THEORIES OF

KINGSHIP IN
ANCIENT INDIA.

Prof.Mona Sharma
 Introduction

• King had a pivotal role to play in

the ancient Indian polity and as
such, the study of kingship and its
various related aspects are of
tremendous importance.
 Theories of
Kingship in
ancient India

• Brahmanic Theory of Kingship

• Buddhist Theory of Kingship
• Kautilyan Theory of Kingship
BRAHMANIC
THEORY OF
KINGSHIP
 Origin
• Its origin occurs in the Vedas.
• ‘Aitareya Brahmana’ refers to
wars between the Devas (gods)
and the Danavas (Demons).
• In this war, the gods were
repeatedly defeated and its cause
was attributed to absence of a
leader.
• As an experiment, they elected
Indra as their king and ultimately
triumphed over the demons.
• Thus, it was the necessity of war
that led to the origin of Kingship.
 Taittreya Upanishad

• The same story is repeated.

• The discomfited Gods sacrificed
to the high god Prajapati who
sent his son Indra to become king.
• The King was thought primarily as
a leader in war but kingship was
already given a divine sanction .
• The king of the devas who was
the prototype of the earthly kings
held his office by divine sanction.
 Mahabharata 59th
chapter
• For a long time after the creation
of society there prevailed a
golden age of harmony and
happiness, when people led
happy and peaceful lives on
account of their innate virtuous
disposition though there existed
no government to see that the
laws of nature were respected
and followed.
• Later however virtue declined
on earth.
• Matsanyaya (big fish eat small
fish) or anarchy followed .
• Gods approached Brahma who
created a treatise on statecraft.
• But with no one to impose it
things did not improve .
• Therefore Vishnu created out of
his mind a son Virajas to rule.
• In his line of descent there was
also a tyrannical ruler Vena who
was put to an end by the rishis
,who created from his right
thigh Prithu to rule the people
• The sages made him swear
that he would rule according
to the principles of dandaniti
and that he would consider
the Brahmins above
punishment and would save
the world from intermixture
of castes.
• Prithu promised the deities
headed by the rishis that he
would worship the highly
blessed brahmanas
• It is significant to note that
the contract takes place with
the Brahmins and not with
the people and that the
Brahmins claim special
privileges and protection from
the king.(evamastu repeated
only by sages and not all
people)
• So the contract does not
involve the entire people.
• Also by implication it is
conveyed that real kingship
begins with Prithu after whom
the world (prithvi) was named
• King Prithu does not
repeat the entire oath but
states in unequivocal
terms that he will always
respect the Brahmins.
• Kshatriya is interpreted to
mean one who protects
the Brahmin from wounds,
and the term rajan –one
who delights the
people(the only
concession to royal
obligation towards people
Mahabharata Chapter 67

• This contains a slightly divergent

account of the origin of kingship
and speaks of an unsuccessful
contract at one stage.
• People tired of the law of the
jungle entered into mutual
contract to expel from the society
those found guilty of unsocial acts
like misappropriation and
adultery.(example of social
contract for maintenance of
institutions of family and
property)
• However in absence of a king
to enforce the contract the
anarchy prevailed
• The people then approached
the creator with the request
to appoint a king who would
be worthy of receiving the
reverence of the people and
capable of protecting them.
• The Creator appointed Manu
as the king.
• Manu was hesitant to rule
over a refractory population.
 The people promised to pay to
Manu taxes - 1/50th of
cattle,1/50 of gold,1/10th of
grain,for kosavardhan and
their best men in the use of
weapons to follow Manu as
the deities followed Indra
They assured that the sin would
go to the lawbreaker and
not the king for punishing
them.
They also assured that 1/4th of
the spiritual merit accruing
to them will would accrue to
the King
• Manu agreed to protect the
people.
• Thus according to both these
divergent theories God helped
humanity escape the law of the
jungle by giving it a king.
• One of the theories also alludes
to an unfructuous contract which
failed to put to an end the
anarchy before God intervened
and appointed a king to restore
law and order.
 Difference between 59th
and 67th chapter
• The accounts in Mahabharata
show that kingship was
considered a divine institution
and the king’s right to govern was
partly due to his divine creation
and partly due to the agreement
of the subjects to be governed by
him in order to terminate
anarchy.
• There is a difference
between the two theories
in Mahabharata .
• The first places limitations
on the power of the king in
the interests of the priestly
class.
• The second emphasizes the
power of the king.
 BUDDHIST
THEORY OF
KINGSHIP
 Origin
• Origin of kingship is discussed in
Digghanikaya and Mahavastu
• Monarchy was both elective and
contractual.
• Although the contract theory of
the origin of the state is
anticipated by early Brahmanical
literature, the first clear and
developed exposition is to be
found in the Digghanikaya
• It is said that there was a
time when people were
perfect and lived in a state
of happiness and tranquility.
• Later when heavenly life
degenerated into earthly life
there set in degeneration.
• People gradually entered
into a series of agreements
among themselves and set
up institutions of family and
property.
• But this gave rise to a new
set of problems for there
appeared theft and other
forms of unsocial conduct.
• Therefore people assembled
and agreed to choose as
chief a person who was ‘best
favoured,the most attractive
,and the most capable’.
• On their request he
consented to “be indignant
at that where one should be
rightly indignant, to censure
that which should be rightly
censored ,to banish him who
deserves to be banished”
 .
• In return they agreed to give
him a portion of their paddy.
• King was called:
– Maha Sammata (the Great
Elect) because he was chosen
by the people.
– Kshatriya because he was the
lord of the fields.
– Rajan because he charms the
people by means of Dharma
 Theory in Mahavastu

• The difference between this

Buddhist text and the
Dighhanikaya is that now the king
also promises to cherish those
who deserve to be cherished.
• The text also gives the genealogy
of the successor of the first
elected king Sammata suggesting
that once a person came to
power he tried to perpetuate his
own line of succession .
 Difference with
Brahmanical Theory
• The speculation in the Digghanikaya
is suggestive of an advanced stage
of social development post the
tribal stage and was probably
situated in middle Ganga plain
where paddy cultivation was the
basis of the economy of the people.
• The contract theory enumerated
here is distinguished from the
brahmanical one on account of the
stages involved in its evolution of
the creation of family and then
property.
• Digghanikaya lays emphasis on a
different set of qualities required
by the king.
• The obligations of the king are
also at a variance with the
Brahmanical version.
• Aittreya Brahmana stresses on
vigour and strength.The
Digghanikaya stresses on
beauty,popularity,attractiveness
and ability
• So physical qualities are coupled
with aesthetic qualities of the
heart in deference with Buddhist
bias against use of force and
violence
• The only definite punishment
mentioned is banishment of
the guilty.
• The title Khattiya suggests
primary duty of the king is to
protect the fields of one from
being encroached by the
other.
• It also suggests that the king
derives his power over land as
representative of the
community which was
considered the collective
owner of land in Vedic times.
• The interpretation of the
title raja imposes on the
king the obligation of
charming or pleasing the
people.
• There are several
obligations on the king
while only one duty is
assigned to the people i.e.
to pay part of their paddy as
contribution to the king.
• The rate of taxation is not
prescribed.(contemporary
law book of Baudhayana
puts it down to 1/6th of
produce)
• The idea of protection by the
king in lieu of the taxes is
common to both schools of
thought.
• Towards the end of the story
of creation in the
Digghanikaya it is stated that
thus took place the origin of
social circle of nobles –
khattiyamandala
• Thus what is described is also
suggestive of contract
between the ruling class of
kshattriya oligarchs and the
non kshattriya people and
the rule of oligarchies.
 Nature of
Kingship
• For Buddha, kings were like the
weather- inescapable, not always
pleasant, somewhat unpredictable
but could not be ignored.
• Early Buddhism was well aware
of the dangers of monarchy
however anarchy was considered
worse.
• King’s ideal role was to serve his
people by ensuring order and
prosperity.
• Buddha advised monarchs to
avoid military maneuvers, parades
and ceremonies. Instead infused
the state/kingship with ‘Higher
Morality’.
• Dhamma was the cosmic law
higher than mundane kings and
emperors.
Kingship and the
King
• Considered the “first among
equals” i.e. his post was elected.
• Possessed qualities of ‘strength
and valour’.
• Could not ipso facto demand
taxes. Voluntary gifts and
payments were the norm.
• Powers were restricted.
 The King
• Was elected in early stage of tribal
polity.
• Primary duty was protection of
property.

