The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c17.96

c17.96

The succession to the throne was, as usual, hereditary and went by the rule of primogeniture. When on the death of Prabhâkaravardhana, Prince Râjyavardhana offers to resign the throne in favour of his younger brother, the latter violently protests.¹ But the incidents connected with the accession of Harṣa throw light on the manner in which emergencies were got over. When the news of Râjyavardhana’s murder was received, the chief minister Bhaṇḍi, who was a near relation of the royal dynasty and whose power and reputation were high and of much weight, addressed the assembled ministers, “The destiny of the nation is to be fixed to-day. The old king’s son is dead: the brother of the prince, however, is humane and affectionate, and his disposition, heaven-conferred, is dutiful and obedient. Because he is strongly attached, to his family, the people will trust in him. I propose that he assume the royal authority, let each one give his opinion on this matter, whatever he thinks.” All agreed. The chief ministers and officers all exhorted Harṣa to assume the royal authority. “.... The opinion of the people, as shown in their songs, proves their real submission to your eminent qualities. Reign, then, with glory over the land; conquer the enemies of your family; wash out the insult laid on your kingdom and the deeds of your illustrious father. Great will your merit be in such a case. We pray you not reject our prayer.” According to the account of Bâṇabhaṭṭa it was the Senâpati Siṃhanâda who proposed the installation of Harṣa. In either case the duty is performed by a high officer of state. Yuan Chwang continues that the young prince replied, “The government of a country is a responsible office and ever attended with difficulties. The duties of a prince require previous consideration. As for myself, I am indeed of small eminence; but as my father and brother are no more, to reject the heritage of the crown, that can bring no benefit to the people. I must attend to the opinion of the world and forget my own insufficiency. . . .” Yuan Chwang adds that in his affliction and crisis, the young man betook himself to a statue of Avalokiteśvara and was warned not to use the lion-throne and “call not yourself Mahārāja.” Harṣa duly assumed the royal office and began to issue commands to the ministers.¹ Making all allowance for picturesque effect in the Chinese narrative, the outline may be accepted as true. From the last incident it will appear that several varieties of thrones were known in ancient India, that the lion-throne signified some extravagance or vanity. That the Siṃhāsana or lion-throne was well-known in the 7th century is clear from Yuan Chwang himself. He records of a North-Western state that the large and high lion-throne of the reigning sovereign was much adorned with precious gems, that it was covered with extremely fine drapery, and that its footstool was adorned with gems.² Perhaps the high-sounding titles too were not universally liked.