Social and Rural Economy of Northern India, cir. 600 B.C.–200 A.D. v1.c16.61

v1.c16.61

The origin of the idea of king's responsibility is in the conception that rain is produced by sacrifice (Yajñād bhavati parjanyo, Mbh. VI. 27. 14). The king protects sacrifices, sacrifices please gods and the gods give rain (I. 41. 29f, VII. 55.42). Hence there are no rains and no harvests in a kingdom without king (I.105.44; Rām.II. 67. 9) or with an absentee king (Mbh. I. 175. 38ff) or of which the king violates the code of piety (III. 110) even to the extent of delivering a refugee to a foe (V. 12.19). It is however not always merely sacrifices and abstract piety but good administration in the concrete manifested in benevolent and non-partisan administration, protection from internal pests and foreign foes, irrigation works and judicious revenue policy that act as safety valve against famine and its precursors (II. 13. 12, 33.5). This realistic notion is implied in the grouping of famine and pestilence with robbers who make favourite haunts of misgoverned kingdoms (VII. 95.25). At any rate the association of sovereign responsibility with public calamities had a firm and ubiquitous hold on popular mind¹ so that it was high tribute to a king’s administrative ability and a token of divine favour on him to affirm that in his reign there was no famine.