Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c18: Chapter X: Technical Hindu Constitutions

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c18

Language
English

Chapter X: Technical Hindu Constitutions

c18.2

*(from c. 1000 B.C.)*

c18.3

§ 90. Gaṇa and Kula were two main divisions of the Saṃgha states. Between them there were various technical classes of constitutions. Terms for them which have come down to us and their details, as far as I have been able to collect, I propose to set forth below. Let us take the oldest first.

c18.4

§ 91. The Bhaujya constitution is noticed by the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa.¹ We get some light on this constitution from an unexpected quarter. The Pāli Canon² enumerates careers open to a *Kulaputta*. Amongst these, next to the king-consul, we have *Raṭṭhika* and *Pettanika*. Aśoka in his inscriptions, equates Bhoja with Raṭhika or Rāshṭrika.³ The commentary on the Aṅguttara Nikāya explains the Pettanika as being hereditary leadership (Sāpateyya), come down from forefathers.¹ The Rāshtrikas and Bhojakas or Bhojas as opposed to Pettanikas apparently meant non-hereditary leadership. *Sāpateyyam* ('together-leadership') suggests that in each case there were more than one leader. The Mahā-Bhārata also in its list of different classes of rulers mentions Bhoja as a class (*Sānti.* Ch. lxvii. Śl. 54).² To this interpretation I am also led by Khāravela's inscription which describes the *Rāshtrikas* and the *Bhojakas* with paraphernalia of sovereignty.³ Later inscriptions have Bhojas and Mahā-Bhojas which signify higher and ordinary classes of leaders. Sovereignty rested in the Bhoja leaders. The constitution itself was called *Bhaujya* as in the Aitareya. It is note-worthy that the *Bhojas*, so-called after their rulers, appear in later literature as a sub-division of the Yādavas whose earlier history we find as a league of two republics, called the *Andhaka-Vrishṇis* (§§ 36-40). Now according to the Aitareya the Satvats, which is the ancient name for the Yādavas, were one of the peoples who observed the Bhaujya constitution.

c18.5

¹ *Ait. Br.* VIII, 14. दक्षिणस्यां दिशि ये के च सत्वतां राजानो भौज्यायैव तेऽभिषिच्यन्ते। भोज्ये-त्येनानभिषिक्तानाचक्षत....।

c18.6

² यस्स कस्सचि महानाम, कुलपुत्तस्स पञ्चधम्मा संविज्जन्ति, यदि वा रञ्ञो खत्तियस्स मुद्धाभिसित्तस्स, यदि वा रट्ठिकस्स पेत्तनिकस्स, यदि वा सेनाय सेनापतिकस्स, यदि वा गामगामिकस्स, यदि वा पूगगामिकस्स, ये वा पन कुलेसु पच्चेकाधिपच्चं कारेन्ति। *Aṅguttara Nikāya*, Pt. III, p. 76.

c18.7

³ Rock Series Proclamations V and XIII, सवत्रातं रिष्टिकतेनिकानं ये वापि अंने अपरांन्ता (Girnar V); भोजपितिनिकेषु, Shahbazgarhi XIII.

c18.8

¹ पित्तरादयं सापतैयं. *Aṅguttara* III. *Indices*, p. 456; again 'सुजातमूत्त' मुखरित. commentary at p. 300.

c18.9

² राजा भौजो बिराट् सम्राट्

c18.10

³ Jayaswal, *Hāthīgumphā Inscription*, *J. B. O. R. S.*, III., p. 455.

c18.11

§ 92. That this constitution prevailed in Eastern India also is probable on account of the reference in the Pāli Canon, which as a rule, does not deal with institutions of Western India.

c18.12

Owing to their special constitution a people in Western India acquired the name Bhojas. This is probably a case where a nation is formed on account of its political constitution. The Andhaka-Vrishṇis were in the peninsula of Gujrat or Kathiawad. The name Bhoja or Bhaujya still survives in modern Bhuj, the capital of an Indian state (Cutch) in the Kathiawad Agency. Gujarat is one of the most ancient seats of Bhaujya; but it is likely that the Satvats had spread southwards, as the Aitareya places them in the south. If the author of the Aitareya was in the north of the Kuru land which he places in the Middle Country, he might locate Gujrat in the south.

