Monarchy in the Vedic Age zy

zyx
zy
zyxwv Sarva Daman Singh

The Harappan civilization reflects an administration commandmg conformity, even

though its form remains an elusive enigma to the historian. The script of the seals defies
definite decipherment; the legends tease but tell little of the prevailing pattern of political

zyxwvu
power.

zyxwvutsr
Light dawns with the Rgveda, which raises and answers basic questions about the
origins of the socio-political organization. Though the original conception of monarchy
may not be fully demonstrable, as it preceded civilization mirrored in the written records
of the past, the Vedic evidence proves that the office of the king, the supreme commander
in battle, grew out of warfare.l Indra is indeed the apotheosis of the Aryan hero elevated
to royalty. Says the &Veda:
See this abundant wealth he possesses, and put your trust in Indra’shero vigour.
He found the cattle and he found the horses, he found the plants, the forests and the waters?
No wonder if he rises to kingship, “the hero who in all encounters overcomes, most
eminent for power, destroyer in the conflict, fierce and exceeding strong, stalwart and full
of vigour”? The primacy of the king‘s protective power is as old as the pgvedu. Indeed,
the protection of the people is his basic responsibility inherent in such epithets as p p Z -
junusyd‘ andjunusya g ~ p a t i hThat
. ~ the king fought and led his army in person, is amply
demonstrated by the famous battle of the ten kings in the Rgveda, and the war-like deeds
of monarchs like Divodisa, Su& and Trasadasyu. The concept of universal conquest was
perhaps born with the battle of the ten kings; the horse-sacrifice begins as early as the
@vedu,6 and becomes the symbol of paramountcy in later literature.
The requirements of a conquering people evoked not only the monarch, but also a
whole military aristocracy. As smaller principalities coalesced into growing kingdoms,
the dispossessed potentates joined the ranks of this aristocracy, and made war and
government their chief occupation. The addition of the king’s chief retainers, with military
duties, to the ranks of the princely nobility, helped to stem the tide of cncmy attacks as
well as attempts at local rebellion. The people fought, too; but they constituted only the
rank and file, leaving the leadership with the members of the nobility. The growing
specialisation of functions is clearly discernible in the Rgvedu, where the three higher
orders are specified? and the famous though late Purug.z-sEktu contemplates the division
of society into four orders of men.l Faith in the divine origin of the four orders must have
taken root before the end of the Rgvedic period, but there is no indication of an inflexible
hereditary caste. The rijunya mentioned in the PuruSa-siiktu must have included other
nobles too. beside the royal family. Ksatriyu was the general term originally applied to all
the nobles irrespective of the kingly power. The early use of the term in the Rgveda is
connected with royal or divine a~thority.~ But the association of the kgzniya in these
passages with words like riigru or si?mriijyu seems to point to a member of the warrior
community.10 Preservation of the fourfold order becomes the basic burden of Indian
royalty.
The Rgvedu hints at the “e1ection”l1 of the king by the people. Republican tribal
traditions assert themselves despite the dominance of the monarch; the pre-eminence of
 zy
zyx
zy
zy
Sarva Daman Singh
the leader evidenced in his valour and sagacity leads all the people (vis) to “want” or
“desire” him.12 Another Rgvedic passage, X.124.8, likewise refers to the people choosing
339

zyx
a king.13 V@nZ signifies “choice”, “selection”; even the formal ratification of a fait
accompli presupposes a persistent tradition of popular selection. Indeed, there is no proof
that monarchy was sometimes not elective;14 the later Vedic evidence corroborates the

zyxwvut
role of the people in the choice of their ruler.
There is no doubt that the Rgvedic king requires the vocal consent of the people who
“have made him the guardian of their comfort”.lS The rGjunya, purohita, s e n d , siiiu and
the griSman7 are all mentioned in the Rgvedu. and figure in the later lists of ratnins called
the sustainers of kingship. Their participation in government means the representation of
at least three, if not all the four varcas making up the multitude of the vi;,l6 the people.
The sabhii17 and the samitil8 are the forums of vox populi, which serve as checks on the
authority of the king born out of the crucible of widespread wars. The samiti is the morc
important of the two, the m e tribal assembly that discusses the matters of moment;
common accord remains the goal of debate. “Same be their counsel, same their aqsembly,
same their aim, in common their thought”, says the Rgveda.19 The king attends the samiti;
indeed, “like a true king he goes to the assembly”.20The growing prepondcrance of royal
power is however clearly reflected in RV.X.166.4-5,where the king goes to the assembly
(samiti) as a mighty conqueror; he masters “all your minds, your resolutions, your
samiti”; he wishes to be the best (utrama) of them all, “having gained your strength in
war, your skill in peace”; his feet tread on their heads; they speak to him from bcneath his
feet, like frogs croaking out of the water.21 He presumably presides over the sessions of
the samiti.
Both Indra and Varuca are called samriij,22 which indicates the unmistakable
exaltation of monarchy. And their spacious palaces, despite exaggeration, point to the

zyxwvut
splendour of the royal residence.23 Some Rgvedic passages suggest hereditary

zy
thus emphasizing the increasing importance of the royal family without
precluding the operation of the elective principle and procedure even in these cases.
Tribal kingship assumes a territorial dimension in the late tenth book of the Rgveda.
where the monarch is charged to hold the r&ru in his grasp;25the firmnessof the sky and
the earth and the hills around betokens the steadfastness of “this king of men”.% His
primary function is the protection of his people, who bring tribute to him alone.” The
term bali occurs quite often in the sense of offering to a god,28which must have been in
most cases voluntary. It appears as though the bali to the king began as a voluntary
tribute, which became obligatory with the passage of time.29 The conquered tribes must
have indeed paid a compulsory bali to the victor. RV.I.65.4 describes the king as
“devouring the people”, meaning thereby that he lives on them. The diinasruris detailing
the gifts of kings reveal their riches to posterity.30
The king is not yet divine, despite the boast of Trasadasyu, “I am Indra, I am
Varya”.31 The title riijan applied to such gods as Indra, Mitra, VaruM, Soma, Yama,
Agni and Brhaspati, serves only to stress the similarity of their function.32King Purukutsa
is styled as an ardhadev~,’~ which stops short of confemng divinity. As Varuqa is likened
to a mighty monarch surrounded by his spies, imposing the rule of Ita or eternal law on
the world below?4 the earthly king should also be credited with a wide criminal
an inference supported by the clear testimony of later texts.
The status of the purohita is proof of his usefulness to the monarch. Hc accompanies
the king and his army to the field of battle, and prays with charms and spells to cnsurc his
master’s success.36 The separation of priestly and royal functions is as old as the Rgveda,
and becomes a basic feature of ancient Indian polity.
340 zy
zyxwvu
zyxwv Monarchy in the Vedic Age
The later Vedic literature suggests as strongly as the Rgvedu that the office of the king
grew out of warfare. The TaittiGyu Suhhit5 speaks of a war between the gods and the
asuras, in which the gods hold on to Indra, the strongest, as their leader.37 The Athamu
Veda contains the king’s prayer to be “a rival-destroying bull, conquering royalty,
overpowering, that I may bear rule over these heroes and the people”.38TS. 111.4.4.1 calls
the king “the strong one who is dread in battle”, to whom “all the people bowed in

