The Mauryan Polity c7.s1.t6: King, not a law-maker
The Mauryan Polity c7.s1.t6
- Language
- English
King, not a law-maker
c7.s1.t6.1
Before we enter into the detailed examination of checks and balances which considerably limited the power and extent of the king’s authority, there is the great conception of the ancient Hindus that the king could not be, and was not, a law-maker. The law is eternal (*sanātana*) and is contained in the law-codes or the *Dharmaśāstras* of the different *smṛti-kartas*, which were based on the *śruti*. The king of the land was to act according to the laws prescribed by these law-givers and he could not override them. To override the laws already established was considered sacrilege. If he did act contrary to the principles of the established law, people disowned him, rose in rebellion against him, removed him from the throne and set up another in his stead. Therefore, the law of the law-books was the real sovereign of the land. The king’s orders amounted to proclamations explaining existing laws or reviving those which had fallen into disuse. He could not, and did not, make any legislation for the state.²
c7.s1.t6.2
² The observations of E. B. Havell may be quoted here: “The student of Indian History may also be led to consider whether the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain constituted as it is now is on more or less empirical lines, is really more efficient as political machinery than was the philosophic scheme of Indo-Aryan polity, in which the common law of the land, formulated by the chosen representatives of the people, had a religious as well as a legal sanction, and represented the highest power of the state to which even the king and his ministers must bow. It will be a surprise to many readers to discover that the Mother of Western Parliaments had an Aryan relative in India, show-