Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c38.64

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