DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATANAM, A P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE:
RAJADHARMA

SUBJECT:
HISTORY

NAME OF THE FACULTY:

DR. VISWACHANDRANATH MADASU

NAME OF STUDENT:
GAURI JHA

ROLL NO. :
19LLB095

SEMESTER : I
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to put forth my heartfelt and sincere appreciation to our History professor, Prof.
Viswachandra Nath Madasu, for providing me with this opportunity to study “Rajadharma” in
depth and to attain a better understanding of the same. I have tried my level best to collect
information relevant to the subject through various sources.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract 1
 INTRODUCTION

The rajadharma in ancient Indian political speculation constituted mainly the duties of the king
towards his subjects and his administrative activities. The details of rajadharma make it clear
that the basic spirit behind rajadharma was to ensure peace and prosperity of the people and in
doing so the state was also expected to maintain impartiality. It has been observed that the
ancient Indian state was kind and helpful to the people to the limitless level. In fact, there can
be no higher goal and duty of the state than what was proclaimed in yoga kshema in ancient
Indian Political Thought. The rajadharma as enunciated in the past still holds good; beacons to
a good, orderly, peaceful and prosperous corporate life in a polity. Even today despite all
changes in the tenor and norms of political life, the basic principles of rajadharma remain much
the same as in the past.

Dharma is one of those Sanskrit terms that defy all attempts at an exact rendering in English or
any other tongue. The term passed through several vicissitudes and after passing through
several transitions of meaning, it came to mean "the privilege, duties and obligations of a man,
his standard of conduct as a member of Aryan community, as a member of one of the casts, as
a person in a particular stage of life". It is in the same sense that the Bhagavad-Gita uses the
word dharma in the off quoted verse " svadharma nidhanam sreyen ". The term is employed in
this sense in the Dharma sastra. Bandaranayke treats dharma and Satya (truth) as equivalent.
 KAUTILYA’S TAKE ON RAJADHARMA

Rajadharma as spelt out by Kautilya implies that the state's authority is based on the principles
of dharma. The fulfillment of their duties and responsibilities by rulers was of paramount
importance to the stability and orderly development of society and to the happiness of
individuals in the state and therefore one often finds that rajadharma is said to be the root of or
the quintessence of all Dharam. Santi parva states 'Know that all dharmas are merged in
rajadharma; that rajadharma is at the head of all dharmas' and the welfare, good rains, sickness,
calamities and death among people owe their origin to the king.

The duties of the king towards his subjects and his other administrative activities. It was the
king's duty to see that the people in his kingdom acted according to the rules laid down in the
Smrtis for the several varnas and asramas, to administer justice and to interfere when his help
was sought for by a Parisad (assembly of learned men) in enforcing the Prayaschitta (penance)
prescribed for various lapses. Therefore, it may be said (as done by the Mahabharata) that
rajadharma was the highest goal of the entire world, that it comprehended within itself all rules
of acaravy avahara (administration of Justice) and prayaschitta (penance). All the known
Dharma sutras contain a more or less detailed description of the duties of kings.

Kautilya at one place, points out how the king was one the same footing as his soldiers, both
receiving their different wages and both being entitled to share the assets of the nation. The
king was particularly enjoined to note that the treasury was not his private or personal property.
It was a public trust to be utilized for public purposes. If a king misappropriated public funds
and diverted them to his personal use, he would be guilty of sin and be condemned to hell. The
king was to This content downloaded from realize that he can himself be happy only when his
subjects are contented and prosperous. He was to regard his subjects as his children and strive,
like a loving father, for their welfare. He could become stern only against the evil doers.
Kautilya says if danda (punishment) be not employed, it gives rise to the condition of
matsyanyaya, (the maxim of the larger fish devouring the smaller ones or the strong despoiling
the weak) since in the absence of a chastiser the strong devour the weak and the people
overwhelmed by the operation of matsyanyaya is declared by several works. Numerous works
contain eulogies of danda. Danda rules over all people, it protects all of them, danda is awake
even when (guardians of law) have gone to sleep, the wise regard danda as dharma. But the
duty of the state was not limited only to the protection of people rather it was extended to the
welfare of the people. The king was also expected to bring material prosperity to the people.
The king was expected to do the yoga-kshema (that is to make available what is not easily
available and protect the available things).

