The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c7.29

c7.29

Samhitâ,¹ the Kaṭhaka Samhitâ,² and the Taittirîya Brâhmaṇa.³ The Pañcaviṃśa Brâhmaṇa speaks of the Adhipatya or supreme power.⁴ The White Yajurveda also contains prayers to various gods for supremacy to kings.⁵ The Kaṭhaka Samhitâ and the Maitrâyaṇî Samhitâ have the term svârâjya which, though not indicative of supremacy, seems to emphasise the element of independence.⁶ The term Ekarâja, literally, ‘sole ruler’ which is used metaphorically in the Rigveda⁷ seems to be used in a distinctly political sense in the Atharvaveda.⁸ There are only two possible explanations: either a big powerful ruler assumed a higher title or a king got some other rulers to acknowledge his suzerainty in some rough and ready manner and therefore arrogated the lofty designations. The latter supposition would imply a feudal tendency. It is supported by the references to fights for single villages, to prayers and oblations prescribed for one who desires possession of a village.⁹ If there were such small autonomous areas, they could hardly have stood by themselves and those who held possession of them are likely to have leaned on others for support. It may be added that during this period the terms Râjan or Râjya continued as usual to denote a king or a kingdom.¹⁰ It is probable that overlordship was still the exception but that it had emerged as a form of political relationship. It is not possible to carry the discussion further on the basis of the evidence available for this period but as the sequel will show, the whole trend of later development harmonises only with the view here indicated.