State and Government in Ancient India c9.28

c9.28

Like most of the ancient Indian thinkers, Hobbes held that there was a state of anarchy in the beginning, the hand of each being against all. Tired of this state, people eventually agreed to surrender part of their rights to the sovereign. It was not, however, a contract between the sovereign on one side and the people on the other. It was merely an agreement among the people, which imposed no obligation upon the sovereign, who however got unlimited and irrevocable rights under it. Hindu writers also, like Hobbes, have presupposed a contract, which eventually put an end to the law of the jungle; but it was not a contract which imposed obligations only on the people. The first king Virajas got no unlimited rights under it; his powers were restricted by the Code of Law prepared by Brahmadeva for him. The same was the case with his son Kardama and grandson Anaṅga. The latter’s son Vena was a tyrant, but the sages destroyed him by their supernatural powers. Vena’s son Pṛithu was however brave and law-abiding and he willingly took the vow to rule righteously, as required by the sages. It would be thus seen that the king who came into power after the agreement among the people and at the intervention of divine power, was far from being a law unto himself, as was the case with the king as conceived by Hobbes.