Chapter III. Duties and Responsibilities of the Ruler

Volume III pp. 56–103

Chapter III. Duties and Responsibilities of the Ruler

All works are agreed that the first and foremost duty of the king is the protection of subjectṣ Śāntiparva (68 1-4) notes that all the seven expounders of polity (rājāśāstraprane-tārah) named by it extol protection as the highest dharma of the king. Manu VII. 144 states that the protection of subjects is the highest dharma and Kālidāsa in Raghuvamśa 14 67 alludes to this dictum of Manu. Protection consists in punishing internal aggression (such as by thieves and robbers and by persons who invade a man's rights) and in meeting external¹ aggressioṇ Vide quotation from Bṛhaspati below. Gautama (X. 7-8) prescribes that the special responsibility of the king is to protect all beings, to award just punishment and that he has to protect the several varṇas and āśramas according to the rules of śāstra and to bring them round to the path of their proper duties when they swerve from it (XI. 9-10). Vasiṣṭha (19 1-2) states that the wise say that protection is a life-long sattra in which he has to give up fear and softness of heart. Vas 19 7-8 and Viṣṇu Dh S III 2-3 are similar to Gaut XI 9-10. The Śāntiparva (23 15) repeats a gāthā of Bṛhaspati 'As a snake swallows mice lying in holes, so the earth swallows these two viz a king who does not fight ( an invader ) and a brāhmaṇa who does not go on a journey (for acquiring knowledge from famous teachers)². Manu IX 306 states that the king protecting his subjects according to the śāstra and meting out punishment to those who deserve it performs every day sacrifices in which the fees are one hundred thousand cows (i e he secures the spiritual reward of very solemn sacrifices). Yāj I.335 is to the same effect. Kauṭilya also lays emphasis on the duty to keep the varṇas and āśramas to their dutieṣ 'Therefore the king should not allow the people to swerve from their dutieṣ He, who keeps dharma intact (without breach), enjoys bliss in this world and the next'. Nārada³ (prakirnaka 33) states 'His duty is to protect the subjects, to (honour or) listen to the aged and the wise, to look into the disputes of people and to be energetic in his functions as king'. Sukra (I. 14) says that the highest dharma of the king is to protect the subjects and to put down the wickeḍ According to Atri (verse 28),⁴ to punish the wicked, to honour the good, to increase the treasury in the right way, to deal impartially with litigants and to protect the kingdom—these five are declared to be sacrifices in the case of kingṣ The Visnudharmottara (III. 323. 25-26) refers to the five sacrifices in very similar wordṣ In Śānti 77. 33 the king's duty to restrain brāhmaṇas from engaging in unworthy actions is specially emphasizeḍ These passages establish that the principal duties of the king were conceived to be to protect the subjects, to see that the rules of varnas and āśramas were carried out by them, to punish the wicked and to do justice.

The duty to protect involved fighting and probable death. Therefore the ancient works on dharma-śāstra always insist that it is the duty of the kṣatriya to fight and that death on the battlefield is to be his highest ideal. Manu (VII 87-89) enjoins upon the king, when protecting his subjects against invasion, not to run away from battle and promises heaven as the reward for kings who die fighting in battle Yāj I 324 holds forth the same reward for all soldiers who are killed in battle. Vide Strīparva 2 16 and 18 and 11. 8-9. The Bhagavadgītā (II. 31-37) most solemnly declares that there is nothing higher for a kṣatriya than a righteous war, that a kṣatriya's duty requires him not to quail in battle, that if he dies in battle he goes to heaven and if he survives he rules over the world, that he should fight as a duty without caring for gain or loss, victory or defeat and if he fights with this attitude no sin attaches to hiṃ Śānti parva 78 31 states that just as those who join in the bath of the king at the end of the Aśvamedha are purified of all sins, so all soldiers (of whatever caste and on whatever side) killed in battle become pure by the destruction of their sins Manu (VII 94-95) sets out the results for a soldier when he flees from the battlefielḍ Parāśara ⁷¹ III 37 says “Two men pierce the orb of the sun (i e, reach heavenly worlds) viz an ascetic endowed with Yoga and a soldier killed while facing the enemy” and the following verses (III 38 ff) dilate upon how the slain warrior is waited upon in heaven by divine damsels A verse of the Ṛgveda X 154 3 (= Atharva 18 2 17) appears to hold that warriors losing life in battle reap the same rewards that those who make gifts of a thousand cows in sacrifices secure ⁷² It is probably this passage which Kauṭilya has in mind when in X. 3 he refers to the Veda for inciting the soldiers to fight without regard to life Ap Dh. S. (II. 10 26 2-3) states that a king, who strives to recover the wealth of brāhmaṇas (stolen by thieves) and dies in the effort, is said to perform a sacrifice, in which his body is the sacrificial post and the fees are incalculable and that other valiant men losing life in fighting for a (good) cause are in a similar position To die fighting for the protection of cows and brāhmaṇas is specially commended (vide Śānti 21. 19 and 77. 28 and 30) The Visnudharmasūtra III. 44-46 prescribes ‘there is no duty for kings equal to losing one’s life in battle; those who meet death in protecting a cow, a brāhmaṇa, a king, a friend, their own wealth and their wife enter heaven as also those who meet death in preventing confusion of varṇas (caused by adultery &c.)’ On the eve of battle the great warrior Bhisma says to his officers ‘it is a sinful act for a kṣatriya to die in his house from some disease; the ancient code of conduct for him is that he should meet death from steel’ (Bhīṣmaparva 17 11) The same idea is presented in Śalyaparva 5 32, Śānti 97 23 and 25

Kāmandaka ⁷³ (V. 82-83) makes it clear that the subjects require protection against the king’s officers, thieves, enemies of the king, royal favourites (like the queen and the princes) and the greed of the king himself As an extension of the king's duty to protect, the works lay down that it is his duty to support students, learned brāhmaṇas, and sacrificerṣ⁸ Vide Gaut X. 9-12, XVIII 31, Kaut. II. 1, Anuśāsana 61. 28-30, Śānti 165. 6-7, Viṣṇudharmasūtra III. 79-80, Manu VII. 82 and 134, Yāj I. 315 and 323 and III 44, Matsya 215. 58, Atri 24 The Hindu kings of ancient and medieval India followed this advice with great liberality for centuries and the subject has already been treated in vol II. pp 113, 856-864. The functions of Government were not supposed to end with the maintenance of peace and order, but Government must be an instrument of the diffusion of culture. The king is also called upon to support helpless and aged people, the blind, the cripple, lunatics, widows, orphans, those suffering from diseases and calamities, pregnant women by giving them medicines, lodging, food and clothing according to their requirements⁹. Vide Vas 19. 35-36, Viṣṇudharmasūtra III. 65, Matsya 215. 62, Agni 225 25, Ādiparva 49. 11, Sabhā 18. 24, Virāțaparva 18. 24, Śānti 77. 18 The Rājanīti-prakāśa (pp. 130-131) quotes¹⁰ the Viṣṇudharmottara requiring the king to honour and protect chaste women (pativratās) and Śaṅkha-Likhita to the effect that even kṣatriyas and vaiśyas who cannot maintain themselves by the methods prescribed by the śāstras for them should approach the king who should help them with the means of livelihood and they should work for the king in the manner laid down for them and that śūdras also should apply their skill and crafts for the benefit of the king when so maintained ¹¹ Medhātithi on Manu V. 94 states that when a king supports his subjects in a famine by distributing food from his treasury no question of his being in mourning would come in the way These provisions for the old, the blind, the widows, orphans and helpless persons and for the relief of unemployed kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras strike one as rather modern in tone In many modern countries the State has become the means of providing services for the greater part of its subjects, not only armed forces and the police, but social services such as education, public health, medical attendance, insurance against unemployment, old age, widowhood, and orphanage, relief of poverty &c In ancient India, though there were naturally no Acts of Parliament guaranteeing the above services to the subjects, public opinion, the views of eminent writers and the practice of the best kings created an atmosphere in which it was thought that it was imperative for the king representing the State and its resources to encourage learning, to care for the blind, the decrepit, the old and the widowed and to give employment to those who were unemployed Asoka constructed hospitals for men and animals (2nd Rock Edict at Kalsi in C I I vol 1, p 28), alms-houses, rest houses, watering places, shady trees on the highways and irrigation works, visited and supported the aged (8th Girnar Rock Edict in C I I p 15). In the 2nd century B C Khāravela, emperor of Kalinga, declares in his Hāthigumphā Inscription (E I vol. XX p 71 at p 86) that in the very first year of his reign he constructed embankments round the Khībira lake in the Kalinga capital and renovated all public gardens Rudradāman in the 2nd century A. D repaired the Sudarśana lake at great cost from his own treasury without levying fresh taxes or benevolences (pranaya) or forced labour The Anuśāsanaparva says that good kings should¹² construct meeting halls, papās, tanks, temples and lodging places for brāhmaṇas The Matsyapurāṇa 215. 64 remarks that the king should give to those who stay in hermtages food, oil and pots Vide Āp. Dh S II. 2 4, 21 and Haradatta thereon as to provision for śūdra guestṣ It is quite possible that these rules of the texts were not literally followed by all kings, but it is well-known how even legislative enactments are carried out by the subordinate staff in all countries including those of the West One has only to turn to Dickens' 'Oliver Twist' for some indication of the administration of Poor Laws and work-houses in England about a hundred years ago As regards the king's daily routine Kaut I 19, Manu VII. 145-147, 216-226, Yāj. I 327-333, Śukranīti I. 276-285, Agnipurāṇa 235, Visnudharmottara II.151, Bhāgavata X 70 4-17, Nītiprakāśa VIII 9 ff, Rājanītiprakāśa pp 153-169 and other works lay down

detailed rules, which have been already set out (H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 805-806) Every day on rising from his bed the king was advised (by Manu VII. 37) to wait upon brāhmaṇas learned in the three Vedas and endowed with wisdom and to abide by their directionṣ Vaṣ I, 39-41, Gout. XI. 13-14 say the same. In giving this advice exaggerated claims were made for brāhmaṇas, which have been already set out before Vide H. Dh. vol II pp. 135-136 and Anusāsana 33 2-8. The king was also expected to show himself to all people every day (Ayodhyī 100 51, Sabhā 5. 90)¹³.

An extremely high ideal was placed before the king by the Kautiliya, the Mahābhārata and other works In the Arthaśāstra I, 19 Kauṭilya¹⁴ proclaims the magnificent ideal 'in the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the king, in their welfare lies his welfare; the good of the king does not consist in what is pleasing to himself, but what is pleasing to the subjects constitutes his good'. Similar words occur in the Visnudharmasūtra III last verse¹⁵ The Mahābhārata (Śānti 69. 72-73) purports to quote two verses of Angiras (i.e. Bṛhaspati), one of which says 'of what use is tapas to that king or of what use are even sacrifices to him who has well looked after his subjects? He is surely one who knows all dharmas' Kauṭilya compares the king to the performer of a sacrifice, in which his vrata¹⁶ (in the case of the sacrificer observances about food, scratching the body &c.) consists in being ever active, the sacrifice consists in issuing orders for carrying out the business (of the State), the sacrificial fee (that the king pays) is his impartiality to all (lit behaving in the same his coronation corresponds to the bath of the person who is consecrated for a sacrifice Śāntiparva ¹⁷ (56. 44 and 46) and Nītiprakāśikā VIII 2 declare that a king like a pregnant woman should not do what is pleasing to him, but what would conduce to the good of the people and the ancient dharma for a king is to keep the subjects contenteḍ In Śānti 90 1 and 5 it is said ‘the king is there for the upholding of dharma and not for acting as he likes and that all beings have to depend on dharma which in its turn depends on the king’. In Udyogaparva 118. 13-14 a king exclaims ‘the wealth I possess is for the benefit of the urban and rural population and not for my own enjoyment; for, that king who at his sweet will gives away what (really is not his but) belongs to others does not become endowed with spiritual merit nor with fame’. King Marutta is warned by his grand-mother in the Mārkaṇḍeya ¹⁸ (130. 33-34) that the king’s body is not meant for pleasures but for undergoing great trouble in protec- ting the earth and carrying out his dutieṣ Ancient writers loved to dwell upon the rule of the king as paternal. Kaut. II 1 states that the king should favour like a father those who are outside the rules for remission of taxeṣ Yaj I. 334 requires the king to be like a father to his subjects and servantṣ Vide Śānti 139. 104-105 for the same idea. ¹⁹ In the Rāmāyaṇa II.2. 28-47 and V 35. 9-14 the virtues of the prince Rāma are set out in great detail, where it is said that Rāma behaved like a father (II. 2. 39), that he sympathized with the people in their sorrows and was pleased like a father when the subjects celebrated festivalṣ The Rāmāyaṇa ²⁰ III 6 11 declares that it would be a great adharma on the part of that king who takes a sixth part of the produce ( of fields) and does not protect his subjects as if they were his childreṇ These sentiments are echoed by classical poets like Kālidāsa in the Śākuntala V. 5 and VI. 23 and the Raghuvamsa (I. 24 ). In the Harsa- carita (V) the dying king Prabhākaravardhana consoles his young and favourite son Harsa by exhorting him to reflect over the idea that kings are to be deemed to have relatives in their subjects and not merely in agnateṣ^66a Asoka also in his Edicts harps on the paternal relation ‘all men are my children’ (the first separate Jaugadh Edict, C. I. I. vol I pp. 111 and 114 ).

