KINGSHIP IN ANCIENT INDIA

 

               KINGSHIP IN ANCIENT INDIA

There is no authentic account about the origin of kingship in ancient India.  There are several, nearly similar, theories but none of them can be taken as the final word. According to one theory there was no king and no government in the initial years of Krita Yuga.

          An interesting story goes like this: During the recurrent armed confrontations between the gods and demons, it was demons who unexceptionally turned out to be victorious.  To overcome this humiliating situation, they assembled and held long discussions after which they resolved that their defeats would not turn into victories until they had a king.  So they resolved to give this sovereign position to Indra in preference to Varuna who was also one of the aspirants.

          The upshot of this interesting story is that kingship originated as a military necessity, a presence during wars which were not infrequent in those days.

          The reading of Kautilya”s Arthashastra gives a different theory.  It says that during persistent anarchy, the people agreed to elect Manu Vaivasata as their king who by way of compensation could claim one-sixth of the produce of the soil and one-tenth of merchandise. 

          We find quite a few more stories about the origin of kingship or something like supreme authority in legal, social, moral, and administrative affairs.  There are also hints about the divine origin of kingship and thus their divine rights.  Jainism and Buddhism have their own views which cannot be contradicted in toto. What is undeniable is that kingship did originate in ancient India and kingdoms were ruled over by a succession of sovereigns.  One also finds the evidence of dynastic kingship in ancient times.

          Some historians have mentioned the coronation of kings, an occasion when the king took an oath to protect his people and work for their welfare with unquestionable integrity.  In case of violation of this oath, he could be dethroned.  Kingship was thus a dharma, a sacred trust, which must be honoured and fulfilled at all costs by the words and actions of the king.

          Though there are many concepts about the qualities of kings even in ancient times, one which is most appealing is the one which we find in Kautilya’s Arthashastra.

          According to this author whose theories and perceptions are still relevant to a considerable extent, a king must be a man of great merit.  First of all, he should be able to stick to his Dharma even in most trying times. Furthermore, he should be a man of vast knowledge, keen observation, sharp Intellect, strong memory, and able to do the right action at the right time , govern efficiently in critical times, lead the army and fight only when it is perfectly wise to fight and strive for peace when it is desirable to do so.  He should also keep his ears open for right advice of his ministers in any critical situation.    He must also be well-versed in religious texts, which are a storehouse of ethical values, and should know fully well how to control his Kama, Krodha and avarice. Haughtiness after victory or at any other time is forbidden for an ideal king. 

          One of the difficult but essential duties of a king was to play the role of not only a protector of his people but also as an expansionist of his territory.  Unlike today, there was no idea of aggression in those times and the conquered territory had not to be returned.  Kings, therefore, loved to enter the territories of other rulers and occupy their kingdoms with pride. Kautilya goes to the extent of saying that an ideal king should always remain engaged in expanding the boundaries of his kingdom.   

          As we shall see in coming chapters Maharaja Porus possessed all those qualities which Kautilya, like some of his contemporaries, enumerates in his immortal political textbook called Arthashastra.