History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.70

v4.c62.70

In some other places a theory somewhat like the theory of social contract expounded by Rousseau is adumbrated. The theory of social contract is presented in modern times under two forms. In one there is supposed to be a tacit or explicit agreement between the Government and the people. • In the 2nd form it is supposed that a political society was constituted by a compact among individuals (to which the ruler was not a party). This theory puts forward the notion that government depended on the consent of the people. Kauṭilya (I. 13) refers to the legend that Manu Vaivasvata was made a king by the people, who agreed to assign one-sixth of the grain raised by them as the king's share in return for the protection afforded by him. But Kauṭilya is silent as to whether Manu made any promise to the people. Śāntiparva, chap. 59, states how Vainya, the first king, was called upon by the gods and sages to take an oath and how he promised them that he would protect the world, and would carry out his duties as laid down in the science of government and not act at his sweet will.⁴¹ When this theory of an agreement between the king who took an oath and the people spread among the people, the theory of the divine right of kings, if ever seriously held, would recede more and more into the back-ground. Vide Dr. Beni Prasad's 'Theory of Government in Ancient India' chap. VIII and 'Pre-Buddhist India' (1939) by Mr. R. N. Mehta, chap. II pp. 79 ff. and 101 for election of kings and for Buddhist theories of government. It is not possible to hold as Jayaswal, U. Ghosal and others do (e. g. ‘Manu and Yājñavalkya’ II, ‘Hindu Polity’ part II pp. 54-57) that the theory of social contract was the earlier one and that the theory of divine right of kings was later on propounded by the Manusmṛti to support the brāhmaṇa empire of Puṣyamitra. Jayaswal is wrong in saying (in ‘Hindu Polity’ part II p. 57) ‘the theory of the Mānava was never approved or adopted by a single subsequent law-book’. It has been shown above that Nārada and others espoused the same theory. Manu himself eulogises the supreme power of daṇḍa over the king himself (Manu VII. 28). He makes use of both the theories as occasion demands.