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. It6 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 full 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.
--------------
No comments:
Post a Comment