Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c38: Chapter XXVI: Coronation in Later Times

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c38

Language
English

Chapter XXVI: Coronation in Later Times

c38.2

§ 236. In later times all the constitutional principles upon which the ritualistic coronation was based we find being acted upon, with modifications in details to suit changed and changing circumstances. According to the Mahā-Bhārata, Yudhishṭhira ‘worshipped’ his Ministers before his coronation.¹ Here ministers stand for the Vedic Ratnins. At the proposed coronation of Rāma as King-assistant (*Yuvarāja*)—as described in the Rāmāyaṇa,² according to the practice and ideas current in the days of its composition³—we find the Jānapada and the Pauras present in place of the Grāmaṇī and Sajātas and the guild of merchants and traders in place of the Vedic ‘rathakāras’ and ‘karmāras.’ In the Mahā-Bhārata at the royal coronation of Yudhishṭhira we see the Brahmins, the owners of the land, the Vaiśyas and all the respectable

c38.3

¹ ‘**अभ्यर्चयित्वा सभासदः**’ *Sabhā-Parvan*, Ch. XIII 4, 26, 29

c38.4

² *Rāmāyaṇa*, Bk II, Ch. XIV, v. 52,

c38.5

³ "The cumulative evidence of the above arguments makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the kernel of the *Rāmāyaṇa* was composed before 500 B.C., while the more recent portions were probably not added till the second century B.C. and later." Macdonell, *Sanskrit Literature*, p. 309. The view is in agreement with Jacobi's analysis (*Das Rāmāyaṇa*).

c38.6

तदुपिष्ठत रामस्य समग्रमभिषेचनम् ।
पौरजानपदाश्चापि नैगमश्च कृताञ्जलिः ॥

c38.7

⁴ See below Chapters XXVII and XXVIII.

c38.8

Śūdras invited.¹ In the Rāmāyaṇa² the Brahmins, Ministers, Knights (Kshatriyas) and members of guilds (which had all castes in them) sprinkle the king with waters brought from the seas and rivers. A new element introduced is the representation of womanhood: unmarried girls also take part in the be-sprinkling. In the Mahā-Bhārata all the representatives of the subjects led by Dhaumya and Kṛishṇa consecrate Yudhishṭhira.³ The emperor receives presents and makes gifts of honour. According to Nīlakaṇṭha (*Nītimayūkha*)⁴ the four chief ministers (मुख्यामात्यचतुष्टयम्), Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra by caste, consecrated the new king. Then the leaders (Mukhyāḥ) of each Varṇa and of the castes lower still (शूद्रांश्चावरमुख्यांश्च) consecrated him with holy waters (नानातीर्थसमुद्भवैः). Then followed Acclamation by the twice-born (द्विजकोलाहलेन च). The king next sat amongst ministers and representatives of the people, Citizens of the Capital, merchants, traders, leaders of the bazar (पण्येश्वरान्) and others who were introduced by the gentleman-usher to the king (प्रतीहारः प्रदर्शयेत्). A procession through the streets of the capital concluded the ceremony.⁵ According to the Brahma-Purāṇa, quoted in the Vīramitrodaya-Rājanīti-prakāśa

c38.9

¹ *Sabhā-Parvan* XXXIII, 41, 42. Kumbakonam ed., C. XXXVII,

c38.10

² *Yuddhakāṇḍa*, 128.61 (Bombay). ॠत्विग्भिर्ब्राह्मणैः पूर्वं कन्याभिर्मन्त्रिभिस्तथा ।

c38.11

³ *Śānti*, C. XLI.

c38.12

⁴ Benares, 1880, pp. 2-3, ततो भद्रासनगतं तं मुख्यामात्योऽभिषेचयेत् ।

c38.13

⁵ The king's 'us̲hṇīsha' diadem, had five crests (śikhā); that of the Queen, three, of the Yuvarāja, three; and of the Senāpati, one. *Ibid*, p. 4.

