The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c12.22

c12.22

Yet there are, as we have seen, strong countervailing statements. Apart from hyperbole, it is flatly stated that no one should transgress the dharma decreed by the king.⁵³ We even find that in case of dispute, the royal edict (*rājaśāsana*) is given priority over dharma.⁵⁴ We can readily understand why such statements are necessary. Just because of its undefined nature and its lack of institutional moorings, the dharma is in dire need of a point of support that can provide the modicum of power necessary for its maintenance. An abstract category of wise or holy men (*śiṣṭa*, *sādhu*, *āpta*) obviously lacks the power and organization for the effective maintenance of dharma. It is only the king who can and therefore should provide the power and organization required, even if it can only be a bare minimum. But this makes the dilemma of kingship no less insoluble. The king must all the time perform a precarious balancing act between forcefully proclaiming his own writ to be dharma and, on the other hand, following unassumingly what his subjects tell him to be dharma.