people seems to me to be indicated by the conclusion of the Gagga Jātaka (II. 17), where the man-eating demon (\*yakkha\*) whom the Bodhisatta has subdued is given by the king the post of a \*balipaṭiggāhaka\*. In the Gaṇḍatindu Jātaka the condition of a land ruled by an unrighteous king and plundered by his officials is described. “Oppressed with taxes (\*balipīṭitā\*, V. 98) the inhabitants lived in the forest like beasts with their wives and children; where there was once a village, there no village stood any more. The men could not, for fear of the king’s people, live in their houses, they surrounded their houses with hedges and went after sunrise to the forest. In the day the king’s people (\*rājapurisā\*) plundered, at night the thieves.” Sometimes the king’s officers made common cause with the last-mentioned class, when these officers were really there to pursue and arrest this class. A minister, whom the king gave the position of a village ruler (\*gāmabhojaka\*) (I. 355) in a frontier village and who collected there the taxes for the king, came to an understanding with the robbers that he would go with his people to the forest and they would in the mean time plunder the village and share the spoils with him. ### [c11.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.61) Besides the taxes, there were certain privileges of the king which he could use for filling his treasury. The principle mentioned in the lawbooks,¹ that unclaimed property belonged to the king, is seen also in the Jâtakas. If anybody dies without heirs, then his succession devolves upon the king. "Seven days and seven nights"—so we read in the introduction to the Mahyaka Jâtaka (III. 299)—"the army of the king took to bring the goods of people dying without heirs to the palace." Even cases where whole families leave their possessions, when, on renouncing the world, they pass into the homeless condition, occur in the Jâtakas, and this custom might, at a time when through the prevalence of pessimistic views the impulse to renounce the world was widespread, become a source of great income to the king. Still we have grounds for thinking that it was opposed to the moral principles of that age when the king made use of this right. In the Haṭṭhipâla Jâtaka it is narrated that the purohita and his wife after renouncing their entire worldly possessions go to the forest to join their sons who had already been in the homeless condition. The king hears this and resolves, "Unclaimed wealth comes to us" (\*assámikadhanam amhákam pâpuṇáti\* IV. 485),¹ and fetches the money from the house of the \*purohita\*. The queen, however, explains to him, with the help of a parable, the wrong done by him. ### [c11.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.62) ¹ Cf. the passages quoted in Foy’s \*Die königliche Gewalt nach den altindischen Rechtsbüchern\*, Leipzig, 1895, p. 50. ### [c11.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.63) ¹ Similarly, in the Telapatta Jâtaka the king justifies his capture of the widowed Yakkhinî, saying, "Unclaimed property belongs to the king" (\*assâmikabhaṇḍam nâma râjasantakam hoti\*, I. 398). ### [c11.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.64) As we, however, in our attempt to collect together the statements contained in the Jâtakas concerning the rights and duties of the king, have not hitherto been able to get an exhaustive account of the actual region of influence and sphere of power of the \*râjan\*, we must also examine the incomplete and partly contradictory details relating to the question of his succession. ### [c11.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.65) In the Vedic age, the kingdom devolved either directly upon the eldest son of the king, or the new king was elected by the people.¹ The first case is what generally occurs even in the period described in the Jâtakas. Kingship was hereditary in the family (\*kulasantakam rajjam\*, I. 395; II. 116; IV. 124) and indeed, when there were several sons, it was the eldest who succeeded his father on the throne (I. 127; II. 87, 212), whilst the second son became the Viceroy (\*uparâjan\*). As a rule, only the sons of the eldest queen (\*aggamahesî\*), who must be of the same caste as the king and thus a \*Khattiyâ\*, seem to be legitimate; yet there are instances which make it probable that this legitimacy was not always considered a \*conditio sine qua non\* of succession. In the already-quoted Kaṭṭhahâri Jâtaka the king makes the son born of a wood-gatherer (Kaṭṭhahâri) the Viceroy (uparâjan) and after the death of his father, the latter succeeded to the throne. ### [c11.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.66) ¹ Zimmer, \*Altindisches Leben\*, pp. 162, 172. ### [c11.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.67) If the king was without a male heir, then if he had a daughter, his son-in-law became heir to the throne; the son-in-law he sought either among his own kinsmen or among the members of another royal house.¹ In the Mudupâṇi Jâtaka (II. 323 sq.) the king makes his nephew his successor and explains to his ministers, "After my death my nephew will become king, my daughter will become his eldest consort (aggamahesî)." Later he changes his mind and informs his ministers that he will give his nephew another wife and marry his daughter into another royal house, in order to have as many kinsmen as possible. This intention is, however, frustrated by the cunning of these two lovers who at last carried out their desire and so we do not know how the succession would have taken place if the king had married his daughter to a foreign prince; probably, the latter would have received the uparajja with the daughter. ### [c11.