Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c48: Chapter XXXV: Position of the Hindu King

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c48

Language
English

Chapter XXXV: Position of the Hindu King

c48.2

§ 352. To recapitulate the position of the Hindu king. The king had his civil list defined which was called his 'salary' and which had to be fixed with reference to the income of the State and the position of the Monarch and Country.¹ The whole revenue was not his salary. Salaries of the Queen and junior queens, of Queen Dowager and Princes and other members of the royal family were also fixed.

c48.3

¹ *Artha-Śāstra*, Bk. V, ch. 2 ; 91 (p. 245)— दुर्गजनपदमत्या भक्तकर्मसमुदयवादेन स्थापयेत्। कार्यसाधनसहेन वा भक्तलाभेन शरीरमवेक्षेत। न धर्मार्थौ पीडयेत्। *N. B.*—The term *bhṛitya* includes the king. समानविद्येभ्यस्त्रिगुणवे तनो राजा। (p. 246).

c48.4

§ 353. He had no jurisdiction over individual subjects. He was called master, but it was settled law which people knew like the daily appearance of the sun that he was master of no subject except a criminal. The *Jātaka* which does not deal in philosophy or ideals but facts and every-day life, puts it in these words in reply to the demand of a beautiful wife who was desirous of absolute mastery over subjects:

c48.5

"My good lady, to me the inhabitants of the
"whole realm are no bodies; I am not their
"master (*i.e.*, they are their own masters). I am
"master only of those who offend against the
"ruler's (laws) and do what is unlawful. For this reason, I

c48.6

"am unable to give you mastery and rule over the whole "realm."¹

c48.7

¹ *The Jātaka*, Vol. I, p. 398;

c48.8

§ 354. With this defined position, shackled with the checks and limitations we have noticed, subjugated under the great constitutional power of the Paura-Jānapada, with a conscience trained to be prone to listen to the public voice, his position really was that of the Servant of State, or rather as our forefathers put it mercilessly, of a drudging '*slave*' (*dāsya*) The epic exhibits as an ideal that a king should even give up his dear wife if asked to do so by his subjects: a popular and somewhat crude way of expressing the king's position, but all the same enshrining the radical demand of Hindu constitution from its king to sink his individuality into his office. With such principles the king was virtually a constitutional slave. Even the Hindu Hobbes, the great monarchist Kauṭilya, would not allow the king to have personal likes or dislikes: "A "king has no personal likes; it is the "likes of the subjects (that should be followed "by him)."²

c48.9

² *Artha-Śāstra*, Bk. I, ch. 19; 16 (p. 39)—

c48.10

This lofty sense of sacrifice made the constitutional slave into the moral master: that 'one man who rules over numerous wise and brave men.' He was born, as says the Mahā-Bhārata, for the sake of others, 'like the horse or the goat.' Hindu kingship is the highest

c48.11

अहँ सब्बं सकलरट्ठवासिनो न किञ्चि होमि। नत्थै तेसं सामिको। ये पन राजानं कोपेत्वा अकरब्बं करोन्ति तेसम्पत्येकं सामिको ति। इमिन कारणेन न सक्का रट्ठा सकलस्सं इस्सरियञ्च आणाञ्च दातु'ति।

c48.12

The king had evidently a palace jurisdiction of superior nature (*Vasañ* = 'full control)' "for the sake of convenience."

c48.13

प्रजासुखे सुखं राज्ञः प्रजानाञ्च हिते हितम्।
नात्मप्रियं हितं राज्ञः प्रजानां तु प्रियं हितम्॥

c48.14

ideal of sacrifice on the part of the individual whose privilege it was to be the king of the Hindus.

c48.15

§ 355. His utility was very great. He saw to the transfer of ministers and ministry and was the co-ordinating spirit in government. Propelled by his high sense of sacrifice, high traditions and high position, morally he stood far higher than the ministers and rulers-ministers. If people found the actual governors bad, he still remained the centre of hope and reform and avoided disruption.¹ Ministers came and went, but the king remained. Even when he was powerless, he was (as Kauṭilya puts it) the Symbol of State.² He was the standard of sovereignty to rally loyalty and hold the realm together. He was, in the words of Śukra, the root of the tree of State: "King is the root of the Tree of State; the Ministry "is its trunk, the military chiefs are branches, the army are the "leaves of the tree and the Subjects are its flowers, "prosperity of the Country its fruits, and the whole Country "the final seed."³

c48.16

¹ *Ibid.*, Bk. VIII, ch. 1; 127 (p. 320)— मन्त्रिपुरोहितादि भृत्यवर्गमध्यक्षप्रचारं पुरुषद्रव्य-प्रकृतिव्यसनप्रतीकारमेधतश्च राजैव करोति व्यसनिषु चामात्येष्वन्यानभ्यावलभिनः करोति।

c48.17

² *Ibid.*, Bk. V, ch. 6; 95, (p. 254)— ध्वजमात्रोऽयम्

c48.18

³ *Śukranītisāra*, V. 12. राज्यवृक्षस्य नृपतिर्मूलं स्कन्धाश्चमन्त्रिणः। शाखाः सेनाधिपाः सेनाः पल्लवाः कुसुमानि च। प्रजाः फलानि भूभागा बीजं भूमिः प्रकल्पिता ॥

c48.19

But for him the ministry would have tended to become an oligarchy, and the fruits and seeds for future fruits would have fallen in their hands and been misappropriated.

c48.20

Looking at his utility and at his life of superb sacrifice¹ the Hindu world well put its verdict in the mouth of Bhīshma, the representative of Hindu royalty in Hindu literature:

c48.21

¹ *Mahā-Bhārata*, *S'ānti-Parvan*, ch. LXIII. 29—

c48.22

सर्व्वधर्मपरं चातुं लोकचेष्ठं सनातनम्।

c48.23

‘Of all *dharmas* (duties) rulership is the highest in society, for all times.’

c48.24

कृपणायं: सर्व्व भूतानुकम्पा
लोकज्ञानं पालनं मोक्षयश्च।
विषमाणां शौचमं पीडितानां
क्षात्रे धर्मे विद्यते पार्थिवानाम्॥

Linked texts (3)