HistoriCity: Indian history rife with games of succession rivalries

THe smooth out ecological succession of DK Shivakumar to the carry of chief government minister of mysore, one of the richest states in the country, has turned out to be smooth for the Congress party.In West Bengal, after its rout by the saffron party, the Trinamool Congress is facing an implosion where its founder Mamata Bannerjee’s widely expected plan to have her nephew succeed her has been thwarted by a rebellion of 3/4th of eighty MLAs.Though in elected-democracies transfer of power ought to be transparent, through elections and consensus, this is a modern idea.While evidence shows that clan-based kingdoms existed in the Indian subcontinent during the early 1st millennium BCE and decided on state matters through consultative and participatory assemblies, it was not even remotely akin to a modern democratic system.The clans themselves were non-egalitarian and decision-making was limited to a select group of elite families. By the time of emperor Ashoka Maurya in the 3rd century BCE, succession to kingship came to be regarded as a lineage-based right, which meant that power remained within the family and dynastic rule became accepted. The power to anoint kings as well as to remove them remained with the priestly Brahmin who along with the Kshatriya constituted a duopoly.Succession is one of the moist important themes in both Mahabharata and Ramayana. As depicted in the epic, Rama being the first-born of king Dashratha was the legitimate heir to the throne of Ayodhya, but was not allowed to become king.This system of primogeniture where the eldest son is the designated king simplified the process of succession and sought to ensure a bloodless transfer of power which was good for the kingdom, and benefitted the ruling dynasty across Europe, East Asia and India among other regions.Romila Thapar writes in From Lineage to State: Social Formations of the Mid-First Millennium BC in the Ganga Valley, “With the gradual concentration of power in the families of chiefs, there followed other changes which were eventually to move in the direction of encouraging the emergence of kingship. It is not easy to locate the point of change but the tendencies were clear. Election and selection was superseded by attempts at hereditary claims as s evident from the genealogies… the gradual emphasis on primogeniture safeguarded succession within the lineage”.Also Read:HistoryCity | Tamil Nadu’s Christian roots are two millennia oldPrimogeniture reduced regicide or the killing of the king or queen to a great extent, but it was not always able to prevent bloodshed. Despite special training and a long process of grooming the eldest prince, he could prove to be incompetent or even if deserving of the throne, envious siblings often plotted to usurp the throne.At times when the king died leaving behind a minor prince too young to become king, a regent was appointed, however, this alternative was also vulnerable to the same pressures and pulls of power, leading to ugly wars of succession.The Vijayanagara kingdom (14th-17th CE), which ruled large parts of present-day south India faced exactly this scenario in 1542-43 after the death of king Achyut Deva Rai who left behind his minor son Venkata I.There are different accounts and it is difficult to accurately establish the cast of characters and their precise roles but it is clear that a maternal uncle of Venkata I is believed to have assassinated him and took over the throne briefly before a confederacy of nobles led by Rama Rai, the son in law of the great king Krishna Deva Rai, cornered the uncle and killed him in battle.After this, Sada Siva Rai, a nephew of Achut Deva Rai was appointed 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 gave up on the plan after realising that Adil Shah could take over the kingdom itself.This civil war shook the foundations of the already crumbling kingdom. Sada Shiva Rai turned out to be the last king (1543-1570 CE), Rama Rai’s strategy of playing one rival kingdom against another did not provide sustainability.The 300-year-old Vijayanagar rule came to an end when its much larger but poorly trained and organised army was defeated by a union of Deccan kingdoms at the Battle of Talikota (Tangadi) in 1565.The Mughals, who had a Turkic-Timurid lineage of the Central Asian Steppe followed the coparcenary system of succession, which in contrast to primogeniture, divided the kingdom equally among all sons, each of whom was eligible to claim the throne. Therefore, the Persian quip, ‘Takht ya Takhta’ (Throne or funeral bier), became the adage for Mughals and before them the Ottomans, for example, and fratricide became an acceptable custom.Two great examples of succession woes during the Mughal rule are indicative of how things could go extremely wrong in this system. At the age of thirteen Akbar inherited an insecure and wobbly throne after the untimely death of his father Humayun in a domestic accident in 1530.He successfully warded off threats from his uncles, cousins and a half-brother with the help of loyal aides and strategic alliances with Rajput kingdoms. But when it came to passing the royal baton he, the great king of Hindustan, found himself faced with only bad choices. All three sons Salim, Daniyal and Murad, couldn’t cope with the pressure of ‘takh ya taboot’ (throne or coffin), another version of the adage ‘takht ya takhta’, and turned into alcoholics and died.In Akbar’s view Salim was not fit to be king and therefore he started grooming and training his grandson Khusrau for the throne. However, Salim (later Jahangir) finally prevailed after ugly and almostbloody showdowns with his father and became emperor in 1605, recording in Jahangirnama, “by the grace of the Almighty, the throne which from the beginning had been destined for me came to me without strife”. It was not completely strife-free as Jahangir blinded his own son Khusrau for coveting the throne, but did spare his life.Jahangir’s son Khurram (later Shah Jahan) too rebelled against his father and had to take his father-in-law’s help to acquire the throne in 1628, after which he executed other male rivals such as Shahryar, son of Nur Jahan, Shah Jahan’s favourite consort.Shah Jahan’s own example remains the most remembered succession saga during 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 the other children from an early age.In fact, the 1657 Mughal war of succession proved to be a turning point in the empire’s history. Khadija Tauseef writes in “Brothers at War: How Mughal Inheritance Shaped a Dynasty’s Destruction”, “Shah Jahan had long intended for Dara to succeed him, showering him with honours and entrusting him with state affairs, yet he never formally proclaimed him heir apparent.Also Read: HistoriCity | Colonial lens to Republic’s viewfinder: Evolution of photography in IndiaHis other sons, posted as governors in distant provinces, Shuja in Bengal, Murad in Gujarat, and Aurangzeb in the Deccan, saw both their exclusion from court and their father’s silence as an opportunity. Each believed he might still win imperial favour by force.”After Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, it precipitated long dormant ill-will between the brothers to come to fore. His two daughters Jahanara and Roshanara too sided with the Dara and Aurangzeb, the two main rivals, and soon all six siblings were embroiled in a deadly civil war.Khadeeja writes, “the War of Succession moved fast and showed no mercy. Shuja and Murad barely put up a fight before being pushed aside. Dara had the imperial army and his father’s support, but that didn’t save him. He went up against battle-hardened Aurangzeb, whose soldiers didn’t flinch. In the end, Dara’s poor choices and unreliable friends brought him down. Aurangzeb took the throne, as fate had picked him out from the start”.Author Valay Singh’s HistoriCity is a column about a city in the news based on its documented history, mythology, and archaeological digs. The views expressed are personal.