• His other duties included:

– Protection of population from
external enemies and internally from
wrongdoers
 Dutes of the King

• He was the upholder of law-

dhritvrata.
• He too had to abide by Dharma
and uphold it at all times.
• His conduct was to be exemplary.
The jatakas remark “When kings
are unjust even sugar and salt
loose their flavor”.
• The king must serve the people
for the taxes paid to him are in
lieu of for the protection
expected from him.
• The notion of kingship as a
trust was also there. It is
stated in the Mahabharata
that if a king misappropriate
public funds and diverts
them to his personal use he
would be guilty of sin and
be condemned to hell.
• In a nutshell the king must
regard his own happiness as
inextricably connected with
that of his subjects.
• The king was to observe and
possess ‘Dasa Rajdhamma’
(ten virtues of a king)- charity,
high moral character, self-
sacrifice, integrity, gentleness,
austerity, non-anger, non-
oppression, tolerance and non-
deviation.
• The ideal model of Buddhist
theory of kingship was Asoka.
 Checks on the powers of
the King
• In the Vedic Age the popular
assembly of the Samiti functioned
as a check on the king who could
not function if his Samiti was not
in accord with him.
• However the Samiti disappears
around 500 BCE and its place was
not taken by any other body.
• However religious and spiritual
sanctions must have surely
worked to prevent the king from
becoming tyrannical and
oppressive.
• Varuna –the chastiser of kings
would it was believed punish the
king in after life for dereliction of
duty.
• The texts stress on proper training
and education of princes
• The Arthashastra prescribes a
proper timetable for the king
which allows him only 6 hours of
rest and recreation .Sukranitisara
also lays down a schedule as
exacting.
• Many texts recognize the subjects
rights to depose a tyrannical ruler.
• The Mahabharata specifically
recognises the right of the
subjects to tyrrannicide.
• The examples of Vena
,Nahusha,Sudasa,Sumukha and
Nimi point that the ancient
Indians probably regarded
sovereignty as residing in people
KAUTILYAN
THEORY OF
KINGSHIP
 Kingship and
Statecraft
• Kautilya advocates the idea of
king’s divine nature and divine
sanction of his office.
• He reconciles it with the theory of
elective origin of the king.
• The state of nature without the
king is of anarchy where the
strong devour the weak.
• Monarchy viewed as the only
guarantee against anarchy.
• Kautilya refers to the problem of the
origin of the king only incidentally
during a discussion among spies.
• One party argues that government
came into existence to counteract
the law of the jungle that prevailed
in society.
• The work does not make any
reference to the golden age existing
prior
• People themselves elected the king
and accepted to pay him the
necessary taxes.
• The people undertook to pay 1/6
of their grain,1/10of their articles
of merchandise, in addition to a
portion of their gold.
• The inhabitants of the forests
were required to give him 1/6th of
the forest produce.
• In return the king guaranteed
social welfare to the people by
undertaking to suppress acts of
mischief ,afflicting the guilty with
taxes and coercion.
• The contractual origin of the state
however is not intended to impose
limitations on royal power.
• On the contrary the obligations put
on the people are burdensome and
are designed to strengthen royal
authority.
• It is argued that the king who
assures security and wellbeing to his
subjects by eliminating wrongful
acts through coercion and taxes
should never be disregarded.
• The contract theory of Kautilya thus
buttresses royal power.
• However, in the later Vedic
period:
– Increase in Monarchial power.
– Land ownership.
– Possession of cattle herds.
• Commanded the military force.
This led to absolute strength.
• Conduct guided by religious
doctrines.
• Seven elements of political org.:
king, minister, territory, fort,
treasury, army and ally
• The king to find happiness in the
happiness of his subjects.
• King considered the ‘Promulgator
of Dhamma’ and hence not
exempted from the laws of
Dhamma.
 The King
• The three powers of the king:
– Powers of good counsel.
– Majesty of the king himself
– Power to inspire.
• King, as the promulgator of
Dhamma, to be free of six
passions: sex, anger, greed, vanity,
haughtiness and over-joy.
• Kings duty to avert providential
visitations.
 Bibliography
• History of India, Part – I.
– H. V. Srinivasmurthy.
• Theories of Kingship in ancient
India.
– Katragadda Bala Krishna.
• Ancient Indian Social History.
– Dr. Romilla Thapar.
• En.wikipedia.org
Thank you…