c18.13

§ 93. Svārājya is taken to be a peculiar constitution by the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa prevailing in Western India.¹ The ruler or President was called *Svarāṭ*. It literally means "self-ruler." The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa in praising the Vājapeya royal consecration says that a wise man (*Vidvān*) sacrifices by the Vājapeya and he obtains Svārājya, which it explains as 'becoming the leader of equals.' He attains 'eldership' (*jaishṭhya*).² This little information shows that the *Sva-rāṭ* ruler was taken from amongst equals, and was made President, and that the selection was based upon merit for Indra who is said to have first obtained the Svārājya consecration (*abhisheka*) is described as having proved his merit. Evidently this refers to an election or selection to the presidentship amongst the members of a gaṇa or council. It should be noted that the members of the gaṇa according to the Mahā-Bhārata were considered to be equals (*sadriśās sarve*).³ According to the Aitareya this form of government prevailed amongst the Nīchyas and the Apāchyas of Western India. The Nīchyas would have occupied, as their name signifies, the low lands bordering near the mouths of the Indus, and the Apāchyas, probably, the regions immediately above. In the time of the Yajur Veda, however, the Svārājya form prevailed in Northern India.¹ Later reference than the Aitareya for this from of constitution has not yet been met with.

c18.14

¹ एतस्यां प्रतीच्यां दिशि ये के च नीच्यानां राजानो ऽपाच्यानां स्वाराज्यायैव तेऽभिषिच्यन्ते स्वराडित्ये- नानाभिषिक्तानाचक्षत....*Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, VIII, 14.

c18.15

² स एवं विद्वान् वाजपेयेन यजति। अगच्छति स्वाराज्यम्। अग्रं समानानां पर्येति। तिष्ठन्तेऽस्मै ज्यैष्ठ्याय T. Brāhmaṇa, I. 3. 2. 2.

c18.16

³ See below § 124.

c18.17

¹ ^1 स्वराडस्युदीची दिशन्मन्त्रस्ते देवा अधिपतयः etc., *Ś. Yajurveda*, XV. 13.

c18.18

§ 94. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa describes the Vairājya as a national constitution of some of the 'nations' of the North. The locality is further defined by the words "by the side of the Himālayas." In the time of the Yajur Veda such constitution was followed in the South. This shows that this from of government was not confined only to the North but was adopted in widely different localities.² I have rendered the term, taking it literally, as "the king-less constitution."³ According to the Aitareya the whole country or nation (Janapada) took the consecration of rulership. There is no doubt that this was a real democratic constitution. By way of example the Uttara-Madras and the Uttara-Kurus are given in the Aitareya as observing this constitution. The grammatical literature mentions the Madras defined according to *diś* or direction, which signifies that there were at least two Madras.⁴ The Madras were republican in the time of Pāṇini and they were so up to the 4th century A. C. when the Guptas encountered them.⁵ It seems that the Uttara-Madras or the Higher Madras had a somewhat different constitution from that of the Lower Madras. Now, the Uttara-Kurus in later literature have passed into the region of fable and mythology, where they are noted for prosperity and life of enjoyment.¹ In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, they are a historical people like the Madras. Apparently they, as a separate people, disappeared in later times and the story of their material prosperity transferred them to the region of folklore, a fate very common in this country where history has been often barbarised into mythology.²

c18.19

² ^2 एतेन च ह्येतेनैतेन च प्रसुषेताभिष काश्जविभिर्वैराज्याय तस्मादेतस्यामुदीच्यां दिशि ये के च परेण हिमवन्तं जनपदा उत्तरकुरव उत्तरमद्रा इति वैराज्यायैवैतेऽभिषिच्यन्ते। विराडित्येनानभिषिक्तानाचक्षत...... *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, VIII, 14. "विराडसि दक्षिणा दिक् रुद्रास्ते देवा अधिपतयः etc., *Yajurveda*, XV. 11.

c18.20

³ ^3 Cf. "To this word two meanings can be given: 1) without king; 2) a very distinguished king. In this passage we must take it in the first meaning; for here are the *Janapadāḥ*, i.e., people in opposition to the king mentioned as *abhishikta* i.e., anointed, whilst in all other passages of this chapter, we find instead of them, the *rājānaḥ* or kings." M. Haug, *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, Vol. II, p. 518, n.

c18.21

⁴ ^4 Pāṇini IV 2 108, मद्रेश्योऽन् । See also the previous Sūtra, and VII, 3. 13 दिगोऽमद्राणाम्, where the janapadas of the North are treated.

c18.22

⁵ ^5 Fleet, *Gupta Inscriptions*, p. 8.

c18.23

¹ Cf. *Milinda Pañho*, Vol. I., pp. 2-3 The old Madra capital (§ 96) is thus described and compared with Uttara Kuru about the beginning of the Christian era:—

c18.24

² Cf *Sabhāparvan*, Ch. XXVIII. Also *Jātaka*, Vol. V, p. 316; Vol. VI, p. 100 where Uttara-Kuru is still a historical country located 'in the Himalayas.'

c18.25

"......a great centre of trade, a city that is called Sâgala, situate in a delightful country, well watered and hilly, abounding in parks and gardens and groves and lakes and tanks, a paradise of rivers and mountains and woods. Wise architects have laid it out, and its people know of no oppression since all their enemies and adversaries have been put down. Brave is its defence, with many and various strong towers and ramparts, with superb gates and entrance archways; and with the royal citadel in its midst, white-walled and deeply moated. Well laid out are its streets, squares, cross roads, and market places. Well displayed are the innumerable sorts of costly merchandise with which its shops are filled. It is richly adorned with hundreds of alms-halls of various kinds; and splendid with hundreds of thousands of magnificent mansions, which rise aloft like the mountain peaks of the Himalayas. Its streets are filled with elephants, horses, carriages, and foot-passengers, frequented by groups of handsome men and beautiful women, and crowded by men of all sorts and conditions, Brāhmans, nobles, artificers, and servants. They resound with cries of welcome to the teachers of every creed, and the city is the resort of the leading men of each of the differing sects. Shops are there for the sale of Benares muslin, of Kotumbara stuffs, and of other clothes of various kinds; and sweet odours are exhaled from the bazaars, where all sorts of flowers and perfumes are tastefully set out. Jewels are there in plenty, such as men's hearts desire, and guilds of traders in all sorts of finery display their goods in the bazaars that face all quarters of the sky. So full is the city of money, and of gold and silver ware, of copper and stone ware, that it is a very mine of dazzling treasures. And there is laid up there much store of property and corn and things of value in warehouses—foods and drinks of every sort, syrups and sweetmeats of every kind. In wealth it rivals Uttara-Kuru, and in glory it is as Alakanandā, the city of the gods."

c18.26

§ 95. Hindu commentators failing to recognise the significance of the word *Vairājya* (‘kinglessness’) have fallen into the error of rendering it as ‘*shining condition*.’ But there cannot be the slightest doubt as to the constitutional interpretation given here. Other terms of the same passage of the Aitareya do bear constitutional interpretation; and if any additional evidence were necessary, I would refer to the term as used by Kauṭilya who treats it as a form of government and rejects it as a bad form.¹ He, like his contemporary Greek thinkers, held democracy in contempt. According to him

c18.27

¹ वैराज्यं तु जीवतः परस्याच्छिद्य "नैतन्मम" इति मन्यमानः कर्शयत्यपवाहयति; पण्यं वा करोति विरक्तं वा परित्यज्य अपगच्छतीति।—*Artha-S’āstra*, VIII. 2, p. 323 Mr. Shama Shastry’s translation is hopelessly confused. He takes Vairājya to mean “foreign rule, which “comes into existence by seizing the country from its king still alive,” p. 395.

c18.28

‘no body feels in a Vairājya Government
‘the feeling of “mine” (with regard to the
‘state), the aim of political organism is
‘rejected, any one can sell away (the
‘country), no one feels responsible, or one
‘becoming indifferent leaves the state.’

c18.29

The Jaina Āchārāṅga Sūtra² also mentions the Vairājya in giving different kinds of constitutions. And the Mahā-Bhārata³ notices Virāj as one of the official titles of ruler.

c18.30

² *Āyārāṅga Suttaṃ*, (Jacobi’s edition) p. 83. Verajijāṇi etc.

c18.31

³ राजा भोजो विराट् सम्राट् . . . . . Sānti, LXVIII, 54.

c18.32

§ 96 The ‘capital’ of the Madras is noted though not named by Pāṇini. We know from other sources⁴ that it was Śākala which is supposed to be identical with modern Sialkot. If the identification is correct, the Śākala must have been originally the seat the Uttara *Madras*

c18.33

⁴ *Mahābhārata*, Karnaparvan, Chs. XL, XLIV.

c18.34

In the 2nd century B C., the capital was under Menander according to the Milinda Pañho. It seems that the Madras then left their original home and migrated to lower regions where they were found still flourishing in the Gupta age.¹

c18.35

¹ Fleet, *Gupta Inscriptions*, p. 8.

