Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c39: Chapter XXVIA: Sacrament of Coronation Oath and Theory of Divine Origin of King

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c39

Language
English

Chapter XXVIA: Sacrament of Coronation Oath and Theory of Divine Origin of King

c39.2

§ 241. With the actual observance of the sacrament of Coronation Oath, it was impossible for a theory of origin other than human to take root in Hindu Politics. Even a usurper, as long as he was a Hindu, had to undergo the sacrament of coronation and when he actually took the oath, his old title of force and conquest disappeared. In the second century A. C., when Hindu society had already undergone a great social change as is evinced by the law-books and controversies of the time,¹ even foreigners sought to legalise their position by the sacred, constitutional ceremonies. Rudradāman based his claim on election and his responsibility on the Coronation Oath. No room for a theory like divine origin existed.

c39.3

¹ *E. g.* The *Vajrasūchī* of Aśvaghosha:

c39.4

This was demonstrated when an attempt at establishing a theory which was the nearest Hindu approach to the divine theory of kingship miserably failed. The **Mānava Dharma-Sāstra** which was written under the **revolutionary régime of the Brahmin Pushyamitra**² preached that the king should not be despised because

c39.5

² His caste is discussed by me in the **Brahmin Empire** (1912) a revised edition of which is published in JBORS, 257—265. For Pāṇini IV. 3. 117 on Śuṅga; Patañjali VI. 2. 130 on brāhmaṇarājya and Tārānātha p. 81 on Brāhmaṇa Koenig Pushyamitra. For connection between the **Mānava-dharma-śāstra** and **Pushyamitra** see my Tagore Lectures on Manu and Yâjñavalkya I. In the time of the Mânava code the Parthians were neighbours of India but the country of which Mathurâ was, capital was yet orthodox; the country of the Mlechchhas was still beyond India proper. This indicates the period about 150 B. C.

c39.6

गावोऽश्वाश्चाजमारभ्य ब्राह्मणीनां शूद्रपर्यन्तमभिगमनदर्शनात् । अतो जातिब्राह्मणो न भवति ।
इह हि कैवर्त्त-रजक-चण्डाल-कुलेष्वपि ब्राह्मणाः सन्ति....एकवर्णो, नास्ति चातुर्वर्ण्यम् ॥ etc.

c39.7

Baudhāyana condemns the Punjab as a place of mixed varṇas. In the period of the Upanishads the Punjab was the home of orthodoxy. Baudhāyana's condemnation would refer to the period of the rise of Buddhism in the Punjab—Aśoka to Menander.

c39.8

he was only a man; he was a deity in human form. For this theory the author found no direct support in earlier literature. He uses the theory of politicians, which we have already noticed (§101), that when the people were dissatisfied with the Arâjaka system they consulted the Creator who recommended a king. He leaves out the theory about the election of Manu Vaivasvata and takes apparently the story of Vena. He says, God created king to save the people from Arâjaka.² But he ignores the further tradition of the deposition of Vena of divine origin because he ruled unlawfully. The Mânava Code twists the import of the coronation ritual invoking the help of gods to the elected king in his new career.³ The Code says that these gods come into the person of the king and he becomes a great Deity.⁴ The king is not to be despised. I think the idea of such a theory was suggested by some discussion as the one in the Artha-Sâstra.⁵ A man in the pay of the Government was made to say:

c39.9

¹ Mânava Dharma-Sâstra VII. 8.

c39.10

² *Ibid* VII. 3,

c39.11

³ In this connection see also the text of the Vâjasaneyî Saṁhitâ X. 16, 17, 18 along with corresponding Brâhmaṇa passages.

c39.12

⁴ *Ibid* VII. 7,

c39.13

⁵ *Arthaśâstra*, p. 23. इन्द्रयमस्थानमेतत् राजानः प्रत्यक्षहेतुप्रसादाः। तानवमन्य-मानान्दैवोऽपि दण्डः स्पृशति। तस्माद्राजानो नावमन्तव्याः इति क्षुद्रकान्प्रतिषेधयेत् ।

c39.14

बालोऽपि नावमन्तव्यो मनुष्य इति भूमिपः।
महती देवता ह्येषा नररूपेण तिष्ठति ॥

c39.15

अराजके हि लोकेऽस्मिन्सर्वतो विद्रुते भयात् ।
रक्षार्थमस्य सर्वस्य राजानमसृजत्प्रभुः ॥

c39.16

सोऽग्निर्भवति वायुश्च सोऽर्कः सोमः स धर्मराट् ।
स कुबेरः स वरुणः स महेन्द्रः प्रभावतः ॥

c39.17

'The king's office is that of Indra and Yama, "visible inflictor of punishment and bestower of reward. On "those who despise them even divine punishment descends. "Hence they are not to be *despised*."'

c39.18

This is urged by the official spy in defence of the new king and was intended to support him, in reply to those who cited the social contract theory of kingship.¹ If there had been a theory of divine origin already currrent, it would have been cited at once. But no divine origin of king is preached in the passage of the Artha-Śāstra nor is any absolutism preached there. The divine punishment mentioned in the hired speech refers to the consequence of sin which in every case is supposed to be visited with divine punishment; and treason was always regarded as a sin. The Government spy is not advancing any theory of absolutism. He is only drawing attention to the position of the king as such, resembling that of Indra and Yama, and to the sin which would be caused if the people went against the king. The author of the Mānava Code made his king a Divinity itself, to despise which was to be punished with powers of absolutism. And he preached perfect absolutism.²

c39.19

¹ See above § 170, n.