Though rajadharma was thus an integral part of Dharma sastra and was one of the most
important subjects there in, yet a part from the words on Dharma sastra separate treatises
dealing with rajadharma alone came into existence in very early times. In fact, in all the works
on polity we find comparatively little about the king's rights and special privileges, but on the
other hand the greatest emphasis is laid on the king's duties and responsibilities. They say that
the king cannot do as he likes, that he has to carry out the dictates of dharma his power to make
rule is limited and he does not act up to the rules of dharma he may be deposed, disobeyed, or
killed. King Marutta is warned by his grandmother in the Markandeya that the king's body is
not meant for pleasure but for undergoing great trouble in protecting the earth and carrying out
his duties. In the Arthasastra Kautilya proclaims the magnificent ideal that in the happiness of
the subjects lies the happiness of the king; in their welfare lies his welfare; the good of the king
does not consist in what is pleasing to him, but what is pleasing to the subjects constitutes his
good.

While enumerating the different aspects of an unjust policy, Kautilya points out that harassment
of subject by the royal army or royal officers, levying of heavy taxes, inability to provide
protection to the subjects from the attacks of forest tribes and lack of sources of livelihood are
the causes of rebellion. He says that the wrong policy such as discontinuing righteous and
customary practice of the people, ruining human assertion, spoiling excellences of the work
done, inflicting punishment on good and innocent people and resorting to falsehood and
partiality causes impoverishment, greed and disaffection among the subjects. Kautilya also
holds that it is not difficult for impoverished people to get greedy and when greedy they become
disaffected and when disaffected they either go over to enemy or themselves kill the king.
Hence, he asks the king to see that people do not get impoverished, greedy and disaffected.
Impoverished people prefer anything- peace, fight or flight. Thus, disaffection of the subjects
creates ground for uprising.
 MANU’S TAKE ON RAJADHARMA

As per laws of Manu, the highest duty of a Kshatriya is to protect his subjects for the king who
enjoys the rewards, just mentioned, is bound to discharge that duty. Hence is it important to
mention that the word raja in the primary sense means a Kshatriya yet in a secondary sense
(laksana) anyone who protects subjects could be called 'raja'. It may be noticed that the meaning
of 'raja' as Kshatriya in the early texts changed to any ruler of any class who protects the country
and people ruled over by him. This change is brought out briefly in Tantravarika. The sacred
laws of the Aryas say that the king only takes care of the welfare of his subjects in his dominions
be it in villages or forests, there is no danger from thieves. Moreover, the king shall be impartial
towards his subjects; and he shall do (what is) good to them. If further says that the king should
not take property for his own from (the inhabitants of his realm).

When Manu says that a king who harasses his kingdom losses his life, his family and his
kingdom, it is implied that people are not bound to suffer silently all wrongs heaped upon them
by a bad king but they may turn around and either depose him or kill him.
 OPINIONS OF OTHER POLITICAL THINKERS AND HISTORIANS

The proximate goal of the state in India was to create such conditions and environments as
would enable all men to live in peace and happiness, to pursue their avocation, to follow their
own customs and usages and their 'svadharma' to enjoy without interference the fruits of their
labor and the property acquired by them. Both Kamandakiya- nitisara and Sukranitisara state
that the king following the path of righteousness confers karma; if he acts otherwise, he
certainly ruins himself and the people. The same doctrine is advocated in the other works, such
as Santi, Markandeya. The goal of the state was deemed to be enable men to attain the four
Purusasthas, particularly the first three; as the last, i.e., moksha depended only upon individual
philosophical insight and mystical experience and was attainable only by a microscopic
number. Even the Brahaspatya sutra says that the fruit of polity was the attainment of dharma,
artha and kama.

According to some political thinkers, the duties of the king are even more onerous and exacting
than those of a trustee. The latter is expected to take scrupulous care of the trust; it is sufficient
if he promotes the welfare of the trust and refrains from taking any direct or indirect advantage
from his position as a trustee. He is not required or expected to make any self-sacrifice for
promoting the interest of his trust. The ideal king, on the other hand, is required to do so. Just
as an expectant mother sacrifices her own desires and pleasures, lest they should be harmful to
the child to be born, the king must sacrifice his own conveniences, inclinations and pleasures
in order to be of the maximum help and service to his people. The body of the king is not meant
for enjoyment of pleasures; it has to put both great troubles and worries while carrying out the
royal duty of protecting the subjects and fulfilling the dharma.