c18.36

§ 97. It is evident that the *Rāshtrikas* of the West, who in Aśoka's inscriptions² are in the group of the Bhojas and Pitenikas, were a non-monarchical community. No king of theirs is noticed by Aśoka. Khāravela also mentions them in the plural, fighting him in league with the Bhojakas, and with paraphernalia of sovereignty.³ No doubt now remains as to their republican character. As pointed out above the Pāli Canon knows and names the *Rāshtrika* or *Ratthika* class of rulers.⁴

c18.37

² See above § 91.

c18.38

³ See *ante* p. 90, n. 3.

c18.39

⁴ *Aṅguttra Nikāya*, Vol. III, LVIII, 1. See above § 91 n. 2.

c18.40

According to the implication of the commentary, the *Rāshtrika-Sāpatya* (*Sāpateyyam*) or 'board of leaders' were not hereditary.⁵ They were therefore elected. The mention in the Pāli authority goes to indicate that the *Rāshtrika* constitution was also very probably known to Eastern India. Like the *Bhaujya* this too gave a national name to the *Rāshtrikas* of the West. The country named Su-rāshtra of Western India probably owed its origin to a *Rāshtrika* constitution. In the Artha-Śāstra, the Su-rāshtras are a republic where no king-consul was allowed.⁶ The territorial appellations Rāshtrika and Su-rāshtra seem to have been derived from this republican constitution.

c18.41

⁵ *Aṅguttara Nikāya*, Vol. iii, p. 456, where the Pettanika, as opposed to Ratthika, is hereditary.

c18.42

⁶ *Artha-Śāstra*, p. 376; See above §§ 55, 57.

c18.43

§ 99. The passage in the Pāli Canon noticed above places the Pettanikas by the side of the Rāshtrikas, and, as we have seen, the term denoted 'hereditary leaders.' Theirs appears to have been really a perverted form of the Rāshtrika, or rather the Bhoja, form of government, where rulers or leaders had managed to become hereditary. In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa itself, one class of Bhojas are distinguished from the other by the expression *Bhoja pitaram* (VIII. 12) or hereditary Bhoja (literally, who himself a Bhoja would also be the father of a Bhoja). The commentary to the Aṅguttara Nikāya has in one place¹ *bhuttānubhuttaṃ bhuñjati* (=*Pettanika*) which would signify a Bhoja Pettanika. The Pettanika oligarchy, or probably aristocracy, was prevalent in Western India as evidenced by Aśoka's inscriptions. That it existed in Eastern India is probable, coming as it does in the Pāli passage.

c18.44

¹ *Aṅguttara Nikāya*, Vol. III, Indices, p. 456.

c18.45

Kauṭilya discusses the constitution called *Dvairājya* in connection with the *Vairājya*. He characterises the Dvairājya, "the rule of two," as a constitution of rivalry and mutual conflict leading to final destruction.² It should be noticed that the Āchārāṅga Sūtra also refers to this constitution and treats it as distinct from the Gaṇa government. This 'rule of two' was neither a monarchy nor an aristocracy. It is a constitution peculiar to the history of India. Historical instances of this constitution are known to our literature and inscriptions. Avanti in some period of Hindu history was under this constitution, for the Mahā-Bhārata relates that Avanti was under Vinda and Anuvinda, two kings ruling jointly.³ The inscriptional instances have caused much confusion to Indian epigraphists and they found no solution of the riddle. In the 6th and 7th centuries of the Christian era, Nepal was under such a constitution. Simultaneous inscriptions of the kings of the Lichchhavi family and the Thākuri family are found at Kāṭhmāṇḍu.⁴ These are orders issued from two places in the same capital, and the dates prove that the two dynasties were ruling simultaneously. Epigraphists not knowing the Dvairājya form of government could not see the real significance. They were therefore forced to suppose an imaginary divided jurisdiction. It is, however, excusable, as the idea of *Dvairājya* is so foreign to modern mind. *Primâ facie* such a constitution is unthinkable and unworkable. Its working in India constitutes a unique constitutional experiment and success. The constitution in Nepal lasted for a long time. Hobbes' doctrine of indivisible sovereignty would not allow a foreign student to grasp the inscriptions of Nepal. But in India, where joint-family is a living doctrine it is explicable. Such a constitution was feasible only in a country where the juristic notion of the Mitāksharā family could develop into a practical principle. It seems that the legal principle of joint property and joint enjoyment was transferred to the region of politics and acted upon, whereby 'conflict,' 'rivalry' and 'annihilation' could be avoided for centuries. The Nepal families were not related by blood. It was only the constitution which made them joint twins in sovereignty. The references in the Artha-Śāstra and the Achārāṅga Sūtra indicate that the constitution was not a very rare thing in Hindu India.