c39.20

² Mānava Dharma-Śāstra, VII. 9-13.

c39.21

एकमेव दहत्यग्निर्नंरं दुरूपसर्पिणम्।
कुलं दहति राजाग्निः सपशुद्रव्यसञ्चयम् ॥ ९
कार्यं चावेक्ष्य शक्तिं च देशकालौ च तत्त्वतः।
कुरुते धर्मसिद्ध्यर्थं विश्वरूपं पुनः पुनः॥ १०
यस्य प्रसादे पद्मा श्रीर्विजयश्च पराक्रमे।
मृत्युश्च वसति कोधे सर्वतेजोमयो हि सः ॥ ११
तं यस्तु द्वेष्टि संमोहात्स विनश्यत्यसंशयम्।
तस्य ह्याशु विनाशाय राजा प्रकुरुते मनः ॥ १२
तस्माद्धर्मं यमिष्टेषु संव्यवस्येन्रराधिपः।
अनिष्टं चाप्यनिष्टेषु तं धर्मं न विचालयेत् ॥ १३

c39.22

This he had to do as he had to support an abnormal state of affairs opposed to law and tradition *viz*, political rule by Brahmin.¹

c39.23

¹ Jayaswal, Tagore Law Lectures on Manu and Yājñavalkya, II.

c39.24

§ 245. The theory of the Mānava was never approved or adopted by a single subsequent law-book. By constitutional writers the very theory was converted into a divine theory of the servitude of the king to the subject²; that the king was a mere servant or slave of the people and that he was made so by the Creator. Even in the Mānava itself, either when it was revised and put in its present form, or originally in its desire to justify the removal of the Mauryas, the theory was superseded by another theory which was inserted immediately below it :—

c39.25

² See Chs. XXXV, XXXVI, below.

c39.26

"The Lord created his own son and made him "Law for the protection of the entire living world : it was "endowed with Brahmā's own vigour as Law's Administration "(Daṇḍa)."
"Law's Administration is the real "king, it is the ruling authority (daṇḍa, i.e., executive "authority in polity), it is the surety for the population.⁴
"The king who properly employs "it, prospers, but if he be selfish, ab- "normal and deceitful, Daṇḍa destroys "him.⁵ Daṇḍa is of great lustre, it cannot be

c39.27

³ *Mānava Dharma-Śāstra*, VII. 14.

c39.28

⁴ *Ibid.*, VII. 17.

c39.29

⁵ *Ibid.*, VII. 27.

c39.30

तदर्थं सर्वभूतानां गोप्तारं धर्ममात्मजम् ।
ब्रह्मतेजोमयं दण्डमसृजत्पूर्वमीश्वरः ॥

c39.31

स राजा पुरुषो दण्डः स नेता शासिता च सः ।
चतुर्णामाश्रमाणां च धर्मस्य प्रतिभूः स्मृतः ॥

c39.32

तं राजा प्रणयन्सम्यक्त्रिवर्गेणाभिवर्धते ।
कामात्मा विषमः क्षुद्रो दण्डेनैव निहन्यते ॥

c39.33

"held by despots. It strikes down the "king who swerves from law, together with "his relatives."

c39.34

Thus the king is again brought under law; he is reduced to his human and contractual status. A higher origin to law was attributed. The king was aggregate of only portions of several gods, but Law-and-Sanction was produced by Brahmā himself and it was his own son. He came to rule over the king as over the whole world. It was the real sovereign and not the king. In fact the Mānava as a code went back to the old position:

c39.35

"Only a king who is honest and true to his coronation "Oath and follows the Śāstras, and rules with colleagues "(ministers) could wield the Daṇḍa, not one who is despotic, "greedy, stupid, and who rules personally."

c39.36

He was not only expected to be true to his 'undertaking,' his contract, i.e., his Coronation Oath,³ it was further enjoined on him that he should work with colleagues and should not rule personally. We shall see its significance when we survey the constitutional position of the Hindu Ministry.

c39.37

³ On *Satya-Sandha* as referring to 'Oath' cf. Artha Śāstra, p. 312. Here it refers to the 'Oath', *i. e.* the oath of coronation.

c39.38

§ 246. Divine theory of kingly origin and kingly right could have found soil in Hindu India if there had been no live interest and constitutional jealousy in the people to check such pernicious claims and notions. The

c39.39

¹ *Ibid.*, 28,

c39.40

दण्डो हि सुमहत्तेजो दुर्धरश्चाकृतात्मभिः ।
धर्माद्विचलितं हन्ति नृपमेव सबान्धवम् ॥

c39.41

² *Ibid.*, 30-31.

c39.42

सोऽसहायेन मूढेन लुब्धेनाकृतबुद्धिना ।
न शक्यो न्यायतो नेतुं सक्तेन विषयेषु च ॥ ३०
शुचिना सत्यसन्धेन यथाशास्त्रानुसारिणा ।
दण्डः प्रणयितुं शक्यः सुसहायेन धीमता ॥ ३१

c39.43

Hindu theory of kingship was not permitted to degenerate into a divine imposture and profane autocracy. Jugglery in the divine name of the Creator was not possible for the Hindu King as the race never allowed the craft of the Priest to be united in the office of the Ruler. The reason why the sceptre of Hindu sovereign never became the wand of magician, was that the matter of constitutional powers of the king, in fact, lay beyond the province of the ritualist and the priest. It lay in the hands of those ‘through whose strength’ the king had become ‘mighty’ or vested with the power. It lay in their Samiti in the early period. In later times it lay in the equally important machinery—the Paura-and-Janapada.

Linked texts (6)