D K Shivakumar’s smooth succession as Chief Minister of Karnataka, one of the richest states in the country, has turned out to be smooth for the Congress party.
In West Bengal, after its defeat by the saffron party, the Trinamool Congress is facing implosion as its founder Mamata Banerjee’s widely expected plan to succeed her nephew is thwarted by a rebellion by 3/4 of its eighty MLAs.
Although the transfer of power in elected democracies must be transparent, through elections and consensus, this is a modern idea.
While evidence suggests that clan-based kingdoms existed in the Indian subcontinent during the early first millennium BC, and made decisions on affairs of state through advisory and participatory assemblies, they were not even remotely close to a modern democratic system.
The clans themselves were unequal and decision-making was limited to a select group of elite families. By the time of Emperor Ashoka Maurya in the 3rd century BC, royal succession came to be considered a lineage-based right, meaning that power remained within the family and dynastic rule became accepted. The power to anoint and remove kings remained in the hands of the priestly Brahmins who, with the Kshatriyas, formed a duopoly.
Succession is one of the important themes in both the Mahabharata and Ramayana. As described in the epic, Rama was the eldest son of King Dashratha, and was the rightful heir to the throne of Ayodhya, but was not allowed to become king.
This system of primogeniture, where the eldest son was the designated king, simplified the succession process and sought to ensure a bloodless transition of power which was beneficial to the kingdom, and benefited dynasties throughout Europe, East Asia, and India among other regions.
Romila Thapar writes in her book From Lineage to State: Social Formations of the Mid-First Millennium BCE in the Ganges Valley, “With the gradual concentration of power in the families of the chiefs, other changes followed that were eventually moving in the direction of encouraging the emergence of monarchy. It is not easy to pinpoint the point of change but the trends were clear. Election and selection were replaced by attempts at hereditary claims as is evident from genealogies… A gradual emphasis on primogeniture protected succession within a lineage.”
Read also:City of History | Tamil Nadu’s Christian roots go back two thousand years
Primogeniture greatly reduced regicide or the killing of a king or queen, but it was not always able to prevent bloodshed. Despite the special training and long process of preparing the Grand Prince, he may prove to be incompetent or even if he is worthy of the throne, envious siblings often plot to usurp the throne.
Sometimes, when a king died leaving behind a minor prince too young to become king, a regent was appointed, however, this replacement was also vulnerable to the same pressures and withdrawal of power, leading to ugly succession wars.
The Vijayanagara Kingdom (14th to 17th centuries AD), which ruled large parts of present-day southern India, faced exactly this scenario in 1542–43 after the death of King Achyut Deva Rai, who left behind his young son Venkata I.
There are varying accounts and it is difficult to determine the exact cast of characters and their specific roles but it is clear that Venkata I’s uncle is believed to have assassinated him and briefly seized the throne before a confederation of nobles led by Rama Rai, son-in-law of the great king Krishna Deva Rai, besieged the uncle and killed him in battle.
Subsequently, Sada Siva Rai, Ashot Deva Rai’s nephew, was made king, but Rama Rai remained the de facto ruler of Bijapur. According to other accounts, Sultan Ibrahim Adil Shah of Bijapur was invited by the usurping uncle to help him retain control but abandoned the plan after realizing that Adil Shah could seize the kingdom itself.
This civil war shook the already crumbling foundations of the kingdom. Sada Shiva Rai turned out to be the last king (1543-1570 AD), and Rama Rai’s strategy of playing one rival kingdom against another did not provide sustainability.
The 300-year rule of Vijayanagar ended when its larger, poorly trained and organized army was defeated by the Deccan confederation at the Battle of Talikota (Tangadi) in 1565.
The Mongols, who had a Turkic-Timurid dynasty from the steppes of Central Asia, followed a system of joint succession, which, in contrast to primogeniture, divided the kingdom equally among all sons, each of whom was eligible to claim the throne. Therefore, the sarcastic Persian saying “takht ya takhta” (funeral throne or casket) became the saying by the Mongols and before them the Ottomans, for example, and fratricide became an accepted custom.
Two great examples of succession problems during Mughal rule indicate how things could go very wrong in this system. At the age of thirteen, Akbar inherited a shaky and insecure throne after his father Humayun’s sudden death in a domestic accident in 1530.
He successfully warded off threats from his uncles, cousins and half-brother with the help of loyal lieutenants and strategic alliances with Rajput kingdoms. But when it came to handing over the royal banner, the great king of Hindustan found himself faced with only bad choices. The three sons, Selim, Daniel and Murad, could not withstand the pressure of “takht ya taboot” (throne or coffin), another version of the old saying “takht ya takht”, and they turned into alcoholics and died.
From Akbar’s point of view, Salim was not fit to be king and so he began preparing and training his grandson Khusraw for the throne. However, Salim (later Jahangir) finally prevailed after an ugly and almost complete defeat
He had bloody confrontations with his father and became emperor in 1605, recording in the Jahangirnama, “By the grace of God Almighty, the throne which was intended for me from the beginning came to me without strife.” It was not entirely without conflict as Jahangir blinded his son Khusrau due to his greed for the throne, but he saved his life.
Jahangir’s son Khurram (later Shah Jahan) also rebelled against his father and had to enlist the help of his father-in-law to gain the throne in 1628, after which he executed other male rivals such as Shahrayar, the son of Nur Jahan, Shah Jahan’s favorite wife.
Shah Jahan’s example remains the most remembered succession saga, in which his four sons – Dara Shikoh (his favourite), Murad, Shuja, and Aurangzeb – turned against each other like enemies and almost brought the empire to the brink of collapse. As in many families, Shah Jahan’s open devotion to his daughter Jahanara and Dara alienated other children from an early age.
In fact, the War of the Mongol Succession of 1657 proved to be a turning point in the empire’s history. “Shah Jahan had long intended for Dara to succeed him, showering him with honors and entrusting him with affairs of state, but never formally declared him heir apparent,” Khadija Tauseef wrote in “Brothers at War: How the Mughal Inheritance Shaped the Destruction of the Dynasty.”
Read also: History City | Colonial Lens to Republic Camera Lens: The Evolution of Photography in India
His other sons, who were appointed as governors in distant provinces – Shuja in Bengal, Murad in Gujarat, and Aurangzeb in the Deccan – saw their exclusion from the court and their father’s silence as an opportunity. Each of them believed that they could still gain imperial support by force.
After Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, the long-latent ill will between the brothers came to the fore. His daughters Jahanara and Roshanara also sided with Dara and Aurangzeb, the main rivals, and soon all six of his brothers were embroiled in a deadly civil war.
Khadija wrote: “The war of succession moved quickly and showed no mercy. Shuja and Murad barely put up a fight before they were cast aside. Dara had the imperial army and his father’s support, but that did not save him. He went up against Aurangzeb was hardened in battle, and his soldiers did not back down. In the end, Dara’s poor choices and his unreliable friends bring him down. Aurangzeb took the throne because fate chose him from the beginning.”
HistoriCity by Valay Singh is a column about a city in the news based on its documented history, legends and archaeological excavations. The opinions expressed are personal.