c38.14

आमन्त्रयध्वं राष्ट्रेषु ब्राह्मणान्भूमिपानथ ।
विशश्च मान्यान्शूद्रांश्च सर्वानिनयतेति च ॥

c38.15

बोधैश्चैवाभ्यषिञ्चंस्ते संप्रहृष्टैः सनैगमैः ॥

c38.16

(p. 46) the king after the ceremony went round the capital on an elephant, re-entered the palace, and offered worship or honour to all the leaders of the Paura (प्रदक्षिणीकृत्य पुरं प्रविश्य च पुर' गृहम् । समस्तान् पौरमुख्यांश्च कृत्वा पूजां विसर्जयेत् ॥). In the Pushya coronation ceremony as laid down in the Atharvānapariśishṭa¹, the king after the ceremony allowed audience to Brahmins, and saluted the wives of the leaders of the subjects, Associations or Guilds, whereupon they gave him blessings.

c38.17

¹ Cited by Mitra-Miśra in *V. M. R.* p. 114.

c38.18

This procedure is really the same in essentials as we find in the Brāhmaṇa period, with an extension of the principle of representation. We find the Elders of Pañchāla *i.e.*, the members of an association similar to or identical with the Paura and Jānapada of Pañchāla, doing the *Abhisheka* of the new king of Kānyakubja in the time of Dharma Pāla, as recorded in his Khālimpur copper plate.

c38.19

§ 237. Similarly the Coronation Oath now called Pratijñā, was administered. In the Mahā-Bhārata, it is given in terms which correspond to the oath given in Aitareya Brāhmaṇa.

c38.20

The oath is called by the Mahā-Bhārata a Śruti, which denotes that the oath was based on Vedic text. As the Aitareya enjoins that the oath should be repeated 'with faith' (*saha-śraddhayā*), so here it had to be pronounced without any mental reservation:

c38.21

ततस्तु दर्शनं देयं ब्राह्मणानां नृपेण तु ।
श्रं धीप्रकृतिमुख्यानां स्त्रीजनं च नमस्कुरेत् ॥
आशिषस्ते हि दास्यन्ति.........

c38.22

² 'हृष्यत्पञ्चालवृद्धोद्धृ तकनकमयस्वाभिषेकोदकुम्भो दत्तः श्रीकान्यकुब्जः' Ep Ind., IV. p. 248. See below, Ch. XXVII.

c38.23

प्रतिज्ञाञ्चाभिरोहस्व मनसा कर्मणा गिरा।
पालयिष्याम्यहं भौमं ब्रह्म इत्येव चासकृत् ॥
यश्चात्र धर्म्मो नीत्युक्तो दण्डनीतिव्यपाश्रयः।
तमशङ्कः करिष्यामि स्ववशो न कदाचन ॥¹

c38.24

¹ *Śānti-Parvan* (Calcutta) lix. 106, 107. Kumbakonam edition, lviii. 115, 116. The reading in the Southern recension is प्रतिज्ञान्चाभिरोहस्व. Instead of नीत्युक्तो of Bengal it has इत्युक्तो which does not give a satisfactory meaning.

c38.25

"Mount on the Pratijñā (take the oath)² "from your heart (without any mental reservation), "in fact and by word of mouth;
(*a*) "I will see to the growth of the "Country³ regarding it as God Himself "and (this) ever and always;
(*b*) "Whatever law there is here and "whatever is dictated by Ethics and "whatever is not opposed to politics I "will act according to, unhesitatingly. "And I will never be arbitrary".⁴

c38.26

² Mount or ascend (on the Pratijñā) is with reference to the symbolic ascent to the throne and to all the quarters. *Pratijñā* literally means acknowledgment', 'affirmation' or 'vow'.

c38.27

³ The original word is भौम *i.e.* "all that belongs to the country."

c38.28

⁴ The original word is स्ववश. In the *Aitareya* स्वावश्य form of monarchy is mentioned. The *Mahā-Bhārata* here shows that it denoted autocracy and that it stood discredited in the country.

