A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c14.12

c14.12

We have endeavoured to analyse the Hindu theories of kingship in so far as they present points of contact with the Western Social Contract. Let us next consider them from the point of view of their relation to the theories of Divine Right. As we have observed before, the Hindu authors frequently lay down doctrines of the king's ordination by the Supreme Being, and ascribe divine attributes to the ruler. These points suggest obvious analogies with the ideas of the Western thinkers. But the analogies turn out on a closer inspection to be more or less illusory. We do not refer for this purpose, as some have done, to the distinction drawn in the Śukranīti between the good king and the tyrant from the standpoint of the king’s divine nature; for we hold this particular view to be peculiar to Śukra. Nor do we set much store by the contention† that the Hindu doctrine of the king’s divinity is a metaphorical expression of the attribute of sovereignty, for we find that the king’s title to rule is expressly derived at least in the Śāntiparvan from his absorption of Viṣṇu’s essence.‡ The true difference, it appears to us, is to be sought elsewhere. The divine creation of the king, it is conceived by the Hindu authors, imposes upon him the duty of protection rather than the right to rule, while his divine nature signifies that he is the manifestation of the Divine protecting powers of the universe,—of Viṣṇu, the World-Preserver, or of the eight guardians of the quarters.