Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c6: Chapter III. The Epics
Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c6
- Language
- English
Contents
- c6.18 — 4 parts
- c6.167 — 6 parts
- c6.s1 The Rāmāyaṇa — 2 parts
Chapter III. The Epics
c6.2
It is the Mahâbhârata which gives the first clear, comprehensive and, on the whole, consistent account of Hindu political thought. That great epic, the longest poem in existence, is the work of many poets separated by centuries, ultimately synthesised and edited by an industrious hand. The work existed nearly as we know it in the second century before Christ. The framework of the story of the great civil war between the Kurus and the Pândavas includes numberless episodes which are interspersed with discourses on religion, ethics and all else in life. It reaches its high water-mark in the Sânti-parva, one of the greatest productions of the Hindu genius. At a critical stage of the struggle, Bhîṣma, called the grandfather, —the Grand Old Man of India for all time—was mortally wounded. But he was not destined to give up the ghost until the sun reached a specific position in the heavens in six months. The rival commanders cried a halt and the hostile kinsmen gathered round their ancestor's death-bed of arrows to receive the last words of wisdom. The wanting sage Nârada counselled Yudhiṣṭhira to question Bhîṣma on the duties of man. The old man's discourse ranged over the whole field of human existence, and, *inter alia*, treated of the science and art of government. Bhîṣma or rather the editor refers to several previous thinkers and professes to
c6.3
quote extensively from them but it is impossible to detach these pieces from the general narrative. Besides, they are obviously meant to complete the discourse; they are interwoven with it and form an integral part of it. It is best to treat them all as one whole. Besides the Śānti-parva, the other cantos contain some political passages which, though independent, serve to illustrate and supplement the main discourse. There are a few minor inconsistencies and some overlapping but the general spirit and atmosphere are the same. When all the passages are collated and interpreted, they are seen to embody a remarkable system. The Mahābhārata speaks the language of the times and sometimes imparts political wisdom through charming tales of animals¹ but the main stock of ideas comes before the reader as the legacy of one of the greatest of sages and warriors.²
c6.4
¹ Cf. Śānti-parva, CXII, CXVI—VIII, CXXXVIII, CXXXIX.
c6.5
² On the date, style, etc., of the Mahābhārata see Hopkins, the Great Epic of India. D. R. Bhandarkar, Ghoshal and others have attempted to detach what they call the earlier Arthaśāstras from the rest of the political chapters in the Śānti-parva but in the absence of the certainty of dates, the attempts are fraught with danger.
c6.6
Dandanīti is the term employed in the Mahābhārata to denote what has been translated by some scholars as Political Theory. Literally, it means the science of coercion. Viewed in the context as a whole, it is best rendered as the science of government. In consonance with the general trend of Hindu social thought the subject is viewed predominantly as an art. As such, Dandanīti claims precedence over all other branches of study. It is the refuge of “the whole world of life.” As the reins check the steed, or as an iron hook controls the elephant, so Dandanīti keeps the world under restraint. It destroys every evil as the sun destroys darkness.¹
c6.7
¹ Śānti-parva, LVI, 2–9.
c6.8
In its origin, the science of government is older than the state itself. The world began with a Golden Age of perfection when no government was needed. Then came a period of sin and darkness. The gods were distressed and supplicated Viṣṇu to rescue the world.
c6.9
The Origin of the Science of Government.
c6.10
Viṣṇu first composed a stupendous treatise on life and government and then instituted a king, that is, the government or state.² Historically or philosophically, the idea that the theory of government was prior to the institution of government cannot be sustained but it shows how clearly Hindu thinkers realised the need of law and regulation as the foundation of human society.
c6.11
² Ibid., LIX, 28-29.
c6.12
The long description of Viṣṇu’s treatise illustrates the Hindu conception of the scope of governmental theory and its relation to other sciences. In all, Viṣṇu composed a hundred thousand lessons, A triple aggregate treated of Virtue, Wealth and Enjoyment, and another aggregate dealt with Salvation. Then came the third triple aggregate on governance, comprising Conservation, Growth and Destruction. This was supplemented by another sixfold compendium, treating, *inter alia*, of human psychology, alliances and ‘causes.’ Envoys and ordinary agents of various classes, secret agents and spies, figured therein. The policies of conciliation, of fomenting discord among enemies, of making gifts and of inflicting chastisement were discussed. Toleration as the fifth great instrument of policy came in for its full share. All aspects of diplomacy, military strategy and tactics were touched upon. The
c6.13
The position and scope of governmental theory.
c6.14
methods of extending a dominion were fully explained. "The very extensive branch of learning, called punitive legislation" was there. The seven essential requisites of sovereignty were pointed out and their "waste, growth and harmony" exemplified. The "indications of princes" were noted and the behaviour towards counsellors was laid down. The qualifications of officers of government were prescribed. The administration of justice and "the extermination of the wicked" were dwelt upon.¹ Here is the whole subject of domestic administration and foreign policy, including diplomacy and war. It may all be designated as the science of statecraft. The theory of government proper is always treated in conjunction with other matters bearing on the state. It is conceived as part of a general scheme of all knowledge, secular and spiritual. The mythical history of the sciences is interesting. The hundred thousand lessons composed by Viṣṇu were first mastered by the god Śiva. But in view of the shortness of human life, he felt it necessary to abridge them into one-tenth of their original dimensions. The Vaiśālākṣa, as the abridgment was termed, was learnt by Indra who reduced it to one-half. The Bāhudantaka version was condensed to three thousand by Bṛhaspati. Finally, the Bārhaspatya edition was reduced to one-thousand by Kavi.² The stages probably mark the evolution of successive schools of thought.
c6.15
¹ Ibid., LIX, 29-76.
c6.16
² Ibid., LIX, 80-85.
c6.17
Government is part of the general social order and scheme of human duties. The Mahābhārata repeats the Vedic myth of the origin of castes. But it does conceive a state of society when no caste existed. People fell from penance and righteousness and were therefore distributed into castes. Elsewhere we are told that, when first created, the four orders differed only in their complexion, the Brâhmaṇas being white; the Kṣatriyas, red; the Vaiśyas, yellow; and the Śûdras, black. It is, however, significant that a later commentator explains ‘white’ as implying pure goodness (satwa); red implying passion (rajas); yellow, goodness and passion (satwa and rajas) and black, darkness.
