State and Government in Ancient India c12.s4.14

c12.s4.14

Thus the *Mahābhārata*¹ (XII. 67. 40 ff.), the *Nāradasmṛiti* (XVII. 26 ff.), the *Śukranīti* (I. 73 ff.), the *Matsya* (ch. 22), the *Mārkaṇḍeya* (27. 21. ff.), the *Agni* (225. 16), the *Padma* (I. 30. 45 ff.) and the *Bṛihaddharma* (Uttarakhanda, 3. 8) *Purāṇas* point out how the king resembles god Fire, because he burns the wicked by his power, the god Sun because he sees every thing through his spies the god Yama because he metes out just punishment, the god Kubera, because he showers wealth on the deserving, and so on.¹ The majority view thus points only to the functional resemblance between the king on the one side and the various divinities on the other. It does not say that the *king is himself a god*, but observes that *his functions are similar to those of some gods*. Most Hindu writers have thus advocated the divinity, not of the person of the king but of his office, because of the resemblance between his functions and those of some deities. *Varṇāśrama-dharma* which the king was expected to enforce was also regarded as divine and it was probably felt that the theory of the divinity of king would enable him to discharge this duty better. It was felt that the king's status would become higher and the tendency to obey the state's orders stronger, if its head was represented as divine. But when the question of the duties and responsibilities of the king was at issue, his divinity did not afford him any immunity or privilege. If he was bad in character and remiss in performing his duties, he became demoniac and not divine.