History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.77

v4.c62.77

It is to be seen how far the ancient Hindu theory agreed with this full-fledged theory of the divine right of kings. As regards proposition I it has been shown above that the Manusmṛti, the Mahābhārata and other works held that the king was either God himself, or god's vicar or vicegerent performing functions similar to those of several gods. As regards proposition II all Sanskrit works recognised hereditary right and primogeniture, but they allowed exceptions as will be shown later on. Our ancient books did not accept the third and the fourth propositions *in toto*. They say that the king cannot do as he likes, that he has to carry out the dictates of dharma, his power to make new rules is limited and if he does not act up to the rules of dharma he may be deposed, disobeyed or killed. Vide quotations from Śukranīti and Anuśāsanaparva cited above. When Manu (VII. 111-112) says that a king who harasses his kingdom loses his life, his family and his kingdom, it is implied that people are not bound to suffer silently all the wrongs heaped upon them by a bad king but that they may turn round and either depose him or kill him. Fick (pp. 103-104) gives examples from the Buddhist Jātakas where bad kings were killed by the people and others were elected in their place. There is no doubt that obedience to the king is enjoined by Nārada and others, but it is due to the king only so long as he does not swerve from the path of right and virtue. Nārada⁴² (prakīrṇaka verses 12 and 32) says 'on account of his majesty and sanctity a king and brāhmaṇa are not to be abused if they do not swerve from the right path; one should not treat with contempt or scold the king, one should abide by his order, since (the penalty of) death may follow from violating it (king's order)'. Here the duty of obedience is not based on the divine origin of kingship, but on the practical wordly ground that an offended king may punish with death. Nārada's doctrine does not lead to the requirement of absolute submission and non-resistance to a wicked king.