c6.18.1
In a different passage, Bhṛigu replying to the penetrating questions of Bharadwâja, states that there is no fundamental distinction between the four orders. The whole world, at first, consisted only of Brâhmaṇas who were created even before gods and demons. Then those endowed with courage, severity, wrath, and love of pleasure and unmindful of piety and worship became Kṣatriyas. Those who combined goodness with passion and took to agriculture and cattle-rearing became Vaiśyas. Those who had fallen from purity of conduct, who were addicted to untruth, cupidity and malevolence and engaged in all kinds of occupations became Śûdras. All have the right to perform pious duties and sacrifices. Here caste is founded on merit and deed. There are some moral qualities which all should cultivate, which, in fact, are universal duties; such, for instance, are truth, justice, gentleness, forgiveness, simplicity and conjugal fidelity. Then the different castes are to follow different practices. A Brâhmaṇa should study, officiate at sacrifices, practise self-restraint and live in poverty. Teaching is one of the principal duties of the Brâhmanic order. In the Mahâbhârata, as in the Râmâyaṇa, Brâhmaṇas teach the military arts to Kṣatriya princes. Except in dire emergency, a Brâhmaṇa is never to adopt agriculture, trade or pasture, never to take to service. For then he is equal to a slave, a dog, a mere brute.
c6.18.2
Such a Brâhmaṇa is to be left without sustenance by the king and is even to be punished like a Śûdra. If a Brâhmaṇa takes to arms, he should, in spite of his mastery of Vedic lore, be severely chastised. The Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas should also study the Vedas and perform sacrifices but their professions are different from those of Brāhmaṇas. The Kṣatriya should engage in warfare and display his prowess and ceaselessly protect the people. He should destroy the wicked and robbers. He should never beg for sustenance. At the close of the Civil War, Duryodhana, the leader and last surviving warrior of the Kuru party, offered to resign the dominion of the earth to Yudhiṣṭhira and retire into the forest. Yudhiṣṭhira, however, scornfully rejected the offer. The acceptance of a gift "is not the duty laid down for a Kṣatriya." He would enjoy the earth only after vanquishing his rival in battle. In short, it is military and political duties that fall on Kṣatriyas. The economic life of the community rests mainly with the Vaiśyas. They should practise agriculture and trade. They should tend cattle. When the Creator brought the domestic animals into being, He placed them under the care of the Vaiśyas. From the Yajñopavīta or initiation ceremony, these three castes are called Dwija or twice-born. Their life falls into four successive stages—studentship, household, renunciation and asceticism. To serve the twice-born is the duty of the Śūdra. Never should he desert his master.
c6.18.3
He is entitled to work but he is not to amass wealth lest he should lord it over the superior orders. In fact, there is no wealth which he can call his own. All his possessions belong lawfully to his master. He should receive worn-out clothing and other such goods.¹ Beyond the order of four castes lay the border tribes—Yavanas, Kirātas, Gāndhāras, Chinas, Barbars, etc., etc. They are entitled to perform certain Vedic rites and to make presents to Brāhmaṇas. "They should dig wells and give water to thirsty travellers.¹ But on the whole, they lie beyond the pale of the Hindu social system. That system, then, may be described as consisting of the privileged Dwijas on the one hand and a servile proletariat on the other. The privileged order comprised an aristocracy of learning and religion, another of arms and lastly, followers of various occupations. The Brâhmaṇas enjoyed some exceptional privileges. They were to receive honour and presents from all. Even the king should worship Brâhmaṇas who lived up to the ideal. Their lapses from morality were to be punished with a gentle hand. They are, as a rule, exempt from corporal punishment.
c6.18.4
Even if they are guilty of the highest crimes such as the murder of a Brâhmaṇa, violation of the bed of their preceptors or seniors, causing miscarriage, or treason against the state, they are only to be exiled,² though in a later passage we are told that all traitors, be they preceptors, kinsmen or friends, should be slain.³ On learned virtuous Brâhmaṇas the king should bestow all the land conquered in war. Apart from privileges, theory sometimes makes claims of an extreme character for the Brâhmaṇas. Charged with the upkeep of the Vedas and other scriptures, the Brâhmaṇa appears on earth as the lord of all creatures. In consequence of his birth and precedence, he is the master of everything that exists in the universe. What he eats is his own. The place he inhabits is his own. What he gives away is his own. If the Kṣatriya wields sovereignty, it is because the Brāhmaṇa refused it.¹ In any case, the fundamental laws of the social order must be enforced. It was the eternal duty of kings to prevent the confusion of castes and duties.² That indeed, is one of the objects for which government had come into being.
c6.19
¹ Śānti-parva, LVI, 28-29; LXII, 4; LXIII, 1-5; LXV, 8-10; LX, 7-16, 20-36; CCXCVII, 3-4; CLXXXVIII, 1-9. particularly 10-14 for the Origin of Caste.
c6.20
¹ Śānti-parva, LXV, 17—19. The Anuśāsana-parva prohibits Brâhmaṇas from accepting food from Śūdras. See CXXXV, 2—6. The same parva lays down that any one who left his own occupation and followed that of a Śūdra should be considered a Śūdra. (Ibid., 10). For the dialogue between Duryodhana and Yudhiṣṭhira, see Śalya-parva, XXXI, 54—56, also 65.
c6.21
² Ibid., LXXI, 3—4; LVI, 32—34. For the Myth of the Origin of Castes, LXXII, 4—8.
c6.22
³ Ibid., LVII, 5—13.
c6.23
¹ Ibid., LXXII, 10-17. Also LXXIII, 29-32. On Brahmanic privileges, see also Vana-parva, CXXXIII.
c6.24
² Śānti-parva, see also Vana-parva, CCIX, LVII, 15. For an animated description of the successive stages of the fall as it appears through the ages, see Ibid., CXLL.
