Hindu Administrative Institutions c9.s1.19

c9.s1.19

From this it would appear that the king was only a servant of the people and his duty was to keep law and order for which he was paid wages in the shape of taxes. A similar idea is expressed in a stanza of the *Purapporul Veṇbāmālai*.¹ There it is said that the king who is expected to receive one-sixth of the produce must afford protection by following the path pursued by his forefathers. If he should misbehave, two courses were open to the people. First they might join in an open revolt and have the king deposed and substitute another on the throne. Or the allegiance which the people owed to this unrighteous monarch might be transferred to another, wellknown for the practice of *dharma*. These further confirm the fact that the king held no proprietary right over the soil of the land. The Government was then a contract of service entered between the subjects of the state and the sovereign power, for they had the right to terminate the contract at any period or time.