zyxwv
reverence”. The Aitureyu Briihmap describes how the gods, defeated by the asuras,
deliberate: ‘Through our lack of a king they conquer us”, they say, “let us make a king”.
They make Soma their king, and with him as their leader, they conquer all the quarters.39
The king is the summit of k ~ ~ r rhe u is
;~the protector of his people.41 An independent
authority less ethereal than a mythical deity harmonizes the clashing interests of his
community; the mortal monarch aided by his priest promises greater security.42None of
these passages proves a divine origin of kingship. The war between the gods and the
asuras is but a projection of the rampant human situation; and the election of the monarch
takes the form of selection by the gods in a metaphorical narration. The elevation of Indra
or Soma to royalty implies an “election”and a contract. The chosen leader is charged with
the burden of cornman$ with the first and foremost duty to protect.
The Athurvu Veda stresses the martial obligations of the monarch when it says: “Of

zyxwvuts
lion aspect do thou devour all the clans (vij);of tiger-aspect do thou beat down the foes;
sole chief, having Indra as companion, having conquered, seize thou on the enjoyments of
them that play the foe.”43 In the r6jusGyu ceremony the king is called the “sacker of
forts”.44 The Kuru-Paflcaa kings conduct regular raids in the Season of dues, i,e,, in
winter after the rain~.~S King Pratardana meets his death on the field of battle.& The
terms h i u and nir5ju point to the Vedic king’s share of the booty of war.47 The Aryan
invasion of India led to the growth of the monarchic element,just as it did also in the case

zyxwv
of Greece.48
The ByhudZrqyaka Upani!ud asserts that @mu is life-breath (prity6); the breath of
life protects (rrzyute) one from being hurt (@upit0!i).~9 The well-nourished condition of
the community is attributable to the operation of kptru in s0ciety.5~No wonder, then, if
we are told that Brahma created a superior form of etrahood; “therefore there is nothing
higher than k p t r a ; therefore at the riijusiiya ceremony the br%m*a sits below the
ksatriya; upon ksatrahood alone does he confer this This dependence of
common welfare on the protective efficacy of Qutru clearly presages the formulation of
later doctrines of miitsyu nyZyu and salvation through sovereignty. Says the Tuittir3u

zyxwvutsrq
Sahhita’: 52 “Indra shall conquer; he shall not be conquered; overlord among kings shall
he rule; in all conflicts shall he be a protector, that he may be reverenced and honoured.”
The popular basis of royal selection finds expression in the Arhurvu which tells
the king:
Gladly you come among us; remain firmly without faltering; may all the people want you; may
.
you not fall off the state ,.54
Vanquish you f d y , without falling, the enemies, and those behaving like enemies crush you
under your feet. All the quarters unanimously honour you. and for fumness the assembly here
creates you.55
Another Atharvavedic passage speaks of a ruler re-elected by the people, though he
had been earlier driven 0ut.56 The fact that the people are described as “choosing” or
“desiring” a king in a number of Vedic passages, cannot be ignored or satisfactorily
explained away. That a banished ruler is reinstated, clearly shows the exercise of popular
choice.
 zy
zyxwvuts
zyxw
zyxw
Sarva Daman Singh 34 1

zyxwvutsr
The later Vedic literature refers to the king-makers called ratnins, who offer a
symbolic amulet or m q i to the king on his accession to the throne. The king takes thc
jewel of authority from all the people present in an Atharvavedic hymn:
The skilful builders of chariots and the ingenious workers of metal, the folk about me all, do
thou, 0 Paqa, make my aids. The kings and king-makers, the charioteers and leaders of hosts,
the folk about me do thou, 0 Paqa, make my aids?7
The people and the professions thus invest their ruler with authority. The ratnins are
the sustainers of the king’s realm; they are characterised as the “givers and takers of a
kingdom”?8 The Paiicavimsh Bruhmap calls them the eight v?as who sustain together
the king and the kingdom.59We come across fifteen ratnins in all, though all the names
do not figure in all the texts.6o They are the briihmanu (priest), the riijanya (noble), the
mahi$ (chief queen), the parivrkti (discarded wife), the vuviitu (favourite wife), the
sen&; (commander), the siifa (charioteer), the griimuy? (village headman), the k ~ a r y
(chamberlain), the sumgrahrtr (charioteer), the bhiigadugha (tax-collector, “milchcr of the

zy
share”), the ak;iivipa (dice-thrower), the govikartanu (chief huntsman) the takpn (metal
worker), the raihukisra (chariot-builder), and the piiliigafa (courier).61 “Limbs of the
ruling as they are called, their role in the ratnuhuv%si ritual of the riijusiiya
ceremony is vital to a proper comprehension of the later Vedic polity. Their importance lo
the king and his realm is dramatically displayed by the king’s visits to their houses for the
performance of the requisite ritual. They represent all the four v u r p s of the Aryan
society, presumably also the non-Aryans; all the important professions; and even the
women of the realm. They emphasize the power of the people notwithstanding the king’s
gain in status and stability at their expense: they remind the king of past procedures; of
royal obligations; of common expectations. Their allegiance adds to the allure of
m0narchy.~3
The Atharvu Veda tells us that royal prosperity depends on concord between the king
and the assembly.64Indeed, the king prays for the cooperation of both the subha and the
sumiti: “May the subha‘ and the samiti. the two daughters of PrajZpati, concurrently aid
me. May he with whom I shall meet cooperate with me; may I, 0 Ye Fathers, speak
agreeably to those a~sembled.”~~
That the samiti or the parisad, as it is called in some later Vedic texts, remains an
assembly of the people, is borne out by such expressions as: “most of the Kuru-PaiicZilas
shall be assembled together”.& The Chiindogya Upanisad refers to the samiti of the
PailcZila people presided over by king PravSahGa J a i ~ a l i the
; ~ ~ByhadZranyaka calls it
their paripi.68
The king ascends the throne for life.@ But he must temper his might with
magnanimity.70Kingship is often hereditary, as suggested by the Piirksitas and the rulers
of Jyaka’s line, and by reference to a kingdom of ten generations, ddapuruy,i riijya, in
the Satapathu Briihmana?l The Aitureya speaks of the birth of an heir to the throne;72
and of the king as the father of the realm.73 The principle of popular selection, though, is
neither forgotten nor in abeyance.74That the choice was usually limited lo the members
of the royal family, is indicated in the legend of DevSapi and S a m t a n ~ and
; ~ ~the king