There were, it appears, several grades of rulers from the most ancient times The word rājānam occurs in numerous places in the Ṛgveda. It is applied to such gods as Mitra and Varuna (Rg. VII 64 2), Varuna (Rg I 24 12 and 13, X. 173. 5 ) It appears to be used in two senses, viz (1) ‘king’ as in Rg. I 65 7, III. 43. 5 (‘will you make me the protector of people, the king, O Indra’), IV. 4 1, IX. 7. 5, X. 174. 4 ) and (2) ‘noble’ as in Rg. IX. 10. 3, X. 78. 1, X. 97. 6 (‘where the plants come together as nobles in an assembly’ rājānah samitāvāva). In Rg. VIII 21 18 it is said⁶⁷ ‘Citra who gave thousands and ten thousands is the only king, others are only small chiefs along the bank of the Sarasvati’. The word ‘samrāj’ is known to the Ṛgveda and is used as an epithet of Varuna (in Rg. VI. 68. 9) and of Indra (in Rg. VIII. 16. 1) and the word sāmrājya also occurs in relation to Varuna in Rg I. 25 10. In Rg. VIII. 37. 3 Indra is said to be sole ruler of the world (ekaraṭ) It is not un- likely therefore that the idea of an emperor who had suzerainty over several kings was known, though it is possible that in Rg. VIII. 37. 3 the word is used only in a metaphorical sense. In Rg VII 83. 7-8^67a it is said that ten kings though they formed a confederacy could not vanquish king Sudās and that in the ten kings’ battle (dāśarājñe) Indra and Varuna helped Sudās who was surrounded by them on all sideṣ A very large number of kings is mentioned by name in numerous places in the Ṛgveda (e. g. I. 53. 8 and 10, I. 54. 6, I 100 17, VII. 33. 2, VIII. 3. 12, . VIII. 4. 2) Besides these it appears that there were tribal chiefs or governments of such clans or tribes as the Anus, Druhyus, Turvasas, Pūrus, Yadus (Rg I 108 8, all in the plural, VII 18 6 and VIII 6 46) But sometimes these words are used in the singular, when they mean ‘a king or chief of that clan’. Vide Rg VIII. 4. 7, VIII 10 5, IV 30 17 In the Atharvaveda III 4 1 (may you shine forth as the sole ruler of men) that w²⁴ord (ekarat) is used in its literal sense and in Atharva VI 98.1 (may²⁵ Indra conquer and may he never be defeated, may he shine as the overlord among kings) the idea of an emperor (adhimāja) is clearly set forth In Rg. X 128 9²⁵ the word ‘adhi-rāja’ must be taken in the same sense The Atharvaveda speaks of an Ugra which word seems to mean a formidable king (or emperor) ‘Then you chase away disease as a formidable (king) who is in the midst (of many kings presses hard each of them)’ IV 9 4 In the Atharvaveda III. 4. 3 it is said ‘May the ugra see a lot of tribute’. In Rg X 34 8 the word ugra has probably the same sense viz ‘a formidable king’ In the Tai S II 6. 2. 2 it is said that men are held (supported or restrained) by the king (tasmād rājñā manusyā vidhṛtāh) In the Tai S I 8 10 2 occur²⁶ the words in the Zud formula recited in the Rājasūya ‘May the gods extract for men great power, great overlordship, great sovereignty over people, this, O Bharatas, is your king, while Soma is king of us brāhmaṇas’. The exact relation of the two words ‘ādhipatya’ and ‘jānarājya’ is not clear. Similar words occur in Vāj S IX 40 and X. 18 and in Kathaka XV 5 In the Ait Br (39 1) it is said²⁷ that ‘whoever desires the king to attain supremacy over all kings, to attain to the rank of emperor and desires that he be the supreme ruler, the sole emperor (ekarāt) of the whole earth bounded by the sea up to its very extremities should be consecrated and crowned with the Aindra Mahābhiṣeka after making him take an oath.’ In this passage the meanings of the words ‘bhaujya’, ‘svārājya’, ‘vairājya’ and ‘pāramesthya’ in relation to sovereignty over people are not clear. They are probably hyperbolical and grandiloquent words to convey supreme power. Even a brāhmaṇa, according to vedic texts, may perform the Vājapeya if he desires ‘svarājya’ which means supereminence. Paramesthin means ‘Prajāpati’ and so pāramesthya simply means godlike power. Further there is no apparent reason why, after rising high from sāmrājya to ‘pāramesthya’ there should be a descent to mere ‘rājya’ and ‘māhārājya’. Sāyana ²⁸ takes ‘rājya’ and ‘māhārājya’ at the end of the passage as referring to the position of the king in the next worlḍ This is rather far-fetcheḍ Jayaswal (in ‘Hindu Polity’, part 1 pp. 89-90 and p. 133) takes these words to mean ‘the Bhaujya constitution &c.’ relying on the occurrence of the Bhojas in Aśoka’s Rock Edicts V and XIII and in Khāravela’s Inscription, on the appearance of Bhojas as rulers in Western India and the town of Bhuj in Cutch and ‘vairājya’ as kingless system and ‘svarājya’ as ‘self-ruling system’; but this is all unwarranted and is a fair sample of the way in which some of Jayaswal’s theories are built up. It passes one’s understanding how a paramount sovereign is promised vairājya (in Jayaswal’s sense) in the Ait. Br. In the Ṛgveda (V. 66. 6) we have the word ‘svarājya’ (which probably means the same thing as ‘svārājya’) in ‘Let us strive for an all-embracing sovereignty, which will afford protection to many’ ²⁹. In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the distinction between a king (rājan) and an emperor is very clearly expressed as follows: ‘For, by offering the Rājasūya he becomes king and by the Vājapeya he becomes emperor; and the office of king is the lower and that of emperor higher’ (V. 1. 1. 13). Śatapatha IX. 3. 4. 8 contains the same idea agaiṇ In Śatapatha I. 6. 4. 21 it is said ‘ before the slaying of Vṛtra he was Indra, it is true; but after slaying Vṛtra he became Mahendra, even as a king (rājan) becomes a mahārāja after obtaining victory’. These passages are sufficient to establish that the idea of a suzerainty extending over many kingdoms was known in the times of the Ṛgveda and had been fully developed before the composition of the Aitareya and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇaṣ The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa mentions by name twelve emperors of ancient India and the Śatapatha thirteen (XIII. 5 4 1–19) Pānini explains (V. 1. 41–42) ‘sarva-bhauma’ as ‘the lord of the whole earth’. The Amarakośa states that the words ‘rāj’, ‘pārthiva’, ‘kṣmābhṛt’, ‘nṛpa’, ‘bhūpa’ and ‘mahakṣit’ are synonyms and mean ‘king’, that a king before whom all feudatories humble themselves is styled ‘adhīśvara’, ‘cakravartin’, ‘sārvabhauma’ i e these three last words are synonyms The word ‘cakravartin is derived’ by Kṣīrasvāmin as ‘one who wields lordship over a circle of kings’ or ‘who makes the circle (i e kingdom) abide by his orders’. The word ‘cakravartin’, though not so ancient as ‘sārvabhauma’, has been employed from very ancient times The Maitri Upaniṣad 1 4 mentions ¹⁸ 15 cakra-vartins The Rajanitiprakāśa (p. 58) quotes ¹⁹ a passage from the Sāṁavidhāna Brāhmaṇa (III. 5. 2) ‘the priest should perform the coronation with the Ekāvṛṣa Sāman for that king whom he desires to be the sole ruler and whose circle of territory (he does not desire) to be overwhelmed (by an enemy)’. Here probably is one of the earliest references to the derivation of the word cakravartin In the Mahāvagga (Selasutta, S B E. vol X p 102), Lord Buddha is made to say ‘I am a king, an incomparable, religious king (dharmarāja); with justice (dhammena) I turn the wheel, a wheel that is irresistible’. Here the idea of the secular cakravartin is carried into the moral and spiritual sphere. In the Nānāghāt Inscription (of about 200 B C) occurs the word ‘apratihatacakasa’ (i e—cakrasya) Vide ASW I, vol. V p 50 at p.60. Khāravela is styled Kalinga-cakravartin in the Mañchapuri record of his chief queen (E I vol XX p 86n), ‘supavatavijaya-caka’ (supravṛttavijaya-cakra, in l. 14) and ‘pavata-caka’ (pravṛtta-cakra in l 17) of his Hathegumphā Inscription (E I vol. XX at pp. 88–89) Kauṭilya (IX. 1) defines the land of the cakravartin ²⁰ as the territory on the earth spreading towards the III ] north from the sea to the Himalaya, which is a thousand yojanas in extent when measured in a straight line. The same idea occurs in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā of Rājaśekhara (p. 92). Kauṭilya also employs the expression ‘ cāturanto rājā ’ (a king of the earth up to its four boundaries ). Śānti-parva ³⁴ speaks of a ruler who brings the whole earth under one umbrella. On the birth of Harsa, the chief astrologer told his father Prabhākaravardhana that the boy would be the leader of the seven cakravartins (Harsacarita IV ). In some works the six cakravartins are said to be Māndhātā, Dhundhumāra, Hariścandra, Purūravas, Bharata, Kārtavīrya. The Sabhāparva (15. 15–16 ) mentions five emperors of old viz. Yauvanāśva ( Māndhātā ), Bhagīratha, Kārtavīrya, Bharata and Marutta. Vide Dr. N. N. Law’s ‘ Aspects of Ancient Indian Polity ’ pp. 17–21 for exhaustive lists of ancient emperors, from the Mahābhārata, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and other workṣ This ideal of cakravartin was set before them by all ambitious and energetic Indian rulers from ancient timeṣ The result was that constant wars took place. We have a galaxy of historical emperors that emulated such mythical heroes and emperors as Māndhātā and Bharata and practically realized the ideal. To name only a few, Candragupta, Aśoka, Pusyamitra, Bhavanāga of the Bhāraśivas, Pravarasena Vākāṭaka, Samudragupta and Harsa are great names in our ancient history. Even if this ideal of universal empire had not been there, wars could not have been avoideḍ That was a very usual thing everywhere in the ancient worlḍ Only about 700 years ago, Britain, which is a very small country compared to India, had three kingdoms engaged in constant warfare.

