History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.79

v4.c62.79

It is impossible to hold that the theory of divine right was put forward as a counterblast to the theory of social contract. The theory of divine right would arise very naturally even in the oldest days, while the theory of social contract is the product of a more advanced stage of political thought. The theory of divine right is not more absurd than the theory of social contract and was popularly held not only in India, but in many Christian countries, relying on passages in the Bible such as Daniel 4 and Romans 13. 1-7. The theory of divine right was circumscribed in India by another theory from very ancient times. The cry of the American colonists against England in the 18th century was that taxation and representation went hand in hand; that of the ancient Hindu political and dharmaśāstra writers was that taxation and protection went hand in hand (see n. 45). Baud. Dh. S. I. 10. 1. says 'the king being hired for the sixth part (that he takes as tax) should protect the subjects'. Yāj. I. 337 states 'The king shares half of that evil which the subjects do when not protected by the king, since he takes taxes (from the people)' and Yāj. I. 334 lays down that a king who protects according to śāstras receives the 6th part of the merit (*puṇya*) of the subjects. Śāntiparva (57. 44-45) states 'One should abandon six persons like a leaking boat in the ocean viz. a teacher who does not explain, a priest who does not study the Veda, a king who does not protect &c.' Śukranīti I. 121 affirms 'the gods destroy a king who does not protect, a brāhmaṇa who does not perform austerities, a wealthy man who makes no gifts.' Vide Vasiṣṭha I. 44-46, Gaut. XI. 11, Viṣṇu Dh. S. III. 28, Udyogaparva 132. 12, Śānti 67. 27 (4th part of puṇya), Śānti 24. 12 (4th part), Śānti 72. 20, Āśramavāsi 3.40, Anuśāsana 61.34 and 36, Kām. II. 10 for the idea that the king receives a part (generally 6th part) of the *puṇya* (and also sin) of the people. The king had to protect even forest hermits who paid no taxes, as he would share in their *puṇya*⁴³. Vide Rāmāyaṇa III. 6. 14. Kālidāsa echoes this in the Śākuntala II. 13. Ādiparva 213. 9 looks upon the king who takes the sixth part as tax and affords no protection as the arch-sinner in the world. Śānti 71. 29 says that the spiritual merit that a king gathers by protection according to the sacred code yields rewards for him in heaven for ten thousand years.