c6.25
The Mahābhārata theories of the origin of government, or rather, the state, present some striking points of comparison and contrast with European theory. In a passage of poetic brilliance the Vana-parva records how in very ancient days men lived a pure, godly life. They were, in fact, equal to gods. They could ascend to the heavens and return to earth at will. The wishes of all were fulfilled. Sufferings were few and real trouble or fear was none. Perfect virtue and happiness reigned. The span of life extended over thousands of years. But all this changed after a long while. The Śānti-parva, too, has it that there was at first a sort of Golden Age where-in existed neither sovereignty nor king, neither chastisement nor chastiser. All men used to protect one another righteously. But after a while their hearts were assailed by error. Their faculties of perception were clouded; their virtue declined; greed and avarice set in. The downward course continued. Wrath disturbed human relations and then came the blight of unrestrained sexual indulgence. Distinctions between virtue and vice vanished. The Vedas disappeared and righteousness came to an end. Now the gods were alarmed. The extinction of pious rites and sacrifices on earth, the essence of which sustains the celestial beings threatened them with distress and fall.¹ They approached Viṣṇu who composed an all-comprehensive treatise. "Indicate, O God," said the gods to Viṣṇu, "that one among mortals who deserves to have superiority over the rest." But Viṣṇu did not think fit to invest any of the existing individuals with authority. He reflected a little and, by a fiat of his will, produced out of his own energy a son named Virajas. But the dynasty founded by Virajas came to grief when Veṇa, one of his descendants, became a slave of his passions. The higher powers intervened once again. The sceptre was entrusted to the son of Veṇa who expressed his willingness to perform any useful task entrusted to him. The gods and the Ṛiṣis charged him to discipline himself, to maintain and enforce the Vedic religion and precepts, to persevere in righteousness, to look at all creatures with an equal eye, and never to act from caprice.² Here is a clear conception of the state of nature which preceded political society. There, for a while, men lived according to righteousness, an idea which reminds one of Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke and even the Rousseau of the Discourses. But divine interposition, not mere human effort, is called in to rectify the rottenness in which the Golden Age had ended. Another theory of the origin of the state which Mahābhārata has preserved brings us a little nearer Hobbes. It paints the state of nature not as a Golden Age of righteousness but as a period of terrible anarchy. Men dined on one another
c6.26
¹ Vana-parva, CLXXXIII. Śānti-parva, LIX, 14–27. Elsewhere we are told that on the other side of Himavat there is a region where perfect virtue and happiness still prevail. There, however, some people thought fit to practise austerities. See Śānti-parva, CLXCII, 7–23. ² Ibid., LIX, 87–89.
c6.27
like fishes in the waters. People got weary of it. They made certain pacts among themselves to the effect that any one who was harsh in speech, or violent in temper, who robbed others of their wealth or seduced or abducted the wives of others, should be cast off by the rest. The object of the pact was to inspire confidence among all classes of the people. So they lived for a while but, after some time, they felt acutely the need of a king. They assembled and approached the Grandsire, saying, "without a king, O Divine Lord, we are going to destruction. Appoint some one as our king! All of us shall worship him and he shall protect us." The Grandsire nominated Manu to be a king but Manu replied, "I fear all sinful acts. To govern a kingdom is exceedingly difficult, especially among men who are always false and deceitful in their behaviour." But the people gave an assurance to Manu. "Don't fear" they said to him. The sins would touch only those who committed them. They promised to contribute to his treasury one-tenth of their crops and one-fiftieth of their animals and precious metals, to give him the most beautiful maidens in marriage, and to depute the foremost of their warriors and riders to form his retinue. So, strong and invincible, he would be their king and protect them happily. A fourth part of the merit which they would earn would go to him. "Like the sun scorching everything with his rays, go out for winning victories, crush the pride of foes and let righteousness always triumph." Thus reassured, Manu assumed the sceptre and descended on the world with a large force. Struck with fear, the people put themselves to their duties. Manu made a round of the world, extinguished wickedness and set every one to his duty.¹. In this account the state of nature is reminiscent of Hooker and Hobbes but the first pact only establishes society. Ex-communication is the only instrument for enforcing social conventions. Government is instituted by the joint action of human intelligence and divine will. Protection on one side and obedience and financial contribution on the other, are the essential conditions of political organisation. Throughout, a low view of human nature is in evidence. Left to themselves men devoured one another. They are false and deceitful. Only a strong man can keep them in order and make them attend to their duties.
c6.28
¹ Ibid., LXVII, 17-82.
c6.29
Herein consists the supreme importance of government. It is only through fear of the king that people do not eat one another. The king alone brings peace on earth.¹ If the king did not perform his function, the strong would rob or kill the weak. The righteous people would be terribly oppressed and unrighteousness would be adopted by all. None could say of any article of diet or any other property that it was his. The very sense of property, of ‘mineness,’ would disappear. Nor would one be able to claim his wife or son as his own. For all regulations of marriage and morality would cease to operate. In short, “Society itself would cease to exist.”² There is really no one who can be happy in a state of anarchy. If sinful men deprive others of their possessions, they are themselves assailed by more powerful persons who, in their turn, are exposed to similar risks from yet stronger combinations. Women are abducted. Like cattle without a herdsman, like fishes and birds attacking one another, men sink into darkness and rush headlong to destruction.³ In a word, anarchy is “the worst possible of states.” None should live in it.⁴ “One should first select a king.........Then should he select a wife, and then earn wealth. If there be no king, what would become of his wife and acquisitions.”¹ In modern phraseology, the state is prior in importance to the family or private property, both of which, in fact, it alone makes possible. If the working of Government is disturbed, all creatures are overtaken by evil. The Mahābhārata emphasises the idea by putting it into a mythological form; it was kingly duties which first flowed from the original god and then other duties came from his body. Kingly duties comprise all kinds of renunciation, initiation, learning and worldly behaviour.²
c6.30
¹ Śānti-parva, LXVIII, 8-9.
c6.31
² Ibid., LXVIII, 13-31.
c6.32
³ Ibid., LXVII, 12-16; LXVIII, 10-13.
c6.33
⁴ Ibid., LXVII, 2-4.