The Matsya-purāṇa (114 9–10) first gives the dimensions of Bharata-varsa from South to North (from Cape Comorin to the source of the Ganges ) as one thousand yojanas, states that its extent is ten thousand yojanas ( when measured upwards across the boundaries ) and that on all borders of it there are Mlecchas and that Yavanās and Kirātās dwell to its east and west ( verse 11 ) and that the king who conquers the whole of Bharatavarsa is styled ‘ samrāt ’ ( verse 15 ). Vide Brahmapurāṇa 17. 8 ff for almost the same wordṣ The Śukranītisāra (I. 183–187) states that a sāmanta is one whose yearly revenue is from 1 to 3 lakhs of silver karsas without oppressing the people, the revenue of a māndalika is from 4 to 10 lakhs, that of a rājan is from 11 to 20 lakhs, of a mahārāja from 21 to 50 lakhs, of a svarāt from 51 lakhs to a crore, of a virāt from two crores to ten, of the sārva- bhauma (who wields suzerainty over the whole earth i. e. Bharatavarṣa ) from 11 crores to 50. Though these definitions may be regarded as scholastic and too rigid to have been practically followed they do convey a sufficiently clear idea about the power of a feudatory, a king and an emperor. The Sabhāparva³⁵ (15. 2 ) says ‘there are kings in each house, who do what pleases them, but they do not reach the position of emperor, which title can be acquired with great difficulty’, and ‘that king under whose sole dominion the world abides secures the position of samrāj’. In these and other places ‘world’ means ‘Bharatavarṣa’ for which see H. Dh vol. II pp 17–18. Sovereignty (sāmrajya) consisted in ancient India not necessarily or invariably in acquiring control over vassal kings in all their affairs Generally the supreme ruler did not hanker after territory so much as after having his superior prowess acknowledgeḍ The descriptions of digvijayas (world conquests) in the Mahābhārata (e g. of Pandu in Ādi 113, of Arjuna and the other Pāṇdava brothers in Sabhā, chap. 26-32) show that there was no aggrandizement by acquiring fresh territory but all that was desired was to make the several kings submit and pay tribute or offer presentṣ Arjuna expressly says in Sabhā 25 3 that he would bring tribute from all kings and the conquered kings are generally represented as submitting and making presents of gems, golds, horses, cows to the conqueror. The Allahabad stone pillar³⁶ Inscription of Samudragupta (Gupta Ins p 8) states that the pratyanta (bordering) kings of Samatata and other countries and the Mālava and other tribal oligarchies fully gratified Samudra- gupta’s commands by giving all tribute, by obeying his orders and by coming to perform obeisance Śanti 96 insists that conquests should be made according to dharma Empire did not mean imposition of the language or the government system of the conqueror on the conquered country The conqueror’s duty as understood by ancient Indian works was quite different. III] as will be presently showṇ Kauṭilya (XII. 1) declares³⁷ that there are three kinds of invaders, viz. dharmavijayin (who is satisfied with mere submission or obeisance), lobhavijayin (who is satisfied with gain in land and money), asuravijayin (who is not satisfied with land and money only but robs the defeated king of his son, wife and life). The Nitivākyāmṛta (pp. 362-363, Yuddhasamuddeśa) defines the three almost in the same wordṣ This show that in the first two kinds of conquests the conquered state retained its own institutions, organization and government intact. Bāṇa gives³⁸ in very striking language what Harṣa proclaimed when he started against the treacherous king of Gauḍa and on digvijaya It appears that even the queens of vanquished chiefs had to perform the duties of maids at the time of the coronation of the emperor and empress, as queen Yaśomatī says to Harṣa (in Harṣacarita V). Vide Sabhā 31. 73-74 where Bibhīsaņa is said to have come with presents to Sahadeva. Aśoka (in Kalsi Edict No. XIII in C. I. I, pp. 44 and 46, ed by Hultzsch) speaks of his conquest being dharma-vijaya. This means that he foreswore greed and cruelty and wanted that his influence be only acknowledgeḍ The Pallava king Śivaskandavarman (of Kāñcī) who had performed the Agniṣṭoma, Vājapeya and Aśvamedha sacrifices calls himself dhamma-mahārajadhirāja (a dharma-vijayī emperor) in E. I. vol. I. p. 5. In the Dudia plate of Pravarasena II, Pṛthivīṣena is styled dharma-vijayin (E. I. vol. III p. 258 at p. 261). Samudragupta's conquest of South India seems to have been only a dharmavijaya. As time went on the titles of kings grew in grandiloquence. Aśoka whose empire extended at least from Afghanistan to the Bay of Bengal and included some part of the Deccan and Mysore calls himself 'rājo'. Khāravela is styled only mahārāja and Kalingādhipati in the Hāthīgumphā Inscriptioṇ Huvishka, the Kushana emperor, is styled Mahārāja-rājātirāja-devaputra (E I. vol. I pp. 371, 386). Samudragupta is simply mahārāja (Gupta Inscriptions p 8). But later emperors styled themselves paramabhaṭṭāraka-mahārājādhirāja (Gupta Inscrip-tions p. 70, Indore copperplate of Skandagupta of Gupta year 146 i. e. 465-66 A. D.) or sometimes 'parama-bhaṭṭāraka-maha-rājādhirāja-parameśvara' (Gupta Inscriptions No. 39, p. 176, copperplate of the Valabhi king Sīlāditya in 447 of the Valabhi era i. e. 766-67 A. D.). Ancient works are not very particular about the epithets they employ when speaking of a king or an emperor Sānti (68 54) says that a king is praised with the epithets rājan, bhoja, virāṭ, samrāṭ, kshatriya, bhūpati and nṛpa.³⁹ Dasaratha is styled rājā in Ayodhyā 2.2. and mahā-rāja in 18.15 and 57.32. The Rājanītinratnākara (pp 3-4) holds that kings are of three kinds; viz. emperor (samrāṭ), one who pays tribute and one who does not pay even tribute (but is not a samrāṭ), quotes several verses from a work of Nārada on politics and states that the words cakravartin, samrāṭ, adhiśvara and mahārāja are synonymṣ Kings aspiring to be called samrāṭ performed the Rājasūya and Aśvamedha in ancient India. The Sabhāparva 13.30 speaks of Rājasūya as fit to be performed by a samrāṭ. Senāpati Pusyamitra (about 180 B C) is said to have performed two Aśvamedhas (vide E. I vol XX p 54, 57). The Ghosundi Inscription (E I. vol. 16 p. 25 and E I. vol 22 p 198) speaks of Sarvatāta, a great devotee of Viṣṇu, as a performer of Aśvamedha. Khāravela (who was a Jain) performed Rājasūya (E. I. vol. XX at p 79) The Vākāṭaka king Pravarasena I had performed four Aśvamedhas (E. I. vol. III p 258 and Gupta Inscriptions No 55). In the Vākāṭaka copperplates the Bhāraśivas are extolled as having performed ten Aśvamedhas (E. I III 258 at p. 260) The Sālaṅkāyana king Vijayadevavarma, whose capital was at Vengi in Āndhra, is said to have performed an Aśvamedha (E. I. IX p 56, about 350 A D) The Cālukya king Pulakeśin I had performed Asva-medha (E. I. vol. VI p 1 and IX, p 100) about 550 A D Pusya-mitra is styled simply Senāpati in the Mālavikāgnimitra Act V when he sends a message to his son about attending the Rājasūya in which he had been engaged For the significance of the Abhi-secanīya rite in Rājasūya vide H of Dh. vol. II pp 1216-1218. The Kadambas are said to have performed Aśvamedhas in the Nilambur plates (E. I. vol. VIII p. 148) The Visnukundin III]

Mahārāja Mādhavavarman performed eleven Aśvamedhas and one thousand Agniṣtomas (I. H. Q vol. IX p 278). Vide H. D¹. vol II pages 1238–1239 for a few more historic examples of the performers of Aśvamedha.

Kauṭilya (VII. 16) prescribes that the conqueror should not covet the territory, wealth, sons and wives of the slain (in battle), that he should re-instate the late king’s kinsmen in their proper places (or positions), that he should instal the son of the deceased king on the throne of his father and adds that the emperor who kills or imprisons the kings that submit and covets their lands, wealth, sons or wives provokes the maṇḍala (the circle of States) and makes it rise against himself. Yājñavalkya (I. 342–43) prescribes that it is the duty of the conqueror to protect the conquered country in the same way as his own country and the conqueror is to respect the customs of the conquered country, its laws and the usages of the families therein

The Visnudharmaśūtra ⁴⁰ (III. 42 and 47–49) enjoins upon the conqueror not to uproot the usages of the conquered country, to establish in its capital some kinsman (of the slain king) and not to destroy the royal family unless it be of low birth Manu (VII. 202–203) and Agnipurāṇa 236-22 prescribe similar ruleṣ The Rāmāyaṇa (VII. 62.18–19) requires the conqueror, after uprooting the king, to establish another king there in order to ensure stable government. Vide Śānti 33.43–46 quoted above on p. 40. Kātyāyana (q in the Rājanītiprakāśa p. 411) prescribes that even when the (vanquished) king is at fault, the conqueror should not ruin the country (for the fault of the vanquished king), since he (the vanquished king) did not start (on his career of) wrong-doing with the consent of his subjectṣ The Rājanītiprakāśa draws from this the conclusion that the ministers with whose consent the war was started may be harassed by the conqueror. This advice was generally followed by ancient conquerors and emperorṣ Rudradāman (150 A. D.) is styled the established of kings that had lost their territories (in the Junāgaḍh Inṣ, E. I. vol. VIII at p. 44) and in the Allahabad Stone Pillar inscription of Samudragupta it is said that his fame travelled over the whole world because of his having re-established several royal families that had lost their kingdoms (Gupta Inscriptions, p 8). The Śukranītisāra (IV. 7.397-399) requires the conqueror to support the well-behaved son and the queen of the vanquished king or to give a fourth of the conquered kingdom to him and only ¼ part of it to one who is not endowed with good qualities and the conqueror may appropriate the whole treasury of the conquered

The coronation of a king was a very solemn and important ceremony. Reasons of space forbid any lengthy treatment but something must be said about it. In the medieval text-books, various procedures are described from different sources The Rājanītiprakāśa (pp. 42-112), the Nīti-mayūkha (pp 1-13) and the Rājadharma Kaustubha (pp. 237-374), the Rāja Dh K (II. pp. 6-10) quote procedures of coronation from the Ait Br., the Gopathā Br., the Sāmavidhāna Br, the Brahmapurāṇa, the Visnudharmottara and other works The procedure from the Purāṇas probably originated when persons of the śūdra caste frequently became kingṣ The Rājanītiprakāśa ⁴¹ (p 112) says that there being different procedures of coronation rites based on Vedic texts, some hold, following the dictum of Śabara (on Jaimini II. 4 9), that the coronation rite should comprehend all the different items mentioned in the several vedic texts (provided they do not contradict each other ), while others hold that there should be no comprehensive inclusion of all items but each vedic or smṛti procedure should be followed separately by itself. Mitra-miśra concludes that the purohita should follow that course which is nearest to his own śākhā The Rājadharma Kaustubha (p 339 ) says that as the rite described in the Visnudharmottara contains the largest number of details, one who is able to do so, may follow that Purāṇa, while for those who cannot do so there is an option or students of the Ṛgveda may follow the Ṛgvidhāna mode, of the Sāmaveda the Sāmavidhāna Br and all Purāṇa mode of coronation I shall first briefly indicate what procedure was followed in some vedic texts such as the Gopathā Brāhmaṇa, the Sāmavidhāna Br. and in the Gṛhyasūtras, then point out what was done in the times of the epics and set out the prominent items in the procedure of the purānaṣ

