Hindu Administrative Institutions c5.22

c5.22

Therefore the king and his agents who carried on the government were as much subject to the law as the subjects themselves. The king could not change the law in his own favour except to the extent that an administrator of the law could introduce changes in administering law. This absence of legislative power in the administration takes away one important influence that had a tendency to make the ruler degenerate into an autocrat. Next, the ruler was placed in a way above the life of society and therefore out of the struggles of self-interest for appropriating that which is worthy of appropriation. Being assured of fair means and not being thrown into the current of ordinary life, the administrative head could hold the balance even as between the various groups composing society under his rule. Thirdly, he was constantly reminded that the welfare of society over which he was placed, is his own welfare and unhappiness of those under his care was the surest way of ensuring his unhappiness here and eternal suffering hereafter, popular ill-will in the world here below and the reward of playing false with a trust in the life to come. Law-giver after law-giver went on emphasizing this and placing it prominently before him. The term Raja, by which the ruler was generally known, was interpreted as one whose function was to please the people, ‘Rāja prakriti ranjanāt’, so that it became almost a habit with him to feel, in the language of Queen Victoria.—‘ In their prosperity will be our strength, in their contentment our security, and in their gratitude our best reward.’ The same idea occurs in such distinct works as the *Vishnu Samhita* and the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya.