Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c34: Chapter XXII: Hindu Monarchy: Antiquity and Theory of Origin

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c34

Language
English

Chapter XXII: Hindu Monarchy: Antiquity and Theory of Origin

c34.1

HINDU MONARCHY

c34.3

§ 198. The word Rājan and its original Rāt literally mean a ruler. It is connected with the Latin *rex*. But Hindu political theorists have given it a philosophic derivation. King is called Rājā because his duty is 'to please' (rañj) the people by maintaining good government. This philosophic interpretation has been accepted as an axiom throughout Sanskrit literature. The kings also acquiesced in and accepted this constitutional interpretation of the term. Emperor Khāravela of Kalinga, who was a Jaina, says in his inscription (C. 165 B.C.) that he did *please* his subjects, 35 hundred thousand in number. In the Buddhist Canon the same theoretic definition is found: *dhammena pare rañjetīti kho, Vāseṭṭha, rājā*.¹ Both orthodox and heterodox branches of the race had adopted it. It was a national interpretation and a national theory of constitution.

c34.4

¹ *Dīgha-Nikāya, Aggañña Suttanta*, 21, *v.c.* III, p. 93.

c34.5

§ 198A. Megasthenes, as observed before², records the Hindu tradition current in his time that Monarchy was the earliest form of organised government in India. This is supported by the Ṛig-Veda where Monarchy is the normal and the only form of government known. Monarchist writers, as we have seen, utilised this fact as an argument against non-kingly forms of constitution.³ After monarchy, Megasthenes was told, republican experiments were made. As the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa puts it, it was in '*the firmly* *established* Mid-land' where monarchy held its own¹; that is, the change from Monarchy to republican form to which Megasthenes alludes, did not occur there. This Mid-land was the land from Kurukshetra to Prayâga—the valleys of the Jumna and the Ganges, which became the seat of the Aryan conquerors and Aryan monarchy. The Purâṇic history also confirms this. Its ruling houses cover the Middle Country, going beyond only in one direction—the East. The constitution of the East ('Prâchî') according to the Aitareya, was Sâmrâjya,² which was a species of monarchy,—meaning, literally, 'a collection of monarchies,' i.e., a Federal Imperialism.³

c34.6

² *Ibid.* § 18, p. 25. See also McCrindle, *Megasthenes and Arrian*, p. 200.

c34.7

³ See Pt. I, §§ 101, 178. Cf. नाराcrossकेषु राष्ट्रेषु वस्तव्यमिति वैदिकम्। *M. Bh. ŚP.* 66.5 (Kumb.)

c34.8

¹ See *Aitareya Brâhmaṇa*, VIII. 14. एतस्यां ध्रुवायां मध्यमायां प्रतिष्ठायां दिशि ये के च कुरुपञ्चालानां राजानः स-वशोशीनराणां राज्यायैव तेऽभिषिच्यन्ते। राजेत्येनानभिषिक्तानाचक्षते।

c34.9

² See below, Ch. XXXVII [Evidently at the time of the *Aitareya Brâhmaṇa* the North Bihar Republics had not come into existence.]

c34.10

³ Videha and Magadha. Janaka (probably a royal style and not a proper name) king of the Videhas, according to Vedic literature (*Śatapatha Br.*, xi. 3.1.2; see also उभयमेव सम्राट्, *Bri. Up.*, iv. 1. 1.) and Jarâsandha, king of Magadha, according to the Purâṇas, were holders of the title Samrât (M. Bh., See § 362).

c34.11

§ 199. There are several theories known to Hindu literature on the origin of Hindu Kingship. A brief notice of those theories is necessary to understand the constitutional effect which they produced on practical administration.

c34.12

§ 200. The Vedic theory is found in the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa. It asserts that the Devas, i.e. their worshippers, the Hindus, originally had no king. In their struggle against the Asuras—when the Devas found that they were repeatedly defeated, they came to the conclusion that it was because the Asuras had a king to lead them, they were successful. Therefore they decided to try the same experiment. And they agreed to elect a king:

c34.13

"The *Devas and Asuras were fighting...the Asuras "defeated the Devas...The Devas said, 'It is on account of our "having no king that the Asuras defeat us. Let us elect "a king'. All consented."*¹

c34.14

¹ *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* I. 14. देवामुरा वा एषु लोकेषु समयतंत........ तांस्ततोऽसुरा अजयन् ........ देवा अब्रुवन्नराजतया वै नो जयंति राजानं करवामहा इति तथेति ॥

c34.15

If it has a historical reference it would refer to the tribal stage of the Aryans in India and it would suggest that the institution of kingship was borrowed from the Dravidians. Whatever the historical truth in the theory, the important point to note here is that kingship is contemplated to be elective in its origin.

c34.16

§201. Political writers, however, had a theory of their own which is confined more to the abstract side of the question.

c34.17

They held that the first king was elected on certain conditions or on a contract, and that the original contract was always enforced subsequently.² According to this view the election was necessitated for internal administration, the authority of law by itself, the people having refused to follow. This theory of contractual monarchy, which undoubtedly was a reflex of the express republican theory of contract,³ found support in Vedic hymns and songs of royal election, in rituals of royal consecration which were based on elective principles, and in the Coronation oath which made the king swear that he should rule according to law.

c34.18

² See the discussion in the *Artha-Śāstra*, I. 9. pp. 22-23; also that in the *Mahābhārata*, § 238.

c34.19

³ See above, §§ 174-6.

c34.20

These ceremonials were invariably observed even when succession to throne had become hereditary. In theory, according to these sacred ceremonies, the king, as we shall presently see, was always an elected officer holding office on conditions which he accepted in his Coronation oath. The contract theory of the politicians, as we shall see, was always believed in and accepted by both the ruler and the ruled.

c34.21

Actual election at times did take place even in post-Vedic times. Megasthenes notes that after Svayambhū, Budha and Kratu, the succession was generally hereditary but that *'when a failure of heirs occurred in the royal house, the 'Indians elected their sovereign on the principle of merit'.*¹ The Jātakas² have stories of election of kings and even the fables³ of the country made animals elect their king. They indicate that the theory of elective kingship was a national theory widely current. Let us now take the sacred hymns of royal election of the Vedas and the Vedic kingship.

c34.22

¹ Mc Crindle, *Megasthenes and Arrian*, p. 200.

c34.23

² *The Jātaka*, Vol I, p. 399.

c34.24

³ See Mahāvastu (ed. Senart), vol. II, p. 70.

Linked texts (9)