c38.29

To the royal oath the people pronounced 'Amen', (एवमस्तु). The most remarkable feature about the Hindu Coronation Oath is still retained; there is not a trace of superstitious or mystic element in it. It is in this respect in unique contrast with the royal oaths of other countries.⁵

c38.30

⁵ Cf. article on Oath in the *Enc. Brit.* (Eleventh Edition).

c38.31

§ 238. "O Rājan! of the Bharata race! how this "title Rājā as at present understood (signifying 'monarch') evolved: please tell me that Grandfather! Having hands and arms and neck like others; subject to pain and pleasure like others; having intelligence and faculties like others; subject to "pain and pleasure like others; having back, face and stomach "like others; having similar albumen, bone and marrow, "similar in flesh and sinews; similar in inhaling and exhaling "breath; in body and life similar to others; equally subject to "birth and death; an equal in all the attributes "which men possess—how should he, one man, "rule over men of uncommon intelligence and heroes? How "should he alone rule the whole country full of brave, and "heroic Hindus? Again, although he is protect"ing, yet he seeks the satisfaction and "pleasure of the community. At the "same time, the whole community is "pleased by his, the one man's, pleasure, "and when the one man is in distress all "become distressed. This is a settled principle. "I want to hear on this from you, O Chief of the Bharatas. "Please expound to me the subject with underlying principles "exhaustively, O you the Great Expounder. The reason of "this, O Leader of the people! could not be insignificant, for "to this one man the whole creation looks for guidance as if "he were a God."

c38.32

This was the question put by Yudhishthira which elicited from Bhishma a history of kingship and of the Coronation Oath.

c38.33

¹ *Sānti-Parvan* (Calcutta) *LIX* 5-12 (Kumbakonam *LVIII* 5-8).

c38.34

य एष राजन् राजेति शब्दश्चरति भारत ।
कथमेष समुत्पन्नस्तन्मे ब्रू हि पितामह ॥ ५ ॥

c38.35

The 'not-insignificant' reason was explained by Bhīshma with a professed historical account of the institution of Hindu monarchy. "There was no monarchy and no monarch,' he related, in early times, and that then the people protected one another by law. As they thus lived, they found in time that mutual co-operation was not sufficiently powerful and law itself began to suffer. These men in consultation with Gods decided to elect a monarch. The gods gave them Virājas who however refused to be king. His three successors followed as 'Protectors' (Rakshayitās), the fourth one 'built an empire and became arbitrary.' Evidently they had not taken any oaths, coming, as it is said, from gods to men. The fifth Protector of divine origin, called Vena proved to be quite 'unlawful' to the people, and he was deposed and executed. Thereupon the men (the wise)¹ elected a man called Pṛithu, a

c38.36

¹ Rishis. In this description there is a tendency to appropriate the credit of destroying the pseudo-historical tyrant, to Brahma-philosophers and *Rishis*. There are clear traces of a subsequent brahmanisation of the theory in certain places. All the *varṇas*, it is said in the beginning of the chapter, went to the Creator for advice on the appointment and election of a king. Why in subsequent procedure, then, should the *Ṛishis* alone figure prominently? The reply may be given that *Ṛishis* were from, and represented, all the three Aryan *varṇas*. Yet there is no doubt as to a leaning towards Brahmin prominence. In the same book combined action by all the *varṇas* in a similar matter is discussed. The explanation of the fact that the Mahā-Bhārata, the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mānava Dharma Śāstra bear very strong marks of an overstatement of Brahmin claim, attributable to the same period and to almost the same pens and hands, is found in the political history of the 2nd Century B.C. At that time a great Brahmin (Pushyamitra) actually ascended the throne of India and brought about a mighty religious and social revolution as against the previous political and religious systems. When the Brahmin ruler crushed the Greek power and saved Hindu civilization, the claims could be made with some justification, and in view of the great success and popularity of the new regime, could become current with greater ease than they would have been otherwise. Both the epics clearly state that they were revised (*e.g.*, पुरा वाल्मीकिना कृतम्) *Rāmāyaṇa* Bk. VI. Ch. 128. 105 and 110) and Mahā-Bhārata (Bk.I) Their attacks on Buddhism and the political data which in the case of the Rāmāyaṇa exclusively and in the case of the Mahā-Bhārata mostly, belong to the 2nd Century B.C. prove that revision to have been made in the early S'uṅga period. Overstatement of Brahmin claim in them therefore should not mislead us. It can be fortunately corrected in the light of inscriptions, the Jātakas and other Pali works and books like the Artha-Śāstra, the Dharma Sūtras, and the records left by foreign observers.

