History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.74

v4.c62.74

Chap. 67 contains a much shorter version of the origin of kingship, probably because a few chapters before another version has already been given or because it embodies the views of some prior work or teacher. It begins by saying that the most desirable thing for a State is to crown a king, that in a kingless country there is no dharma, no security of life nor of property, that therefore the gods appointed kings for protecting people. Then it proceeds to say that the people assembled and made compacts (*samayān*) amongst themselves that whoever would commit libel or assault or adultery and break the compacts made by the people should be abandoned. All people went to Brahmā and requested him to appoint a ruler whom they would all honour and who would protect them. Brahmā appointed Manu for that purpose, but Manu did not at first like the idea, saying 'Government is a very difficult business among men who are always deceitful and I am afraid of the sinful acts of men'. The people asked him not to be afraid as the sins committed by men will affect the perpetrators (and not Manu) and that the people would give him shares of produce (one-tenth of grain, one-fifth of cattle, one-fourth of their dharma &c.). Manu then agreed, went round the world, terrorizing evil-doers and making them conform to dharma. This story about Manu and the people is alluded to by Kauṭilya (vide p. 31 above). Even here Manu promises nothing expressly, while the people agree to pay taxes and answer for their own sins. There is no doubt that some of the details in the two chapters are different. In chap. 67 there is no reference to an original state of perfection nor to a vast work nor to any oath; so also in one it is Vainya who becomes the first king and in the other it is Manu. But the conception in both is mythological and the fundamental fact in both is the same. God gives a king to the people in both, when they were without a king and degeneracy had set in. Though there is no offer to give a share in chap. 59 yet it is to be inferred from the *pratijñā* of Vainya that every subsequent king was deemed to do the same. It may be said that in chap. 67 there is a blending of the theory of Divine Right and of an original compact between king and people. In both, however, the emphasis is on the theory of the divine origin of kingship. Śānti 67. 4 states 'one desirous of prosperity should honour the king as one honours Indra', while chap. 59. 139 asks 'what is the cause but the divine character (the king possesses) on account of which people remain under his control'? It must be said that in both chapters of the Śāntiparva there is no proper theory of contract between king and people.