The Yajnavalkyasmirti enumerates the daily duties of the king from verses 327 to 333 in the
rajadharma section. In the first half of the day, the king is to give his personal attention to the
problems of defense of the capital and himself and those of revenue and expenditure. He is to
attend the work of administration of justice afterwards. After that the king is allowed to take
his bath and food. Later the king has to supervise the work of treasury, confer with his spies
and the minister regarding the state administration. In the afternoon, the king should inspect the
army. Towards evening, the information received by the secret services is to be conveyed to
the king. Only then he should enjoy listening to music, watching a dance and having his dinner
and also reading scriptures. After performing all these duties, the king should retire to his inner
apartments for rest and sleep. Besides every day the king has to look to local affairs with the
assistance of sabhayas. A remarkable similarity is found between the Arthasastra and the Yajna
so far as the allotment of time division of day and night to the performance of various duties is
concerned. The king has to protect the people and work for their prosperity and receive taxes
for governing the state. Although, like other ancient political thinkers, Yajnavalkya too lays a
great stress on the importance of financial resources and the state treasury, yet he cannot tolerate
the king taking recourse to evil ways for it. The king who would oppress the people the last
king of the dynasty, who lost his kingdom owing to the wrong done to his subject is amply
justified by Yajnavaklyasmriti. The Yasastilaka gives examples of kings killed by their
subjects, one being a Ralinga king who made a barber his commander-in-chief.

Fick gives examples from the Buddhist Jatakas where bad kings were killed by the people and
others were elected in their place. There is no doubt that obedience to the king is enjoined by
Narada and others, but it is due to the king only so long as he does not swerve from the path of
right and virtue. The above description clearly suggests that the king who acts against
rajadharma loses his legitimacy to govern and provides scope for rebellion. Polices contrary to
and against rajadharma are considered to be unjust and unrighteous.
Thus, disaffection of the subjects creates ground for uprising. This aspect of political obligation
has found in the Ancient Greek political philosophy that men seek power in order to achieve
the collective good. They wish to protect the interests of all citizens, achieve justice for all,
benefit the state, or provide for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 SOCRATES IN PLATO’S REPUBLIC, AND IT’S CORRELATION TO
RAJADHARMA

We have already discussed in Kautilya’s take that a king mist not be greedy and mustn’t indulge
in any vices that would result in the people becoming unhappy with his rule. This disaffection
of the subjects creates ground for uprising. This aspect of political obligation has found in the
Ancient Greek political philosophy that men seek power in order to achieve the collective good.
They wish to protect the interests of all citizens, achieve justice for all, benefit the state, or
provide for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So far as arts are concerned, then, no art ever studies or enjoins the interests of the superior or
stronger party, but always that of the weaker over which it has authority. Thrasymachus
assented to this at last though he tried to put up a fight and then went on so the physician, as
such, studies only the patient's interest, nor his own; and the ship's captain will study and enjoin
the interests of his subordinates, nor his own. He agreed reluctantly. And so, with the
government of any kind; no ruler, in so far as he is acting as ruler, will study or enjoin what is
for his own interest. All that he says and does will be said and done with a view to what is good
and proper for the subjects for whom he practices his art.

Even Aristotle, a contemporary of Kautilya, has said that the less the area of his prerogative,
the longer will the authority of a king last unimpaired he will himself be less of a matter and
behave more like an equal, and his subjects, on their, side will envy him less. This is the reason
he says, for the long survival of Molossians and the Spartan kings.
The details on rajadharma as explained above suggest that it contained some universal
principles of governance. Rajadharma means a body of principles such as providing safety to
the subjects of the state displacing matsyanyaya (the law of Jungle) by equitable law and
Justice. But it was not limited to the safety alone rather it was extended to secure material
prosperity to the people. “Praja hete hetang ragah, Praja sukhe sukhag ragayah” (the
happiness of the king lies in the happiness of his subjects and their welfare lies in his welfare),
reflects the highest ideals of the rajadharma in ancient political thought.

