Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c15.32

c15.32

In Hindu theory the king is bound to ascertain social law or usage from those who know it, and to enforce it to the best of his capacity. The government thus implies force. Its coercion represents a force opposed to another force, which is antagonistic to the social purpose. Force, indeed, is inherent in the state. Bosanquet's remarks again serve to exemplify the Hindu position. "We make a great mistake in thinking of the force exercised by the state as limited to the restraint of disorderly persons by the police and the punishment of intentional law-breakers. The state is the flywheel of our life. Its system is constantly reminding us of duties from sanitation to the incidents of trusteeship, which we have not the least desire to neglect, but which we are either too ignorant or too indolent to carry out apart from instruction and authoritative suggestion." ¹ The drug of violence has to be administered "as a counter-poison to tendencies which would otherwise give no chance to the logical will." ² Hindu theory sums up this idea in one word 'protection' which it postulates as the purpose and function, *par excellence*, of government. That is how *danda* or punishment is represented as part of 'protection.' Viewed in this light, punishment is, in its essence, neither retributive, nor deterrent nor reformatory, but a reaction of the social order against an unsocial tendency. This is the idea underlying the doctrine of coercion in which the Mahābhārata seems to revel. It gives the name to the science of government in Kauṭalya and his successors. This is what they mean when they proclaim that chastisement lies at the root of the social order. It is implied that ultimately the state or government regulates and arbitrates between all claims, guarantees life and security and