The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c15.s2.13

c15.s2.13

In any event, the metaphorical sacredness of sovereignty does not carry with it, according to *nîti* philosophers, the infallibility and inviolability of the holder of the sceptre, the *danda-dhara*. Not any prince and every prince is "made out of the permanent elements" of the gods of fire, air, water, light, wealth and so forth. It is "only the king who is virtuous that is a part of the gods". How to know such a ruler? The marks of the "god in human form" are fully described in the *Kâmandakî-nîti*, *Śukra-nîti*, and the *Manu-Samhitâ*.¹ He must practise self-restraint and be valorous and skilled in the use of arms and weapons. He must be well up in statecraft and diplomacy and must be able to crush the foes. He must be learned in the arts and sciences. And he must have long-period statesmanlike views. But "otherwise, i. e. if he happens to be the enemy of *dharma* (*Kultur* or Platonic "virtue") and oppressor of the people the king is a part of the demons". Such notions are diametrically opposite to the creed of Augustine² that even Nero was ruler by divine right.