KAMLA NEHRU INSTITUTE

OF TECHNOLOGY

INDIAN TRADITION CULTURE AND SOCIETY

SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO

NAME : ADITYA KUMAR MAURYA MR. PRADEEP SIR

ROLL NO. : 19605

BRANCH : INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

KINGSHIP
The term kingship refers to a relatively complex and
hierarchical structure of society in which a central figure—
a king or, in certain cases, a queen—undertakes a
unifying role that acts as a value reference for the various
groups that constitute the society. Depending on whether
or not this function involves a direct exercise of political
power on the part of the person who is discharging it, the
king may be considered a monarch, and the kingship may
be identified as a monarchy, a word that technically may
mean only a particular form of government and nothing
else. That the two terms do not correspond is well
expressed by the saying that, in many cases, the king
"reigns but does not govern." It is also possible to govern
in an absolute fashion, as a monarch, by holding military
office or administering justice without being legitimately
entitled to do so. In such cases the one who governs does
so by relying almost entirely upon force, making the role of
engendering social cohesion difficult, which is the first duty
of a king.
On this basis, then, one can understand that the interest in
the subject shown by anthropologists and religious
historians stems from the fact that the word kingship refers
not only, and not so much, to a form of government but
also to a supposed quality belonging to the person who
embodies the king that sanctions his legitimacy—if not to
govern, then at least to reign. This quality has been given
various names, even in the Western tradition, such
as majesty or dignity —and the word kingship itself has
been used. It consists of precisely those attributes that
mark out the king as exceptional, that make him, in the
eyes of his subjects, a sacred person, a moral authority, a
common reference point because of his universal value,
with consequent displays of devotion and respect toward
his person and his family, ancestors included. The
analysis of this sacred role has had important
consequences for the broad understanding of power in
general. If it is indeed true that any form of power is still
considered sacred—inasmuch as it represents a kind of
transcendency, expressing a cultural method that
humankind has at its disposal by which it can escape from
the condition of contingency—it is also true that, in
acquiring such an awareness, which finds its most
extreme expression in the idea that political science is a
chapter in the comparative historical study of religion
thinking regarding the particular forms of power that
constitute kingship, typified by association with a detailed
set of rituals and a rich mythology, has played no small
part.

The king was the most important figure in the body politic.
In the Saptanga theory of the state, developed by Kautilya
the king has been described as the head or the most
important organ of the state.The king’s functions involved
the protection not only of his kingdom against external
aggression, but also of life, property and traditional custom
against internal foes .He protected the purity of class and
caste by ensuring that those who challenged the system
were excommunicated . He protected the family system by
punishing adultery and ensuring the fair inheritance of
family property. He protected widows and orphans by
making them his wards. He protected the rich against the
poor by suppressing robbery, and he protected the poor
against the rich by punishing extortion and oppression.
Religion was protected by liberal grants to learned
brahmins and temples and frequently to heterodox sects
also .The ideal set before the king was one of energetic
beneficence .The Arthashastra puts forward the kingly
duty in simple and forceful language, setting an ideal
which few ancient civilizations can boast of .The ideal
before the king in ancient India was that of being a
chakravarti meaning a king who ruled over the united vast
territory of the Indian subcontinent .With the Mauryas this
possibility was substantially realised, and was
incorporated into the Buddhist tradition and blended with
later Vedic imperialist ideas, then taken over by orthodox
Hinduism. The concept of the universal emperor was also
known to the Jainas, and in the epics numerous kings of
legend, such as Yudhisthira and Rama, are said to have
been digvijayins or conquerors of all the four quarters.The
universal emperor was a divinely ordained figure with a
special place in the cosmic scheme, and as such was
exalted to semi-divine status