The Aitareya brāhmaṇa (38) describes the Great Corona- tion of Indra (Aindra mṛhābhiṣeka) and in that connection mentions how the kings of the Sātvatas in the south were called ‘Bhoja’ the kings of the eastern countries were called ‘samrāt’, the kings in the west were called ‘svarāt’ and the kings of the north i. e. of countries beyond the Himālaya (viz. Uttarakurus and Uttaramadras) were called ‘virāt’. Then (in 39) it states that the kṣatriya king is to be made to take an oath and is to be crowned in the manner of the Aindra Mahā- bhiseka ⁴². The oath which the kṣatriya is to take before the priest with faith is : ‘the merit of sacrifices and good works that belongs to me from the night I was born up to the night on which I shall die, my worlds, good deeds, life, progeny,—these you may destroy if I hate (or prove false to) thee’. Vide note 41 above for the coronation oath in Śānti 59. 106 ff. It will be noticed that this passage of the Ait. Br. contains no undertaking given by the king to the people to rule according to dharma or for their welfare. So this passage cannot strictly be interpreted as postulating a contractual basis for the authority or power of the king, as done by Jayaswal (‘in Hindu Polity’ part II. p. 28). The Ait. Br. sets out the materials (sambhāras) for the coronation of a king (in chap. 39-2) viz. fruits of nyagrodha, udumbara, aśvatthā and plakṣa trees, grains of small rice, large-sized rice, priyangu and barley, a couch of udumbara with span-long feet, a spoon with a four-cornered scooped basin of udumbara and an udumbara vessel, on one of which two the other materials were to be placed and curds, honey, clarified butter and rain water gathered when the sun is shining. The mantras to be recited are mentioned in 39-3-4 and the fee in 39-6. In the Rājaseya (to be performed only by a kṣatriya) described in the Brāh- maņas and sūtras, the principal rite is the Abhișecanīya in which the king is bathed with waters brought from seventeen sources in seventeen vessels of udumbara wooḍ Vide H. Dh. vol. II pp. 1216-1218 for the rite. The Rājanītiprakāśa (p. 92- 107) explains the procedure of coronation from the Ait. Br. In the Rājasūya, among the preliminary rites are the offerings called ‘ratninām havīmsi’ (the offerings in the houses of the jewels, which are twelve). Vide H. Dh. vol. II pp. 1215-16. They have a symbolical value. The person to be crowned recognizes the importance of his high functionaries and is declared to be their king and they are supposed to approve of him as king. In the Abhiseçanīya rite of the Rājasūya, there are two parts, a religious and a popular. First, the adhvaryu and the other priests sprinkle the king with holy water collected from various sources in vessels; then the king’s brother, a friendly kṣatriya and a vaiśya also sprinkle him with the holy water. This last is symbolic of the popular approval of the coronatioṇ

The Tai Br. II. 7. 15-17 deals with coronatioṇ It first gives the seven mantras for seven āhutis that are offereḍ A tiger skin is spread on which the king is seated and he is sprinkled with holy water in which sprouts of barley and dūrvā grass are mixed up; the king ascends a chariot to the accompaniment of mantras, then the four wheels of the chariot are touched, the purohita and charioteer are addressed with mantras; Anumati, the Earth (as mother), and Heaven (as father) are implored to approve of the coronation, the king is made to look up towards the Sun and then the king looks on the subjects; the king then undergoes shaving when seated on a chair of udumbara wood, then his arms and head are anointed with milk blended with clarified butter

The Nītimayūkha pp. 4-5, Rājanītiprakāśa pp 42-43, Rājadhamakaustubha pp. 335-336 quote a passage from the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa ⁴³ on the rites of coronation as followṣ—We shall expound the rite of the coronation of the king Having III] collected the materials required such as bilva fruit, viz. sixteen jars, sixteen bilva fruits, earth from an ant-hill, all kinds of husked grains, all liquids, and all kinds of grains (unhusked). There should be four jars each of gold, silver, copper and clay. Having filled them, keeping their mouths up, with water from a mantra 'nāmaināma' (?) and having put the jars down on the surface of the altar, he (the priest) should place one bilva fruit apiece in each of the 16 jars and cast (into the jars) the husked and unhusked grains and all fluids, adding them (to the water) in the golden jars with the mantras called Abhaya (Atharvaveda 19 15), Aparājita, Āyuṣya (Atharvaveda I. 30) and Svastya- yana ⁴⁴ (Atharvaveda I. 21, VII. 85. 1, VII. 86. 1, VII 117.1), in the silver jars, with the mantras called saṁsrāvya (Atharvaveda 19.1) and Saṁsiktīya (Atharvaveda II. 26), in the copper jars with the mantras called Bhaiṣajya (Atharva VII. 45 'janād') and Amhomuc and in the earthen jars with Saṁveśa, Saṁ- vargya and Santātīya mantras and with the Prāṇa hymn (Atharvaveda XI. 4). He should then bathe the king with (the water of) the jars held by very holy and learned brāh- maṇas (śrotriyas). He should consecrate the king seated on the throne with the mantra (Atharvaveda IV. 22. 1) 'O Indra, make this my kṣatriya prosper'. (The king) being thus bathed should eat the several liquids, should make gifts of a thousand cows to the brāhmaṇa priests who assist the chief priest, bestow a good village on the chief priest He (the king) thereby acquires great glory, enjoys the earth and always vanquishes his foes'. The Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa ⁴⁵ (III. 5) describes a shorter rite: “(The priest) should crown the king when the moon is in the Puṣya or Śravaṇa constellatioṇ Having brought waters (separately in separate jars) from famous holy rivers (like the Ganges) ⁴⁶ and from the sea and having mixed in them rice, barley, sesame and māsa (black beans) grains and curds, honey, flowers and gold, he should bathe the king seated on an auspicious throne made of udumbara wood on which is spread tiger-skin with the hair outside, from horn-pipes cut off from the horns of living cows to the accompaniment of the rahasya mantra ‘abhrātṛvyah’ (you are without an enemy &c, Rg. VIII. 21.13, Sāmaveda 399 and 1489). He should bathe the king to the accompaniment of the Ekavṛṣa hymn (instead of Rg VIII. 21.13) whom he desires to be the sole ruler (of the earth) and whose circle of kings is desired by him not to be overwhelmed by an enemy. On the priest performing the coronation rite the king should bestow the best village, a hundred maid servants and a thousand cows and (the king) should be obedient to him (the officiating priest)”.

The Bauḍ Gṛhyāśesasūtra (I. 23) contains the procedure of coronation, the whole of which is quoted by the Bālambhaṭṭī on the Mitākṣarā on Yaj I 309. It is briefly as follows:—On the 5th or 13th tithi of the bright half when the moon is in Puṣya or Śravaṇa or in any other auspicious constellation (nakṣatra), two brāhmaṇas are fed (the day previous). Then a worthy purohita is chosen, who mutters certain textṣ At sunset the purohita makes a lotus-like circle in which are collected the materials viz. waters of the ocean and of rivers mixed with rice, barley, sesame, māsas and pañcagavya, and a bhadrāsana made of udumbara, a tiger-skin, and golden jars and horns of cows In the north-east part of the palaoe, a homa is performed with eight thousand āhutis (oblations) of rice &c to the accompaniment of the vyāhṛtis, the Gāyatrī and the mantra to Tryambaka (Tai. S. I. 8. 6. 2). The priest first propitiates the goddess Lakṣmī with the hymn⁴⁷ to Śrī and then washes the crown with cow's urine and dung, milk, curds, clarified butter and with water mixed with kuśas to the accompaniment of appropriate mantras, and ties an amulet (pratisara), and sprinkles the king and his conveyance (horse). At sunrise next day (the day of coronation) the tiger-skin is spread on the throne, the king sits thereon facing the east, the priest takes the golden jars and sprinkles the king with water falling upon him from the cone- like horns of cows with several mantras (such as those addressed to waters, Varuņa &c.). After the king is made to take a bath, a fee of a thousand niṣkas and a hundred dūsis is paid to the brāhmaṇaṣ Then the crown is placed on his head and drums are beateṇ

The Kauśikasūtra of the Atharvaveda (in 17.1-10) des- cribes the abhiṣeka (called laghu) performed on the Yuvarāja, Māṇḍalika, Sāmanta and Senāpati and (in 17.11-34) describes the mahābhiṣeka of the king.

In the Rāmāyaṇa there are numerous references to corona- tioṇ In the Yuddhakaṇḍa 131 we have a lengthy description of the coronation of Rāma. Some of the salient features are: Rāma was shaved that day, had a bath and put on costly clotheṣ Sītā also was suitably dressed and ornamenteḍ Rāma sat in a chariot and went through the capital, when Bharata held the reins, Śatrughna held the umbrella, Lakṣmaṇa the white chowrie; then Rāma rode an elephant; drums were beaten and conches were blown; as auspicious signs gold, cows, maidens, brāhmaṇas, men with sweetmeats in their hands passed in front of Rāma; the citizens had raised banners on every house; Jāmbavān, Hanumān and two others brought four jars full of sea-water and waters of five hundred rivers were brought in jars; the aged Vasiṣṭha, the family priest, seateḍ Rāma and Sītā on a jewelled throne; Vasiṣṭha and other sages sprinkled Rāma with the holy and scented waters, then maidens, the ministers, soldiers, the guilds of merchants also sprinkled Rāma; Vasiṣṭha placed an ancient crown on Rāma’s head, there was dancing and singing; Rāma gave presents to the priests and to his friends and to such helpers as Sugrīva, Angada, Bibhīsana and others and Sītā gave a necklace to Hanumāṇ In the Ayodhyākāṇḍa 15 we have a description of preparations for the abhiseka of Rāma as yuvarāja. The Raghuvaṁsa XVII. 10 mentions the coronation of Kuśa’s son with waters of holy rivers (tīrthas) from golden jarṣ

In the Mahābhārata also there are several references to and descriptions of coronatioṇ Vide Sabhā 33 (where people of all castes including sūdras were invited at the Rājasūya, vv 41–42) for the coronation of Yudhiṣṭhira; Śānti 40 (in verses 9–13 the materials for coronation are described); Ādi 44, 85, 101 (only references).

The sambhāras (materials required) of coronation are stated in the Pratimānāṭaka (I. 1) ascribed to Bhāsa and in the Pañcatantra III (after verse 75 )

In the Agipurāṇa, chap 218 deals with coronation and chap 219 sets out the mantras The following are the principal items in the ceremony; bath (with water in which sesame and mustard are mixed), seating on bhadrāsana, proclamation of abhaya (security and non-injury to all), releasing some prisoners from jail, Aindrī Śānti, fast by king, recital of mantras, sanctifying the head and other limbs of the king with earth taken from the top of a mountain and from other places, sprinkling pañcagavya, sprinkling of water from four jars of gold, silver, copper and earth by amātyas of the four varṇas, abhiṣeka by a Ṛgvedin with water mixed with kuśa grass, by Yajurvedin and Atharvavedin brāhmaṇas touching king’s head and throat with yellow pigment, singing and beating of musical instruments, holding of chowrie and fan before the king, king’s looking into a mirror and clarified butter, worship of Viṣṇu and other gods, sitting on a tiger-skin below which there are four skins viz of lion, cheeta, cat and bull; purohita to give madhuparka, to tie patita (a fillet or tiara) round the king’s head and to place the crown on his head; presentation of ministers by the pratīhāra; king to give presents to the priests and other brāhmaṇas; going round fire; doing obeisance to eldors; touching a bull; worshipping a cow with calf; riding a horse; honouring an elephant and riding it; procession in the capital; honouring all people and taking leave of theṃ

There are descriptions of the abhiseka of a yuvarāja (as of Bhima in Śānti 41), of a great commander (as of Bhisma in Udyogaparva 155.26-32), of Droṇa in Droṇaparva 5.39-43, of Skanda in Śalyaparva 45.