Aristotle, a contemporary of Kautilya in the western world, also said that the state came into
existence for the sake of the life and continues to exits for the sake of a good life. Even today
the basic duty of the state has remained the same as it was in the older days, i.e., the safely,
prosperity and happiness of the subjects of the state. However, the dimension and verifications
of safety, prosperity and happiness of the subjects no doubt, have changed to a significant extent
in the modern era of democracy, marked by the assertion of liberty, equality and fraternity. In
ancient times kingship was the most popular form of governance in most of the parts of the
world, but some sections of society no doubt were privileged having state protection due to
their birth. In India rajadharma enjoined upon the king the duty to protect varna dharma
providing special status and privileges to certain section of society. Aristotle's theory of slavery
also reveals the same theory of special protection and privileges to some sections of society.
Even in this democratic age rajadharma allows 'protective discrimination-' which consisting in
giving special privileges to the unprivileged sections of society with a view to create an
egalitarian order of society which is antithetical to what was sought to be promoted in ancient
times by providing additional privileges.

Today the concept of protective discrimination for weaker sections of society reminds us of the
same thing. Therefore, it cannot be said that the concept of rajadharma has lost its meaning and
relevance. The details of rajadharma, as explained above, make it clear that the spirit behind
rajadharma was to ensure peace and prosperity of the people and in doing so the state was also
expected to maintain peace and happiness has always been left to the state which is also subject
to rajadharma. The state thus has never remained free to do whatever it likes to in the name of
rajadharma. Bhandarkar (1974) has rightly observed that the ancient Indian state was kind and
helpful to the people to the limitless level. He claims that even today no country of Asia or
Europe can match the ancient Indian state so far as the performance of state duty is concerned.
In fact, there can be no higher goal and duty of state than what was proclaimed in Yoga-Kshema
in ancient Indian political thought. Thus, rajadharma as enunciated in the past still holds gook
and beacons to a good, orderly peaceful and prosperous corporate life in a polity. Even today
despite all changes in the tenor and norms of political life the basic principles of rajadharma
remains much the same as in the past.
 J.D.M. DERRETT’S COMMENTARY ON LOUIS DUMONT

Louis Dumont has the unique advantage of combining field experience, large ideas, and a basic
knowledge of Sanskrit. The patience to master a difficult archaic language, no longer the spoken
vehicle of current thoughts in any defined society, is very rare in a scholar devoted to analysis
of actual social groups, real people. Dumont is the only person to acquaint himself with
traditional societies in India and with the cultural continuity within which they, and their
neighbors, are intelligible as a unit. The large and daunting literate past of India is open to him;
and there are few who can compete with this combination of skill.
Dumont summed up his original concept in 1964:

“We must note that the situation in which the political element in India is subordinated-
secularized from its very commencement-to the religious, its very definition being made in
terms of force and expediency, prevented the political element from constituting one of the
fundamental values of the civilization. I fancy this explains two things: first, India's political
instability throughout her history-there is a social and religious unity which not only admits
of political division but even sustain it. Secondly, we can understand what a problem it is in
our own day that India has a constitution that presupposes a transfer of unity from the plane
of religion to the political level.”

Certain parts of modern society never tire of expatiating on the merits of a civilization in which
the political power is hierarchically subordinated to whatever power is wielded by the brahmin
community, for they see this as symbolic of the over lordship of dharma (righteousness) to
which the brahmins are nominally wedded. These parts of modern society find Dumont’s work
extremely interesting. The fact that brahmins are no more righteous than other communities-
and, as ministers and such, may well be more tempted to corruption or vice than others-does
not interest our experts. They are concerned about the formal, nominal character of the Varlas
in question. That the political element was "secularized" they would agree; it was no part of the
office of king to propound any superstitious idea, to lay down any part of righteousness, to
define what is or is not religion or how it shall be served. The definition of the kingly function
in terms of danda ("force" or "punishment") and artha ("material interests" or "expediency")
does indeed emphasize the fact that kingship is founded on secular considerations. The values
of the civilization are ultimate, based on superstitious presuppositions; and political expediency
does indeed not form one of them. Even "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" will
not be found there, since the welfare of all creatures (typically, "cows and brahmins") must be
effectuated by the king in any manner not inconsistent with dharma which, though it knows
emergency conditions and exceptional rules designed to meet them and to preserve life when
all else fails, is basically aligned towards the super substantial harmony of all creation.

