A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c10.64

c10.64

We have mentioned above those ideas of the canonical authors of this period which, it appears, were meant by them to justify the king's authority over his subjects. Let us next consider what, if any, counteracting principles derived more or less from the same source were drawn by these authors into their common synthesis. We find that however much these writers stressed the duty of the subjects, they insisted, as before, upon the king's observance of the reciprocal duty of protection.† In some passages the duty of protection is brought into relation, as before, with the king's collection of taxes so as to imply that the former follows as a corollary from the latter.∗ Furthermore the theory of divine creation in the Manusamhitā while leading, as we have observed in another place, to the doctrine of submission and obedience of the subjects, suggests in its actual context that the king is liable to the divinely ordained duty of protection.∗ Finally, it should be remarked that Bhīṣma in one passage, while answering the question relating to the condition of a state *in extremis*, pointedly declares protection to be the sole justification of the king's existence,—a view which obviously serves as a powerful counterpoise to the canonical doctrine relating to the duty of the subjects.†