c6.34
¹ Ibid., LVII, 40; LXIV, 2, 21, 22–30; LXIII, 29. People seek the protection of a competent king as birds seek refuge in a tree (LXXV, 13).
c6.35
² Ibid., LIX, 133-34.
c6.36
The king who, in Hindu political speculation, means the government or even the state, is then no ordinary mortal. He is a celestial being who, on the exhaustion of his merit, descends on earth, “conversant with the science of chastisement”³ he is Indra; he is Yama; he is Dharma. He sustains and supports everything. He assumes different forms.⁴ He becomes Agni, Āditya, Mṛtyu, Vaiśravaṇa and Yama on different occasions. Like Agni or fire, he burns sinful offenders with his fierce energy. Like Āditya or the sun, he observes the doings of all and promotes the general good. Like Mṛtyu or death, he destroys in his wrath hundreds of wicked men with their kinsmen. Like Yama or the god of Destiny, he restrains the wicked by severe punishments and favours the righteous with rewards. Again, like Vaiśravaṇa he rewards valuable services and fines offenders.⁵ “The very gods do not disregard a righteous king who is truly an eternal god.” A mortal who slights him loses the fruit of all his gifts, libations and offerings to the Pitṛis.¹ Every one who desires prosperity should worship the King as he himself should worship Indra.² The king is the foremost among men, as Agnihotra is the foremost among Vedic sacrifices, as the Gâyatrî is the foremost among metres and the ocean foremost among waters. People should bow before kings as before their preceptors.³ One who obeys and gratifies the king gains this world and the next. He who thinks of injuring the king comes to grief here and is consigned to hell hereafter. The king’s wrath is all-consuming. None, not even the king’s son or brother, companion or *alter ego* can make himself happy by disloyalty to the king. None should spread evil reports about him.⁴ The king is the heart of the people, their great refuge, their glory, their highest happiness.⁵ The king’s property is sacrosanct as nothing else is. One should turn away from it as from death itself. One should guard it as one’s own. He who appropriates it meets with destruction like “a deer touching upon poison,” and “sinks senseless into a deep hell of eternal gloom and infamy.”⁶ It is best to yield ready obedience to the king. The tree that bends easily has to suffer no torture. The wood that bends is not heated. So, men should bend before the powerful, which really means bending one’s head before Indra.⁷ It is, of course, essential, that the king should perform his functions well. If so, peace, order and security reign everywhere. Men become righteous and dutiful; instead of injuring, they serve one another. The members of the three higher castes are enabled to devote themselves to study and religion. Women, decked with every ornament, may fearlessly wander alone everywhere.¹
c6.37
³ Ibid., LXXII, 25.
c6.38
⁴ Ibid., LXXII, 25.
c6.39
⁵ Ibid., LXVIII, 39–47.
c6.40
¹ Ibid., LXV, 29.
c6.41
² Ibid., LXVII, 4.
c6.42
³ Ibid., LXVII, 34; XXXVIII, 110.
c6.43
⁴ Ibid., LXVIII, 48–50; LXVIII, 39–41.
c6.44
⁵ Ibid., LXVIII, 48–50.
c6.45
⁶ Ibid., LXVII, 4.
c6.46
⁷ Ibid., LXVII, 8–11.
c6.47
¹ Ibid., LXVIII, 32-35.
c6.48
Besides a strong government, there is another condition on which the stability of the social order depends. The Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya, that is, the priestly and political powers, must work in harmony. The king must always respect the Brāhmaṇas. Fire has sprung from water, iron from stone and the Kṣatriya from the Brāhmaṇa. The three products can exert their force on everything else but if they come into conflict with their progenitors, their force is at once neutralised.² It is the “great intelligence” and “sound counsels” of a well-born Brāhmaṇa, endowed with wisdom and humility, that guide the king in every matter and lead him to prosperity. The Brāhmaṇa points out the duties which the king is to observe. If the Kṣatriya and the Brāhmaṇa fight each other, ruin overtakes the kingdom. If Brāhmaṇas abandon Kṣatriyas, education, prosperity and sacrifices disappear. Kṣatriyas who abandon Brāhmaṇas become impure in blood and assume the nature of robbers. The Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya are connected with each other by nature. Either protects the other. The Kṣatriya is the cause of the Brāhmaṇa’s growth and the Brāhmaṇa is the cause of the Kṣatriya’s growth. If they help each other, they attain to great prosperity. If their traditional friendship gives way, a confusion sets over everything.³ Again, it is emphasised that the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya have a common origin. The power of penances and mantras was bestowed upon Brāhmaṇas and the might of arms and weapons upon Kṣatriyas. If they apply their forces separately, they can never uphold the world. If kings are supported by powers of both descriptions, they can well protect their subjects, that is, perform the real functions of government. Between themselves, the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya are the rightful owners of everything in the universe. But the virtuous king should yield precedence to Brāhmaṇas and rule the kingdom by their aid. Then he can subjugate the whole earth and achieve transcendent fame.¹ It is, however, understood that the Brāhmaṇas are not actually to run the governmental machine. Once the experiment had been tried and disaster had ensued. Having slain the Kṣatriyas, Paraśu Rāma made a gift of the earth to Kaśyapa who presented it to the Brāhmaṇas. But under Brahmanic rule, the strong began to oppress the weak; order disappeared; anarchy set in; the earth sank to the lowest depths. In this dire predicament, the earth begged Kaśyapa for a Kṣatriya king. The few surviving Kṣatriyas were sought out and appointed to the task of government.² The Hindu politi-cists think in terms of caste but an analysis of their ideas makes it plain that they emphasise the need of the union of political authority with the strength of learning and legal equipment. The Brāhmaṇas were the repositories of wisdom. It was essential to harness their intellectual power in the service of the administration. They alone could be expected to hold aloft the torch of principles and guide the formulation of policy. This is what explains the insistence of the Mahābhārata and other political treatises on the necessity of every king having a learned priest. Indeed, we are told that the king should first instal the priest in his office and then arrange his own coronation.¹ It is the priest who dispels all the invisible fears of the subjects. If the preservation and growth of the kingdom depend on the king, the preservation and growth of the king himself depend on the priest.²
c6.49
² Ibid., LVI, 24-25.
