Nature of Kinship

The kingship was being elevated to the level of divine descent. Through the agency of ritual with the help of purohit, the favour of the gods was assured to the king and as such, an amount of sanctity was attached to his duties and functions. A concept of a King of kings was also forming. Most of the later Vedic literature used expressions like adhiraj, rajadhiraja, samrat, and ekrat for powerful kings.[6] The Atharvaveda defines the ekrat to be the paramount sovereign. There were also particular rites for anointing rulers, such as the Vajpeya, Rajsuya, and Ashvamedha.[7]

Despite the monarchy being founded on solid ground, it was not absolute and was constrained in various ways. Rituals only safeguarded their position and did not confer government according to will. The king never became superior to law, and in the small states of those days, public opinion expressed itself freely. Tyranny or arbitrary conduct made the king lose sympathy and ultimately the allegiance of his assemblies and people. Despite the fact that the power of the old assemblies of the time of Rig Veda was made limited, nevertheless, within the framework of kingship, there were operating certain democratic elements. Numerous references in Brahmanas texts and epics of the deposition of a prince or king on the ground of their incapability to rule are found.[8] For instance, Satapata Brahmana (12-9-3-1 and 13) gives historical details of the later Vedic King, Srnjaya Dustaritu Paumsayan who inherited the kingdom through ten continuous generations but was expelled from his ancestral domain.[9]

Various Types of States

The notion of a rashtra or a territorial state gradually evolved in the later Vedic period. The emperor is frequently described in Brahmana literature as the ruler of the entire world bordered by the sea, rather than of all the tribes of the earlier times. It is obvious that at this point (around 1000 BCE) the notion of a territorial state had fully developed. From the evidence of the Aitareya passage as well as from the Brahmanic ritualistic literature, we hear of many types of sovereign authorities or States. Aitareya Brahmana mentions terms for the state such as Rajya, Vairajya, Bhaujya, Svarajya, and Samrajya flourishing in different regions of the country.[10] In the South, the rulers of the Satvatas called themselves Bhojas or Enjoyer-Protectors, while in the West, the chiefs and rulers styled themselves Svarat. Lastly, in the extreme northern region beyond the mountains, the people (Janapadah) consecrated themselves into Vairajua sovereignty.[11]

Probably the term Rajya denoted a smaller but independent kingdom. Vairajya means a republic or a state which had no king. People in the vicinity of the Himalayas like the Uttarkurus and Uttaramadras have a Virat (kingless) type of State and thus called Vairajya. This interpretation of Vairajya is significant in as much as it shows that republican states existed in the extreme northern fringe. Another important state was Svarajya which probably meant the dignity of a Svarat. A prince was a Svarat, when he depended on nobody else. When it came to exercising his ruling authority, he was either self-continent or an autocrat. This form of government prevailed among the Apachyas and Nicyas where oligarchic principles long survived. A Svarat ruler was the first among equals and the evidence of the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa confirms it.[12]

Samrajya was a higher type of ruling authority and it was in this type of state where Samrat emerged. Later Vedic texts and great epics states that a prince became Samrat if he was fully obeyed by all princes and people within his territorial jurisdiction. Samrajya, later on, came to signify an imperial overlordship, especially in the East and the evidence from the Mahabharata suggests that they held the highest level of sovereign authority.[13]

Bhaujya signified the dignity of a Bhoja or a ruler (enjoyer — from an ancient root Bhuj originally meaning enjoyment, but later on coming to signify ruling authority) or Protector. The Bhojas were likely the southern elite who had established themselves over a subject populace from which they extracted taxes and tributes in earlier times. Later evidence provides support for this interpretation. The Yadava princes of the epics assumed this title and one of the branches of the Yadavas was known as the Bhojas. Later evidence shows the existence of the Bhojas in the locality of Kathiawar-Gujarat in the third century BCE.[14]