zyxw
normally came from the ranks of the Qauiyas, as the briihmqa is called unsuitable for
kingship.76 The Aitareya Briihmana. however, visualizes the possibility of a bFihma9a
monarchy;77 and the other Vedic texts refer to &dra and even non-Aryan
The king was certainly no despot riding roughshod over the susceptibilities of his
people. If he did, he came to grief, We hear of many kings deposed by their people;79and
of their efforts to resume their reigng0 The Satupatha Briihmana refers to Dusfa;i;tu
Paumsgyana being banished from his kingdom, though it had come to him through ten
342 zyx
zy Monarchy in the Vedic Age

zyx
generation?*l Heredity becomes expendable in the event of tyrannic enormity. The
Paiicavimsa Bra’hmapa in fact prescribes a sacrifice to get rid of an evil king; and the
vaiiyas and the brihmqas cooperate in seeking freedom from royal rapacity.82Popularity
remains the unfailing prop of monarchy, and the king is therefore well advised to be a
mitravardhuna, “an increaser of friends”.83
The king’s obligation to his subjects comes forcefully to the fore in the oath he takes

zyxwvut
before the consecrating priest in the aindramahZbhiseka ceremony. ‘%iom the night of my

zyxwvutsrq
birth”, says he, “to that of my death, for the space between these two, my sacrifice and my
gifts, my place, my good deeds, my life and my offspring, mayest thou take if I play thee
false”.84The oath clearly suggests a social contract, which we may call “embryonic” only
if we needlessly compare it with modem theory.85Following Ghoshal, R. S. Sharma does
not agree with Jayaswal’s view that the priest represents the whole community.86 He
concedes that “in the beginning the oath may have been made by the chief in relation to
the whole tribe ... But as the tribe disintegrated into classes and the priests emerged as
important a class as the warriors themselves, the king transferred his pledge to the priest
to whose ideological support he owed his power.”87It is certainly wrong to suppose that
the king‘s pledge here is confined to the priest alone, who represents his class alone. The
role of the ratnzns in royal consecration evinces broad-based participation in the
legitimation of the king’s authority; and the priest is only one of them. The priest in the

zy
present context stands neither for himself nor for his class, but for dharma in relation to
the whole people. Dharma is higher than the four orders of society, which depend upon it.
The priest and the king are as subordinate to it as the others. The king takes the vow to
fulfil his duty before he sits on the He is thereforecalled dharmusyu goptZ,8,89the
“protector of dhurma”, and dhytavrataP0 the “upholder of the sacred law”. Elsewhere, he
is styled as satymava, “of true sacrifice”, satyadhurma, “of true conduct”, satyiinyte, an
“authority in truth and falsehood” like Varuna, and a satyariijun. a “true king”.g’ The
accent everywhere is clearly on truth and duty, and circumscribing the significance of the
oath in AB. VIII. 15 would doubtless amount to a misreading of history. The “defender of
the brd1mqa’’9~is equally emphatically the “defender of d h u r r n ~ ”the
; ~ ~ksatriya and the
brihmqa are the “upholders of the sacred law among men”.94 The monarch is the
embodiment of the moral law, matched only by the learned brihmapa who is not above it;
and the administration of a solemn obligatory oath by the latter to the former would be

zyxwvutsr
meaningless and farcical without reference to the people.95 Tyranny is incompatible with
the dictates of dhurma.
The king is indeed the promoter of religion and morality; for he seeks to sustain his
realm by upholding dhurma.96 King Ahapati proudly declares:
Within my realm there is no thief,

zyxwvutsrq
No miser, nor a drinking man,
None altarless, none ignorant,
No man unchaste, no wife ~nchaste.9~
The statement is symptomatic of unfeigned royal concern for the preservation of law and
order, and reminds one of the priest’s exhortation to the king at his coronation in the
Vijjusuneyi S&hitu “as a ruler, from this day onwards, judge the strong and weak fairly
and impartially. Strive unceasingly to do good to the people and above all. protect the
country from all calamities.”98 The priest undeniably speaks for the people.
The king derives his authority from his consecration. The Sumhitiis and the Briihmanas
lay down the ritual. The “king-makers” play a significant part in the ceremonies
performed, and represent both the official and non-official elements of the p o p u l a t i ~ n . ~ ~
 zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
Sarva Daman Singh
The chief forms of consecration are the vGjapeya, the riijasiya, the punarabhiseku and the
343

zy
aindramahiibhi~eku.1~

zyxwvut
The vujapeya means “the drink of strength”, and confers on the performer siimrujya or
a higher kind of kingship. It includes a chariot race, in which the king is made to win.
This feature seems to refer to a time when the military superiority of the king-elect was
demonstrated in a great chariot race. The royal sacrificer pays his homage to mother earth,
sits on a throne, and is thus addressed by the adhvaryu (priest): “Thou art the ruler, the
ruling lord - thou art firm and steadfast - (here I seat) thee for the tilling, for peaceful
dwelling (@emu), for wealth (rayi), for prosperity ( p o s ~ ) . ” ~The
O ~belief in the righteous

zyxwvut
ruler’s intermediacy between nature’sbounty and popular prosperity takes firm root.
The riijusiyd” is described in great detail in the h a p a t h a Briihma?. It is a long
succession of sacrifices spread over a period of more than two years. The important
features include presents to the deities of the ratnins; the besprinkling ceremony
(abhi;ecaniyah); the king‘s strides towards different quarters symbolic of his universal
rule (dig-vyGsthGpana);wading on a tiger-skin to gain the strength and supremacy of the

zyxwvu
tiger; the narration by the horr priest of the story of Sunahiepa; a mimic cow-raid against
a relative or a false fight with a member of the nobility; the king’s enthronement; and a
game of dice in which he is the victor. The besprinkling is the heart of the ritual. The
consecrating waters contain seventeen kinds of liquid collected from the sea and inland
sources of water. The besprinkling is done by a priest, a kinsman or brother of the king, a
friendly Gjanya and a vaidya. lo3
The besprinkling ceremony begins with offerings to a number of “divine quickeners”

zy
(devasiis), such as the gods Savig for energy; Agni for the virtuous traits of the family;
Soma for the power to protect forests; Brhaspati for the quality of speech; Indra for the
competence to govern; Rudra for the ability to foster cattle-wealth; Mitra for truth; and
V q a for the protection of law.lOQ Indra jyesfha leads the king to “lordship” or
“eminence” (jyui$hya); and V a q a ? the “protector of the law” (dharmupati), makes him
the “protector of the law”.lO5 The Satupatha continues: ‘That truly is the supreme state
(paramati) where one is the protector of the law, for whosoever attains to the supreme
state, to him they come in matters of law.”’“
Jyaighya and purumatii, pre-eminence and supremacy, are derived from divine
benediction as everything else is, and do not specifically mean the divine origin of royal
authority. Ghoshal’s criticism of Jayaswal is unfair with reference to the latter’s assertion
that the gods might confer the attributes of royalty on the monarch, but “they could not
give the kingship of the land”.1m The king. priest and people are all equally human. The
gods are invoked to bestow blessings and confer favours. They do not make monarchs;
they favour them and protect them. And that is due to the supposed efficacy of the ritual.
Monarchy remains the reward of both ability and heredity in a wholly human situation.
Karma or action, both in its ordinary and later religious sense, is the great catalyst of
monarchy.lo8
Ghoshal is, however, quite right in stressing that the Vedic king’s administration of
criminal justice harks back to the Rgvedu and the AthaTa Veda; that the images of
Vanqa and his spies have been drawn from real life. The Satupatha passage cited above
suggests “the developed stage of Vedic polity when the king’s justice prevailed over all
private jurisdictions”. O9
The priest prays that the king may enjoy freedom from foes and rivals, preeminence
and “rule over the whole folk”.’ l o The later Vedic monarch enjoys undisputed sway over
his territorial state comprising more than one tribe. The ruler is called “the son of such
and such a man and the son of such and such a woman”111in the same formula of
invocation, which unambiguously emphasizes the mundane origin of monarchy.
344
zyxzy Monarchy in the Vedic Age
The assertion of the brlhmqas that their king is Soma as distinguished from the king
of the people,l12 demonstrates their desire for theoretical independence in so far as it