c38.37

तुल्यपाणिभुजोपवस्तुल्पबुद्धीन्द्रियात्मकः ।
तुल्यदुःखसुखात्मा च तुल्यपृष्ठमुखोदरः ॥ ६ ॥
तुल्यशुक्रास्थिमज्जा च तुल्यमांसासृगेव च ।
निःश्वासोच्छ्वासतुल्यश्च तुल्यप्राणशरीरवान् ॥ ७ ॥
समानजन्ममरणः समः सर्वेषु देहि षाम् ।
विशिष्टबुद्धीञ्शूरांश्च कथमेकोऽधितिष्ठति ॥ ८ ॥
कथमेको महीं कृत्स्नां शूरवीराग्र्यसंकुलाम् ।
रक्षत्यपि च लोकस्य प्रसादमनिवाञ्छति ॥ ९ ॥
एकस्यतु प्रसादेन कृत्स्नो लोकः प्रसीदति ।
व्याकुले चाकुलः सर्वो भवतीति विनिश्चयः ॥ १० ॥
एतदिच्छाम्यहं श्रोतुं त्वत्तो हि भरतर्षभ ।
कृत्स्नं तन्मे यथातत्त्वं प्रब्रू हि वदतां वरः ॥ ११ ॥
नैतत्कारणमल्पं भविष्यति विशांपते ।
यदेकस्मिन्जगत्सर्वं देववद्याति सन्नतिम् ॥ १२ ॥

c38.38

descendant of Vena. He promised faithfulness¹ and the above oaths were administered to him. He ruled successfully in accordance with law and his undertaking. The people were pleased with him and he obtained the title Rājā (‘Pleaser.’)²

c38.39

¹ यन्मां भवन्तो वक्ष्यन्ति कार्यमर्थसमन्वितम् । तदहं वः करिष्यामि नात्र कार्या विचारणा ॥ “Whatever you gentlemen tell me, proper for me to do in accordance with the Science of Politics, I will do for you without any objection.”—*MBh. Śānti*, LIX, 102.

c38.40

² रञ्जिताश्च प्रजास्सर्वा तेन राजेति शब्द्यते । *Ibid.*, verse 125.

c38.41

§ 239. Such is a pseudo-historical theory devised to explain the Hindu Coronation Oaths by political writers. The germs of the theory go back to the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa³ which says that Pṛithu Vainya was the first anointed king of the Hindus. The theory implies that the Oath originated with kingship, that it was as old as kingship itself. An analysis of the oaths discloses the following position of the Hindu king.

c38.42

³ Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, V. 3. 5. 4. Vainya is known even to the *Rig-veda* VIII. 9. 10. In the *Ath* he appears to be a *Ṛishi* and a historical person (II. 112. 15)

c38.43

1. That the trust in his hand—the tending (‘I will see to the growth,’ *pālayishyāmi*) of the country—is the foremost solemn obligation of the sovereign.

c38.44

2. That the country put under his care is to be regarded by him as nothing less than God, which implies sincerity, respect and awe. The relation is far from being patriarchal, theocratic or aristocratic.

c38.45

3. That he is expressly not to be arbitrary. He is bound by the law, is brought under the law. He undertook to act according to the law established. He was further bound by the rules of political science. These two were to regulate his actions in internal administration and foreign relations. And he undertook never to disregard them.