The Rājānitiprakāśa (pp. 49-83), the rājadharma-kaustubha (pp. 318-363) and Nītimayūkha pp. 1-4 quote from the Viṣṇudharmottara almost the whole of chapters 21-22 of the 2nd khaṇḍa that deal with the rites and mantras of coronatioṇ It appears that the Kaustubha appropriates all the glosses of Mitramiśra. The Viṣṇudharmottara (II. 19) sets out first the Śānti (propitiatory) rite in honour of Indra (called the Paurandarī or Aindrī Śānti). It is impossible to give the details here, but a few matters may be noticeḍ The purāṇa (in II. 21) includes all the details from the Vedic texts (such as Svastyayana, Āyusya, Abhaya and Aparājita hymns) and adds other rites also. It mentions the procedure stated above from the Agnipurāṇa and employs Vedic mantras in doing so. In II. 22 the Viṣṇudharmottara gives purāṇa mantras in 182 verses, in which such gods as Brahmā, Nakṣatras (from Kṛttikā to Bharaṇi), the planets, 14 Manus, 11 Rudras, Viśve-Devas, Gandharvas and Apsarases, dānavas, dākinīs, birds like Garuda, nāgas, sages like Veda-Vyāsa, emperors like Pṛthu, Dilīpa, Bharata, vedas and vidyās, rivers &c. are invoked to crown the king.

The Rājadharmakaustubha gives the most elaborate des-cription of coronatioṇ First a śānti rite is performed, then on the next (2nd ) day, a sacrifice to Iśāna (Rudra); on the 3rd day worship of the planets and other deities like waters, the earth Nārāyaṇa, Indra &c and the invocation of nakṣatras; on the 4th day a yāga for nakṣatras; on the 5th day at night a sacrifice to the goddess Nirṛti (a clay idol seated on an ass with dark vesture); on the sixth day Aindrī Śānti (propitiatiory rite in honour of Indra); then the rites prescribed in the Viṣṇudharmottara purāṇa.

The Viṣṇudharmottara notes (II. 18. 2-4) that on the death of the reigning king, there is no waiting for an auspicious time. The successor should be bathed with water, in which sesame and mustard are mixed, proclamation should be issued in his name that he has succeeded as king, the purohita and astrologer should show him to the people while he occupies a seat other than that occupied by the late king; the king should honour the people, proclaim peace and security, set free some prisoners and wait for the formal coronatioṇ The Rajanītiprakāśa (p. 62) adds that on the death of a king his successor should be crowned one year thereafter and that when a king abdicates his successor may be crowned on any auspicious day without waiting for a year. From the fact that the Kalinga king Khāravela was crowned in his 25th year and the fact that the Bārhaspatya-sūtra⁴⁸ (I. 89–90) states that up to the 25th year the prince may spend his time in play and education and then in earning wealth, Jayaswal (in ‘Hindu Polity’ part II. p 52) concludes that a Hindu coronation could not take place before the 25th year This is proving too much. The Bārhaspatya-sūtra says not a word about the age of coronation Authorities like the Viṣṇu- dharmottara require waiting for a year only after the death of the former king.

The Visnudharmottara⁴⁹ (II. 7) specifies at great length the qualities of the principal queen (agra-mahisi), which are quoted by the Rajanītikāustubha pp. 249–250 The chief queen should have the coronation rite performed along with the king or she should be separately crowned after the king. Manu VII. 77 advises the king to marry a lady of noble family, of the same caste, of charming appearance and possessed of good qualitieṣ The Rājataraṁginī (VIII. 82) notes that Jayamati, the queen of the good king Uccala of Kashmir (1101–1111 A. D.) always occupied half his throne.

The Nitimayūkha and Rājadharmakaustubha give the most detailed description of the Aindrī Śānti. For want of space it has to be passed over. The Rajanītiprakāśa (pp. 63-66) and Rājadharmakaustubha (pp 340-346) contain in one place a summary of the whole ceremony after Aindrī Śānti commencing one day previous to the actual day of coronatioṇ One detail of the rites is interesting, viz. after the learned brāhmaṇas and priests sprinkle the king with holy waters from several jars to the accompaniment of mantras and a Ṛgvedin brāhmaṇa touches the king's head and throat with powder of yoṇo cunā with the mantra ‘gandhadvārām’ (Tai. A. X. 1.10), principal virtuous ladies, whose sons are alive, of the four varṇas and also of mixed castes reciting auspicious songs (except the śūdra ladies who remain silent) should sprinkle the king with the waters derived from the sea and other holy placeṣ⁵⁰ There is a graphic description of the coronation of Shivaji⁵¹ the founder of the Maratha Empire in 1674 A. D. in the chronicle (bakhar) compiled by Krishnaji Anant Sabhasad (eḍ by K. N. Sane, pp. 98-104), where it is said that a costly throne was prepared, from 108 places waters were brought in 108 golden jars (95 tūlas are actually named), Gāgābhaṭṭa and other brāhmaṇas officiated and sprinkled waters on the king, large gifts including the sixteen mahādānas were made. Eight ministers stood round the throne (whose names and offices are set out), the head of the ecclesiastical department called Paṇditrao being to the right and the prime minister (mukhya pradhāna) to the left, an umbrella (chatra) set with jewels was held over his head, new golden coins were struck and a new era was started called ‘Rājyābhiṣeka’ era commencing from that year. In a small work called ‘Śivarāja-rājyābhiṣeka-kalpa-taru’ (published in the quarterly Journal of the Bhārata-itihāsa-samsodhaka Maṇdala at Poona, Vol X part I pp. 28–40) in 236 verses it is stated that a Yogin named Niseālapuri, an adept in Tantrika rites, got a second coronation of Shivaji performed over three months after that performed by Gāgābhaṭṭa, with Tantrika mantras on Wednesday the 5th of the bright half of Āśvina śake 1596, one interesting fact stated being that Shivaji went through a form of marriage with vaidika mantras with his wives that had already been married to him with paurāṇic mantraṣ The symbols of royalty viz the umbrella, the chowries and the cane stick are brought in to the king by principal ministers The Visnudharmottara (II. 12) states that the cāmara for the king must be made from the tails of camarī deer and must be all white with a handle of gold or silver and that the one for a councillor or purohita should be yellowish, while the same purāṇa in II. 13 describes the requisites of a royal umbrella That the umbrella and cāmaras were inseparable emblems of sovereignty is emphasized by Kālidāsa in Raghuvaṁsa III. 16 Vide the Bṛhatsamhitā, chap. 71 and 72, for cāmara and umbrella

It appears that sometimes a king took another name on coronation which was called abhisekanāma Vide Dr. R C Majumdar's ‘Champā' p 157 for a list of such names from Champā and Dr. Minakshi's ‘Administrative and social life under Pallavas' p. 39 for the Pallava Rājasimha having the coronation name Narasimhavarman Certain kings, when they performed Aśvamedha, assumed new titles e. g. Kumāragupta I seems to have assumed the title of Mahendra, as is clear from some of his coins on which his name and title occur

The Bṛhatsamhitā of Varāhamihira (chap. 48) lays down that the paṭṭa (tiara) for the king and others should be made of pure gold, that their length should be double of the breadth in the middle of it, that there should be five aigrettes in the king's tiara, three in the queen's and yuvarāja's, one in that of the commander-in-chief and none in the one that the king may give to a person as a mark of favour Utpala in his com on the Bṛhatsamhitā says that paṭṭa is the same as mukuta, while acc to the Nitimayūkha (p 13) and other works paṭṭa is tied on the forehead and mukuta (crown) is placed on the king's head Vide Rājanitiprakāśa (pp 54-55) and Rājadharmakaustubha (p. 324) for further details The Visnudharmottara (II. 14) describes the characteristics of bhadrasana (the throne) for the king; vide also Rājanitiprakāśa pp 51-52 It must be made of gold, silver or copper or a tree from which milky juice oozes when cut, it was to be one cubit and half high for a samrāt, 1½ cubit for a king and one cubit high for a feudatory (sāmanta )

The Visnudharmottara (II. 162) states that on every anniversary of the first coronation when the moon is in the same naksatra as that on which the first coronation took place the king should repeat the rites of coronatioṇ The Brahmapurāṇa quoted by the R. D. K. (p. 10) also says the same.⁵⁰ Vide Rajanītiprakāśa p. 115 and Kaustubha p. 379 also.

Manu (VII. 217-220) warns the king against poisoning 'The king should partake of food that is well examined and prepared by servants that are trust-worthy (lit. as if they were his own self), that know the proper times (for dining), that cannot be won over and over the food spells destroying poison should have been muttereḍ He should mix up in all that he partakes medicines that are antidotes against poison and should always wear gems that work against poisoṇ Only women devoted to him and well examined and found safe as regards their dress and ornaments should be allowed to touch him when fanning or bath-ing him or applying perfumes to his body. The king should take care in this way as regards his vehicles, bed, food, bath, applying perfumes and all ornamentation'. Kām VII. 8 and Matsya 219.10 are very similar to Manu VII. 220. Kauțilya (I. 17) states that the king should first secure his personal safety against his sons and wives and then the security of the kingdom against near and distant enemieṣ He first deals with safety from his own sons, the princeṣ The opinions of various authors on polity are cited (some of which have been noted above) viz. secret punishment (acc. to Bhāradvāja), keeping under guard in one place (acc. to Viśālākṣa), keeping the prince in a fort under the boundary guard (acc. to the Parāśaras), keep-ing the prince away from his own kingdom in a fort belonging to a feudatory (acc. to Piśuna), sending him to his maternal re-lations (acc to Kauṇapadanta), making the prince addicted to sensual pleasures (acc. to Vātavyādhi), proper pre-natal care and proper education after birth about dharma and restraint (acc. to Kaut.). This symposium shows how the problem of the king's safety against bad princes taxed the ingenuity of all ancient writers on Arthaśāstra and how Kauțilya advocated the only reasonable course possible. The Matsyapurāṇa, chap. 220, also relies on training, discipline and gradual transfer of responsibility and advises the imprisonment of a bad prince in a well-guarded place furnished with comforts suitable to his position ⁵³ In I 20 Kauṭilya gives practical hints against the danger of fire and poisons: e g he says that poisonous snakes will not enter a building provided with Jivanti, Śvetā and other plants; that cats, peacocks, mongoose and spotted deer when let loose eat serpents, that certain birds like parrots, mainas, malbar bird shriek when they suspect snake poison, the heron loses his consciousness in the vicinity of poison, the pheasant (jivāñ- jivaka) feels exhausted; the young cuckoo dies, the eyes of cakora become redder. ⁵⁴ Kām (VII 10-13) repeats the words of Kaut I 20 and the Matsya (219 17-22) refers to the effects of poison on the same birds and a few otherṣ The Matsyapurāṇa in chap 219-220 closely follows Kaut and Kām and appears to be based on them (e g Matsya 219 30 latter half is the same as Kām VII 24 first half). Vide Yaśastilaka III pp 511-512 for the effects of poison on birds almost in the same words as those of Kaut and Kāṃ Vide Śukra I 326-328. Kaut I 21, Matsya 219 9-32 state that part of the food for the king should first be cast into fire and offered to birds and the effects noted, they dwell at great length on the different tints of the flames of fire and of the smoke when different kinds of food are cast into fire, they point out the actions and ges- tures of the poisoner, they prescribe that the cook and the doctor giving medicines for mixing in food as antidotes should be made to partake of the food and then the king should himself partake of it. The king has to be careful in the harem, when receiving presents or anything sent by others, when sitting in a conveyance or riding a horse or travelling in a boat or when attending festivals (Kaut I 20-21, Kām VII 28-47). Kaut I 20 and Kām (VII 44 and 50) advise the king not to trust women and even the queen and to approach even the queen after she has been examined by men 80 years old and women over 50. III] years in the harem and found ⁵⁵ safe. Kaut. (I. 20) and Kāṃ (VII. 51-54) both name seven kings that met death in their queen's chambers by the stratagems of the queens themselves or those that were incited by them; viz. Bhadrasena killed by his brother concealed in the chamber of his queen (who was in love with the king's brother), the king of Karūṣa killed by his own son who had concealed himself under the bed of the queen (who was angered by the king's promise to give the kingdom to the son of a rival queen), the king of Kāśī killed by his queen who mixed fried rice with poison pretending that it was honey; the queen of the king of Sauvīra killed him with a jewel in her girdle that was smeared with poison; Vairantya was killed by his queen with her anklet smeared with poison; Jalūtha (or Jarūṣa in Kāṃ) was killed with a mirror (with a razor-like edge) covered with poison; Vidūrathia was killed by his queen who had concealed a weapon in her braided hair. The Harsa- carita (VI) of Bāṇa mentions with additional details the cases of Bhadrasena king of Kalinga killed by his brother Virasena, the king of Karūṣa (Dadhra by name), Kāśirāja (named Mahā- sena) whose queen Suprabhā killed him to secure the kingdom to her son, Jarūtha king of Ayodhyā, Vairantya named Rantideva, Vidūrathia of the Vṛṣṇis killed by Bindumati, the Sauvīra king Virasena killed by queen Haṃsavatī. In the Bṛhatsaṃhitā (77 1-2) two of these, Vidūrathia and Kāśirāja, are mentioned, but the latter is said to have been killed by his estranged queen with an anklet smeared with poisoṇ Medhātithi on Manu VII 153 quotes four of these seven The Nītivākyāmṛta (rāja- rakṣāsamuddeśa 35-36, pp. 231-232) sets out six other examples of kings killed by their queens The king has also to beware of treachery from ministers and officialṣ Kaut. (in I. 10) des- cribes how ancient writers devised methods of ascertaining the purity or impurity of ministers by putting before them allure- ments regarding dharma, wealth, sexual desires and playing on their fears and gives it as his own opinion that temptations that have direct reference to the king or queen should not be placed in the way of the ministerṣ In the Harsacarita VI, Skanda- gupta, the commander of the elephant arm of Harṣa's army, warns the Emperor against putting trust in everybody and gives 19 instances of kings that met misfortunes, death or destruction through their own carelessness and the stratagems of those about them (apart from the seven mentioned above and two more who fell victims to the wiles of their queens). Some of them are famous and deserve mention here, viz. the king of Vatsa (i. e. Udayana) who was imprisoned by the soldiers of Mahāsena of a faked elephant; Maurya Brhadratha killed by his Senāpati Puṣyamitra (called ‘anārya’ by Bāṇa on account of his treachery to his master); Kākavarṇa Śaiśunāri (Śaiśunāgī?), Sumitra, son of Agnimitra, whose head was cut off by Mitradeva while the king fond of dancing was in the midst of actors, the Śunga Devabhūti killed by his minister Vasudeva; Candra- gupta (of the Gupta dynasty) who dressed as a charming woman cut off the king of Śakas; the foolish Maukhari king Kṣatra- varman killed by bardṣ Vide Kāmasūtra V 5 30 for two other examples of the Abhira king Kottarāja and Jayatsena king of Kāśī. The Nītivākyāmṛta (Dūtasamuddeśa) p 171 states that Cāṇakya killed one of the Nāndas through a dūta and that two other kings met death from presents of poisoned clothes and a jewelled box containing snake poisoṇ The Yaśastilakacampū (III pp 431–432) sets out many instances of kings that met with death from the wrath or the machinations of their ministers, purohita &c