In the later Vedic period, composite and confederate states also existed, consisting of two or more states but ruled by a common king. However, sufficient information is not available about the functioning of these states. Probably the jurisdiction of the central government of the confederate states was confined only to foreign policy and the declaration and prosecution of the war. Otherwise, each state retained its sovereignty. The general for the joint army in a particular campaign was elected by the confederate states.[15]

Administrative Officials

The frequent mention of a growing body of royal officials indicates the evolution of the administrative system during this period. The Yajurveda Samhitas and Brahmanas literature mention several elite officials known as ratnins (jewels). Taittiriya texts also listed several others who were not merely courtiers but also public functionaries, and this gives us a general idea of the various administrative departments. The ratnins formed part of the king’s council. Ratnins had a rather high status. The monarch had to go to their residence to perform ratnin oblation at the vajapeya sacrifice.[16] Ratnins were most likely royal relatives, ministers, department heads, and courtiers. The chief supporters or defenders of the king (Viras) included his queen, son, brother, the Purohita (the royal chaplain), the Suta (commander of the royal army’s chariot corps), the Gramini (most prominent among the village headmen chosen to serve on the Ratnins’ council), the kshatrii, and the Samgrahitri (treasurer). Department heads such as Senani (commander in chief), Gramani (village headman), Sangrahita (treasurer), Bhagadhuk (tax collector or finance minister), Kshatta (royal Chamberlain), Akshavapa (king’s companion at the game table), Palagala (king’s messenger) was also established. Further, other ratnins included Govikartana (some senior official associated with the royal store of cattle), Taksha (carpenter), and Rathakara (chariot builder). The kings had dutas to facilitate communication between different states.[17] Among the ratnins were the crowned queen and the favourite queen. This shows that queens in the Vedic period were more than just consorts of rulers; and had a role in governance too. Where Sangrihitri as treasurer of taxes, and Bhagadugha as tax collectors were important officials.18 Here is the list of Ratnis and some other officials of the king:

  • Kulapati – Head of the family
  • Gramani – Head of the Village
  • Senani – Commander of the army
  • Madhyamasi – Mediator of disputes
  • Purohita – Chief Priest
  • Spasas – Spies/messengers
  • Vrajapati – Officer of pastures
  • Bhagadugha – Collector of Revenue
  • Jivagribha – Police officer
  • Mahishi – Chief queen
  • Akshavapa – Accountant
  • Suta – Charioteer
  • Athapati – Chief judge
  • Sangrihitri – Treasurer
  • Kshatri – Chamberian
  • Takshan – Carpenter
  • Palagala – Messenger
  • Govinkartana – Keeper of forests and games[19]

The presence of Purohita is indispensable in an age that believed that the victories on the battlefield depended mainly upon the favour of gods to be secured through proper sacrifices. The installation or exercise of regal authority of the king came to be associated with sacrifices and ceremonial that purohita used to perform for the king. The sacrifices and ceremonial that added prestige to the sovereignty of the ruler were Abhiseka, Rajsurya, and Asvamedha. These complicated ceremonies were a compound of religious rites with social and political functions. However, the Purohita was not a mere priest. He represented moral authority and was an adviser on important affairs of the State. He seems to have accompanied the king in battle on his chariot and it was he who on behalf of the common people administered the oath in the coronation of the king.[20]

The Senani, among all the officers under the king, played an important role. He discharged civil functions at times of peace and organized the army at the time of war. Mention of an official named Sangrahita who was the custodian of the moneys of the State is also found in the records. He received into the treasury the King’s revenues and had custody of the precious metals, and jewelry.[21]

Then we have Bhagadugha who collected taxes from the people for the service of the king. Bali and Bhaga emerged as regular tributes and taxes in this period. Gramani was the main channel of royal authority, being entrusted with local administration; but his powers were probably more civil than military. Sthapati seems to be a chief judge.[22] References to a large body of royal officials indicate the development of an administrative organization in this period. These officials who were not merely courtiers but also public functionaries suggest that there existed various administrative departments.

