History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.136

v4.c62.136

An extremely high ideal was placed before the king by the Kauṭilīya, the Mahābhārata and other works. In the Arthaśāstra I. 19 Kauṭilya⁸⁰ proclaims the magnificent ideal 'in the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the king, in their welfare lies his welfare; the good of the king does not consist in what is pleasing to himself, but what is pleasing to the subjects constitutes his good'. Similar words occur in the Viṣṇudharmasūtra III. last verse.⁸¹ The Mahābhārata (Śānti 69. 72-73) purports to quote two verses of Aṅgiras (i.e. Bṛhaspati), one of which says 'of what use is *tapas* to that king or of what use are even sacrifices to him who has well looked after his subjects? He is surely one who knows all dharmas.' Kauṭilya compares the king to the performer of a sacrifice, in which his *vrata*⁸² (in the case of the sacrificer observances about food, scratching the body &c.) consists in being ever active, the sacrifice consists in issuing orders for carrying out the business (of the State), the sacrificial fee (that the king pays) is his impartiality to all (lit. behaving in the same way to all), and his coronation corresponds to the bath of the person who is consecrated for a sacrifice. Śāntiparva⁸³ (56. 44 and 46) and Nītiprakāśikā VIII. 2 declare that a king like a pregnant woman should not do what is pleasing to him, but what would conduce to the good of the people and the ancient dharma for a king is to keep the subjects contented. In Śānti 90. 1 and 5 it is said 'the king is there for the upholding of dharma and not for acting as he likes and that all beings have to depend on dharma which in its turn depends on the king'. In Udyogaparva 118. 13-14 a king exclaims 'the wealth I possess is for the benefit of the urban and rural population and not for my own enjoyment; for, that king who at his sweet will gives away what (really is not his but) belongs to others does not become endowed with spiritual merit nor with fame'. King Marutta is warned by his grand-mother in the Mārkaṇḍeya⁸⁴ (130. 33-34) that the king's body is not meant for pleasures but for undergoing great trouble in protecting the earth and carrying out his duties. Ancient writers loved to dwell upon the rule of the king as paternal. Kauṭ. II. 1 states that the king should favour like a father those who are outside the rules for remission of taxes. Yāj. I. 334 requires the king to be like a father to his subjects and servants. Vide Śānti 139. 104-105 for the same idea.⁸⁵ In the Rāmāyaṇa II. 2. 28-47 and V. 35. 9-14 the virtues of the prince Rāma are set out in great detail, where it is said that Rāma behaved like a father (II. 2. 39), that he sympathized with the people in their sorrows and was pleased like a father when the subjects celebrated festivals. The Rāmāyaṇa⁸⁶ III. 6. 11 declares that it would be a great *adharma* on the part of that king who takes a sixth part of the produce (of fields) and does not protect his subjects as if they were his children. These sentiments are echoed by classical poets like Kālidāsa in the Śākuntala V. 5 and VI. 23 and the Raghuvamśa (I. 24). In the Harṣacarita (V) the dying king Prabhākaravardhana consoles his young and favourite son Harṣa by exhorting him to reflect over the idea that kings are to be deemed to have relatives in their subjects and not merely in agnates.86a Aśoka also in his Edicts harps on the paternal relation ‘all men are my children’ (the first separate Jaugadh Edict, C. I. I. vol I pp. 111 and 114).