Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jataka Stories c4.t2.147

c4.t2.147

This leads us to the question of election. From what has already been said, an impression might have gained ground, that the matter of succession was wholly and solely in the hands of the king. But this was not always the case. There was the people’s voice, *vox populi*, which became specially uppermost when the question of electing a new successor arose, owing to the lack of a regular heir. On the death of a king of Gandhāra, a prince hailing from Magadha was placed on the vacant throne by the joint will of the citizens and the Courtiers of Takkasilā.¹ The *Pañcagaru Jātaka*² does speak of the same prince as one on whom the kingdom was conferred by the people (*nagaravāsīki*). Elsewhere³ a king while renouncing the world as an ascetic, directs his people to elect a successor. Such a popular voice is also heard from the timely warning given to the vicious prince of the *Ekapaṇṇa Jātaka*:⁴ “The people of this kingdom, dreading what a prince so fierce and passionate may become when king, will not place you on the throne but uproot you like this nimb tree and drive you forth into exile.” It is apparent from all this that the people could, under some circumstances at least, elect a king.⁵ The people’s voice was also effective in cases where kingly rule proved baneful or oppressive. But about this, we shall speak later on, while examining the character of the monarchical rule in general. Let us here carry on the discussion on election to its logical conclusion. And here we come to examine instances where the rule of heredity and primogeniture were done away with, and the question of succession fell in the hands of the ministers and the citizens.