c18.46

² द्वैराज्यवैराज्यायोः द्वैराज्यमन्योन्यपक्षं वागनुरागाभ्यां परस्परसङ्घर्षेण वा विनश्यति। —*Artha-Śāstra*, p. 323.

c18.47

³ *Sabhāparvan*, Ch. 31 ; Ud. P. 165, etc.

c18.48

⁴ Fleet, *Gupta Inscriptions*, App. IV.

c18.49

§101. The Arājaka or 'non-ruler'¹ was an idealistic constitution which came to be the object of derision of political writers of Hindu India. The ideal of this constitution was that Law was to be taken as the ruler and there should be no man-ruler. The basis of the state was considered to be a mutual agreement or social contract between the citizens. This was an extreme democracy almost Tolstoïan in ideal. The Mahā-Bhārata² from which the above description is taken, ridicules the constitution and says that the framers of this legal state found out their

c18.50

¹ This technical Arājaka does not mean anarchy. For anarchy, Hindu politics uses a special term, mātsya-nyāya, e.g., AŚ., 1. 4, p. 9; Khālimpur copper plate (*E.I.*, IV. 248), Manu, VII. 20.

c18.51

² *Śāntiparvan*, Ch. LIX: In the beginning of the Current Cycle there was no monarchy and no monarch, and there was no man appointed to executive government.

c18.52

In fact, there was no executive power. The rule of law and government of law was established. This government of law did not last for want of mutual confidence. Hence monarchy was introduced.

c18.53

[In another place the same theory is expressed to this effect:

c18.54

Subjects in the Arājaka state becoming anarchical formed resolutions in an assembly and made laws for control of violence and crime. All the castes for the sake of confidence entered into agreement to live by the contract. But when they were not satisfied with the working of the system they complained to the Creator who recommended them a sovereign, and a king was elected.

c18.55

This occurs in Chapter LXVII. Both traditions relate to the same theory.

c18.56

निमग्नं नरव्याघ्र यश सर्वमशेषतः।
यथा राज्यं समुत्पन्नमादौ कृतयुगेऽभवत् ॥
नैव राज्यंनराजासीन्न च दण्डो न दाण्डिकः ।
धर्मेणैव प्रजाः सर्वा रक्षन्ति स्म परस्परम् ॥
पाल्यमानास्तथान्योन्यं नरा धर्मेण भारत।
खेदं परमुपाजग्मुस्ततस्तान्मोह आविशत् ॥
ते मोहवशमापन्ना मनुजा मनुजर्षभ।
प्रतिपत्तिविमोहाच्च धर्मस्तेषामनीनशत् ॥
नष्ठायां प्रतिपत्तौ च मोहवशा नराधिप।
लोभस्य वशमापन्नाः सर्वे भरतसत्तम ॥
Ch. LIX. Śl. 13–17.

c18.57

In Śloka 22, they approach Brahman who writes a book on government and recommends a king (*passim*).

c18.58

Chapter LXVII,

c18.59

इन्द्रमेव प्रणमते यद्राजानमिति श्रुतिः।
यथैवेन्द्रस्तथा राजा संपूज्यो भूतिमिच्छता ॥ ३ ॥
अराजकाः प्रजाः सर्वा पूर्वं विनेषुरिति नः श्रुतम्।
परस्परं भक्षयन्तो मत्स्या इव जले कृशान् ॥ १६ ॥
समेत्य तास्ततश्चक्रुः समयानिति नः श्रुतम्।
वाक्शूरो दण्डपरुषो यश्च स्यात्पारदारिकः ॥ १७ ॥
यश्च नः समयं भिन्द्यात्त्याज्या नस्तादृशा इति ।
विश्वासार्थं च सर्वेषां वर्णानामविशेषतः।
तास्तथा समयं कृत्वा समयेनावतस्थिरे ॥ १८ ॥
सहितास्तास्तदा जग्मुरसुखार्ताः पितामहम्।
अनीश्वरा विनश्यामौ भगवन्नीश्वरं दिश। २० ॥

c18.60

mistake when the arrangement would work no more, with the result that nobody obeyed the law without sanction; when the law would not rule, the citizens of this form of government took to monarchy. I was inclined to regard this "non-ruler" (*arājaka*) constitution as a mere fiction of Hindu politicians who, I thought, wanted to invent it as an argument against republican theories of social contract and rule of law. But the Jaina Sūtra compels me to take it as a constitutional experiment which had been tried more than once in this country. The Sūtra mentions the form as a living institution.¹ The group where this constitution occurs is composed of all real and historical forms of government. It gives:

