History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.225

v4.c62.225

If elective popular assemblies did not exist, then it may be asked whether the king was an absolute monarch or a despot or whether there were any checks that mitigated or regulated the power and doings of monarchs. The answer is that there were such checks and limitations. These were of various kinds. Exhortations addressed to the king himself exercised a restraining influence. For example, Kāt. (10) says 'the king who gives way to wrath without proper thought would reside in a horrible hell for half a Kalpa'. The importance of dharma as an all-embracing institution was impressed upon the king by our writers so frequently that it must have had its psychological effect on every king. The idea that *daṇḍa* personified as a Deity might strike down the bad king himself (Manu VII. 19, 27, 28, 30, Yāj. I. 354–356) would tend to keep even a whimsical king within bounds. The views of ancient writers have already been cited according to which the king was not to act as he pleased, but was to regard his high office as a sacred trust and was to rule according to the dictates of the śāstras. These views created public opinion which must have certainly influenced the king's acts. The ideal king Rāma is depicted as having abandoned his queen Sītā (whom he knew to be pure) because the people could not accept her as pure after her long stay in Rāvaṇa's prison. Vide Rāmāyaṇa VII. 45. Then there were the ministers whose advice the king was enjoined to seek. Besides there was the purohita and there were learned brāhmaṇas, who were to propound what dharma was, whose directions he was to carry out and who were supposed to have power to ruin a bad king (vide Vas. I. 39-41, Gautama XI. 12-14, Manu IX. 320). Vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 138-145 for the peculiar sanctity attaching to the person of a brāhmaṇa and the superior position of brāhmaṇas as a class *vis-a-vis* the king. There was a deep-rooted faith that the rules of the śāstras (the Śrauta and Smārta dharma) were divinely inspired and were above the king. Observance of dharma was the great social and political ideal from very ancient times for all including the king. This is most emphatically put in the Bṛ. Up. I. 4. 11-14, where it is stated "even after creating the four varṇas He (the Creator) did not think that stability had been attained. He then created the most excellent *Dharma* which is the might of the mighty (i. e. more powerful than the warrior caste). There is nothing higher than dharma. Even a very weak man hopes to prevail over a very strong man on the strength of dharma, just as (he prevails over a wrong-doer) with the help of the king. So what is called dharma is really truth. Therefore people say about a man who declares the truth that he is declaring dharma and about one who declares what dharma is they say that he speaks the truth. These two (dharma and truth) are this" (i. e. one).¹²⁵ Kāmandaka I. 14 stated that the Yavana king ruled over the earth for a long time because he ruled according to the dictates of dharma. In his administration of justice the king was to be checked by the judge and sabhyas, who were fearlessly to render advice to the erring king (as will be shown in the section on vyavahāra). Besides corporations and guilds were powerful and had a sort of self-government. Manu (VIII. 336 and Yāj. II. 307) went so far as to prescribe a heavy fine which the king was to inflict on himself for his illegal exactions and punishments and to direct that the king should distribute among brāhmaṇas wealth forfeited by grave sinners (Manu IX. 243-244). Lastly there was the final sanction that the śāstras allowed the subjects to abandon a worthless king or even to kill a misguided one or tyrant, as stated above (vide Manu VII. 27-28, Arthaśāstra I. 4).¹²⁶