History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.168

v4.c62.168

The Viṣṇudharmasūtra¹⁰³ (III. 42 and 47-49) enjoins upon the conqueror not to uproot the usages of the conquered country, to establish in its capital some kinsman (of the slain king) and not to destroy the royal family unless it be of low birth. Manu (VII. 202-203) and Agnipurāṇa 236.22 prescribe similar rules. The Rāmāyaṇa (VII. 62.18-19) requires the conqueror, after uprooting the king, to establish another king there in order to ensure stable government. Vide Śānti 33.43-46 quoted above on p. 40. Kātyāyana (q. in the Rājanītiprakāśa p. 411) prescribes that even when the (vanquished) king is at fault, the conqueror should not ruin the country (for the fault of the vanquished king), since he (the vanquished king) did not start (on his career of) wrong-doing with the consent of his subjects. The Rājanītiprakāśa draws from this the conclusion that the ministers with whose consent the war was started may be harassed by the conqueror. This advice was generally followed by ancient conquerors and emperors. Rudradāman (150 A. D.) is styled the establisher of kings that had lost their territories (in the Junāgadh Ins., E. I. vol. VIII at p. 44) and in the Allahabad Stone Pillar Inscription of Samudragupta it is said that his fame travelled over the whole world because of his having re-established several royal families that had lost their kingdoms (Gupta Inscriptions, p. 8). The Śukranītisāra (IV. 7.397-399) requires the conqueror to support the well-behaved son and the queen of the vanquished king or to give a fourth of the conquered kingdom to him and only 1/32 part of it to one who is not endowed with good qualities and the conqueror may appropriate the whole treasury of the conquered.