The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c12.21

c12.21

In Indian terms, the crux of the authority problem is the king's standing in the matter of dharma. Notwithstanding the tall claims made in behalf of the king's being dharma incarnate, it is made perfectly clear that in matters of dharma—that is, in practically every aspect of his activity—he has no autonomy whatsoever and, instead of leading, must follow. Even in the case of customs and usages which are contrary to dharma, he has no authority to intervene.⁴⁶ That he should not intervene in customary law, even if contrary to dharma, of a conquered population may be considered simply a pragmatic policy,⁴⁷ but the same goes for his own subjects, even for those who reject the Veda, which is considered to be the *fons et origo* of all dharma.⁴⁸ What is more, it is enjoined that the king should consider all customs of the virtuous twice-born—that is, practically, the dharma—as law only if these customs are not contrary to the usages of land, family, or caste!⁴⁹ The dharma is beyond the king's grasp and his relationship with it is at best an uneasy one. It is, of course, his foremost duty to protect the dharma. But then what is dharma if it can encompass even contrary customs and usages? Or, as one text puts it, "Dharma and Adharma do not go about saying: here we are; nor do gods, gandharvas, or manes say: this is dharma, that is adharma".⁵⁰ So there is nothing for it but to define dharma as that "which wise twice-born men praise".⁵¹ Now it is not uncommon that kings have no authority to interfere with established customs and rights, whether written or not. Thus, for instance, it is significant that in a medieval Latin play it is the Antichrist who is made to say when he mounts the throne: "I will abolish the old laws and dictate new ones".⁵² But it would seem that it is only in India that the king's lack of authority emerges with such clarity.