From these examples one should not draw the facile and sweeping conclusion that in India the life of no king was safe. In the vast continent of India there were always numerous kingdoms at the same time. It is no wonder that in the course of several thousand years and over such vast territories, some kings met death by treachery and stratageṃ This is not a phenomenon restricted to India. In a small country like England we have within two hundred years instances of the murder of the boy king Edward V and his brother prince Richard, of Lady Jane Grey nominated by Edward VI as his successor and the further fact that Cromwell during the last few months of his life was afraid of being assassinateḍ During about 150 years from 1789 out of 30 Presidents of the U. S. A. several such as Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley met death at the hands of assassinṣ

The truth is that in a monarchy the king was the pivot of the whole State. As the Matsyapurāṇa (219.34) finely puts it 'the king was the root and the subjects were the tree; in saving the king from dangers the whole kingdom was on the road to prosperity and therefore all were to make efforts to guard the king'

Hereditary monarchy was the norm of government in ancient and medieval India. Kauṭilya expressly states (I. 17 at end) that the practice to make the eldest son the king is honoured except in the case of a calamity. At or about the time of Buddha and a few centuries thereafter there were a few oligarchies or (as some scholars prefer to call them) republicṣ But our dharmaśāstra or Arthaśāstra authorities contain rather very meagre references to theṃ The Mahābhārata in Sānti 107 furnishes the following data about gaṇarājyas (government by groups) : Internal dissensions are the root of the ruin of gaṇas; it is very difficult to keep lines of policy secret when there are many (when the government is that of many, i. e. an oligarchy or a republic) ; all members of the gaṇa in their entirety do not deserve to hear the line of policy decided upon, but the chief persons among the gaṇas should meet together and arrange among themselves to secure the welfare of the whole gaṇa; if disputes that arise among the families (or clans) are connived at by the heads of the clan, the ruin of the clan takes place which leads on to dissensions among the whole group (gaṇa) Danger from internal dissensions must be guarded against (in the case of gaṇāyujya), external dangers are not serious (in the case of gaṇarājya). All members of the gaṇa are equal by birth and family, but they are not equal in energy, intelligence, bodily appearance and wealth. By their enemies gaṇas are broken by means of internal dissensions and bribes; therefore the greatest safety of gaṇas lies in union⁵⁶. In these words the author of the Mahābhārata unerringly puts his finger on the weak spots of the rule of many viz. secrecy cannot be kept, there is corruption due to greed and jealousy, which bring about their downfall. In another place (Sānti 81 ) the Mahābhārata refers to the saṁgha of the Vṛṣṇis, of whom Kṛṣṇa was the president, and the great truth that the ruin of saṁghas is brought about by internal dissensions and corruption and it hits off the qualities required in the wise leader of the saṁgha to be four viz. sagacity, forbearance, self-control and giving up the acquisitive spirit The words saṁgha and gaṇa are employed as synonyms in the Mahābhārata. Pāṇini (III 3 86) states that saṁgha means gaṇa. Patañjali in his Mahābhāṣya (vol II p 356) states that saṁgha, samūha and samudāya mean the same thing Pāṇini knows two kinds of saṁghas viz āyudhajīvin (who practic ed the profession of arms) and those that were not so and further he also indicates that in the Vāhīka country saṁghas included⁵⁷ brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and others (vide V. 3 114). He names the saṁghas of Vṛkas, Trigartas, Yaudheyas, Parśus (V 3 115–117) as āyudhajīvin Kātyāyana by his vārtika ‘kṣatriyādekarājāt saṁghapratisedhārtham’ on Pāṇini IV 1 168 shows that saṁgha was differentiated from monarchy. Acc to Kauṭilya (p 53 above) the saṁgha of the Vṛṣṇis perished when it came in conflict with Dvaipāyana. In another place Kauṭilya says that ( in some cases) the kingdom may be ruled by a clan, for the confederacy⁵⁸ of a clan is invincible, it is free from the calamity of a kingless State and therefore exists on the earth very long Kauṭilya devotes one section (Adhikaraṇa XI) to the dealings of the ambitious king with saṁghaṣ There he states that securing the saṁgha on one's side is far better than securing an army or allies and makes the most interesting remark⁵⁹ that the corporation of the kṣatriyas and others in III] the countries of Kāmboja and Surāstra practise vāitā (husbandry and trade) and the profession of arms, while those of the Licchivikas, Vṛjikas, Mallakas, Madrakas, Kukurax, Kuru and Pāñcalas live on the title of rājau applied to them (i c. they are not cultivators of the soil and soldiers, but are only chiefs or nobles) What Kauṭilya means by vāitā-śastropavīnah appears to be that they were agriculturists ordinarily but wore ready with their swords to defend their country when occasion required Kauṭilya then describes in detail without any scruples how the conqueror may by various subterfuges cause dissensions among the members of the sangha and its leader or leaders (sangha-mukhya) In VIII. 3 Kauṭilya remarks that dissension becomes particularly rife owing to gambling among sanghas and noble clans that have the sangha constitution and they are destroyeḍ From about the 5th or 6th century A. D. the oligarchic States or Republics became rare and gradually disappeareḍ We get further data about these gaṇarājyas from Buddhist works, Greek sources (like the fragments of Megasthenes), coins and inscriptionṣ Rudradāman (in Junāgadh Inscription of 150 A. D.) boasts that he had uprooted the Yaudheyas who had become puffed up and unbending on account of the title of heroes (vīra) that was prominently applied to them among all kṣatriyas ⁶⁰ (E I. vol VIII. at p. 44) Samudragupta (in the first half of the 4th century A. D.) subjugated the Yaudheyas, Mālavos, Ārjunāyanas &c. In Gupta Inscriptions No. 58 p. 251 there is mention of a mahārāja-mahāsenāpaḥ who was made their leader by the Yaudheya-gana. The Bṛhatsamhitā in several places refers to the Yaudheyas and Ārjunāyanas (e g 4.25 ; 5.40, 67, 75 ; 14 25 and 28; 16.21 ; 17.19 ) and speaks of Yaudheya-nṛpa in 9.11. Vide Rapson’s ‘Indian coins’ pp. 11 and 15 and Plate II, nos 13-15 and Plate III, no. 20 tor the coins of the Yaudheyas and Ārjunāyanas Arrian writes in ‘Indika’ (tr. by MacCrindle IX. p. 208, eḍ of 1926) ‘from Dionysus to Sandrakottos the Indians counted 153 kings and a period of 6042 years, but among them a republic was thrice established’. MacCrindle’s ‘Invasion of India’ (p. 121) speaks of an aristocratic government on the Hyphasis or Beas The Greek writers describing the invasion of Alexander speak of the democracies of the Oxydrakai (Ksudrakas), Malloi (the Mālavās), the Siboi (Śibis), Sambastai (the Ambasthas) and several otherṣ Vide K. P. Jayaswal's 'Hindu Polity' part I. chap. VIII (pp 63–79) for Hindu Republics mentioned in Greek writingṣ Rhys Davids in 'Buddhist India' pp 19 ff. summarizes the data about Indian republics derived from Buddhist workṣ On p 22 he gives the names of eleven republican clans with their capitals, some of which like the Śākyas (of Kapilavastu), the Mallās (of Kuśinārā and Pāva), the Videhas (of Mithilā) and Licchavis (of Vesālī) are well- knowṇ Rhys Davids states (p. 19) that the administrative and judicial business of the Śākyas was carried on in a mote-hall (santhāgāra) at Kapilavastu, that a single chief was chosen (but how and for what period is not known) who presided over the sessions and (when no sessions were being held) also over the State, that he bore the title of rājā. He mentions that at one time Buddha's cousin Bhaddiya was rājā and that in another passage Buddha's father Suddhodana is styled rājā. He further points out (p. 26) that the Vajjis had eight confederate clans of which the Licchavis and the Videhas were the most impor- tant. K. P. Jayaswal in 'Hindu Polity' part I pp 25–165 brings together all the data about Hindu oligarchies (or republics as he calls them) and his work deserves the serious atten- tion of all those who are interested in the study of ancient Indian political institutions, though here and there one cannot approve of his interpretations and theorieṣ To take only one example, he holds that the procedure prescribed by Buddha for the deliberations of the sangha in the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta was borrowed from the procedure followed by the republics in their deliberations and therefore he describes the procedure of the Buddhist sangha in great detail ('Hindu Polity,' part I chap XI pp 103–117). Dr D. R. Bhandarkar also (in 'Some Aspects of Ancient Hindu Polity' pp 121–125) adopts this theory. This to say the least is a gratuitous assumptioṇ The mere fact that Buddha told the prime minister of Ajātasatru, king of Magadha, who contemplated attacking the Vajnan confederacy, that the latter would not decline but prosper as long as they observed seven conditions and the fact that those very seven conditions were prescribed by the Buddha for the welfare of the sangha do not lead on to the further inference that the procedure followed by the monks in the deliberations of the meeting of the sangha (which is set out in such passages as the Mahāvagga IX 3, S, B, E. vol. XVII p. 264 ff, Cullavagga IV. 9, S. B. E. vol. XX pp. 24-27) was the procedure of the meetings of the oligarchieṣ The seven conditions (both for the welfare of the Vajjian: and the Sangha) are set out in the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta, chap. I. (S. B E. vol. XI. pp. 3-8) viz holding full and frequent public assemblies, meeting together in concord and carrying out undertakings in concord, enacting nothing not already established and abrogating nothing that has been already enacted and acting in accordance with ancient institutions established in former days, honouring and revering and supporting elders and hearkening to their words, not detaining women or girls of their clans by force or abduction, honouring and supporting Vajjian shrines in town or country and not allowing proper offerings and rites to fall into desuetude, protecting and supporting the Arahats among theṃ On the most important points in connection with a republic or oligarchy we have no information at all, viz. who were entitled to vote, what were the qualifications for membership of the assembly that governed the State, how voting took place, what was the period for which members of the assembly were elected, whether the president was elected for life or a shorter period or was elected at all, what were the powers and procedure of the assembly. Vide Dr. Beni Prasad in ‘Hindu Political Theories’ p 158 for criticismṣ Rhys Davids (in ‘Buddhist India’ p. 41) says that according to the Jātakas there were at Vesālī (modern Basadh in the Muzaffarpur District ), the capital of the Licchavis, 7707 rājās (or chiefs ). In the Bhaddasāla-jātaka (Fausboll, vol. IV p 148) there is a reference to a tank reserved for the bath of the families of the ruling chiefs (rājās) of the gaṇa in the city of Vesālī. In the Mahāvastu (ed by Senart vol. I p. 271) it is stated that there were twice eighty-four thousand nobles (rājānā) among the Licchaviṣ This explains what Kauṭilya means by ‘rājāśabdopajīvinaḥ. These people called ‘rājās’ were probably the scions of the several branches of the Licchavis, who had in their hands the government and who were not doing manual (or agricultural ) work. Vide Government Epigraphic Report for 1899 p 23 and Indian Historical Quarterly vol. IV p. 652, where it is said that in an inscription from Uttaramallur the extent of land and of Vedic learning required in a candidate for election are specified as also the method of writing on tickets the names of candidateṣ But such records, even in South India, are very few and refer to village sabhās and there is nothing in the works on dharmaśāstra or arthaśāstra about the methods of election to political assemblies and the qualifications of candi- dateṣ Vide Dr D R Bhandarkar's ‘Some aspects of Ancient Hindu Polity’ (1929) pp. 101–121 for a concise statement of several types of republics in Ancient India.

