A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c12.s2.51

c12.s2.51

We may next consider the author’s treatment of the question relating to the incidence of the rights and duties pertaining to the Kṣatriya ruler. The great scholiasts of the preceding epoch, as we have observed in another place, held these duties to be applicable to all rulers of kingdoms and even in one case to the subordinate executive officers as well.∗ Mādhava characteristically adopts the contrary view, and upholds it by the method of dogmatic interpretation alone. He develops his argument in the style of the mediæval Hindu schoolmen by putting forward a preliminary objection (pūrvapakṣa) and ending with the demonstrated conclusion (siddhānta). Commenting on a verse of Parāśara, he says, “It may be contended that in the words ‘the king (rājan) should punish’ [Parāśara I 60] the right even of the ruler of the kingdom (bhūpāla) to punish is indicated. How then can this (punishment) be said to be the special duty of the Kṣatriya?” To this the author replies, “Not so, since in the section on the expiation of sins by the performance of sacrifices (aveṣṭi) the term ‘rājan’ has been explained by means of the office of a Kṣatriya.”[^\dagger] This argument is expanded by Mādhava in the following lines, but it is unnecessary to quote them here.