The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c18.78

c18.78

The sceptre of the suzerain or of the feudatory descended from father to son in the same family. According to Masûdî, the rule was never broken. The Arab writer, however, seems to be wrong when he states that none could ascend the throne until he was forty years of age or that the king never appeared in public except at rare intervals for the inspection of public affairs. But a king who grossly misconducted himself might pay the penalty of his sins. One such ruler, a hopeless drunkard, forfeited the crown. But it seems to have been bestowed on another member of the family.¹ There were, of course, occasional cases of usurpation. For instance, Chach, who occupied the post of chamberlain, usurped the throne on the death of his master.² So strong was the sentiment in favour of hereditary succession that the chief offices of state—those of ministers, judges—were practically confined to the same families.³ The use of the Arabic word Qâzî to denote judges is interesting. It shows that the Hindu judges bore some resemblance to the well-known Muslim officers of the western Muslim countries.