c38.46

§ 240. Nations of antiquity and nations of our own times have devised Coronation Oaths for their kings. But none more forcibly brings to the notice of the new king the all-powerful, the all-sacred position of the Country he is going to rule. To offend against that country was to offend against God Himself. Having once uttered this oath it was impossible to forget it. If a Hindu monarch failed to keep his coronation oath he would be a-satya-pratijña (असत्यप्रतिज्ञ) and a-satya-sandha (असत्यसन्ध), ‘false in his vow,’ and he

c38.47

¹ The subjects are called God (Vishṇu) in an Abhisheka text quoted by Chandeśvara (*RNR*, ch. XVI):

c38.48

अद्यारभ्य न मे राज्यं राजाऽयं रक्षतु प्रजाः।
इति सर्वं प्रजाविष्णुं साक्षिणं श्रावयेन्मुहुः॥

c38.49

would forfeit his title to remain on the throne. That the Coronation Oath was not an empty formality is evidenced by the fact that kings at times said with pride that they were true to their oaths. The hinduised Rudradāman was anxious to declare in his inscription that he was satya-pratijña (सत्यप्रतिज्ञ), that he never levied taxes which were not lawful. The charge of breaking the oath was at times constructively extended. If the monarch failed to maintain the integrity of the state he was considered guilty of breaking his vow. Bṛihadratha Maurya who was weak as ruler and during whose reign the Greeks made a second attempt at conquering India, was removed from the throne, and was called (*e.g.* by Bāṇa) weak in keeping his Pratijñā (Pratijñā-durbala). The king having taken the oath to act according to the law as established, if he acted unlawfully and committed a crime he would be considered to have broken faith and his action would be illegal, for which the people who had installed him would remove him. The Jātakas³, tradition, literature and history furnish illustrations. In the Mahā Bhārata the plea for the deposition and execution of the tyrant Vena was that he was unlawful v i d h a r m ā) : the 'formal' deposition of Nāga-Dasaka of Magadha and his punishment was due to his parricide.⁴ King Pālaka of the Mṛichchhakaṭika was deposed because he had incarcerated Āryaka without the latter having committed any crime.

c38.50

¹ Epigraphia Indica VIII pp. 43-44.

c38.51

² See *M. Bh.*, *Anuś. P.* Lxi:—

c38.52

³ E. g. *Jātaka*, vol I, p. 508.

c38.53

⁴ *Mahāvaṁsa* (IV.4), compiled by a Hindu in Ceylon in the 5th Century A. C. who drew upon the old traditions of his own country.

c38.54

अरक्षितारं हर्तारं विलोप्तारमनायकम् ।
तं वै राजकलिं हन्युः प्रजाः संनह्य निर्घृणम् ॥ ३२
अहं वो रक्षितेत्युक्त्वा यो न रक्षति भूमिपः ।
स संहत्य निहन्तव्यः श्वैव सोन्मादातुरः ॥ ३३

c38.55

§241. The oath was deemed to be the essential sacrament down to later Muhammdan times. The ceremonials of coronation as then prevalent are not the same in all details as in the Brāhmaṇas. The coronation procession has developed out of the simple chariot drive. The king, as we have seen, holds a Sabhā where the leaders of the community are introduced to him. The modifications are many and considerable. But the Coronation Oath is the oath of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, and Hindu lawyers¹ did register it inspite of their mediæval ideals of kingship. Inspite of vicissitudes in fortune, inspite of contact with contrary doctrines, the Hindu race did not forget the coronation oath devised by their Vedic forefathers. Thanks to sacerdotalism, the oath has been preserved for history and posterity.

c38.56

¹ Rājanīti Vīramitrodaya, p. 52 (Benares, 1916). See below, Chapters XXVIII and XXIX.

c38.57

§242. Kingship had become hereditary.² Yet the theory that Hindu kingship is elective was never forgotten. This was due to, I think two factors. On failure of the lines, as Megasthenes³ has recorded, elections had been actually taking place; and the observance of the coronation ceremonials and rituals kept the theory ever green. Even in Moslem times when Śivaji was installed as King, 'Chhatrapati,' the ceremony took the form of election. The theory was a living force as late as the time of the Pāla kings of Bengal. Gopāla claims the benefit of the principle of election in his inscription. He says that the people joined his hand with sovereignty and put an end to anarchy⁴. In earlier times the theory was, of course, current in the mouth of sovereigns and peoples. In the second century of the Christian era Rudradāman states in his inscription that he had been ‘*elected* by all the Varṇas to kingship.’¹

c38.58

² Rāmāyaṇa, Ayodhyā K. 21. 22; 8. 16. राज्यं गृहाण भरत पितृपैतामहं ध्रुवम्, 78, 5 ; 79, 7.