c6.50
³ Ibid., LXXVII, 10-17; LXXIII, 8-13.
c6.51
¹ Ibid., LXXIV, 13-15, 22.
c6.52
² Ibid., Rājadharmānuśāsana-parva, I, 50-86.
c6.53
¹ Śānti-parva, LXXXIII, 29.
c6.54
² Ibid., LXXIV, 1-2.
c6.55
The alliance between the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya is, of course, all important but it is recognised that general social harmony and co-operation are necessary to perfect happiness. Following their respective duties, the three higher castes should endeavour to maintain harmony. All the four orders should attend to their functions; wholesome barriers should be maintained.³
c6.56
³ Ibid., LXIX, 77-78.
c6.57
All the harmony, however, depends on the active exercise of governmental powers. The prosperity of the social order, its very existence, is bound up with the king's performance of his duty. The kingly duties stand in the forefront of all duties. It is they which protect the rest. As the footprints of the elephant engulf those of all other animals, so the duties of the Kṣatriya engulf those of all other orders under every circumstance.⁴ It is the king who always makes the age, not vice versa.⁵
c6.58
⁴ Ibid., LXIII, 25, 27; LXV, 5-7.
c6.59
⁵ Ibid., LXIX, 79.
c6.60
It follows that within the limits prescribed by the fundamentals of social organisation the activity of the government knows no bounds. Its primary duty is to enforce the social order and see that every one performs his function and adheres to his duty. If this task is accomplished to perfection, the result is the advent of a golden age.
c6.61
Unrighteousness disappears, diseases vanish, none is left in widowhood or misery. Nature itself is affected. The earth yields crops without tillage; herbs and plants grow in luxuriance; barks, leaves, fruits and roots—all become vigorous and abundant.¹ When order is enforced to the extent of three-fourths of perfect efficiency, there comes the Tretâ Age, while half the efficiency produces the Dwâpara. When, however, the king practically renounces his duty and indulges in oppression, the Dark Age sets in. Brâhmaṇas live by serving others and Śûdras usurp the garb of mendicancy. Castes are intermixed.² Now, "it is the eternal duty of kings to prevent a confusion of duties in respect of the different orders."³
c6.62
¹ Ibid., LXIX, 81-86
c6.63
² Ibid., LXIX, 87-105.
c6.64
³ Ibid., LVII, 15.
c6.65
Under the stress of extraordinary circumstances, however, the law of professions is relaxed. For righteousness becomes unrighteousness and *vice versa* according to time and place. On three occasions, is the Brâhmaṇa permitted to bear arms; when he has to defend himself, when he has to chastise robbers and when he has to compel others to betake themselves to their duties. In times of distress, too, he may adopt the profession of a Kṣatriya and, failing that, of a Vaiśya, though he is permitted to sell only certain articles and strictly barred from dealing in others.⁴ When Kṣatriyas fail in their duty, Śûdras are also allowed to bear arms.⁵ As a rule, however, all must stick to the duties assigned to them.
c6.66
⁴ Ibid., LXXVIII, 21-24; 2-11. See also Râjadharmânuśâsana-parva, Sec. IV, where Brâhmaṇas learn the arts of warfare.
c6.67
⁵ Śânti-parva, LXXVIII, 38-44.
c6.68
The Government should actively promote righteousness and never allow it to fall into decay.⁶ The king must severely punish all unrighteousness or he will incur obloquy among men and the gods will desert his mansion. For in a state of sinfulness, there can be no enjoyment of family life or property. Righteousness takes the king to heaven while unrighteousness flings him into hell.¹ So all must be compelled to follow righteousness. Those who are attached too much to worldly objects, who disregard wholesome restraints and who are, therefore, like brutes, should be compelled to return to duty.²
c6.69
⁶ Ibid., XC, 17.
c6.70
¹ Ibid., XC, 4–6, 10–16; XCII, 6–19.
c6.71
² Ibid., LXV, 7.
c6.72
This is of the very essence of that protection for which the government stands pre-eminently. In one of his questions, Yudhiṣṭhira refers to Danda, Chastisement or Coercion in a most remarkable fashion. "Of what kind is he? What is his form? Of what is he made? Whence is his origin? What are his features? Who is he that remains eternally wakeful protecting this universe? Who is he that is known to be the foremost of all things?"³ Bhisma replies that chastisement is that which keeps up righteousness. The embodiment of chastisement is he who protects all by an impartial exercise of the rod. "Chastisement is a great god. In form he looks like a blazing fire. His complexion is dark like that of the petals of the blue lotus. He is equipt with four teeth, has four arms and eight legs and many eyes. His ears are pointed like shafts and his hair stands erect. He has matted locks and two tongues. His face has the hue of copper and he is clad in a lion's skin."⁴ Such is the monster set up to teach mankind their duty. On earth he assumes various forms—the sword, the bow, the mace, the dart, the trident and all sorts of weapons. "Indeed, chastisement moves on earth, piercing, cutting, afflicting, lopping off, dividing, striking, slaying, and rushing against its victims. These . . . . . are some of the names which chastisement bears, viz., Sword, Sabre, Righteousness, Fury, the irresistible, the Parent of Prosperity, Victory, Punisher, Checker, the Eternal, the Scriptures, Brahma, Mantra, the Avenger, the Foremost of First Legislators, the Judge, the Undecaying, God.....the Ever-agoing, the First-born, the Affectionless, the Soul of Rudra, the Eldest Manu and the Great Benefactor."¹ In a later verse, he is given eight other names—God, Man, Life, Power, Heart, Lord of all Creatures, Soul of all Things, the Living Creature."²
c6.73
³ Ibid., CXX, 5–7.
c6.74
⁴ Ibid., CXX, 8–16. The translation is Mr. P. C. Roy's.
c6.75
¹ Ibid., CXX, 17—22.
c6.76
² Ibid., CXX, 41.