zyxwvu
would guarantee the immunity of their property. The brlhmqa is said to be exempt from
providing sustenance for the king.113Claims of spiritual superiority for the briihmya are
repeated with monotonous regularity in the Vedic literature, which sometimes indulges in
wishful thinking in staking a similar claim to brihmay autonomy in matters temporal,
and to exemption in matters of taxation. The ruler is himself repeatedly called Brahman
by the brlhmqa priests in the riijasiiya ritual; they also call him Savitar, Varuna, Indra
and Rudra.’ l4 The priests unquestionably acknowledge the king as their ruler. His power
and pelf commands their homage. Indeed, the ~utapathatells us that the priests pour the
remainder of the consecration water into the brhnanas’ vessel after the besprinkling
ceremony. The brihmea is thus made an object of respect after the king.115

zy
The brshmana loses his foremost position in the lists of ratnins in the ~utapathaand
the Puiicuvirizi” BriIhmana. The staking of a cow in the game of dice by the

zyxwvuts
representatives of the four classes, and the victory of the king, alike symbolise the
authority of the monarch over all classes of his people.
The interdependence of the priest and king comes out clearly in so many Vedic
passages,116and the hatriya does well to have apurohita to help guard the kingdom:
... For him are his people in harmony,
with one aspect and one mind,
who has for his purohita to guard the kingdom
A br2hmqa with this knowledge.l17
They serve as checks on each other. The “lordly power” guards the people against the
oppressive greed of the “holy power”; and the “holy power” protects the people from the
exactions of the “lordly power”.118The purohita is half the self of the ksatriya.119 But the
lower civil status of the brlhmana is clearly reflected in the Aitareya Briihrna~a120 where
it is said that the ksatriya sacrificer should desist from taking soma or curds or water, the
food, respectively, of the briihmana, the vaiiya and the &&a. If he eats their food, his
offspring will be like a brghmqa, vaiiya and Biidra; and the second or third from him may
indeed become a brihmapa, vailya or &-Ira. The consequences would be far from
desirable, as the briihmana is “an acceptor of gifts, a dnnker (of soma), a seeker of
livelihood, one to be moved at will”; the vaiiya is “tributary to another, to be eaten by
another, to be oppressed at will”; and the 6iidra is “the servant of another, to be removed
at will, to be slain at wilY.121
In material terms and in mundane reckoning, the king was always superior to the
priest, who managed to harmonise his theoretical spiritual superiority with often
obsequious obedience to the will of his master. There never was a class war between the
briihmqas and the Qatriyas in the modern Marxist sense. The dichotomy between the
supposed briihmana supremacy in matters of spirit and religion, and his subservience to
the rich in real life, has been an enduring feature of the Indian social situation.
Many Vedic lungs were men of deep learning, cultivators of philosophy and masters of
logic. We hear of ksamya rulers such as Aivapati Kaikeya, Pravshqa Jaivali, Vaideha
Janaka and Ajiitaiatru of K&i, disputing with and instructing the briihmqas in
philosop$y.122
The Satupatha BrZihmana explains the relationship of the king and the people; the
besprinkled water confers the kingdom, whereby the king is made the lord as well as the
offspring of his people.123 Elsewhere, kfatra is said to be born out of the vii.124 The
Aitareya Briihmaca refers to the lordly power and the people smiting each other,125so
that the ruler must live up to his responsibility.
 zyxwvuts
zy
zyxwvu
Sarva Daman Singh 345
An interesting and important ceremony in the rcijasiya consists in the priests silently
striking the king with sticks on the back. The Satupatha says that they thus guide the king
safely over judicial punishment, and he then becomes exempt from punishment.126 The

zyx
rite is construed as the height of priestly authority by Weber;IZ7 but the rod or dun&
touching the king is understood as the “symbolic sceptre of justice” by Jayaswal,
“conveying by the action the view of the sacred common law that the king was not above
but under the law”.128 Ghoshal argues that “the king’s purification or acquisition of

zyxw
special privileges”, rather than the “assertion of priestly domination”, is the central theme
of the ceremony; and wonders whether “dunda as the symbol of justice - so well-hown
to the Smpi-Artha&strapolity -can be traced back to the Vedic t i m e ~ ” . ~ ~ 9
The purificatory aspect of dun& is, however, not incompatible with its symbolic
significance. It denotes temporal power implying punishment in the P6raskura Grhya
Siitra;130 and may well be the precursor of the later dun@ in the aforesaid ceremony.131
The cow-raid and the game of dice in the rijusiiya ritual are clearly reminiscent of
earlier days when success in winning wars and booty. and luck and dexterity in gambling,
decided the leadership of the tribe.
The punuriibhiseka, renewed consecration of kings, is described in the Aitareya
~ ~ sacrificer ascends the throne for riijya, sumriijya, bhaujya, sviirGjya,
B r i i h m ~ n a . 1The’

zyxw
vairiijya, piiramesrhya, riijya (again), miihiiriijya, iidhipatya, svZva&a and iiti.sfhatva.The
differentiation of the precise meanings of all these terms is no easy matter, except for the
fact that an imperial state stands out, as against a simple monarchy. Triple salutation to
Brahman highlights the supremacy of the holy power.
The Aitareya Briihmana then describes the great consecration of I n ~ k a , ’ ~ ~
aindramuhGbhQeka, in heaven; of the king on the earth. The ruler mounts the throne to
merit such epithets as siimriijya, bhaujya, sviirajya, vairZjya, piirame$hya, rijya and
rniihiircijya. We are told that the kings of the east are consecrated for siimrijya; of the
south for bhaujya; of the west for sviirqyya; of the north for vairijya; and of the middle

zyxwvutsrq
region for riijyu.

zy
The oath administered by the priest to the king has been discussed above. When the
sacrificer sits on the throne, there is a proclamation.
Him do you proclaim, 0 men (jm-h) as king and father of kings ... The sovereign lord of all
beings (vi&usyu bhiitusya adhipati) has been born, the eater of the folk (viklhafta has been
born,the destroyer of enemies (mitr;;?iz;r hu&) has been born, the protector of the b r h q a s
( b r i i h m a w g o p f i ) has been born, the guardian of the law (dharmaqa gopt2) has been
tmrn.134
The aindrutnahiibhi;eku ensures “superiority, pre-eminence and supremacy over all
kings”, and the status of a “sole ruler” “from the one end up to the further side of the earth
bounded by the ocean”, The concepts of universal monarchy and paramount sovereignty
come to the fore.
The proclamation expresses all the characteristics of Indian kingship. V i h y a
bhiitasya adhipati signifies sovereignty and the state; vihimattii signals the power of
taxation; amifr@zGz hanta‘ suggests military might and victory. Brc3hmananGth goprZ
secures the bond between the king and the priests;135and dharmasya gopti stresses the
burden of administration for the protection of the laws (dharma), for the furtherance of
common welfare.136
All the kings anointed with the aindramah&hi;eka “go round the earth completely,
conquering on every side, and offering the horse in sacrifice”.137The ahamedha is the
acme of Aryan aspiration for dominion.138
 zy
zyxwvu
346 Monarchy in the Vedic Age
To sum up, the later Vedic king is a powerful ruler. He is even occasionally styled as a
god among men;139but is certainly not divine. He is the lord of all beings; he can “banish
a br5hmaqa at will, mulct and overpower a vaidya at will, and exact labour from or slay a
&dra at will”.140 But his kingdom is a sacred trust, as oaths and exhortations prove
beyond any possibility of doubt. The “holy power’’, the “king-makers”. the ratnins and the
people exercise effective checks on royal despotism. The subha, the samiri and the
pariSad temper the tenor of his rule. The people are declared to be the source of kingship;
to be the protectors of the king. The expulsion of incorrigible tyrants is by no means
uncommon.
Both tribal and territorial traits are in evidence in the later Vedic monarchy. The vision
of universal rule stretching up to the oceans portends the pursuit of the cakravartin ideal
by the digvijuyins or conquerors of a later day.
The military might of the monarch is dramatized by armed kinsmen and retainers, who
surround him.141 He heads the civil and military administration. He is normally exempt
from punishment, and acts as the chief judge of the realm.

zyxw
The purohira is perhaps the most important functionary in the civil hierarchy. He is
indeed the flaming fire guarding the kingdom.142 The queens, too, have a definite
constitutional status sanctioned by custom; and the other participants in government
represent both the people and the professions.

zyxwv
The king is the protector of the brZhmana and of dharma. And he is the protector of his
people which entitles him to “devour the clans” or tax the people. 143Land seems to have
been originally held by the mbe in and only later came to be vagucly
regarded as the property of the king.145But is the later Vedic ruler the owner of the land
of his realm? Categorical statements are lacking, and the answer lies in the political
evolution of the Vedic state. Indra is called the king of all the quarters;146 indeed, the
earth or bhcmi chose him as her and if he is the lord of land, so is an earthly king
referred to as human 1ndr;a.14* The Arhurva Veda describes the king as “the overcomer of
the people”;149 and the Saraparha Briihmana tells us that he establishes himself among a
numerous people, and subdues them even from a single dwelling, and takes possession of
whatever he likes.150 The people are likened to a female devoid of energy;l51 courage
leads to mastery over the peasantry.15* The Aitureya B r i i h r n a n ~as , ~earlier
~ ~ stated, refers
to the vaidya as tributary to another (anymya balikt), to be lived on by another

zyxwvu
(anyasyiidayah), and to be oppressed and ill-treated at will (yuthukiimajyeyah). The last
seems to me& that the king or ksatriya can remove the vaiiya without cause from his
land. Macdonell and Keith hold that the expulsion of the vaigya does not bear out the
quasi-ownership of land by the king or ksahiya; “it is an act of royal authority, not an
incident of tenure”.l54But if royal authority could at all times be exercised at will without
any reference to the subject’s wishes, it must have been in effect as good as faith in the
principle of ownership.
“Devouring” the people was, according to the authors of the Vedic Index, a political
power, not a right of ownership.155 But the very idea of political power must have grown
out of a sense of overlordship or symbolic ownership. This political power doubtless had

zy
an element of coercion or compulsion. The over-all ownership of the king need not be
inconsistent with private ownership of land for all practical purposes, normally subject to
the payment of the king’s dues. It may also be understood as a joint ownership, the king
leaving his partners free to dispose of their land as they pleased, provided that he got his
share of the produce unimpaired. The payment of bali to the king is mentioned as early as
the Rgveda.156 The Atharva Veda’s7 also refers to the king’s share in a village. And the
,‘-&zpatha158 thus sums up thc position: “whatever belongs to the people, in that the
chieftain has a share”. The bhzgadugha or the “milcher of the share”, listed amongst the
 zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
Sarva Daman Singh
king‘s ratnins in the Yujurveda sumhitiis and the Brihmanas, is almost certainly a
34 7

collector of taxes, as explained by S5yana.159Bhiiga, literally “share”, is the regular word

for compulsory tax.
The expression griimu-kZma,occurring not infrequently in the later sumhitiis,points to

zyxwvut
the king’s grant of his royal prerogatives over villages to his favourites, so far,as fiscal

zyxwvu
matters were concerned. The cultivators were reduced to tenancy, and the Satupatha
Briihmana speaks of the ksatriya’sright to apportion land.

zyxwvut
The Jaiminiya Brc3hmana,161however, observes that the king cannot make a gift of the
entire earth in the vihujit sacrifice, when he has to give everything that belongs to him.

zy
The earth is common, and does not belong to the sovereign alone. And the &tapatha
Briihmana, 162 too, tells of Vibkarman Bhauvana, who, intent on giving the earth to his
priest I&yapa after a sacrifice, was reproved by the Earth herself: “No mortal must give
me away ...” But even these passages perhaps prove the contrary to be true, if they are

zyxw
construed as protests against the arbitrary gifts of land by kings. These scriptural
injunctions seem only to have been dictated by the necessity to call a halt to the king’s
commands ever impinging on the rights of commoners.
In the B~hadura~yuka Upanitad we find king Janaka claiming the power of giving h s
kingdom away to whomsoever he likes.163 AB. V11.20 indicates that the b r - h q a , the
rijanya or the vaidya begs the sacrificial ground from the ksatriya, which perhaps means
the king’s ownership of the unappropriated land.
Individual ownership of land for purposes of cultivation is clearly reflected in a
number of passages.164 And in the Chcindogya U p a n i < ~ dfields , ~ ~ ~and houses are
mentioned as examples of wealth.
Royal ownership of land did not thus mean the negation of the people’sright in land. It
was a gradation of ownership; the rights of the king were superimposed over those of the
people without undue hindrance to their right to till, to sow and reap their harvest, to
inherit and to partition their land.
348 zy Monarchy in the Vedic Age

