Hindu Administrative Institutions c7.s2.t2.72

c7.s2.t2.72

This means Kauṭalya had heard of cases wherein kings had fallen victims to the people’s outburst of anger. In the light of these observations if one could compare the interpretation given to the term despotism or absolutism in modern political parlance, ‘what is meant by calling him (a monarch) “absolute” is that there is no established constitutional authority—no human authority that his subjects habitually obey as much as they obey him—which can legitimately resist him or call him to account’,² there need be no hesitation in accepting that the democratic principle of the welfare of the people underlay obviously the monarchical governments of ancient India. The fact was that kingship was a sacred trust and the king existed for the welfare of his subjects and not they for his welfare. The king-in-council must promote interests tending to the common good of the community.¹ The sacredness of the mutual trust led to united endeavours towards the material and moral progress of the community. The best type of a culture-state was almost realized under the Emperor Aśoka who belonged also to the ‘vanished epochs’ of Hindu India.