c6.77
He assumes the form of an army and is thus the author of kingdoms.³ To sum up, chastisement is the holy Viṣṇu, the puissant Nārāyaṇa.⁴ God himself has sent chastisement to be employed by Kṣatriyas. This eternal chastisement is itself the soul of impartial chastisement.⁵ In the course of a delightful story we are told that the disappearance of chastisement was followed by the fall of morality and law. "All idea of property ceased." No longer did any one cherish the slightest consideration for his neighbour. The strong began to slay the weak.⁶ Morality is the wife of chastisement, while she herself is the mother of the Universe. Moral life depends on chastisement. Among the forms of chastisement, therefore, are mentioned all psychological moods and varieties of moral feeling.⁷ But for chastisement, then, all creatures would grind one another. He is the refuge of all.
c6.78
³ Ibid., CXX, 47.
c6.79
⁴ Ibid., CXX, 23.
c6.80
⁵ Ibid., CXX, 48.
c6.81
⁶ Ibid., CXXII, 14—21;
c6.82
⁷ Ibid., CXX, 25—33.
c6.83
Chastisement is the only guarantee for Religion, Righteousness, Modesty, Profit and Universal Happiness. But for it, no maiden will marry, nobody will milk a cow, nobody will study the Vedas. It is the root of everything.¹ Behind all this philosophy and mythology of coercion lies the conviction that man is essentially low, vile and selfish and can be kept, only with difficulty and harshness, on the straight path. There are, indeed, some who desist from sin through fear of Yama’s rod, of the next world or of society but there are others whom only the king’s rod keeps from devouring one another. The Mahâbhârata is never tired of repeating that if the rod of chastisement did not "protect" the people, they would sink into the darkness of hell. Fear, then, was the predominant motive to obedience. Such, at any rate, was the existing state of things. There was, indeed, a time, long long ago, when men were truthful, little disposed to wrath or wrangling and when they could be governed easily. It was then enough to cry "fie" by way of punishment. Next came a period when harsh speech of censure was enough. The ages of fines and forfeitures followed. But the present day necessitated even the punishment of death. A robber, for example, was outside the pale of society.² The severity of punishment and of government keeps pace with the deterioration of human nature.
c6.84
¹ Ibid., CXX, 34-35; XV, 31-46. Elsewhere the Mahâbhârata says that if the science of chastisement disappears, all the Vedas and scriptures will be lost (LXIII, 28).
c6.85
² Ibid., XV, 4-7; CCLXVII, 16-22.
c6.86
That is why the institution of government is so all-important and all-pervasive. Its mighty, irresistible coercive authority alone makes life, property, morality or virtue possible. It is, of course, necessary, that chastisement should be inflicted with discrimination. It should never be capricious,
c6.87
The Rule of Law.
c6.88
but should always be guided by righteousness.¹ Government, then, while strong and relentless, is never to be arbitrary. The realm is to be governed by policy, not by fancy. The king should lay down rules and regulations and carefully observe them. These gladden the heart of the people. Even trivial matters should be disposed of according to rules. Government by regulation delights the people. Royal officers should also carry on the administration according to rules.²
c6.89
¹ Ibid., CXII, 40, 42–51.
c6.90
² Ibid., CXX, 52; CXXXIII, 13–16.
c6.91
Chastisement may involve harshness but the attitude of the government towards the people should be, at bottom, a paternal, affectionate one. The king should behave towards his subjects as a mother towards her offspring, disregarding all comforts and making all sacrifices in the interest of the latter. If the king does not love his people, he inspires great anxiety.³ He should feed those who have not been fed. He should wait upon those who are old in years. He should speak sweetly with a smiling countenance, for sweetness of speech brings popularity. The king whose subjects are honoured never comes to grief.⁴ Affection and grace of manner, however, are not synonymous with weakness and imbecility. A spirit of moderation should inspire the administration. If the king is always forgiving, he is prevailed upon by the lowest of persons. A mild king is regarded as the worst of his kind. Nor, on the other hand, should he always be fierce. “He should be like the vernal sun, neither cold nor so hot as to produce perspiration.”¹ It is necessary that he should maintain his prestige. Let him not be too free or jocular with his servants or they will hold his power in sport and contempt, betray his counsels and laugh at his displeasure.² So the king should strike the balance between strictness and mildness. Let him combine the attributes of mother, father, preceptor, protector, and the gods of fire, wealth and death, adopting the attitudes of all towards his subjects, *inter alia*, scorching the wicked and rewarding the righteous.³ A king who knows his duty should assume many forms as the peacock puts forth plumes of diverse hues. He must assume that particular hue or form which suits the purpose in view. The king must be discriminate and impartial. It is not safe to live in a country where good and evil are regarded in the same light.⁴
c6.92
³ Ibid., LVI, 43–45.
c6.93
⁴ Ibid., LVII, 18–22; LXVII, 37–38; LXXXIV, 3–10; CXXXIX, 106–110.
c6.94
¹ Ibid., LVI, 36–40.
c6.95
² Ibid., LVI, 48–61.
c6.96
³ Ibid., CXXXIX, 102–105.
c6.97
⁴ Ibid., CXX, 4–6; LXXXII, 41; *et. seq.*
c6.98
Protection of the people, in the widest sense, material and moral alike, is the primary function of the government, the very essence of the kingship. The term, as used in the Mahâbhârata, sometimes means energy and efficiency, sometimes beneficence and righteousness, and sometimes justice and enforcement of order but it is best translated as firm paternalism.⁵ The merit which the king earns by a single day’s righteous protection of the people brings him a reward which lasts for ten thousand years.⁶ A monarch who can afford no protection is to be shunned like a leaky boat, or an ignorant priest.⁷ A king who does not protect his subjects is a thief and sinks into hell. If a weak person fails to find a rescuer, the great rod of divine chastisement falls on the king. Protection is supremely important because it is the prime means of human happiness. In one of the dialogues of the Śāntiparva, Bhr̥igu declares that happiness is an attribute of the soul and is in itself desirable. The Heaven is Light and Hell is Darkness. The Truth is Righteousness; Righteousness is Light and Light is Happiness. The doctrine was incomprehensible to Bharadwāja who protested that R̥iṣis sought something higher and that happiness as an ideal was not acceptable to high-souled people. Bhr̥igu, however, reiterated his position. The trend of the Mahābhārata is towards emphasising popular happiness as the goal of governmental activity.¹
c6.99
⁵ Ibid., LVIII, 1–4. See the elaborate list of the means of protection, LVIII, 4–24.
c6.100
⁶ Ibid., LXXI, 29.
c6.101
⁷ Ibid., LVII, 43–44.
c6.102
¹ Ibid., CXXXIX, 99-100; LXXXVIII, 23. On the general promotion of righteousness and protection, see also XCII, 6-19. For the dialogue between Bhr̥igu and Bharadwāja, see Śānti-parva, II.
c6.103
Protection is a universal duty, but the Brāhmaṇas claim some special consideration. They must be well-cared for and in return they will protect the king. "Their blessings.........would surely descend upon kings of righteous behaviour."² All should take up arms in defence of Brāhmaṇas.³ Fruit-trees were supposed to be the property of the Brāhmaṇas. Only after they had been satisfied, could the surplus go to others.⁴ If a Brāhmaṇa intends to migrate, the king should entreat him to remain in his own kingdom. If his own persuasion failed, he should seek the good offices of an assembly of Brāhmaṇas. If necessary,
c6.104
² Ibid., LXXVII, 32.
c6.105
³ Ibid., LXXXVIII, 27-28. So too, the Brāhmaṇas may take up arms in defence of the other three orders.
c6.106
⁴ Ibid., LXXXIX, 1-2.
c6.107
| Special protection of Brāhmaṇas. | |
c6.108
The intending emigrant should be provided with means of sustenance. The king should provide for a Brāhmaṇa who is driven by poverty to thieving.¹ Elsewhere, the worship of Brāhmaṇas is inculcated as the foremost duty of kings. They should be cherished and protected like children. Even if they practise trade, agriculture or robbery, they should be held in esteem. In origin, Brāhmaṇas are anterior to Pitṛis, deities, nāgas (snakes), Rākṣasas (demons) or human beings in general.² Birth alone entitles a Brāhmaṇa to adoration from all creatures.³ There is nothing higher than a Brāhmaṇa. Gods, ancestors, all are gratified when Brāhmaṇas are gratified. The earth itself had declared that the service of Brāhmaṇas was excellent and cleansing. All acts hurtful to Brāhmaṇas lead to discomfiture and ruin.⁴ Brāhmaṇas should be protected like sons and worshipped like fathers. A Kṣatriya, a hundred years old should look upon a Brāhmaṇa boy of ten as a father. The Mahābhārata takes another simile and declares that Brāhmaṇas are to Kṣatriyas as husbands are to wives. Or again, if the earth has accepted the Kṣatriya for her lord, it is because she failed to obtain the Brāhmaṇa.⁵ Those who offend against Brāhmaṇas must be exiled. The Brāhmaṇa’s wealth must be protected in particular. “Everything is protected by protecting the Brāhmaṇa’s wealth.”⁶ Here, as elsewhere, the poetic form in the Mahābhārata is injurious to exactitude of thought and expression, and occasionally leads to self-contradiction. But the general purport is clear that Brāhmaṇas are entitled to special consideration.
c6.109
¹ Ibid., LXXXIX, 3–6; LXXVI, 3–13; LXXVII, 2–7.
c6.110
² Anuśāsana-parva, XXXIII, 2–19.
c6.111
³ Ibid., XXXV, 1.
c6.112
⁴ Ibid., XXXIV, 1–4, 6–8, 22–27.
c6.113
⁵ Ibid., VIII, 20–22.
c6.114
⁶ Śānti-parva, LXXV, 10–12.
c6.115
On the other hand, Brâhmaṇas should prove themselves worthy of the special treatment. They must combine intelligence and learning with moral discipline. They must be harmless, kind and charitable to all. They must be modest, humble and contented.¹
c6.116
¹ Ibid., LXXIX, 2–6. For the duties of Brâhmaṇas see also CCXXXIV, 7–15; CCXXXV, 3–12.
c6.117
The principle of righteousness and protection includes that of justice. Justice is the very basis of the stability of the state. If justice is upset, the kingdom withers away like a boat wrecked at sea. Those who disgrace the seat of justice by inflicting injustices sink into hell along with the king. Disputes should be decided on the evidence of witnesses. In the absence of witnesses on one side or the other, the king should give the case a special consideration. The wealthy should be punished with fines and confiscations; the poor with loss of liberty and the wicked with corporal inflictions. Treason must be punished with death effected by various means. So, too, arson, theft and such sexual intercourse as may lead to a confusion of castes. None should be punished for the fault of another. No offender, however dear to the king, should escape punishment. If a king inflicts capricious punishments, he earns infamy on earth and sinks into hell hereafter.²
c6.118
² Ibid., LXXV, 18–22, 25; XCI, 35.
c6.119
If righteousness and protection are absent from the policy of the king, he forfeits all title to obedience. If he falls under the influence of vicious and sinful ministers and destroys righteousness, he and his family deserve to be slain by his subjects. In any case, he soon meets with destruction.³ Here the Mahâbhârata places a sharp and decisive limitation on the doctrine of loyalty, almost of passive obedience, which it inculcates elsewhere. It does not work out any philosophy of resistance nor does it base the right to revolt on any clear conception of human rights. It only lays down a proposition that if the king destroys righteousness, he must be got rid of.
c6.120
³ Ibid., XCII, 9.
c6.121
The Government should control drinking shops, public women, gamblers and keepers of gaming houses, pimps, actors and other such people. While the Government must ceaselessly foster righteousness and look after the moral welfare of its wards, it is not to aim at uniformity of law and custom. The Mahâbhârata expressly forbids the king to exterminate the special customs of families or old countries.¹
c6.122
¹ Śānti-parva, LXXXVIII, 14; LXXV, 19.