zyxwvut
NOTES

2
3

4
5
6
7
zyxwvuts
zyxwvut
See my Ancient Indian Wadare with Special Reference to the Vedic Period (Leiden, 19651, pp.
135 ff. Also, my Ancient Indian Wadme, (Delhk 1989).
RV.1.103.5.
RV. VIII.35.17; d.SV.IV.II.4.1; AB.VIII.4.12. For Indra as the prototype and guardian of
kingship, see R. N. Dandekar, “Vft~ahiIndra”, ABORI 31 (1950), p. 53, En.2.
RV.Lu.43.5.
Ibid.. lX.35.5.
Ibid., 1.162;163.
Ibid., Vm.35.16-18.
8 Ibid.. X.90.12. Compare the patrician gentes of Rome, the eupatridae of Athens, the nobles of
early Germany, the eorls of the Anglo-Saxons, and the athravar and rothaesthas of ancient

zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrq
Iran.Cf. CHI, I, p.125.
9 RV. IV.42.1; VIl.64.2; VlII.25.8: X.109.3; vILI.67.1.
10 See V. M. Apte, “Were castes formulated in the Rgveda?” BDCRI 11, p. 47. Another Rgvedic
passage. v.54.7, implies a distinction between the .r?i and the riijan.

zyxwvutsr
11 There is no need to take the word “election” in its twentieth century sense.
12 RV.X.173.1. vishs tvG s m u viinchantu. The word g a F in RV.N.35.3 and elsewhere seems to
indicate a republican form of government. Cf. also TB. II.8.6.4; SB. MII.2.8.4. See R . S.
Sharma, Aspects of Political Ideas and Institutions in Ancient India (Delhi, 1959), pp. 91 ff. J.
P. Sharma, Republics in Ancient India, c.1500 B.C.JO0 B.C. (Leiden. 1968). pp. 15-80,
r e g n i z e s many forms of non-monarchical governments in Vedic India.
13 ta im vi.60 na r2jZnah wuinii. Zimmer translates: “wie die Gaue sich den Kihig ktiren”. Cf.
Altindisches Leben (Berlin, 1879). pp. 162 ff. Cf. also Barnett, Antiquities of India, (London,
1913). p. 97; Weber, Indische Studien, W,88; Geldner, Vedische Sfudien, II, 303; Monier
Williams explains VT in Rgveda as meaning “to choose, select, choose for one’s self, choose as
or for”.
14 Cf.Vedic Index,II,p. 21 1.
15 RV.1.100.7
16 Vis’ may be equated with Iranian vis, “a real parallel to the Latin gens and the Greek gems”,
according to CHI, I, p. 9 1.
17 The sabha figures often in the 8gveda; cf. II.24.13; VI.28.6; VII.1.4; VIII.4.9; X.34.6. It is “a
more select body, less popular and political in character”. Cf. U. N. Ghoshal, Studies in Indian
History and Culture, pp. 349 ff.; Vedic Index, II,pp. 426-7.

zyx
18 The samiti, the assembly of the Vedic tribe, occurs in RV.1.95.8;IX.92.6; X.97.6; 166.4; 191.3.
According to Ludwig, Tramlation of the Rigveda, 3, 253, ef seq., the smiti included all the
people, the &ah. Cf. Vedic Index, II, 430-31. K. P. Jayaswal. Hindu Polity, 3rd ed.
(Bangalore, 1955), p. 12, calls samiti “the national assembly of the whole people or visa+”.
19 RV. X.191.3; Bloomfield, SBE, XLII,136.
20 RV. M.92.6, riijina satyah sarni&iyZnah. Despite the clear reference to “Soma ... like a wild
bull in the wood”,Sharma, Republics in Ancient India, p. 51, takes this passage to mean a non-
monarchical government; sedulous search for originality sometimes contributes to the dubious

zyx
quality of conclusions.
21 RV. X.166.4-5. Verse 1 contains this prayer: rsabhar;? mii s m - n i & sapatniin&a
vi;&ahirdhantiirah katrii@ih kdhi virzjah gopatim gavijh. “Make me a bull among peers,
make me my rivals conquer. Make me a slayer of foes, a sovereign ruler, a lord of kine.” The
third verse addressed to Vacaspati voices the wish that his rivals may speak to him humbly.

zyxwvutsrq
The pride of power is still tentative, and seeks divine sanction for self-assertion.
22 RV. 1.25.10; VI.68.9;W.16.1;cf. alsoIV.21.2;VI.27.8;VIU.19.32.
23 Ibid., II.41.5; V.62.6.
24 Cf. The Vedic Age, (1965), p. 356; Vedic Index,II, p. 211.
25 RV. X.173.2; cf. AV. VI. 87.2.
26 RV. X.173.4; cf.AV. VI.88.1.
27 RV. X.173.6, bali-hrt;W.6.5.
 zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvu
zyxwv
Sarva Daman Singh
28 RV. 1.70.9; V.1.10; VILI.100.9.
349

zyxwv
29 Cf. Zimmi, AltindischesLeben, pp. 166. 167; Tacitus. Germania, 15.
30 RV.1.126. The greed of the brihmqa priest also comes to the fore.
31 lbid. IV.42.
32 Cf.IndextoCriffith'sRV., volsI-II;RV.I.67.l;IV.4.1;W.18.2;1.130.1.
RV. IV.42. 8-9.

zyxwvutsr
33
34 Cf. A. L. Basham, The Wonder that was India (London, 1961), pp. 236, 237. He is called
dhytavrata, the upholder of the sacred law, which becomes a common epithet of later kings. Cf.
RV. 1.25.8-10; 44.14; 141.9; II.1.4; X.65.5.
35 Cf., Vedic Index, 11,p. 213.
36 RV. VII.18.13; AV. III. 19; cf. RV. EI.33.3 ff; VII.18; cf. E. W. Hopkins, JAOS, XV, p. 260 et
seq .

zyx
37 TS. II.4.2.1; cf.-KS.
- -. X.10; MS.II.5.10.
38 AV. 1.29.6 ...v i r a v viriij& janasya ca.

zyxwvuts
39 AB. 1.14.
40 AV. IV. 22.2.
41 RV. III. 43.5; IX.35.5.
42 Cf. my Ancient Indian Warfare, p. 136; cf. AV. VI. 98.2; MS. IV. 12.2. AB. VIII. 12 says that
the gods yield to Indra's excellence as their king.
43 AV. IV. 22.7.
44 pur& bhettii, cf. Vedic Index,S.V. @an.
45 TB. I. 8.4.1-2.
46 K a q . Up. III. 1.
47 Cf. Vedic Index, II, pp. 212,418. Cf. also RV. VIII.32.7; AV. VI.66.3.
48 According to histotle, kingship in the heroic age was limited to leadership in war and to
certain religious observances. Cf. S. H. Hooke, ed., Myth, Ritual and Kingship (Oxford, 1958),
p. 28.
49 Br. U.V. 13.4; cf. SB. XIV. 8.14.4.

