History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.56
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.56
- Language
- English
v4.c62.56.1
But it should not be supposed that this glorification of the king resulted in the full-fledged theory of the divine right of kings or that every king, however bad, was looked upon as a divinity or could do what he liked. In the first place, the Rājanītiratnākara³¹ (p. 83) when speaking of the coronation of a prince by his abdicating royal father quotes a verse where the people (*prajā*) themselves are called Viṣṇu. In the second place the king's authority over brāhmaṇas was limited (vide H. Dh. vol. II. part 1 pp. 139-140). The Gautama-dharmasūtra (XI. 1, 7 and 8) says³² 'the king rules over all, except over brāhmaṇas; all, except brāhmaṇas, should while sitting low on the ground wait upon (worship) him (the king) who occupies a high seat; they (the brāhmaṇas) too should honour him'. From the time of the Ait. Br. (37. 5) the harmony between the king and the brāhmaṇas and the king's following the advice of brāhmaṇas had been insisted upon. Vide Ait. Br. 40. 1, Gaut. VIII. 1, XI. 27. Further the Śukranītisāra (I. 70) states that a king who oppresses the subjects and causes loss of dharma is made up of the parts of *rākṣasas*.³³ Manu (VII. 111-112) states that the king who harasses his subjects loses his life, family and kingdom. Moreover stories of kings killed for their tyranny are found in the ancient Literature.
v4.c62.56.2
For example, Vena, who was jealous of the gods, wanted sacrificial offerings to be made to himself (and not to the gods) and violated dharma, was killed by the brāhmaṇas (Śāntiparva 59. 93–95, Bhāgavatapurāṇa IV. 14). The Anuśāsanaparva ³⁴ (61. 32–33) solemnly sanctions the killing of a king in certain circumstances "The people should gird themselves up and kill a cruel king who does not protect his subjects, who extracts taxes and simply robs them of their wealth, who gives no lead. Such a king is *Kali* (evil and strife) incarnate. That king who after declaring 'I shall protect you' does not protect his subjects should be killed (by the people) after forming a confederacy, like a dog that is afflicted with madness". Manu (VII. 27–28) states that the great principle of *daṇḍa* if properly wielded conduces to the advancement of the three *puruṣārthas*, but if a voluptuous, mean and unjust king wields it, it recoils on his head and destroys the king together with his relations. Kām. 2. 38 makes it clear that daṇḍa foolishly wielded might exasperate even hermits. The Śāntiparva 92. 19 recommends that a king who has false and very wicked ministers and who puts down dharma should be killed by the people. Even as early as the Tai. S. II. 3. 1 it appears that kings were driven away, while the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (XII. 9. 3. 1 and 3) mentions a king Duṣṭarītu Pauṁsāyana who had been expelled from the kingdom which had descended to him through ten ancestors.
v4.c62.56.3
The Sautrāmaṇi *iṣṭi* is prescribed as a rite for a king to regain a kingdom from which he had been driven away (vide H. Dh. vol. II. p. 1227). Śānti 92. 6 and 9, Manu VII. 27 and 34, Yāj. I. 356 appear to justify at least deposing a king, if not tyrannicide. Similarly, the Śukranītisāra (II. 274–275) states ³⁵ that a king, though of a noble pedigree, should be abandoned, if he violates dharına, if he hates good qualities (in others), lines of policy and the army and if his conduct would lead to the destruction of the kingdom and that the family priest with the consent of the principal officers of state should place on the throne another scion of the royal family who is possessed of the requisite virtues. Nārada props up the theory of divine right by stating that the king secures dominion over (lit. purchases) his subjects by his austerities (performed in former lives) and therefore the king is their lord (prakīrṇaka 25). Śukranīti I. 20 also brings in the doctrine of Karma 'the king holds the earth by the actions of his former lives and by his austerities.' Compare Manu VII. 111-112, Śānti 78. 36. The Śukranītisāra (IV. 7. 332-333) says that brāhmaṇas may even fight and destroy an oppressive kṣatriya king and would thereby incur no sin. The Yaśastilaka (III. p. 431) gives examples of kings killed by their subjects, one being a Kaliṅga king who made a barber his commander-in-chief.
v4.c62.56.4
In fact in all works on polity we find comparatively little about the king's rights and special privileges, but on the other hand the greatest emphasis is laid on the king's duties and responsibilities. Some works describe the king as a servant of the people whose wages or remuneration for the protection he affords is the taxes he raises. Vide Baud. Dh. S. I. 10. 1, Śukranīti I. 188, Nārada (prakīrṇaka 48), Śānti 71. 10.³⁶ It may be said here that the apparently inconsistent dicta about the divinity of the king and about his being liable to be deposed or even killed for evil deeds are delivered from two different standpoints and are addressed to different persons. The writers believed in maintaining the *status quo* about the duties of varṇas and āśramas, in the privileges of the respective castes and in the progressive deterioration of dharma in the ages to come and wanted a strong king to preserve the social order; therefore the king was raised to divinity and absolute obedience to his orders was demanded. This was addressed to the people in general. There was danger however of bad kings and ministers oppressing the people by misrule. Hence the king and his ministers were threatened with destruction and death. These dicta were principally meant for the king and his advisers.