A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c12.s2.40

c12.s2.40

Besides insisting with the earlier writers upon the king's primary duty of protection, Śukra follows them in making righteousness the rule of the king's conduct.‡ It is in this connection that the author distinguishes, for the first time, so far as we are aware, in the history of Hindu political theory, between the good king and the tyrant from the point of view of the king's divine nature— a distinction which, we think, was not needed by the older writers because of their uniform inculcation of the primary duty of protection. The righteous king, Śukra says in one place, is a part of the gods, while the reverse who destroys righteousness and oppresses his subjects is a part of the demons.∗ In another place we are told that the good king is derived from particles of the gods, while his opposite is a part of the demons.† Elsewhere Śukra divides kings into three classes, namely those endowed with the quality of goodness (satva), of darkness (tamas) and of passion (rajas), and he declares that while the first class of kings assimilates the particles of the gods, the second assimilates those of the demons, and the third those of men.‡