A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c8.s3.18

c8.s3.18

‡ The rule of Baudhāyana just cited, along with similar passages from other Hindu authors, has been interpreted in recent times as justifying a wider power of the people over the king than, we think, is warranted by the texts. Prof. Pramatha Nath Banerjea (*Public Administration in Ancient India*, pp. 72-73) claims on the authority of the above text of Baudhāyana as well as other passages from Kauṭilya, the Śukranīti and the Mahābhārata that "the conception of the king as the servant of the state was one of the basic principles of political thought in Ancient India." Practically the same view is held by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (*Carmichael Lectures*, Part I, pp. 122-123) who quotes Baudhāyana's text along with other passages from the Dharmasūtras, Kauṭilya, and the Śāntiparvam to show that according to the Hindu notion the king "never wielded any unqualified power, but was looked upon as merely a public servant though of the highest order." We are not quite sure whether the claim advanced on behalf of the people can be upheld in the present case. There is no warrant in the authorities cited for a statement such as that the king derives his authority from the people in whom is vested the ultimate sovereignty. On the contrary, the deeply rooted idea of the authors is that the Kṣatriya order in which the king is included is ordained by the Supreme Being to protect the people and is subject to the Dharma imposed by His will. In the passage (I. 188) quoted by Dr. Banerjea from the Śukranīti in this connexion, the king is indeed declared to be appointed to the service of the people, but this appointment, it is expressly stated, is ordained by Brahmā. It might be argued that the text of Śukra (II. 274-275) quoted by Dr. Banerjea which justifies the right of deposition of the bad king, along with other texts from the Mahābhārata justifying the right of tyrannicide, pointed to the popular control over the king. Such passages, however, are of too exceptional a character to be accepted as the standard expression of the Hindu theory. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the Hindu thinkers tended to the view, which is however implied rather than expressed, that the king is the servant of the Supreme God.