c38.59

³ Arrian, *Indika*, VIII.

c38.60

⁴ मात्स्यन्यायमपोहितुं प्रकृतिभिर्लक्ष्म्या करं ग्राहितः ॥ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. IV, 248.

c38.61

¹ सर्व्ववर्णैरभिगम्य रक्षणार्थं पतित्वे वृतेन। *Ep. Ind.* Vol. VIII, p. 43.

c38.62

§ 243. By the inscription of the Emperor Khāravela it is evident that Hindu Coronation could not take place before the completion of the twenty-fourth year of the King-elect. One branch of the Jaina literature asserts that Vikrama was crowned in his 25th year. This was the age when ordinarily a Hindu (e.g. Śvetaketu) was supposed to have completed his academic career in the period of Upanishads. The existence of the constitutional law for coronation at the age of twenty-five which the inscription of Khāravela points out, is confirmed by the Bṛihaspati-Sūtra, I. 89, *pañcha-viṁśativarshaṁ yāvat krīḍā-vidyām vyasanāt kuryāt ata uttaram arthārjanam*,² which agrees almost literally with the record of Khāravela.

c38.63

² *Arthārjanam* ‘engagement in commonwealth or political life.’

c38.64

We have historical examples of the fact that the coronation laws were strictly complied with. Even Aśoka’s family who had accepted heterodox philosophies could not interfere with the orthodox and sacred coronation laws.³ He was not crowned for four years after his what we to-day call succession. Evidently he had not completed his twenty-fourth year as in the case of Khāravela. The uncrowned period of his reign in the eye of the Hindu law was a period not to be recognised. If we keep this in view we can understand the provision in Vasishṭha’s Dharma-Sūtra that interest on loan was not to be calculated for the period between the death of the sovereign and the coronation of the new king.¹ The legal years were counted only by regnal years (Rāja-varsha).² Hence also the Purāṇas do not count the pre-coronation years of Aśoka's reign while they include it in the total for the dynasty.³ This also shows that a king to be a legal sovereign must receive his royal consecration. The Purāṇas call foreign barbarians of the 6th century *naiva-mūrdhābhishiktās-te*, 'unconsecrated heads', i.e., 'usurpers.'⁴ Unless one accepted the responsibility by a solemn engagement he was not lawfully entitled to govern. The legalism about coronation was so strong that Kālidāsa in drafting Pushyamitra's letter to Agnimitra takes care not to describe Pushyamitra as king. The preparations for coronation by Rāja-Sūya were still in progress, coronation had not yet taken place. He was therefore not king *de jure*.⁵

c38.65

³ His grand-son Daśaratha mentions his own abhisheka in his Inscriptions.

c38.66

¹ > राजा तु मृतभावेन द्रव्यवृद्धिं विनाशयेत् ।

c38.67

² राजवर्षं मासः पक्षो दिवसश्च......इति कालः ।—*Artha-Sāstra*, p. 60, (II. 6. 24).

c38.68

³ Jayaswal, *J. B. O. R. S.*, Vol. I. (1915) p. 93; Vol. III, 438, V. Smith, *Early History of India* (3rd Edition), p. 197.

c38.69

⁴ Vāyu Purāṇa, Pargiter, *PT.*, p. 56.

c38.70

⁵ *Mālavikāgnimitra.* The absence of the royal title in the letter gave occasion to much controversy amongst scholars. The constitutional explanation given above might be the real solution. Kālidāsa assumes that he was not yet crowned.

c38.71

पुनाराजाभिषेकेण द्रव्यमूलं च वर्धते ॥

c38.72

—Vāsishṭha Dharma-Sūtra, II. 49.

Linked texts (21)