Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c10.s5: Section 7. Deposition and Election of Kings

The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c10.s5

Language
English

Contents

Section 7. Deposition and Election of Kings

c10.s5.2

In England James II was deposed, among other reasons, for having violated the "original compact", Richard II as "useless, incompetent, and altogether insufficient and unworthy", and Edward II for having broken the "coronation oath".

1. People's Control over the Crown

c10.s5.t1.1

In at least two historic instances the attitude of the Hindu mind in regard to kingship was identical. Brihadratha, the last Maurya Emperor (B. C. 191—185), was "crushed" because, as we read in Bâṇa's *Harṣa-charita* (seventh century), he was *pratijñâ-durbala* i. e. weak in keeping his coronation oath.¹

c10.s5.t1.2

¹ p. 193.

c10.s5.t1.3

A specimen of the *pratijnâ*, promise, vow or oath made by Kings to the people is thus worded in the *Aitareya Brâhmaṇa*:² "Between the night I was born and the night I die, whatever good I might have done, my heaven, my life and my progeny may I be deprived of, if I oppress you." And the *Mahâbhârata*³ furnishes the traditional form of the oath administered to Vena's son Prithu in the following terms: "I shall always regard the *bhauma* (the country) as the Brahma (the highest God). And whatever is to be prescribed as law on the basis of statecraft I shall follow without hesitation, never my own sweet will." A *samaya*⁴ or compact was in this way entered into by the king and the people. The non-fulfilment of the *pratijnâ* was tantamount to the violation of the compact, comparable to the feudal contract introduced in Norman England, which Adams considers to be the real origin of limited monarchy in Europe.

c10.s5.t1.4

² VIII, 4, 1, 13.

c10.s5.t1.5

³ *Sânti-parva*, Ch. IX, 106, 107.

c10.s5.t1.6

⁴ *Ibid*, LXVII, 17, 24. The "feudal contract" theory is the special feature of Adams' *Origin of the English Constitution* and *A Constitutional History of England*. cf. Carlyle, III, 39—40.

c10.s5.t1.7

Another case of expulsion in Hindu history is that which resulted in the founding of the Śiśu-nâga Dynasty in B. C. 602. The populace were led to depose the reigning king, Nâgadasako the "impious", because of his parricide. Really they condemned the whole House as a "parricidal race", as another ruler of the family, Udayibhaddako, the perfidiously impious son of Ajâtasattu, had put his parent to death.⁵

c10.s5.t1.8

⁵ *Mahâvaṁso*, Ch. IV, p. 15. See the stories in the *Râja-taraṅgiṇî*, Supra, pp. 69—70.

c10.s5.t1.9

Besides, in the *Mahâbhârata* the plea for the deposition and execution of the tyrant Vena⁶ is that he was *vidharma* i. e. unlawful or unconstitutional and the "slave of wrath and malice". On these and similar grounds Vedic India also was used to the expulsion of rulers. The story of *aparuddha* or expelled kings is familiar to the readers of the *Brâlimanas* and *Samhitâs*.¹

c10.s5.t1.10

⁶ Sânti-parva, LIX, 94; Jayaswal's "Constitutional Aspects of the Rituals at Hindu Coronation" in the *Mod. Rev.*, January 1912; Law's "Ancient Hindu Coronation and Allied Ceremonials" in the *Ind. Ant.* (1919); Basu's *Indo-Aryan Polity*.

c10.s5.t1.11

¹ Atharva Veda, III, 3, 4; *Śatapatha Brâhmaṇa*, XII, 9, 3, 3; *Taittirîya Samhitâ*, II, 3, 1.

