The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c15.s2.16

c15.s2.16

One must not consequently look for a Gregory the Great in India to preach on the exemplary conduct of a "good subject" like David who would not criticize the tyranny even of a Saul. The radical tendencies of the *nîti-śâstras* are developed on postulates which are as the poles asunder to the axioms of the church fathers. In *nîti* thought the King can do wrong as any other mortal. The person, property and family of the ruler are therefore not exempt from punishment (*danda*) by the people, e. g. the fine of the *Manu Samhitâ*. The bed-rock of Hindu political philosophy in the analysis of Kingship is accordingly furnished by the differentiation of the king as "a part of the gods" from the king as "a part of the demons". This is the basis of the distinction between "legitimate Kingship" and its contrary, i. e. tyranny. In the treatises on *smriti* and *nîti* Kingship automatically ceases to be legitimate as it ceases to promote justice (*dharma*), and the drastic remedy suggested is revolution and tyrannicide.