State and Government in Ancient India c12.s4.21

c12.s4.21

The view of Blackstone that the king is not only incapable of doing wrong but also of thinking wrong was clearly not subscribed to by the ancient Indian thinkers. As a matter of fact they regarded him as more exposed to errors and temptations than ordinary human beings. Nor was king’s divinity construed as necessitating passive obedience even to wicked kings. Bishop Bossuet contended that open impiety on the part of a prince did not exempt the subjects from the obedience which they owe to him; Calvin held that kings, unworthy of honour, must nevertheless receive most respectful submission. Ancient Indian thinkers did not usually subscribe to such views; they were not even prepared to recognise the divinity of unworthy kings. They have bluntly described them as demoniac and have permitted their subjects to rebel openly against them, as will be presently shown. The view of James I that the wickedness of a king can never make subjects that are ordained to be judged by him, to become his judges, was not acceptable to ancient India. It will be thus seen that Willioughby’s observation that ‘in all the vast Asiatic monarchies of the early days, the rulers claimed a divine right to control the affairs of the state and this was submitted to by people with but little question,' does not hold good of ancient India.¹