The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c12.13

c12.13

But the final blow to a consistent theory of sacral kingship is delivered by the dharma commentators, who clearly indicate that whoever holds the de-facto power is king, irrespective of his legitimacy or, rather, lack of it. Not even the requirement that he at least be a kṣatriya is upheld.²⁹ And even this does not give rise to a consistently areligious theory of power pure and simple. For, whatever the claims of artha, dharma disturbingly keeps hovering over it and even Kauṭilya's notorious *Arthaśāstra* does not break with the dharmaśāstra in order to formulate an independent *raison d'état*.³⁰ So here too the theoretical foundation of kingship remains in suspense. This does not mean that there can be no effective kings—in fact there were obviously many capable and effective ones—but it does mean that kingship as an institution has no authority and legitimacy of its own. It is dependent on the uneasy relationship between king and brahmin. Or, as the texts put it, the *brahman* can stand on its own, the *kṣatra*, however, cannot and depends on the *brahman*.³¹