Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c13.s1.25

c13.s1.25

A word may be said on a few late miscellaneous compositions. In the Nalodaya, wrongly ascribed to Kâlidâsa, which draws its plot from the Mahâbhârata, a kingdom is treated like private property. Nala can pawn it and lose it at dice and regain it by the same means. The theme recurs in Trivikramabhaṭṭa's Nala Champû. In the latter half of the twelfth century, Śrî-Harṣa worked the story of Nala and Damayantî into the Naiṣadhîya,¹ one of the five Mahâkâvyas of Sanskrit literature. Bound by the Kâvya canon he introduces politics but is content to re-echo the foregoing masters—Kâlidâsa, Bhâravi and Mâgha. In artificiality, even the Naiṣadhîya is surpassed by Kavirâja's Râghava Pâṇḍavîya, composed probably about the close of the twelfth century,² which simultaneously relates the tales of the Râmâyaṇa and the Mahâbhârata and, perforce, brings in the usual political maxims. A work of a far different character is the Yogavâsiṣṭha traditionally ascribed to Vâlmîki but really very late. It bears an affinity to Purâṇas but is more philosophical than any of them. Orthodox in tone, it wants the king to sustain the dharma of varṇas and âśramas and, in a few passages, reiterates the usual Brahmanical conception of government.³