c18.61

¹ Se bhikkhū vā 2 gāmāṇugāmaṁ dūijjamāṇe aṁtarā se arāyāṇi vā gaṇarāyāṇi vā juvarāyāṇi vā dorajjāṇi vā, verajjāṇi vā viruddharajjāṇi vā, saṁsādhe vihārāe saṁtharaṇāsehiṁ jaṇavashim, no vihāravattiyāe pavajjejjā gamaṇāe. kevali būyā: āyāṇaṁ eyaṁ ; te yaṁ bālā : ayaṁ teṇe taṁ ceva jāva gaṇasāhe, tato saṁjayāṁ eva gāmāṇugāmaṁ dūijjejjā. Āyāraṅgasuttaṁ (Ed. Jacobi) II. 3-1-10.

c18.62

(*a*) Non-ruler States,
(*b*) Gaṇa-ruled States,
(*c*) Yuvarāja-ruled States,
(*d*) Two-ruled States,
(*e*) Vairājya States,
(*f*) 'Viruddha-rajjāṇi' or States ruled by parties.

c18.63

The (*c*) class evidently refers to a government like the one over which Khāravela presided before his coronation (Yovarajaṁ pasāsitam). Legally such a period of rule was considered as interregnum. Government was probably in the hands of some council of regency, the sovereign being too young. The (*f*) class seems to refer to the rule of parties as in the case of the Andhaka-Vṛishṇis.

c18.64

The Jaina Sūtra says that all these states are unsafe for a monk or a nun to go to, as they are suspicious, prone to suspect strange ascetics as political spies. We know from the Artha-Śāstra that spies generally took the garb of sectarian ascetics.

c18.65

Very small states on the doctrinaire principle of 'no man-ruler state' could have existed. There must have been Hindu Mazzinis and Hindu Tolstois to found and work such glorious but well-nigh impossible constitutions.

c18.66

§ 102. Another passage in the Jaina Sūtra¹ (II. 1. 2. 2.) gives three classes of rulers: *Ugra* (*Ugga*) *Bhoja*, and *Rājanya*, (then follow the *Kshatriyas*, *Ikshvākus*, etc). The technical, constitutional value of Rājanya we have already found out. Bhoja also we know. Ugra we get from Vedic literature (§ 202 Pt. II., p. 8.)

c18.67

¹ १ उग्गकुलाणि वा भोगकुलाणि वा राइण्णकुलाणि वा खत्तियकुलाणि वा इक्खागकुलाणि......... *Āyāraṅgasuttaṃ* (Ed. Jacobi).

c18.68

Kerala (Malabar) is also called *Ugra*. Probably Kerala had the Ugra constitution. Kerala is reputed to have had some republican form of government. The title *Keralaputo* in Aśoka's inscriptions may indicate some special form of government. The *Keralaputo* was the ruler of Kerala, but not its king. Similarly was his neighbour *Satiyaputo* of Aśoka's inscriptions. The Satvats were originally on the fringe of the Deccan, and it is likely that one of their branches went further down. With Satiyaputo as a Bhoja we can take Keralaputo as an Ugra, but the identification must remain tentative until further data be forthcoming.

c18.69

§ 103. It should be borne in mind that in all these classes of constitutions, the ceremony of consecration was deemed essential. Without that there was no legal state. And why so? The rulers had to take the oath of good and honest government. The ceremony was so important that in democratic republics where the whole country was supposed to rule (Vairājya), the whole country took abhisheka consecration by a special ritual.¹ The Lichchhavis had their *abhisheka* (above p. 51, n. 2), and the Mallas had their fixed place where their rulers in taking office went through 'coronation,' (*Mukuṭa-bandhana*, 'putting on the coronet,' MPS, 6. 15) which pre-supposes *abhisheka* (§ 220 below). 'Un-anointed' ruler is a term of contempt in Hindu politics. It is to denote an unlawful ruler. It is applied to foreign tribes in the Purāṇas²

c18.70

¹ *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, VIII. 14.

c18.71

² *Vāyu Purāṇa*,—

c18.72

भविष्यन्तीह यवना धर्मतः कामतोऽर्थतः ।
नैव मूर्द्धाभिषिक्तास्ते भविष्यन्ति नराधिपाः ॥

c18.73

See Pargiter's text, p 56.

Linked texts (17)