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.68) ¹ In order to keep his previous promise, the king has to depart from this rule in the Devadhamma Jâtaka (I. 127) and in the Dasaratha Jâtaka (IV.124). ### [c11.69](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.69) If there is neither a male heir nor a kinsman who can succeed to the throne, the successor seems to be chosen by the ministers; election by the people, as represented in the Vedas and the epics,¹ is nowhere mentioned. The legends speak of a remarkable custom which in such cases was connected with the election of the successor. Seven days after the death of the heirless king, the purohita lets a car, the phussaratha,² be driven, after the funeral ceremonies are over (III. 238; IV. 39; V. 248). By beat of drums it is announced in the city, "To-morrow we shall drive a phussaratha." The five insignias of royalty are placed on the car and this is put in motion by the ministers who reflect, "It will come to the man who will become the king." The car then leaves the city and remains, as is often the case in stories, standing at one and the same place, namely, the gate of the park, where it rotates ready to be driven by the future king. This king is then soon found out by the purohita; he ascends the car and is anointed by the purohita. Have we to see in these legends the mythical form of an actual event, namely, the selection of a king by the purohita, or is the phussaratha nothing but a product of the rich imagination of the story-teller? To this no definite answer can be given, so long as our knowledge of phussaratha is confined to the Jâtakas; but I don't consider the possibility excluded, that when the king died without an heir and the ministers chose a successor from among themselves or from another royal house, the latter was conveyed to his residence in a manner similar to the ceremony described in the stories, and that people spread rumours about him that he was discovered as the right man by a miracle introduced by the gods. ### [c11.70](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.70) ¹ Hopkins, l. c. p. 143. ### [c11.71](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.71) ² = Skr. pushparatha, car of flower, desire? Or is phussa = spr̥śiya and pussaratha, "the car which is to be touched, i.e., taken possession of"? ### [c11.72](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.72) When the election of the successor takes place in the way described, the new king is not, as before, a khattiya, nor the scion of a foreign royal house, but the usurper son of a seṭṭhi's daughter, in fact, the child of a poor woman born in the street (IV. 38). The legendary character of this narrative does not allow this to be taken as a proof that kingship did not lie always in the hands of the khattiyas but that persons belonging to other castes might occasionally be in possession of it. There are, however, some passages which seem to support such a theory. We have already met with of revolutions by which the reigning king is removed and in his place a Brâhmaṇa is put. In the Pâdañjali Jâtaka (II. 264) the chief minister (atthadhammânusâsaka amacca), probably also belonging to the Brâhmaṇa caste, of the deceased king, and not the weakminded prince, is anointed king by the ministers. Even the lawbooks speak of kings who do not belong to the Kshatriya caste and understand by these kings of low origin who have usurped the throne.¹ ### [c11.73](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.73) ¹ Cf. Foy, Die Königliche Gewalt, p. 8. ### [c11.74](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.74) Such usurpations of the throne are mentioned in Indian history concerning historical personalities, as, for example, Chandragupta, the founder of the Maurya Dynasty who according to Brahmanical traditions was a Sûdra. ### [c11.75](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.75) Did these usurpers change their caste when they ascended the throne? Did they become \*ipso facto\* khattiyas or did they continue to belong to their former castes? In the eyes of the Brâhmaṇas influenced by their caste-theory, they would remain what they originally were, whether they belonged to the Brâhmaṇa or the Sûdra caste. In reality, this question—especially, in the eastern lands and at a time when the caste idea had not been developed very clearly—had for the usurper very little significance, as he belonged to the ruling class, whether or not he was reckoned a \*khattiya\*, and by reason of this, as we have already seen, stood above this caste. ### [c11.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.76) The ceremony which accompanied the accession to the throne was, according to the Jātakas, the same as that which we know from the Vedas and the epics: The priest—generally, the \*purohita\* (III. 239; IV. 40)—consecrates the king and sprinkles water upon him (\*abhisiñcati\*). Whether this custom was also observed in the eastern lands seems open to question, on account of the superiority of the ruling class and its independence of the priestly caste. For, as a matter of fact, there lies in this act of \*abhisecana\*, though originally its significance may have been only a religious one, as an act by which the blessings of the gods were showered, or more correctly expressed, invoked by magic, upon the king, a certain dependence of the king upon the priest consecrating him. The refusal of the priest to perform this \*abhisecana\* could, under certain circumstances, call in question the succession of the right heir. Instances are not wanting in our texts which prove the possibility of the refusal to consecrate. In the Gāmaṇicaṇḍa Jātaka it is narrated that the ministers, after they have performed the funeral ceremonies with great \*éclat\* and made funeral gifts, meet in the palace and tell the prince, because he is too young, that he can only be consecrated after he has satisfied their tests (kumâro atidaharo, na sakkâ rajje abhisiñcitum vîmaṃsitvâ taṃ abhisiñcâma, II. 297). Here the question is, however, only of a delay in consecration; but in another case the investiture was not at all performed. "In ancient times"—so we read in the Pâdañjali Jâtaka—"when Brahmadatta reigned in Benares, the Bodhisatta was his adviser in worldly and spiritual things (atthadhammânusâsaka amacca, II. 264). Now the king had a son named Pâdañjali who was a good-for-nothing fellow. In course of time the king died. When the funeral ceremonies were over, the ministers said that they wanted to install the prince as king. The Bodhisatta, however, said, "The prince is a fool and a good-for-nothing fellow, we will first examine him and then install him as king." The ministers held a Court, gave the prince a place in their middle and made a wrong judgment, inasmuch as they gave a thing to the wrong owner. Then they asked the prince whether they had judged rightly. He bit his lips. The Boddhisatta thought, "The prince, I think, is a clever fellow, he knows that we have judged wrongly" and recited the first verse: ### [c11.77](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.77) “Surely, Pâdañjali excels us all in wisdom; for he bites his lips and certainly sees through our game.” ### [c11.78](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.78) On the following day, another Court was held: this time, however, they judged rightly and asked the prince what he thought of their judgment. Again he bit his lips. Then the Bodhisatta understood that he was an out-and-out fool and recited the second verse: ### [c11.79](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.79) “This man does not know right from wrong, or good from bad; beyond the biting of his lips he knows nothing.” ### [c11.80](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.80) The ministers concluded that the prince Pâdañjali was a fool and made the Bodhisatta king.” ### [c11.81](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.81) Had this priestly investiture been a condition of the validity of the succession, no small power in political matters would have been placed in the hands of the priests; on the other hand, this priestly influence, as well as the part of the ministers in the choice of the successor, seems to be confined to extraordinary cases—absence of an heir to the throne, minority or intellectual deficiency of the prince. The rule was that the father, according to the custom prevailing in the epic age¹, which was also recommended in the lawbooks¹ placed the son in power in his lifetime which made the investiture by the priest a mere formality that had not much importance. It even happens that the king himself installs his son (rajje abhisiñci, IV. 96, 105); whether in this we are to see a taking away of the privilege enjoyed by the priest or whether the expression has lost its special meaning which has reference to the ceremony of investiture and acquired the general meaning "handing over the government," I cannot say definitely. ### [c11.82](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.82) ¹ Cf. the passage quoted already from the Râmâyaṇa (II. 23, 26); further, Mhbt. XII. 63, 19: sthâpayitvâ prajâpâlam putram râjye ca pâṇḍava anyagotram praśastam vâ kshatriyam kshatriyarshabha... ### [c11.83](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.83) ¹ Manu, IX. 323: "But (a king who feels his end approaching) shall give all his wealth derived from taxes to the Brâhmaṇas, hand over the reins of government to the son and seek death on the battlefield." ### [c11.84](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.84) The handing over of the viceroyalty (uparājja) to the eldest son seems generally to take place after the completion of his studies (I. 259; III. 123, 407); often power was made over immediately by the father to the prince, returned home from the University (IV. 96, 316; V. 177). Whilst we read in the Kummâsapiṇḍa Jātaka (III. 407) that the prince Brahmadatta after he returned from Takkasilâ was made uparājan by his father, to whom he had to furnish a proof of his ability and who was pleased with his performances, and that after the death of his father he succeeded him on the throne, it is said in the Culasutasoma Jâtaka of Prince Sutasoma that after his return from Takkasilâ he received from his father the white umbrella (setacchatta, V. 177), the emblem of royalty, and ruled justly. ### [c11.85](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.85) So long as the king’s son is not grown up and in case the king has no male descendant, the eldest among the younger brothers of the king gets the uparajja (I. 133, kaniṭṭhabhâtâ uparâjâ,¹ II. 367). ### [c11.86](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.86) ¹ Both the expressions are connected closely with each other in the passage in question, a fact which Rouse in his translation (Cambridge, 1895, p. 251) has left unnoticed. Likewise, by each of the expressions purohito brâhmaṇo, rajjugâhako amacco, doṇamâpako mahâmatto, nagarasobhaṇâ vaṇṇadasi only one person is denoted, as appears from the verse which follows. ### [c11.87](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11.87) What duties and functions were connected with the office of a viceroy, the Jâtakas do not make clear; their statements are confined to the description of superficial things. On ceremonial occasions the uparâjan sits behind the king on the back of the elephant (II. 374), a seat which is otherwise occupied by the purohita. In the Kurudhamma Jâtaka it is further explained how the viceroy goes in the evening to do the king’s work, accompanied by a large crowd from the street; “when he has driven to the palace he leaves on the yoke the reins and the spiked stick, in case he sleeps in the palace after dinner. At this sign, the crowd disperses, comes again the next day in the morning and waits till the viceroy comes out; also the driver who was in charge of the carriage at night comes the next morning with the carriage to the door of the palace. If, on the other hand, the \*uparājan\* wants to return immediately, he places the rein and the stick in the carriage and goes to the palace to serve the king. This sign the people recognise as meaning that he will return immediately and wait at the gate of the palace.” In reality, we have here a vivid picture of Court life in ancient India given in a few strokes; what, however, were the king’s services which the \*uparājan\* performed, we learn neither here nor anywhere else in the Jâtakas.¹ Also from the nature of our text we cannot safely trust to such statements, for whenever such statements occur, they appear only as incidental remarks. The narrator of a story is very little concerned with the actual political institutions; the events in the interior of the palace, in the chambers of the ladies, plots and palace intrigues occupy the foreground of his interest. In this the \*uparājan\* naturally plays an important part; we read repeatedly of the king's fears that the \*uparājan\* might become too powerful and dominate him, and of disciplinary measures taken by him to guard against such an eventuality. In the Succaja Jātaka (III.67) it is narrated how the king sees his son on active service and how at the sight of him, the thought occurs to the king that he may probably injure him. He calls the prince and says to him, “My dear son, so long as I am living, you shall not live in the town; remove your residence elsewhere and accept the reins of government after my death.” Such banishments of the \*uparājan\* do not seldom occur, according to the Jātakas (II. 203, 229); also the fears of the king were not always without foundation, as the Thusa Jātaka shows (III. 121 sq.); the sixteen-year-old prince plots against the life of the king; he communicates his plan to his servants who strengthen him in his resolve: “You are right O King, what is the use of kingship if one gets it in old age; you must in some way or other kill the king and take upon yourself the rulership.” The king discovers all plots, binds the prince and imprisons him. What is remarkable, however—one may see in this a proof of how deeply-rooted the idea was in the people's minds that the son was the legitimate heir to the throne—is, that the story ends with the words, “After the funeral ceremonies of the deceased king were over, the prince was released and the reins of government handed over to him.” _First 86 of 98 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11)_ ## Linked texts (15) - [Jātaka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.khuddaka.jataka.132) — Pāli - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.8.1) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa.5.37.52) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Mahāvagga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.vp.khandhaka.mahavagga.6.35.8) — Pāli - [Vaiṣṇava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.visnu.3.22) — Viṣṇu, Sanskrit - [Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.vasistha.1.42) — Vasiṣṭha, Sanskrit - [Βιβλιοθήκη ἱστορική](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.gr.roman.diodorus.2.40.5) — Διόδωρος ὁ Σικελιώτης, Ancient Greek - [Aitareyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.aitreya.7.29) — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki.2.23) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Śatapathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.satapatha.3.9.1.14) — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit - [Suttanipāta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.khuddaka.suttanipata) — Pāli - [Mahāparinibbānasutta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.sp.digha.16) — Pāli - [Baudhāyanadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.baudhayana) — Baudhāyana, Sanskrit - [Nāradasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.narada) — Nārada, Sanskrit - [Kalpasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.cheda.1.kalpasutra) — Bhadrabāhu, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.fick-1897.c11) · Pramāṇa