Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c13.48

c13.48

Of the princes, Rājavāhana is the chief. Somadatta Puṣpodbhava, Apahāravarman, Upahāravarman, Arthapapla Pramati, Mitragupta, Mantragupta and Viśruta are merely his associates. We hear of a King of Magadha who had three ministers. The office of minister was sometimes hereditary and was recognised as such. Intrigue was rampant. Favouritism was the order of the day. Jealousy, slander, backbiting darkened the ordinary life of courtiers. Poison and the dagger were often resorted to. Here was Machiavellianism *par excellence*. In foreign politics, might was right. He who felt himself strong enough was justified in attacking his neighbour and annexing his dominions. More delightful glimpses, however, are not wanting. Proficiency in sacred law and political science is the surest means of success in administration. This is what enabled Punyavarman to manage a vast empire with conspicuous success. His son was versed in the arts but he knew nothing of policy. He fell into the hands of worthless favourites and sycophants and came to ruin. Vasantavarman possessed a good knowledge of political science but was innocent of sacred law and what was worse, weak in character. He found himself unable to consolidate and maintain an empire. Education was effective in the case of Bhûskaravarman. Viśruta combined knowledge with virtue and strength and achieved glorious success. Nothing is more disastrous than weakness of character in the monarch. It opens the flood-gates of all intrigue and corruption. Everywhere, the thorough education of princes is insisted on. The accumulation of wealth is necessary for the chastisement of the enemy. In Viśrutacharita, one is surprised to find a denunciation of unscrupulousness.¹