History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.95

v4.c62.95

If the eldest son suffers from a physical or mental defect (such as blindness or lunacy) he is to be passed over and his younger brother becomes king (vide Manu IX. 201 for grounds of exclusion from inheritance). Ādiparva⁵³ 109. 25 states that Dhṛtarāṣṭra because he was blind did not succeed to the kingdom. Vide also Udyoga 147. 39. The Śukranītisāra (I. 343-344) states that if the eldest prince suffers from deafness, dumbness, blindness, leprosy or impotence he is unfit to rule and that in such a case his younger brother or son should succeed.⁵⁴ The Śukranītisāra further points out that by dividing a kingdom among the several princes no benefit results, but on the contrary the small parts would fall an easy prey to enemies; therefore when the eldest alone succeeds he should make his younger brothers provincial governors or superintendents over the treasury, horses &c. (I. 346-348). The Rājadharmakaustubha lays down a few additional propositions: (1) even if the eldest does not succeed owing to some mental or physical defect, his son's right will remain intact and R. D. K. quotes the words of the fisherman chief to Bhīṣma in Ādi. 100. 92.⁵⁵ The Bālambhaṭṭī on Yāj. I. 309 and Rājanītiprakāśa p. 40 say the same. Another example is that of Aṁśumān who became king when his father Asamañja was exiled from the state by Sagara for his misdeeds. (2) When a younger son is crowned king because the eldest is disqualified, then after the former's death his son succeeds and not the son of the disqualified eldest son who is born after the coronation of the younger (e. g. Yudhiṣṭhira deserved the kingdom on Pāṇḍu's death and not Duryodhana). The Nītivākyāmṛta (sec. 24 p. 249) lays down the order of succession in the case of kings as follows: the son, full brother, half-brother, uncle, a male of the same family, daughter's son, a stranger (who is either elected or who takes up the kingdom⁵⁶).