Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c6.91

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