The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c12.20

c12.20

Not only for this power is the king dependent on others but also, and more important, for his authority. Even apart from the classical king-brahmin formula, this is made clear in a number of ways. Thus the king shares equally in his subjects' spiritual merits as well as their demerits.⁴⁰ "Le salut du roi," as Robert Lingat concludes, "dépend de ses sujets comme le salut des sujets dépend du roi."⁴¹ This is certainly a perfectly valid way of putting it, but it does mean that the king has no independent moral standing and therefore no legitimacy or authority independent from the "elements" of the realm, of which he is but one. His authority is not fixed but suspended somewhere in the middle, at the intersection of the relationships that make up the realm. In the same way, the king is bound to consult in all matters his counsellors, drawn from various groups and not necessarily his own retainers.⁴² True, after ascertaining their opinion, he should reach a decision himself, but he should not push his luck too far by a show of independence, for "kings depend on their counsellors as cattle do on rain, husbands on their wives, and brahmins on the Veda".⁴³ In the same vein, the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* speaks about the "kingmakers" (*rājakartṛ*) who arrange for the acclamation, failing which the king is devoid of strength.⁴⁴ Similarly, the pseudoetymology that derives the word *rājan* from *rañjayati*, "to gladden, make happy" (namely, his people), whatever its religio-magic connotations, does not speak for the king's independent authority. All this mutuality and interdependence may seem touchingly harmonious, but the verso side is clearly that where this harmonic relationship is impaired or lacking the king can simply be killed.⁴⁵