The Assemblies in Later Vedic Period

The popular assemblies of the early Vedic period, Sabha and Samiti continued to hold the ground in the later Vedic period but their character changed.[23] Their continuous existence is attested by the Atharva Veda and also by the Chandogya Upanishad (c. 800 BCE), which nearly marks the end of the later Vedic period. As mentioned, under no circumstances was the king considered the sole owner of the kingdom with absolute power over the subjects. The monarch was supposed to be a trustee, and the kingdom was to be a trust. The condition of his holding was, "the promotion of the people’s wellbeing and progress". The sabha and samiti which played an important role in the administration since the time of Rig Veda also check the king to become a despot. The sabha served as a parliament for the conduct of public matters through debate and discussion.[24] The chief of the sabha was called sabhapati, the keepers as sabhapala and the members as sabheya, sabhasad, or sabhasina. The discussion in sabha was governed by norms, and erring members were 'rebuked,' according to Vajsaneyi Samhita.

Sabha appears to have also served as a court of justice as well. It is said that "one who attends the sabha sits as a law court to dispense dharma Justice".[25] We gather this indirectly from the fact of the times. Sabhacara is dedicated to Justice (Dharma) in the Yajur Veda.  Many references where the term sabha is used to denote a law court and the word sabhasad denotes a member of the assembly who met for justice as well as for general discussion on public matters are found.[26] However, owing to the influence of the new ideas and the preponderance of ritualism in this age, popular election and acceptance took a new form. Sabha and samiti become part and parcel of the ceremony of inauguration. Importantly, in the later Vedic period, Vidatha lost its importance and no longer functioned.

Law and Legal Institutions

According to the Salapatha Brahmana (V. 4. 4. 7), the monarch used the rod of punishment called Danda but was exempt from its effects. He usually seems to have carried out the criminal justice personally. Assessors may have helped him, but it is not certain. In any case, the king might have appointed a royal official to act in his place while he was away because the Kathaka Samhita refers to the Rajanya as an overseer (adhyaksha). The Gramyavadin, or "village judge," appears to have been in charge of handling minor offenses in the community. The record of lengthy arguments about a case where a child is accidently run over and murdered by the king driving in a chariot shows that the sense of justice was high. The Ikshvakus, who determined that expiation was required, were asked to arbitrate the case. The Chhandogya Upanishad (VI. 16.1-2), while explaining how "Truth has the power of saving a man even from death," says:

"When an alleged thief is brought handcuffed to the place of trial he is asked to catch hold of a heated axe. If he has not committed the theft, he covers himself with the glory of truth, does not burn his fingers, and is set free as an innocent person, but if he is guilty he is burnt on the spot."[27]

As regards civil procedure, voluntary arbitration appears to be the earlier form of judicial procedure, in which the plaintiff (prasnin), the defendant (abhi-prasnin), and the arbitrator or judge (prasna-vivdka) figured, as the three appear in the list of victims at the Purushamedha in the Vajasaneyi Samhita. The jnatri is very probably a technical legal term for a witness in civil transactions. We also find discussion on the legal aspect of the question of the ownership of the land vis-a-vis the king, in the texts of this age.[28]

Satapatha Brahmana (VII. I. I, 8) tells us that the Kshatriya gives a settlement to a man with the consent of the people, implying that the king not only distribute land after consulting popular assemblies but also that separate holdings existed during later Vedic period. It appears that throughout this time, the idea of absolute royal ownership of all land did not develop. Land grants merely suggest a transfer of revenue-related advantages, not ownership. Similarly, when the king granted to his favourites his royal prerogatives over villages, the "grant" is to be understood as the transfer of privileges in fiscal matters. That a gift of land in the sense of "the conferring of ownership" was looked upon as unconstitutional may be inferred from a story in the Satapatha (XIII. 7.1-15) and Aitareya (VIII. 21. 8) Brahmana.[29]

Share


Know the Sources +