Hindu Administrative Institutions c7.s2.t2.62

c7.s2.t2.62

The paternal conception of the king's duty that underlies these notions is said to point to royal absolutism. This is further explained: 'Just as children are solely dependent upon their parents who can do with them just what they like, the subjects were at the mercy of the king who was thus no better than a despot.' Surely we do not agree with the learned professor in his conclusion. In our own view the passages in question warrant a contrary conclusion altogether. They undoubtedly refer to the great interest which the Mauryan monarchs displayed in governing their kingdoms. Rather they perfectly understood and realized the true conception of duty that devolved on them as the accredited guardians of the land. To compare the conduct of parents towards children as in any manner tyrannical or despotic is to disregard all the joy and peace of the family life which one ordinarily expects in the course of a normal life. We regret to say that Dr. Bhandarkar is just begging the question and spins out a theory on a mere analogy. It is commonly conceded that Chandragupta carried on the government under the regulations laid down by Kauṭalya. If the position of Dr. Bhandarkar were admitted Kauṭalya must have commended autocracy. As a matter of fact Kauṭalya is a great teacher of political morality. He has not sacrificed principles to gain his objects. He is a follower of the established schools of law. What he has preached is only the *svadharma* of the Kṣatriya which could not be put to the test of modern ethical and moral standards. In judging a question which belongs to nearly twenty-three centuries ago we must take into consideration the practices and convictions that guided the people of those days. Again in India everything was *dharma*—moral and legal—provided it had the authority of either the Vedas or the Smṛtis—the latter being merely commentaries on the Vedas.