History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.88

v4.c62.88

It was almost a universal rule that a male alone was to be the ruler. There appear to have been stray exceptions. The Śāntiparva (33.43-46) enjoins⁴⁸ upon a conqueror the duty to place on the throne of a conquered country the brother, son or grandson of the vanquished king and if no prince be available, then to crown even the daughter of the late king. The Rājatarangiṇī (V. 249 and VI. 332) describes at great length the *regime* of the notorious queens Sugandhā (904-906 A. D.) and Diddā (980-81 A. D.) of Kashmir. In India for many centuries there has been no Salic Law expressly declaring that daughters cannot inherit land, though on account of the general position of women, the requirements of disturbed times and military necessity women did not generally assume the role of sovereigns. In a copper-plate grant from Ganjam (of about the 13th century) it is stated that when a certain king named Śubhākara died his queen ascended the throne and after her her daughter Daṇḍimahādevī, who is styled ‘parama-bhaṭṭārikā-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvarī’ ruled the earth for a long time (E. I. vol. VI p. 133 at p. 138). Whether the grandiloquent titles were deserved by the queen or were only the exaggerated effusions of a courtier, it is clear that the widow and daughter of the last male ruler succeeded to the throne. The Raghuvamśa (XIX. 55, 57) states that the widowed queen of king Agnivarṇa sat on the throne and carried on the government with the help of hereditary ministers.