The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c9.s3.10

c9.s3.10

The Rāmāyaṇa reflects the same type of feudalism as the Mahābhārata. Daśaratha who is often designated King of Ayodhyā is quite as often called a universal ruler.² It appears that while he actually governed only the region of Kośala with its capital at Ayodhyā³ he exercised a sort of suzerainty over a wider area which was parcelled out among a number of feudatories. Daśaratha's court is described as ordinarily crowded with neighbouring kings who come to pay tribute.⁴ For Daśaratha's horse-sacrifice, they pour into the city of Ayodhyā daily and nightly in a long stream and bring with them various kinds of gems for presentation to the king.⁵ Elsewhere there is mention of "princes throned as well as those without thrones," that is, ruling feudatories as well as other members of their families, "from east and west, north and south," bringing countless gems for presentation to Bharata.⁶ In a remarkable episode, there is an assertion of the suzerain's right to call feudatories to order and to take them to task for misconduct. When the Vānara king Vālin reproves Rāma for hitting him secretly instead of fighting him openly as behoved a Kṣatriya, Rāma replies that Kiṣkindhā was part of Ikṣvāku dominions, that the Ikṣvâkus had the power of awarding favour or punishment on men, beasts and birds alike, and that, as commanded by Bharata who then ruled the capital Ayodhyâ, he was entitled to determine how he would punish those who went astray. Śâstras had sanctioned the destruction of miscreants.¹ In the Râmâyaṇa however, Kośala, the real kingdom of the Ikṣvâkus, is rather small. On his banishment, Râma had quickly passed its bounds.² Marriage alliances are of frequent occurrence among suzerains and feudatories alike.