High over all classes is the King. He is the living symbol of strength and power. He is "the tiger among men," the "bull of the Bharata race," and his form and features bear the visible impress of the Most High. The whole arduous business of government rests on his shoulders. He cannot appeal to his subjects to help him in carrying out good administration nor can he leave his duties to others. For to beseech and to renounce are both against the laws of his order (Vana Parva, p. 457). At the utmost he can employ counsellors to advise him, but their numbers must never exceed eight (Çanti Parva, p. 275). In any case they only tender advice when asked (Udhyog Parva, p. 100), and the full responsibility of all acts rests on the King only. It is he who must keep up the arsenals, the depôts, the camps, the stables for the cavalry, the lines for the elephants, and replenish the military storehouses with bows and arrows. It is he who must maintain in efficient repair his six different kinds of citadels—his water citadels, his earth citadels, his hill citadels, his human citadels, his forest citadels, and his mud citadels (Çanti Parva, p. 277). It is he who must see that the capital has abundant provisions, impassable trenches, impenetrable walls; that it teems with elephants, cavalry horses, and war chariots. He must maintain an efficient staff of spies to ascertain the strength of neighbouring monarchs and do his utmost to cause dissension among their servants (Çanti Parva, p. 224). The War Office and the Foreign Office are alike under his immediate headship. It is for him to conclude treaties, to lead to battle his armies, and during peace to keep them prepared for war (Çanti Parva, p. 228). But the duty which comes before all others is to protect his subjects. That, indeed, is imposed on him as a religious duty. "For having protected his Kingdom a King becomes sanctified and finally sports in Heaven" (Çanti Parva, p. 68). "Whether he does or does not do any other religious acts, if only he protects his subjects he is thought to accomplish all religion." (ibid., p. 193).
In return for the proper discharge of his innumerable tasks, he is regarded by his subjects as the incarnation of Indra. He is entitled to a sixth share of the gross revenue of the country. Fearful penalties attach to the infringement of his rights. "That man who even thinks of doing an injury to the King meets with grief here and Hell hereafter" (Çanti Parva, p. 221). "He will be destroyed like a deer that has taken poison." On the other hand, should the King fail to meet his obligations—and above all, if he does not protect his subjects—he offends grievously, "These persons should be avoided like a leaky boat on the sea, a preceptor who does not speak, a priest who has not studied the Scriptures, a King who does not grant protection" (Çanti Parva, p. 176). "A King who does not protect his kingdom takes upon himself a quarter of its sins" (Drona Parva, p. 625). In the last resort his subjects will be freed from their allegiance. "If a powerful King approaches kingdoms torn by anarchy from desire of annexing them to his dominions the people should go forward and receive the invader with respect."
In a similar manner the entire civil administration must be conducted by the King. He must see to it that wide roads, shops, and water conduits are constructed. He must look after the streets and by-paths. He must treat all classes impartially, and, above all, scrutinize carefully the work of the Courts of Justice. "The penal code properly applied by the ruler maketh the warders [i.e., Judges] adhere to their respective duties, and leadeth to an acquisition by the ruler himself of virtue." (Udhyog Parva, p. 383). But although the subjects have the right to expect justice they cannot expect kindness or even easy condescension. "The heart of a King is as hard as thunder" (Çanti Parva, p. 57). "Knowledge makes a man proud, but the King makes him humble" (Çanti Parva, p. 223). "When the King rules with a complete and strict reliance on the science of chastisements, the foremost of ages called the Kirta is said to set in" (ibid., p. 228). "The King must be skilful in smiting" (ibid., p. 174). "Fierceness and ambition are the qualities of the King" (ibid., p. 59). "The King who is mild is regarded as the worst of his kind, like an elephant that is reft of fierceness" (ibid., p. 171). Indeed, failure to treat subjects with rigour is visited with penalties as tremendous as failure to protect them. "They forget their own position and most truly transcend it. They disclose the secret counsels of their master; without the least anxiety they set at nought the King's commands. They wish to sport with the King as with a bird on a string" (ibid., p. 172). And in the end they destroy him. "The King should always be heedful of his subjects as also of his foes. If he becomes heedless they fall on him like vultures upon carrion" (Çanti Parva, p. 289).
Here we have commended as a pattern of administration a despotism such as the West has never experienced. It is inquisitorial, severe—sometimes, perhaps, wantonly cruel. But from the fearful pitfalls that encompass weakness it is certain to be sleeplessly vigilant and in the highest degree virile, forceful, and efficient. Now it will be asked what bearing the doctrines of a work four thousand years old have on the problems of the present day. But it must be remembered, as that eminent scholar, the late Mr. Jackson, the victim of the abominable Nasik outrage, pointed out, that Hindu civilization and Hindu thought are at bottom the same now as in the days of Yudhisthira.
The Mahabharata is the constant companion from youth to age of every educated Indian. Its tales have provided matter for the poetry, the drama, and the folk-songs of all ages and of all languages. No Hindu will live in a house facing south, as it is there that lives Yama, the god of death. No Hindu will go to sleep without murmuring Takshaka as a preventive against snake-bite. For Takshaka rescued the snakes from the vengeance of Janamajaya, the great-grandson of the Mahabharata hero Arjuna. The independent Indian Princes conduct their administration exactly on the lines indicated in the Mahabharata, and even States as enlightened as Baroda and Kolhapur still adhere to the Council of eight Ministers recommended in that immortal work. Indeed, its teachings really explain the puzzle of Indian loyalty to the British Government. According to Western ideas, no amount of pax Britannica would compensate the conquered for foreign rule. The Poles still sigh for the bad old days of independence and misrule, and are in no way comforted by the efficiency of German administration. But the Indian's allegiance to his native kings was, as the Mahabharata, lays down, released by their weakness, and he readily transferred his loyalty to those who, although foreign, had yet shown that they could govern vigorously.
INDEX
Acts of Parliament:
Age of Consent Act (1891),42, 75.
Charter Act (1833), 307, 308, 310.
Explosive Substances Act (1908), 98.
Government of India Act (1858), 307, 310.
Indian Councils Act (1909), 10, 100, 120, 162-175.
Indian Newspapers (Incitement
to Offences) Act, (1908), 96, 98.
Press Act (1910), 15, 98-99,335-337.
Punjab Land Alienation Act (1900), 156.
Summary Justice Act (1908), 98.
Universities Act (1904), 78,2, 229.
Administration of British India, comparison of the total number of Englishmen and Indians employed in, 293.
Aga Khan, 132, 133.
Age of Consent Act, 1891,42, 75.