Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c15.37

c15.37

All this, however, is not, philosophically speaking, inconsistent with another Hindu idea that political power is a trust. Behind the fervent exhortations to loyalty and the principles of taxation lie the dogma that the sovereign must regard himself and behave as the agent of the common good. Sukra is not alone in looking upon a king as the servant of the people and on taxes as his wages. On the eve of a battle, Kautalya wants a king to proclaim to his soldiers that like them he too was a paid servant and that the kingdom was to be enjoyed by him along with them. Numerous writers insist that the king must refrain from oppression and caprices. He has to serve a definite purpose and loses his essential character if he fails therein. The inference was drawn that a ruler who grossly violated his trust was liable to punishment. There were those who, like European medievalists, leave him to the judgment and wrath of the supernatural power. But others declared that he might be forsaken, deposed or even put to death. The Mahâbhârata, Manu, Sukra and some Purâṇas are explicit on the point. Danda or coercion, we are told, is a double-edged weapon capable of striking the king as well as his subjects. If the idea does not occupy a large space in Hindu thought, it is because the writers were chary of furnishing pretexts for disorder.