Guess about the different criteria suggested for becoming king by the ancient Indians scholars. Within these how important do you think was birth in a particular family? Which of these criteria seem justified? Are there any that strike you as unjust?
let us look at the criteria.
1. Birth in the Kshatriya family- most important criteria was bring born in the kshatriya family because then only you have legitimate right to become king.
2. Being the son and eldest of all- Another criteria is being born as a son, women were never looked as a contender for thrones. And you should be the eldest because according to Manusmriti it was the eldest that got the throne.
3. Son should be without defects- For example in th epic of mahabharata we find that Pandu, the father of five pandavas was not the eldest son instead the father of kauravas was the one but being blind the throne went to Pandu.
Among the three, I agree with the idea that king should be without defects because that can hamper the administration of the empire. Otherwise rest I find it unjust.
The idea of choosing kings according to the caste system negates the idea that there can be people better suited then them, it narrows the choice to only a small section of groups and moreover choosing of son as a king, it also restricts the contender of thrones to only one section of the sex. The throne should be open to all, it should be for the one who is most capable.