zyxwvu
50 AB. VIII. 7.10, Qatra r i p a h tat; cf. TB. III. 8.23.3, rlijanyo biihubalTbh&ukah.
51 Br. U.1.4.11. ...tasm-t @atriirparah&ti tasmiidbriihma@ @atriymdhastupie rZjas6ye.
For katra-vidyii see my Ancient Indian Warfare, p. 140.
52 TS. II. 4.14.2.

zy
53 AV. VI. 87-88.
54 ...vis'as tvii sarvii viiiichantu 6tvadr&pamadhi bhrkat.
55 dhruvo'cyut4 praminThi biinchatrii yato'dhariin piidayasvalsarvii dii@ s&nasah
sa&~c?r-dhruvZya te samitih kalpathiha. Cf. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, pp. 186. 187.
56 AV. III. 4.2. fv&i viioiruztiiijl rijyiiya. ..
57 AV. m.5.6-7. ye dhiviino rathakiir?a karmalira ye m @ @ I u p a d n parna mahyah tvah
sarvin krnvabhito janiinll6tl ye rZjZno riijakta?z siitZgr6mapya6ca yetupastin parpa mahyain
tvah saGiin krnvabhito ja& /PI/ Cf. Bloomfield, SBE XLII. 114; Jayaswal, Hindu Polity,
188-189.
58 r$pasya prad&irah, etepCidZirafi, cf. TB.1.7.3.
59 XIX.1.4.
60 Cf. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, pp. 192 ff.; Sharma, Aspects of Political Ideas, pp. 103 ff.
61 Cf. TS. 1.8.9; MS. II.6.5; IV.3; KS. XV.4; TB 1.7.3 ff.; dB. V.3. 1 ff.; Sharma, Aspects of
Political Ideas, p. 104.
62 MS. IV.3.8, Ksatrasya etyanghi.
63 Cf. U . N . Choshal, The Beginnings of Indian Historiography and Other Essays (Calcutta,
1944), pp. 249 ff.
64 AV. VI.88.3; Cf. IzT.4.
65 Ibid.,W.13, 1, sabha ca m'samitiic&ati% prajzpaterduhitarau samvidcimtyerui sahgaccha
upa ma-sa &$icc&u vadini pitarah sahgatesu.
66 Jaim. Up. Br.. EI.7.6, bhi@s!hiih kuru-pariciilZ-ssiigatZbhavitLra+.
67 Ch. U . V.3.1, dvetaketur Aruyyahpa&iilZ& samitim eyiiya.
350 zy
zy
zyxwvuts
zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwvu Monarchy in the Vedic Age
68 Br.U. VI.2.1. ... paticdin&iparl,radamijagh. Cf. H.C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of
Ancient India, VIth ed., (Calcutta, 1953), pp. 175-175; Jayaswal, Hindu Polity,p. 16.
69 AV.IU.4.7.

zyxwvutsrq
70 Ibid, ... dahmhgrgral?suman-v&ha.
71 SB. W.9.3.1-3.

zyxwv
72 AB.WI.9.
73 Bid.. Vm.17. rijapitz
74 See above, cf. also Raychaudhuri, Political History, pp. 160-61, and n.8 on p. 160.
75 Nirukta, II.10; VedicIndex,II,p. 211.
76 SB. V.1.1.12.
77 AB.vm.23.
78 Ch.U. IV.2.1-5; gB.XIII.5.4.6; Jaim. Up.Br. 1.45.
79 Vedic Index, S.V. rGjan.
80 Cf. AV.m.3.4; KSXXVIIIJ; Ts.II.3.1; MS.II.2.1; PBxI1.9.3.3; Kaukka Sdra. XVI.30.
81 ,fB.XIII.9.3.1erseq;cf.AB.VIII.10.

zyxwvut
82 PB.VI.6.5.
83 AV.IV.8.2. The AV. also contains spells for the benefit of royalty, cf. III.3.

zy
84 AB. VIII.15; cf. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, pp. 202, 203; Ghoshal, Historiography and Other
Essays, pp. 281,282; Sharma, Aspects of Political Idem, p. 127.
85 Cf. J. W. Spellman, Political Theory of Ancient India (Oxford, 1964), p. 20. He, however,
correctly understands the spirit of the passage.
86 Ghoshal, Historiography and other Essays, p. 282, n.57, cites the view of Weber (Uber den
Viijapeya,p. 155, n.) that the oath is characteristic of the pretensions of the priests, in so far as
the sole ruler of the earth swears to be true to his priest. Weber. however, misses the symbolic
significance of the priestly function.
87 Sharma, Aspects of Political Ideas, p. 127.
88 Cf. Raychaudhuri, Political History. p. 168.
89 AB. Vm.12; 17-18.
90 VS.X.27; TS.1.8.16; TB. 1.7.10.2; dB. V.4.4.5.
91 TB. 1.7.10.1-6; cf. Jayaswal, Hindu Poky, p. 202; Ghoshal, Historiography and other Essays,
pp. 273,274.
92 brdunupifi goptii.
93 dharjrwuy;;pF
94 Cf. B V 4 4 5 etau ha vai dvau manupqu dhpvrafau.
95 The brahmana could never afford to antagorhe the people, who remained his principal
b/eneactors in day-today life.
96 SB. IX.4.1.1.
97 Ch.U. y.11.5. nu me stem janapade nu kadaryo M madyapu@na nihit@nirtGxvidvk
svairic kut4.Hume’s translation.
98 VS. X.27. And X.28 says: “...In&a iut thou, whose strength is of the people”.
99 Cf. R. K.Mookerjee. The Fundamental Unity of India, p. 83.
100 The pwuymedha (human s d i c e ) and the sarvamedha (all-sacrifice) were later priestly
inventions. Cf. Ghoshal, Historiogrophy and Other Essays, p. 246, n.2; Eggeling. SBE. XLIV
Intmduction. pp. xliv-xiv; A. B. Keith, Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upan+ds,
(Cambridge. Mass.,1925). pp. 347-48.

zyx
101 SB. V.2.1.25. Iy& te r? at the beginning of the passage means: ‘Thisstate or kingdom is to
thee given.” cf. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, p. 207; Raychaudhuri, Political History, p. 165. cf. VS.

