The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c15.s1.21

c15.s1.21

The *nîti*-philosophers have not neglected to consider the other side of the shield. The contingency of an arbitrary Charles I, the Chow of the Mencian radicals in ancient China, the Vena of Hindu tradition, has not been ignored either by Kautilya or by Śukra. The evils of "personal government", with their natural and necessary reactions, have been discussed in all the *śâstras*.⁴ If the monarch follows his own will, say, against the advice of Jâjnavalkya⁵ or of the *Purânas*, he will tend to be the cause of miseries, says the *Śukra-nîti*.⁶ He is likely to "get estranged from the kingdom and alienated from his subjects", in other words, to provoke a revolution. Indeed, he is no longer a "legitimate" king, for by ignoring or defying the counsels of ministers he has made himself into a "thief in the form of a ruler", an "exploiter of the people's wealth", a persecutor, a tyrant.⁷ In all respects, both negatively and positively, the ministry is thus a constitutional check in the Hindu theory of monarchy.