Monarchy in ancient India

[1] Monarchy in ancient India was ruled by a King who functioned as its protector, a role which involved both secular and religious power.

Legends abound as to which of the gods won this position;[3] In the Ṛg Veda, Indra, Agni, Soma, Yama, and Varuṇa are all addressed as "King."

[6] Also by this time, kingship had transitioned to a hereditary position and the samiti began to wane in importance.

In order for the communal dharma to be achieved, the Brahmin had to correctly “instruct the others in their duties” and guide their spiritual practice; the Ksatriya, on the other hand, was invested with the “royal function” of maintaining obedience in accordance with dharma and thus ensuring that the proper practices were being executed.

[9] This coincided with the development of the doctrine of the soul’s rebirth and potential release moksha from the cycle of continual rebirths known as samsara as exemplified by stories predating some of the popular epics, such as the story of Vidula in which the warrior is emotionally roused to fulfill his duties as a warrior in the face of unpleasant adversity.

As mentioned above, the best examples of this kind of detached devotion to duty by a king are seen in the epics of the Bhagavad Gita and the Ramayana.

In Manu 7.4, the king is said to be made out of divine particles of several gods, including Yama, Indra, Varuṇa, and Kubera.

Nārada 18.49-50 echoes this sentiment, saying that the king's divinity is apparent in the force of his decrees: his words are law as soon as he utters them.

This is in contrast to earlier Dharmasūtra texts, which seem to stress the king's subordinate status in comparison to Brahmins and make no mention of his divinity.

[13] The Dharmasūtras and Dharmaśāstras agree that it is the special duty of the king to protect, to punish, and to preserve dharma for those in his kingdom.

At Manu 7.2, it is stated that the Self-existent Lord created the king to restore order to the chaotic world which had existed without him.

The weak and helpless (i.e. widows, children, the mentally ill, the destitute) were to receive royal protection.

His edicts are powerful only in that they are in accordance with the Law; his legal decisions should be based on what is stated in the śāstras alone, not on his own will and authority.

[17] The Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra, for example, is explicit that Brahmins will state what is dharma for the three varṇas, and the king will govern accordingly (1.39-41).

So, in contrast to Manu 7.28-31, 8.44-45 in the same text states that the king should rely on his own powers of deduction in the administration of justice.

But by the time of the Nāradasmṛti, royal decree had been placed above all other sources of law as the most powerful, abrogating all the rest.

For example, within the matter of spiritual salvation (i.e. moksa), the king played no direct role at all; it is not his responsibility to "propound any superstitious idea, to lay down any part of righteousness," or to help define "what is or is not religion" nor determine its practice.

Manu 7.54 advises the king to choose seven or eight counselors who are learned and of noble birth, without specifically defining their vaṛṇa.

Lower officials (amātyas) should be assigned to duties based on their personal attributes, including honesty, intelligence, and cleverness.

[24] Manu follows Kauṭilya in saying that envoys (dūta) should be chosen based on cleverness and the ability to decipher hints and gestures, i.e., to read a rival king's appearance for clues as to his intentions and general disposition.

The importance of the role of the envoy can be seen in Yājñavalkya 13.328, where an involved set of preparations in made for both the dispatching and return of the dūta, including the meeting of the king with all his ministers.

[32] This had religious as well as strictly legal implications; according to Nārada Mātṛkā 1.65, a king who follows proper procedure in hearing lawsuits is ensured fame in this world and heaven in the afterlife.

[33] This contradicts with Manu 8.2, which states that the king's clothing during his daily hearing of court case should be modest.

[34] Manu 8.62-72 distinguishes who the king may or may not have questioned as a witness in connection with a trial; a greatly expanded list is given at Nārada 1.159.

[48] Duties placed on goods imported from foreign lands, produced in country parts and within the city.

The other taxes placed on special goods such as jewels, land auctions and immovable objects.

Also one day of each month, each person, including Brahmins, had to work solely for the king, called Visti.

Royal inscription extolling the conquests of Badami Chalukya King Pulakeshin II dated to 634 CE
A facsimile of an inscription in Oriya script on a copper plate recording a land grant made by Rāja Purushottam Deb, king of Orissa , in the fifth year of his reign (1483). Land grants made by royal decree were protected by law, with deeds often being recorded on metal plates