Another important question is whether in monarchical states there were popular assemblies of elected representatives or, in modern language, Parliamentṣ The words ‘sabhā’ and ‘samiti’ require consideration in this connection In Rg I 91 20 Soma is said to confer a son who is' sādanīya, vidathya and sabheya, from which it follows that sabhā is in some respects different from ‘vidatha’. In Rg II 24 13 a vipra (a priest or composer of hymns) is said to be sabheya ‘clever or eminent in a sabhā’. In Rg X 34 6 ‘sabhā’ ⁶¹ appears to mean a gambling hall In Vāj S XXX 6 sabhācāna seems to mean only ‘sabhāsad’, a mem- ber of a judicial tribunal, while in XXX 18 the sabhāsthānu is given up to Āskanda in the symbolic Purusamedha. In the Vāj S XVI 24 there is an obeisance to sabliās and sabhāpatis (presidents of sabhās) In Atharvaveda VII 12 1 ‘sabhā’ and ‘samiti’ are said to be the two daughters of Prajāpati, from which it may by argued that they were very similar but somewhat different. In Atharva- veda XV. 9 2 also sabhā and samiti are separately mentioned In Tai Br III. 7 4 the word sabhāpāla occurs and sabhā is explained as ‘gambling-hall’ by Sāyana In Rg X 97 6 and Vāj S XII. 80 it is said that vipra is said to be a doctor (bhiṣak) in whom medicinal herbs come together as nobles (rājanah) in a samiti (meeting or battle)'. In Rg X 191 3 the word ‘samiti’ seems to mean no more than a meeting or meeting place In Atharvaveda V 19 15⁶² we have ‘the assembly (samiti) does not suit him (o1 is not won over by him) who harasses a brāhmaṇa’ In the Chāndogya Up. (V 3.1) Śvetaketu is said to have repaired to the assembly (samiti) of the Pañcāla country, where the king Pravāhaṇa Jaivali asked him five questions which the former could not answer and then he approached the next morning the king who was in his sabhā Here it seems that both words are applied to the same assembly It is impossible to say how the sabhā or samiti was constituted in the Vedic period All that we can say is that it was an assembly of people to which the king, learned men and others went. It is extremely doubtful whether it was an elective body Probably it was an ad hoc assembly of such people as cared to be present. K P. Jayaswal (in ‘Hindu Polity’ part I p 11) holds that ‘samiti’ in the vedic age was the national assembly of the whole people, that it was the king’s duty to attend it (ibid, p. 12) and that ‘sabhā’ was the standing and stationary body of selected men working under the authority of the samiti (ibiḍ p. 18)’. This is all conjectural, as Jayaswal himself admits ‘the sabhā was certainly related to the samiti, but its exact relationship is not deducible from the data available’ (ibiḍ p. 18).

These frantic efforts by such scholars as Jayaswal to prove that India had elective assemblies are made to counteract the sinister propaganda of many English writers that East is East and West is West and that the democratic institutions of the West cannot be transplanted with success on the soil of India. This is mischievous propaganda. There were no democracies even in Europe a few hundred years ago; even in England, France and a few other countries democracies have been introduced and have thrived within a short time. There is no reason why they should not do so in India, if honest efforts are made and difficulties are not purposely created by vested interestṣ Korkunov in ‘General theory of law’ (tr. by Hastings, 1922, New York p 296) says ‘According to the historical school the political organization of England is good for England alone, for it corresponds to a natural genius very peculiar.. This doctrine of the historical school is false, since we have already seen that a change produced in the social ideal may bring about a change in the whole social development. The influence of one people on the life of another is a proof of thiṣ The ideal is a force supporting the social life and this ideal may be the result not merely of our own special experience, but also of the experience of neighbouring peoples’.

Two other words require consideration, viz. Paura and Jānapada. The word ‘paura’ occurs in Rg V. 74. 4 where it has three applications, viz. to the Asvins, to the sage Paura (who was an Ātreya) and to the cloud (acc. to Sāyana). K. P Jayaswal (in ‘Hindu Polity’, part II pp 60–108) devotes considerable space to ‘Paura’ and ‘Jānapada’ and one may at once admit that he displays great learning, industry and ingenuity in his discourse on this subject. He holds that the Paura and the Jānapada were elective parliamentary bodies or what may be called the Hindu Diet and he sums up (on p. 108) their functions as follows ‘we had an organism or a twin .

at p. 45 or in the Rāmāyaṇa II. 2. 51, II. 111. 19 'paurajānapadam janam'). Lastly if the paurajānapada organization had (as in the quotation cited above) the power to depose kings and pass even hostile statutes, is it not a contradiction in terms to say that, instead of the Parliament or Diet deciding to remit certain taxes, it was the king who romitted taxes and bestowed favours (or privileges) of lakhs of rupees on the supposedly all powerful Paura-Jānapada assembly? In all passages that he quotes from the Rāmāyaṇa and other classical sanskrit works the ordinary meaning of paura (residents of the capital) and jānapada (inhabitants of the country other than the capital) is quite enough and it is impossible to hold that any elective body is meant In most passages the plural ‘paura- jānapadān' is useḍ If 'Paura-jānapada' stands for one elective body or two bodies, no explanation is offered why the plural should generally be used and not the dual. Kauṭilya (1. 19) states that the king should in the 2nd part of the day (divided into eight parts) look into the causes of the paura-jānapadaṣ Jayaswal (in 'Hindu Polity', part II p. 95) misinterprets this passage by saying that the king had to set apart one period daily for the business of the paura-jānapada assembly. Here again the plural is used and the dictum of Kauṭilya is the same as that of Yāj. I. 327 who says that the king should look into the law-suits (vyavahārān) of the people. The word ‘kārya' is employed by Manu VIII. 43, Nārada and other writers on vyavahāra in the sense of 'law-suit'. Yāj. II. 36 says that the king should restore to the jānapada property stolen by thieveṣ Jayaswal (in 'Hindu Polity', part II, p. 93 ) presses the singular ‘jānapadāya' into his service and holds that it was the popular assembly that demanded the restoration of the things stoleṇ This, to say the least, is twisting the plain words of Yāj. The Mit paraphrases the word to mean ‘to the person dwelling in his country from whom the property was stolen’. The corresponding passage of Manu VIII. 40 ( dātavyam sarva-varnebhyo rājñā corair-hṛtam dhanam) is quite clear, since it fortunately does not use the word jānapada and Medhātithi explains it as ‘it should be restored to those from whom it was stolen’. Jayaswal (in 'Hindu Polity' part II p. 79 ) holds that a passage in the Arthaśāstra (II. 14) refers to the fact that the Paura-Jānapada assembly got gold coins minted by the royal mint-master.⁶³ But the plain meaning is that the mint-master was to mint standard silver and gold coins for all people when they brought bullion to him to have coins struck. One striking circumstance to be considered is that, though in all works on polity a rājya is said to have seven elements, none of them includes a political elective assembly (like the paura-jānapada postulated by Jayaswal) among theṃ They only enumerate the country and the capital and declare even these as of lesser importance than the king and the ministerṣ Another matter that makes the existence of powerful elective political assemblies in monarchies most unlikely is the total absence of any reference in works on polity to the method of election, the system of voting, the qualifications, of members, the period for which the assembly was elected and allied matterṣ When medieval writers like Aparārka on Yaj 11 1 (p 600) quote from Bṛhaspati verses about four kinds of sabhā, they refer only to judicial tribunals of various sorts and grades (the same verses are quoted as Hārīta’s in Rājanīti-ratnākara p 20). Vide n 368 below.

