Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c38.49

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.