2. The People as King-makers

c10.s5.t2.1

Nor as regards title to kingship has the political psychology of Asians been at variance with that of Europeans. Succession to the mediaeval German Empire was determined, as a rule, by election. In France none but the immediate successors of Charlemagne were elected by the people. And in the history of the English Constitution election has been almost as important as the hereditary principle.

c10.s5.t2.2

Now, while hereditary succession was the rule in Hindu polity, the history of India can exhibit several authentic instances of popular election. The latest is that of Gopâla (*c* 730—40), the son of a successful soldier, who was "made by the *prakriti* (the people) to accept the throne".² Eventually he became the founder of the Pâla Empire of Bengal and Eastern India. Harṣa-vardhana (606—47) became Emperor of Upper India through election by ministers and magistrates in an assembly presided over by Premier Bhandi "the distinguished".³ On that occasion the people's approval was "shown in their songs".

c10.s5.t2.3

² Banerji's *Memoir*, p. 45.

c10.s5.t2.4

³ *Si-yu-ki*, Vol. I, pp. 210, 211.

c10.s5.t2.5

Rudra-dâmana (*c* 125—150) acknowledged his claim to the crown in the Satrapy of Western India because of election by "all the orders of the people".⁴ And Śiśunâga's Dynasty was set up, as we have seen, as the result of a mass movement. The city mob,⁵ infuriated at the parricide of Nâgadasako, and desirous of gratifying the whole nation, "unanimously installed in sovereignty the eminently wise minister bearing the historically distinguished appellation of Śiśunâga" (B. C. 603). Further, the *Mahâbhârata* records the tradition that Kuru⁶ was elected king by "all the people" because he was *dharmajña* i. e. proficient in law, and that the "people of the cities and villages" prevented Devapi's accession to the throne because he had *tvagdoṣa* or skin-disease⁷ (leprosy) and installed Śântanu the youngest son.

c10.s5.t2.6

⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, 1905—06, 43.

c10.s5.t2.7

⁵ *Mahâvamso*, p. 15.

c10.s5.t2.8

⁶ *Âdi-parva*, XCIV, 49; *Journal of the American Oriental Society*, 1889, pp. 137, 139, 143.

c10.s5.t2.9

⁷ Udyoga-parva, CXLIX, 23.

3. Succession determined by Vox Populi

c10.s5.t3.1

Even in the election of the heir-apparent the people of India had a voice, at least in the epics. We read in the *Mahâbhârata* that on several occasions the revolts of the folk brought about a modification in the choice of a crown-prince. It was only with the people's consent secured after a fracas that Yayâti could instal his younger son, Puru, as crown-prince against the technically rightful eldest son Yadu.¹ And Dhritarâṣṭra was compelled by the people's protests to elect his nephew as heir-apparent instead of his unworthy son.²

c10.s5.t3.2

¹ ^1 *Âdi-parva*, LXXXV, 22.

c10.s5.t3.3

² ^2 *Ibid*, CXL, 23.

c10.s5.t3.4

Such "democratic" settlements of crown-princeship, described also in the *Râmâyaṇa*³, may be taken to have anticipated (in theory, at any rate, as long as evidences from the strictly historical sources are not forthcoming) the recorded instances in the procedure of mediaeval Europe. The *Ordinatio Imperii* of Lewis the Pious in 817 is the document that provided for the partition of his dominions between his sons. In accordance with its provisions, after the ceremonial fast of three days his eldest son Lothair was elected by Lewis and the whole people to be his colleague in the empire. Then "with common counsel" it was decided to give the younger sons, Pippin and Lewis, the title of kings and to allot to them certain lands by definite *capitula*. These were considered and then "confirmed by Lewis and all his faithful subjects".⁴ Now, if Megasthenes' observations be of any value, the *Mahâbhârata* or the *Râmâyaṇa* ideal was not the mere fine frenzy of poets. For, says the Greek ambassador, *vox populi* was consulted by the responsible officers in determining succession on the failure of heirs, and the regulating principle was merit.⁵

c10.s5.t3.5

³ ^3 *Ayodhyâ-kâṇḍa*, Ch. I.

c10.s5.t3.6

⁴ ^4 Carlyle's *Med. Pol. Theory*, Vol. I, p. 237.

c10.s5.t3.7

⁵ ^5 Fragment L.

Linked texts (11)