Public Administration in Ancient India c10.56

c10.56

It was the duty of the King always to act according to the rules laid down in the Sāstras, and in the practical application of these rules he had to follow the advice of the great Officers of State and, in cases of difficulty, to accept the guidance of the learned Brāhmanas. ³ The Aitareya Brāhmana prescribes the following oath for the King: "Whatever good I may have done (during my life), my position (in the next world), my life and my progeny be taken from me if I oppress you.”¹ The Mahābhārata tells the King: “Take the oath in mind, word and deed, namely, I shall always look to the welfare of the country regarding it as the Supreme Being. Whatever is law and whatever is prescribed by the rules of Ethics and Politics, I shall always abide by. I shall never be independent.”² “In governing his kingdom,” says Manu, “let him (i.e. the King) always observe the rules (vidhāna) : for a King who governs his kingdom well, easily prospers.”³ The Nitivākyāmrita is very emphatic as to the necessity of the King following the advice of his Ministers. It says: “He is not a King who acts without (or against) the advice of his Ministers.”⁴ The Sukranīti goes further in its condemnation of the independent action of a monarch when it remarks: “That King who does not listen to the advice of the Ministers is a robber (dasyu) in the disguise of a King, and is a thief (apahāraka) of the wealth of his subjects.”⁵ And it adds: “When the King acts independently (of his ministers) he brings ruin upon himself; he is deprived of his sovereignty and is turned out of the State.”¹ It should, however, be noted that in the latter part of the Hindu Period of Indian history, the power of the monarch was much greater than in the earlier, and that such increase of power did to some extent receive the sanction of the writers on Law and Politics; but at no time was the royal power, in theory at least, quite absolute. In practice, it is true, some Kings acted in an autocratic manner, but this must be regarded as a usurpation and abuse rather than a normal exercise of authority.