T*22*
102 B. V.2.2.5; V.2.3.9 et seg.; cf. VS. IX.35; X.34; TS. I. 8. 1-21; TE 1.6.1-8; Ghoshd,
Historiogrophy and Other Essays, p. 247, n.5.
103 Cf. Raychaudhuri, Political History, pp. 165-67; Ghoshal, Historiography and Other Essays.
pp. 247 ff.; Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, pp. 198-201. Jayaswal says that in this list of spinklers
“the kinsman s e e m to be a tautology. The latter is not found in the corresponding TaittirGa
ritual (Taitt. Br., 1.7.8) where the Priest as Brahmin, Rajanya, Vaisya. and lastly Janya, do the
besprinkling. The last one, Janya, stands for the ! h a in the sense of a man of the hostile tribe
 zyxwvu zy
zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvut
Sarva Daman Singh 351

zyxwvut
zy
as in the Aitareya BrZhmap, VIII.26, as originally he was" (pp. 200-201). Ghoshal.
Historiography and Other Essays, pp. 265-267. disagrees, and takes jmya in the sense of "a
friend from a foreign country".
104 TS. 1.8.10; Ks.XV.5-8; MS.II.6.6; VS. M.3940; TB. 1.7.4.; SB.V.3.3.3-12.
105 iB. V.3.3.6 and 9. which has tadeMlir varuy ma dharmapatirdhMnasyopatihkaroti ...
106 Ibid., V.3.3.9.
107 Cf. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, p. 200, Ghoshal, Historiography and Other Essays. p. 256. Also
see Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, p. 208, We do not agree with everything Jayaswal says, and
certainly not with his indiscriminateuse of modem terminology to explain past situations. But
his work remains a masterly exposition of a valid point of view. Nothing, indeed, is wholly
valid or above challenge in the variegated pattern of India's socio-political evolution,
108 Spellman, Political Theory, pp. 12-13. cites later literary evidence to establish the correlation
of kingship and karma.

zyx
109 Ghoshal, Historiography and Other Essays, p. 257.
110 Ibid., cf. TS. 1.8.10, amitrzya mahate katriiya mahate ZdhipatyZya mahate jZnarijyZya; MS.
I I . 6 4 VS. IX.40.
111 VSIX.4O;MS.II.6.6;TS.I.8.10.
112 YS.X.18; TS. 1.8.12; KS. XV.7; MS.11.6.9.
113 SB. V.4.2.3;Xm.6.2.18; 7.1.13.
114 VS. X.28; SB. V.4.4.9-12; TS. 1.8.16; TB. 1.7.10; &'. s's. XVIII.18.8-13; Jayaswal. Hindu
yolily. pp. 2056,209-10; Ghoshal, Historiography and Other Essays,pp. 269-70.
115 SB. V.4.2.7.
116 Cf. AV. m.19; Muir, 0s. I..
p. 283
117 AB. VIII.27. Does this mean that the people were otherwise incited to violence by disgruntled
briihmap?
118 Ibid., VII.22.
119 Ibid., W.26.
120 Ibid., W.27-34.
121 Ibid., W.29. Zdiiyyiipiiyy~usEy~yathiikiimaprayEpyah ... myasya baliedanyasyii'dyo
yathiikZmujyeyah ,,. myasyu pre!yah khotthZpyo yathiikhuvadhyah.
122 Much of the new learning of the UpaniFads emanates from ksatriya exponents, and it has been
said that they were the real authors of the great doctrines ?f karma and sarirsiira. Sharma,
Aspects of Political Ideas, pp. 111-112. believes that the Sataparha indicates the ksatriya
superiority d e s p i t e , b r h q a pretensions to the contrary. That is why the senZGheads the list
of ratnim in the SB., and the purohita comes only second. But the r@mya is, surprisingly
enough, missing from this list of rutnim. Other passages provide more positive proof in this
regard. Elsewhere, we even hear of the murder of a priest. Kutsa Aurava slew his priest
according to the PB. XIV.6.8.
123 SB. V.3.4.5, v i & m e v a k t a t p a t i m karoti ... v&nevainametad garbhuh karoti.
124 Ibid. XII.7.3.8.
125 AB. III.19.
126 SB. V.4.4.7.
127 Weber, Uber den Rijasiya, p. 63.
128 Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, pp. 208-209.
129 Ghoshal, Historiography and Other Essays, pp. 268-69.
130 III.15, rZjZ-pre$to dugah; cf. Vedic Index,S.V. d e .
131 Ghoshal himself derives an element of the later saptznga theory of state from the Vedic period,
Historiography and Other Essays, p. 261.
132 AB. Vm.5-11.
133 Ibid., VIII.12-23.
134 Raychaudhuri. Political History of Ancient India. p. 169.
135 As the protector of the b r h ~ a sthe , king clearly stands higher than their class.
136 Cf. Raychaudhuri,Political History of Ancient India, p. 169.
137 sumantah s a r v a t ~ p ~ ~ v ~ j a y a n pcaamedhyeneje. r ~ y ~ y ~ ~
352 zyx
zy
zyx
zyxwvut
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwvut Monarchy in ihe Vedic Age
138 C. Drekmeier, Kingship and Community in Early india,(Stanford,1962). p. 22, thinks that the
ahamedha harks back t? an age when the grazing area of the herds was the h i t of the tribal
leader's claim to territory. /
139 AV. XX.127.7, yo d e w martyiin adhi. The Satupatha Brihmqu. V.1.5.14, represents the king
as the manifestation of RajEpatk but so are the subG and samiti called the daughters of
RajZpati. Cf. AV. W.13.1, sabhii ca ~ - s ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ p r a j i i p o t e r d u h
samvi&.
itarau
140 AB. W.29
141 ibid.. III.48; j B , Xm.5.4.16; cf. 4.2.5.
142 AB.Vm.24.25.
143 Cf.AV. IV.22.7.
144 Cf. G.Childe, WhatHappened in History (Hmondsworth, 1950). p. 66.
145 See my paper, "Royal Ownership of Land in the Vedic Period"in Land System and Feudalism
in Ancient India, edited by D. C. Sircar (Calcutta, 1966).pp. 23-31.
146 AV. VI. 98.3; cf. TS. II.4.14.1; MS.IV.12.2.
147 AV. XII.1.37.
148 AV.IIIA.6; cf. XIX.24.2;MS. II.1.4;AB. W.23.1.
149 AV. VI.98.2, cf. MS.IV.12.2.
150 SB. 11.2.14.15; cf. III.9.3.7.
151 SB. II.5.2.36.
152 PE. VI.lO.ll.
153 AB. W.29.3.
154 See Vedic indq II, p. 256. n. 14.
155 ibid., p. 215.
156 RV. W.6.5; X.173.6.
157 AV. IV.22.3.
158 dB. M.1.1.18. /
159 TS.1.8.9.2; TB. 1.7.3.5; IU.4.8.1; SB. V.3.19; cf. Sharma, Aspects of Political ideas, pp. 108,
109.133; W.Rau. Sraar und Gesellschaj? im alten Indien, (Wiesbaden, 1957)p. 111; Spellman,
Political Theory, p. 70. Even serving the king's meals by the bhzgadugha may metaphorically
imply the collection of the king's share.
160 JB. VII.l.1.8.
161 {B. VI.7.3.
162 SB. Xm.7.1.14-15. cf. Spellman, Political Theory, p. 204.
163 Br. U.IV.4.23, So'ham bhagavate videhiin dadiimi miikZpi saha dijliiyeti.
164 Cf. RV. 1.110.5; Vm.91.5; N.41.6; TS. 111.2.85;KS. V.2; MS.N.12.3.
165 Ch.U. W.24.2.