A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c8.s3.78

Language: English

c8.s3.78.1

Let us illustrate the above remarks with the help of concrete examples. In Chapter LXXII of the Śāntiparvan Bhīṣma describes what purports to be the discourse of the Wind-god to a king called Purūravas. There is nothing improbable in the god figuring in the list of Arthaśāstra teachers, since the Mahābhārata elsewhere mentions the gods Indra and Viśālākṣa (Śiva) as the authors of treatises on the Art of Government (rājaśāstra).n The gods, the men, the Fathers, the demi-gods, the serpents and the demons, says the god of Wind in the course of the above address, live by sacrifices; but in a country without a king, there can be no sacrifice. The gods and the manes, he continues, live by the offering made in the sacrifice. The security and the increase of this virtue (dharma) depends upon the king alone. He who confers immunity from fear, concludes the sage, is alone entitled to high merit, for there is no gift existing in the three worlds equal to the gift of life. The king is the god Indra, he is Yama, he is virtue personified (dharma), he assumes different forms, he sustains all.∗ In this extract, it will be observed, the argument based upon the value of the king's office as ensuring the condition of bare existence is complete by itself. Nevertheless the idea of the king's divinity based upon his identification with three specific deities is thrown in at the end, obviously to further strengthen the principle of authority.

c8.s3.78.2

Again in Chapter LXV of the Sāntiparvan the god Indra is quoted as addressing king Māndhātā in the following fashion. Of the person who slights the king that is beyond doubt the lord of all, neither the gifts nor the libations nor the offerings to the manes bear fruit. Even the gods do not slight the king of virtuous desire, who is like an eternal god. The divine Lord of creatures (Prajāpati) created the whole world: he seeks the Kṣatriya for the purpose of directing the people towards virtue and leading them away from sin.† In this passage, it will be noticed, the author teaches by appeals to formidable spiritual sanctions the obligation of respectful submission on the part of the subjects, and he connects this with the theory of divine ordination of the Kṣatriya.‡ We shall, lastly, refer to a lengthy extract of the Sāntiparvan purporting to embody the sage Brihaspati's reply to the king Vasumanas. "Through whose worship do the creatures attain imperishable bliss?" Such is the question put by the king as a rider to his query mentioned above, which relates to the importance of the king's office. In reply the sage states, " Who will not worship the person in whose absence all creatures perish, and through whose presence they always live ? " He who bears the king's burden, continues the sage, and follows the course which is dear and beneficial to him, conquers both the worlds.

c8.s3.78.3

The man who even thinks of harming the king doubtless suffers pain here on earth, and goes to hell hereafter. The king must not be despised from an idea that he is a mere mortal, for he is a great deity in human form. He constantly assumes five forms, namely those of Fire, the Sun, Death, Kubera and Yama ; he is Fire, when he burns the wicked with his majestic lustre ; the Sun, when he oversees all beings by means of spies ; Death, when he slays the impure persons by the hundred; Yama, when he applies severe punishment to the impious and fosters the pious ; and Kubera, when he bestows wealth upon his friends and snatches it away from his enemies. The skilful man who desires to practise virtue and is persevering in his undertakings and who does not scorn the highest world, should not revile the king. He who acts against the king, be he his son, brother, favourite or like his own self, does not attain happiness. One should shun all the king's wealth from a distance, and he should abhor theft of the king's property as he abhors death. If he were to touch the king's property, he would instantly perish like deer touching a trap. The intelligent man should guard the king's property as he guards his own.

c8.s3.78.4

Those who steal the king's property sink for a long time into a deep, terrible, unprosperous, and senseless hell.∗ Here, it will be observed, the teacher combines, in an attempt to justify the principle of authority, the conceptions relating as well to the essential importance of the king's office as to his divinity. The latter idea, it may be further noted, is derived from a metaphorical assimilation of the king's functions with those of five specified deities: the divinity, in other words, is held in this case to apply to the king's office rather than to his person. With the twofold notion of kingship just mentioned, the author connects, in the above extract, a list of duties on the part of the subjects, which he tries to enforce as usual by the threat of spiritual and temporal penalties. The duties, lastly, with which the subjects are charged in this case, are not merely, as in the preceding passage, of a negative kind: they pass by an insensible gradation from the negative act of non-slandering and of non-stealing, to the positive obligation of obeying the king's commands and sharing his burdens.