c6.123
The promotion of the material interests of the people is the essential duty of the government. It is the task of the government to make the earth habitable and comfortable for men. It was an early king who had levelled the surface of the earth, removing the rocks and rocky mountains which lay all around.² The government should reclaim land for cultivation and fertilise it. Agriculture should not be wholly dependent on rain. Large tanks and lakes must be excavated all over the kingdom at suitable places. Agriculturists should not want seed or food. Loans of seed grain should be granted to them. Measures should be taken against fire, snakes, and other destructive beings. Diseases should be provided against. The risk from Râkṣasas should be guarded against.³ The development of means of communication was one of the duties of the government. The king should cause wide roads to be laid out and shops and watering stations to be erected at proper distances.¹ Everywhere in the kingdom robbers must be exterminated. Upon such foes the rod of chastisement should fall like death. No one should be pardoned from caprice.² If thieves are not brought to book, it is the duty of the king to compensate the owners of stolen property. On occasions like the Râjasûya, boundless charity was expected of the king. On the king depends the prosperity of the realm. Yudhiṣṭhira’s justice brought rains and plenty. The Mahâbhârata inculcates charity on the part of the king but interdicts all begging on the part of the people, except in days of distress. If every one abstained from work and lived by begging, the world would certainly come to an end. It was robbers who generally gave money to beggars. Neither beggars nor robbers are to be tolerated.³
c6.124
² Ibid., LIX, 114-115.
c6.125
³ Ibid., LXV, 2; V, 17, 21.
c6.126
¹ Ibid., LXIX, 53.
c6.127
² Ibid., LXXV, 5.
c6.128
³ Ibid., LXXV, 10; XIII, 40-41. LXXXVIII, 16-17, 23-24.
c6.129
Efficiency. The Government should always aim at efficiency. Energy is one of the prime requisites of the king. Everything can be acquired by exertion. Exertion is the foremost of all things.⁴
c6.130
⁴ Ibid., CXX, 45, also CXII.
c6.131
Governmental Organisation. In the Mahâbhârata the discussion of governmental organisation is bound up with its personnel and personal qualifications. At the top stands the king. He must perforce trust his ministers and people. Universal distrust is worse than death. But he must not rely completely on others. He must personally dispose of the most important transactions of Government. He must constantly take stock of his own resources and those of his enemies. He must wake up early and lay out his programme of the day in the early hours of the morning.¹ His qualifications are commensurate with the transcendent importance of his office. The insistence of the Mahābhārata on knowledge and wisdom in the supreme ruler reminds one of Socrates and Plato. Perfect moral discipline is an equally important requisite. The king must first subdue his own senses and then subdue his foes. "He should have his soul under control." He must be free from avarice, pettiness, irritability and other such vices. He must practise thirty-six virtues such as kindness, faith, honesty, temperance in pleasures. He must divide his time judiciously between religion, pleasure and profit.²
c6.132
¹ Ibid., LXXX, 9-10; Sabhā-parva, V.
c6.133
² Śāntiparva, LVII, 21-22, 30-36; LXIX, 3-4; CXX, 40-43; LXXX, 2-118. Sabhā-parva, V.
c6.134
Every king must have a number of officers to assist him. "A king without a minister cannot govern his kingdom even for three days."³ Here the reference appears to be to the chief minister. Birth is not mentioned as a qualification for his post. In the Sabhāparva the Mahābhārata seems to prescribe seven principal officers—the commander of forces, the second in command, the governor of the citadel, the chief priest, judge, physician and astrologer. To the chief offices as a whole the Mahābhārata counsels the appointment of four Brāhmaṇas, three Kṣatriyas, twenty-one Vaiśyas, three Śūdras and one Sūta.⁴ It is remarkable that even the outcastes are not altogether unrepresented. It is significant that Śūdras, though consigned to the service of the superior caste, are admitted to high office. Perhaps it was felt that the Government must know their point of view. Perhaps their representation was necessary to win their loyalty. Their share in the higher counsels of the Government, however, was scanty. They must have formed a very large proportion of the population but they obtain only three out of the thirty-seven chief offices. Among the three higher castes, offices seem to be distributed more or less according to the numerical proportion. When possible the king should consult only one minister, lest secrets should be betrayed and responsibility should be undefined. The Sabhâparva, however, inculcates a different view. It forbids the king to consult only one person. The practice of putting offices in commission is discouraged. A single person should be appointed to one task. If more are appointed, they may disagree with one another or even refuse to tolerate one another.¹ All these officers must be men; women are barred from consultation on high matters of state, probably, because they are supposed to be incapable of keeping secrets.² The Mahâbhârta seems to indicate a circle of followers from among whom the officials were probably selected. The king, it is said, is surrounded by five kinds of men, those who have the same object, those devoted to him, those related to him by birth, those won over, and those who follow righteousness. The third and fourth classes of persons are never to be completely trusted. In any case, the king is never to be careless in keeping a watch over his friends, though he should always speak in soothing terms to all his servants.³ A feudatory chief always chafes at the prosperity of his overlord. A kinsman is always jealous of a kinsman's prosperity.⁴ If any servants become disloyal, their faults should be proved and they should be struck down one by one. For instance, a king of Kośala first got rid of his disloyal ministers and only then succeeded in subjugating the earth.¹ Only too often avarice and wrath produce hostility between the king and his nobles. They assail each other by means of espionage, stratagems, physical force, etc., or by gifts and arts of conciliation. They seek to weaken and devastate each other and ultimately both meet with destruction. All this should be avoided.² The higher officers should possess a variety of qualifications. Birth is one of them. The minister must have courage and intelligence—the two qualities which can conquer both the worlds.³ All ministers, counsellors and generals should be endowed with moral excellence and discipline, capacity and loyalty.⁴ Covetous men are not to be appointed to any offices.⁵ Every servant should be appointed to the job for which he is fit. If a dog is placed in a situation above his proper reach, he is intoxicated with pride. "A Śarabha should occupy the position of a Śarabha; a lion should swell with the might of a lion; a tiger should be placed in the position of a tiger; and a leopard should be placed as a leopard.⁶ In the selection of colleagues, the guiding principle is that of a similarity of dispositions. "A lion should always make a companion of a lion." Associated with a pack of dogs, a lion fails miserably in his duties.⁷
First 136 of 204 passages. Read on
Linked texts (7)
- Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
- Maitrāyaṇīsaṃhitā — Sanskrit
- Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
- Atharvavedasaṃhitā — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit
- Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
- Veda — Sanskrit
- Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit