________________
STATE AND ADMINISTRATION
337
Succession: Somadeva states that a kingless country is better than one occupied by a foolish or uninstructed king. In the same tune he says that no prince should be installed as heir-apparent or successor, howsoever, he may be well born, unless he is otherwise qualified for the great trust.1
During our period this rule is maintained to some extent. We know from the Harşa-carita that Harşa was well qualified and was made king of Thāneswar; similarly the Paramāra Muñja, on account of the good qualities of his nephew, Bhoja, appointed him as his successor. Likewise, the Caulukya Durlabharāja installed his nephew Bhima I and he too installed his second son Karņa instead of his first son Kşemarāja. Kumārapāla is very well known to have won the throne due to his ability to become a good ruler.
Somadeva prescribes the following order regarding succession. After the death of the king, his sons have the royal right to inherit the throne; in the absence of them, the brothers, and then step-brothers, and thereafter uncles and then the members of the family. In the absence of all of them the daughter's son and then a qualified outsider may be regarded as successor.5 Thus we find that this rule was followed during our period. The history of the Cāhamānas of Sākambharī, Nadol and Jālor furnishes us with a number of instances.
The succession, however, in our period was mostly limited to the family and it was regarded as hereditary. The peculiar feature appears to be that there was no law of primogeniture to regulate succession. Thus the Caulukya Karņa succeeded his father when his elder brother was alive..
In the choice of a successor, sometimes the wish of departing king was respected. Thus, the Puratana-prabandha-sangraha states that, when Vīradhavala was dying, he expressed his desire to give the throne to his son Vīsaladeva and not to his brother Vīrama, for he feared that his father Lavanaprasāda might deprive his son of his right of succession to the throne.? Sometimes the question of succession was disputed and the choice fell against the wish of departing king. For this we have a glaring instance of Kumārapāla. It is said that Jayasimha Siddharāja was totally against Kumārapāla and he wanted even to kill him. But the choice was given to
1 Nitivā., P56. 2 Tilakamañjari, V. 43. 3 See supra, p. 241, Chap. on the Caulukyas. 4 See supra, p. 265. 5 Nitivă., p. 249: UTHIETATEA ETT atafala HYTTET TEYTTifa: ! & See supra, pp. 241-42. ? SJGM., II, p. 66.
43
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