If elective popular assemblies did not exist, then it may be asked whether the king was an absolute monarch or a despot or whether there were any checks that mitigated or regulated the power and doings of monarchṣ The answer is that there were such checks and limitationṣ These were of various kindṣ Exhortations addressed to the king himself exercised a restraining influence. For example, Kāt (10) says ‘the king who gives, way to wrath without proper thought would reside in a horrible hell for half a Kalpa’. The importance of dharma as an all-embracing institution was impressed upon the king by our writers so frequently that it must have had its psychological effect on every king. The idea that daṇḍa personified as a Deity might strike down the bad king himself (Manu VII 19, 27, 28, 30, Yaj I 354-356) would tend to keep even a whimsical king within boundṣ The views of ancient writers have already been cited according to which the king was not to act as he pleased, but was to regard his high office as a sacred trust and was to rule according to the dictates of the śāstraṣ These views created public opinion which must have certainly influenced the king’s actṣ The ideal king Rāma is depicted as having abandoned his queen Sītā (whom he knew to be pure) because the people could not accept her as pure after her long stay in Rāvaṇa’s prisoṇ Vide Rāmāyaṇa VII. 45. Then there were the ministers whose advice the king was enjoined to seek. Besides there was the purohita and there were learned brāhmaṇas, III] who were to propound what dharma was, whose directions he was to carry out and who were supposed to have power to ruin a bad king (vide Vas I 39–41, Gautama XI. 12–14, Manu IX. 320). Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 138–145 for the peculiar sanctity attaching to the person of a brāhmaṇa and the superior position of brāhmaṇas as a class vis-a-vis the king. There was a deep- rooted faith that the rules of the śāstras (the Śrauta and Smārta dharma) were divinely inspired and were above the king. Observance of dharma was the great social and political ideal from very ancient times for all including the king. This is most emphatically put in the Br. Up. I. 4. 11-14, where it is stated “even after creating the four varṇas He (the Creator) did not think that stability had been attaineḍ He then created the most excellent Dharma which is the might of the mighty (i e. more powerful than the warrior caste ) There is nothing higher than dharma Even a very weak man hopes to prevail over a very strong man on the strength of dharma, just as (he prevails over a wrong-doer ) with the help of the king. So what is called dharma is really truth. Therefore people say about a man who declares the truth that he is declaring dharma and about one who declares what dharma is they say that he speaks the truth These two (dharma and truth) are this” (i. e. one).¹²⁵ Kāmandaka I 14 stated that the Yavana king ruled over the earth for a long time because he ruled according to the dictates of dharma. In his administration of justice the king was to be checked by the judge and sabhyas, who were fearlessly to render advice to the erring king (as will be shown in the section on vyavahāra). Besides corporations and guilds were powerful and had a sort of self-government. Manu (VIII. 336 and Yaj. II. 307) went so far as to prescribe a heavy fine which the king was to inflict on himself for his illegal exactions and punishments and to direct that the king should distribute among brāhmaṇas wealth forfeited by grave sinners (Manu IX. 243–244). Lastly there was the final sanction that the śāstras allowed the subjects to abandon a worthless king or even to kill a misguided one or tyrant, as stated above (vide Manu VII. 27–28, Arthaśāstra I. 4).¹²⁶ Kauṭilya (VIII. 3) when dealing ⁶⁶ with the evil results of want of discipline in a king states that kings who are hot-tempered are known to have fallen victims to popular fury (or the fury of ministers) We may say that in theory and so far as ordinary people were concerned the sovereign's power was absolute and unlimited as Manu IX. 9–12 aptly illustrate and as Brhat Parāśara states 'the king is Brahmā, Śiva, Viṣṇu, Indra, he is the giver, the destroyer, and the enforcer according to the karma of his subjects'. But there were (as stated above) very real checks and limitations that effectively prevented him from exercising his undoubtedly unlimited powers These checks, though real, cannot be called constitutional in the sense in which that word is used in modern timeṣ As said by Nārada the subjects are dependent while the king is uncontrolled, but he could not go against the śāstra (vide Haradatta on Gaut XI. 2)

In modern times the activities of a sovereign person are three-fold, viz. executive, judicial and legislative The judicial activities of the ancient Indian king will be dealt with in another section on law and the administration of justice One great difference between ancient and modern societies is that the legislative action of the king was extremely limited in ancient times, while in modern times people are more and more looking to legislation for regulating all manner of things Manu (VII. 13) lays down that since the king has in him the glory of all deities, whatever rule as regards desirable matters the king establishes and whatever action he declares as un-desirable among those actions that are harmful, should not be transgressed by any one In his gloss on this verse Medhātithi carefully points out what orders the king can issue and on what subjects he cannot issue orders He gives the following inst-ances of orders of both kinds: 'To-day all should observe a festival in the capital, all should attend a marriage ceremony at the house of the minister; animals should not be killed to-day by the butchers and birds should not be caught. debtors should not be harassed by creditors on these days ( to be specified), no one should associate with such and such a man (an undesirable person) ; no one should allow a certain (undesirable) person to enter the house'. Medhātithi adds that the king is not authorised to interfere with the śāstric rules governing the III] varnas and āśramas such as the performance of agnihotra.⁶⁷ This gloss of Medhātithi occurs word for word in the Rājanīti-prakāśa (pp. 23-24), which gives a more correct text than the printed editions of Maṇḍlik and Gharpure. Kauṭilya (II. 10) devotes a chapter to the drawing up of śāsanas, particularly with reference to their linguistic elegance and diplomatic etiquette. The Śukrāntisāra (I.312–313) prescribes that the king's edicts (śāsana) should be proclaimed to the subjects by beat of drum, that his edicts should be written and displayed where four roads meet, and that the king should declare that breaches of the orders would entail heavy fineṣ In I. 292-311 Śukra gives instances of such orders, the most important of which are: Watchmen should take rounds in the several streets every one hour and a half at night in order to prevent thieves and paramours moving about; people should not employ abuse or beating towards their slave, servant, wife, son or pupil; no one should practise deceit in respect of measures, weights, coins, resins, metals, ghee, honey, milk, fat, flour; no document should be got by force; no bribes should be taken nor should any bribes be given to persons engaged in doing the king's work; no one should offer shelter to bad characters, thieves, paramours, those who hate the king, the enemy; parents, persons worthy of honour, learned men, men of good character should not be disrespected or ridiculed; no dissensions should be sown between husband and wife, master and servant, between brothers, between teacher and pupil, between father and son; no interference or obstruction should be caused to wells, parks, boundaries, dharmasālās, temples, roads or to those who are deficient in a limb; without the king's permission no one should engage in gambling, selling liquor, hunting, bearing arms, sale or purchase of cattle or elephants or horses or camels or she-buffaloes or slaves or immoveable property or silver, gold, gems, intoxicants, poisons, drugs, the profession of medicine or should pass a sale deed, deed of gift or give a decision about a debt; no one should falsely accuse another of the great sins, nor take treasure trove, nor frame new rules for clubs or convivial gatherings (samāja) nor should publish slander against a caste, nor should appropriate property which is without an owner or has been lost, nor divulge the (king's) lines of policy, nor babble about the vices of the king; the people should not even thunk of forsaking their dharma, speaking untruth, committing adultery with another's wife, giving false evidence or fabricating documents, accepting gifts secretly, committing theft and engaging in other desperate acts, engaging in sedition; public servants should not exact more than the tax already settled; only such weights and measures are to be used as bear the royal stamp; all subjects should strive to possess good qualities; desperadoes should be arrested and handed over to the king; bulls let loose (in memory of the dead) should be kept well controlled and fed by those who let them loose. Medhātithi on Manu VIII 399 states that a king may prohibit the export of foodstuffs from the kingdom in a famine. The several edicts of Aśoka show that his orders were framed on the same lines that are contained centuries later on in the Śukranītisāra. Most of his proclamations insist on moral virtues such as truthfulness, obedience and reverence to parents, elders and preceptors, honouring brāhmaṇas and śramaṇanas, kindness to animals, tolerance of other faithṣ Proclamations that may be called positive laws are very few, such as his order in Pillar Edict IV to give three days' respite to criminals condemned to death (C I I. vol. I p 125) or his regulations restricting the killing of animals contained in the 5th Pillar Edict (C I I. vol. I p 138) or in the First Rock Edict at Girnar (p 7) 'no living being must be killed or sacrificed and no festival meeting must be held'. In the reign of Avantivarman of Kashmir the killing of living beings was prohibited for ten years (vide Rājatarangiṇī V 64). Law-making in the modern sense is almost entirely lacking in the smṛtis Gaut XI 19-25 show⁶⁸ that the king was to find the law required for the decision of causes from the following, viz (1) the Veda, dharmaśāstras, the Angas (lores auxiliary to the Veda such as grammar, exegesis, metrics etc.), Upavedas, Purāṇas; (2) customs of countries, castes and families that were not opposed to the Veda; (3) the usages of husbandmon, traders, herdsmen, money-lenders and artizans; (4) ratiocination, (5) the opinions^128A delivered III ] by the assembly (parisaḍ) of men deeply learned in the three Vedaṣ The authoritativeness of customs, usages and conven- tions and their relation to śāstra will be discussed later oṇ In the decision of causes there were four deciding factors, dharma, vyavahāra, caritra and rājaśāsana, which will also be dealt with later. So royal edicts or orders first came to be made in the administration of justice and probably served as laws or precedents in later timeṣ Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 968-970 for the role of parisaḍs in religious matterṣ Yāj I.9 and Śaṅkha speak of parṣat or assembly of learned men as final authorities on dharma.

The executive functions of the king required a large number of ministers and officerṣ This topic will be dealt with immediately below.

There is another way of looking at the king's functions viz. they were religious and secular. The first required him to do certain acts for propitiating gods and unseen powers and removing dangers therefrom with the help of the purohita and sacrificial priests (vide Gaut XI. 15-17, Yāj I. 308) and he had to guard dharma. His secular functions included those that led to prosperity, that helped the people in famine and similar calamities, dealing even-handed justice, guarding person and property from thieves and trespassers and against invasioṇ

The Mahābhārata records the tradition that many kings of former times abdicated the throne in favour of their sons and resorted to the forest as hermits Vanaparva 202.8 mentions Bṛhadaśva who crowned his son Kuvalāśva. Vide also Vāyu 88.32. Dhṛtarāṣṭra says to Yudhiṣṭhira that in their family it was customary for kings to transfer the sovereignty to their sons and resort to a forest towards the close of their lives (Āśramavāsī 3.38). Vyāsa says that that was the practice of all rājarṣis (Āśramavāsī 4.5) and the Āśramavāsīparva (20) mentions the names of several such kingṣ Vide also Śānti 21.15. In Ayodhyā 23.27, 94.19 this practice is referred to.⁶⁹ In the Raghuvamśa (I, 8, XVIII. 7, 9, 26) Kālidāsa says that in the family of Raghu kings in their old age became mums (hermits) and in chap. VIII. 11-23 he draws a fine contrast between the lives of Aja and his father Raghu (who had become a yati). There are Jain traditions of some antiquity that connect the great Jain sage Bhadrabāhu, the last Śrutakevalin, with Candra-gupta Maurya, who is said to have abdicated in favour of his son and to have gone to Śravana Belgola Vide Indian Antiquary, vol 21 pp. 156 ff where Fleet criticizes this tradition and rejects it In the Divyāvadāna (XXIX p 431, eḍ by Cowell and Neil) it is stated that Aśoka died destitute of power¹³⁰ and possessions and Fleet (in J R A S for 1913 pp. 656-658) says that there is in this probably a reminiscence of abdication by Aśoka King Lavanaprasāda of the Vāghela dynasty in Gujarat abdicated in favour of his son Vīradhavala (1233-38 A. D.). Vide Bombay Gazetteer, vol. I part 1 pp 198, 200, 206 Kauṭilya (VIII. 2) speaks of a novel rule called ‘dvai-rājya’¹³¹ (sovereignty of two) and distinguishes it from ‘vairājya’. The Mss differ in their readings, but the reading given in the footnote by Dr Sham Sastri seems preferable. Kaut remarks “As between dvairājya and vairājya (foreign rule) the former perishes on account of mutual hatred and rivalry; but the latter according to the ācāryas is enjoyed by foreigners as it is, when it pays attention to winning over the subjects; ‘No’ says Kauṭilya ‘dvairājya’ (generally) exists between father and son or between two brothers, their welfare is the same and therefore by reason of the influence of amātyas (over the two rulers) it can last, but vanājya comes into existence by being seized from another king who is living and therefore the (foreign ruler) thinking ‘this country is not mine’ impoverishes it and carries off its wealth or treats it as a chattel (for sale) or when he finds that the country is disaffected towards him abandons it and goes away”. This remarkable passage contains the mentality of foreign rulers in a nutshell. Manu IV 160 in a lucid and laconic manner states how individual and national happiness lies in freedom Kālidāsa in his Mālavikāgnimitra¹³² (Act V) appears to refer to the conception [III] of dvairājya when he makes Agnimitra say that the latter desires to establish a dvairājya for the brothers Yajñasena and Mādhavasena on the north and south banks of the river Varadā, who would both remain under the command of the king (Agni- mitra). In the Mahābhārata a similar rule of two brothers, Vinda and Anuvinda in Avanti, appears to be referred to (vide Udyogaparva 166, cr. eḍ chap 163). MacCrindle in ‘Invasion of India by Alexander’ p. 296 quotes Diodorus to the effect that Alexander sailing up the river came to Taula (Patala?) a city of great note with a political constitution drawn on the same lines as the Spartan, for in this community the command in war was vested in two hereditary kings of two different houses, while a council of elders ruled the whole State with paramount authority. Vide Jayaswal’s ‘Hindu Polity’ part I pp. 96–97 and Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar’s ‘Ancient Indian Polity’ p. 99–100 for some further details on dvairājya from Buddhist and other sources