The secularization of the kingly position is evidently the main support of this theory.

1. The function of the king in India has been secularized. It is from this point that a
differentiation has occurred, the separation within the religious universe of a sphere or
realm which is opposed to the religious, and roughly corresponds to what we call
political. As opposed to the realm of values and norms it is the realm of force. As
opposed to the dharma or universal order of the Brahman, it is the realm of interest or
advantage, artha. To say that the kingly function is secularized, we must start from the
position that the king was originally a priest par excellence, as in other ancient
civilizations; this is the position Dumont takes. Then we believe that he lost his religious
prerogatives during the Vedic period.

2. The political element is subordinated to the religious, in the sense that the brahmin must
walk before the king. The latter "puts in front" of himself a priest, a purohit. ' At the
coronation, the brahmins claim that Soma is their king, and retain some superstitious
formulae allowing them to retaliate against the king if he does not treat them well." In
spite of the union of the two Varlas for practical purposes, the brahmin is acknowledged
by the kshatriya as his ritual superior. Spiritually preeminent, the brahmins could afford
to be temporally dependent. The king was dispossessed of religious functions proper,
of the "official" religious functions, but “there are at the same time, at the core of the
idea of kingship, elementary notions of a magico-religious nature which have not been
"usurped" by the Brahman. Below the orthodox Brahmanical level, another emerges on
which, certainly in contact with popular mentality, the king has kept the magico-
religious character which is universally inherent in his person and function. In that
universe, there can be no question of a 'contract" between king and subjects. For such a
thing to be at all conceivable, kingship had first to be secularized. This fundamental
transformation has been realized, as we have said, in the Brahmanical definition of the
 relation brahman-ksatra. In that sense. this definition is the necessary basis of what may
be called conventional kingship and opposed to magico-religious kingship.”

In conclusion, Dumont's theory leads to another: namely, that secularization of kingship led to
a second stage in which "renouncers" discovered the concept of contractual kingship, and a
politico-economic domain based on the renouncers' individualism and negation of Brahmanical
values. The clear-cut and logical Indian situation is thus very well suited to one who would put
forward a bold comparative view of Indian and Western history. In the West the "nation"
embodies its own absolute values; therefore, India is a halfway house between the absolute
priest-despots of the ancient East and the secular states of the West.
 RAJADHARMA AND BRAHMINS

It must be admitted that a wholly consistent picture can hardly be expected from two millennia
of texts. On the other hand, the earlier texts-particularly those rogue texts, the Brahmanas-were
handed down, and thus interpreted, by scholars all of whom were brahmins, who subscribed to
a world view reflected in our classical Smrtis; thus, it is risky to see, in the chronologically
anterior material, clues to a stage of life and thought matured in the main line of surviving
tradition. They may well be there, but we cannot prove it; we are speculating. If this is true of
early Brahminical texts, it must be even more true of Buddhist or Jain materials, which are
professedly unorthodox. A consistent picture could conceivably emerge from the whole, but
rather by luck than by contrivance.

The presuppositions of rajadharma were not of fundamental rights, of Rule of Law, of equality
before the law, of security of life, liberty and property, or anything of the kind. They were that
the king should rule his subjects (including, of course, the brahmins) in such a manner as to
give general satisfaction; this meant, in particular, not disturbing the delicate balance of
competing, jealous groups, castes, regions within his kingdom. Generally accepted principles
of life must be secured, the subjects protected from robbers within and invaders without.
Provided this presupposition seemed to be met, actual individuals could be oppressed and
despotic action taken, short of stirring up rebellions (which rival princes were always ready to
foment). The presupposition was that the king must be left to perform his function hence the
injunctions to obey him as if he were a deity-with the aid of the brahmins whose intellectual
training fitted them to be, as history shows they were, at least as crafty and-devious as they
were wise. Such advisers are absolutely necessary to rulers whose conscious specialization is
self-exaltation as power incarnate. No initiative, no originality was expected from kings. It is
remark- able that quite a few did write treatises, manuals, and even encyclopedias which have
survived; but one suspects they took up study as a hobby and employed their court pandits to
do the research and ghost their compositions for them. Rajadharma is thus a very different thing
from racjanti, though treatises on the former incorporate, englobe, a great deal of the latter.

Racjanti is "the way a king should comport himself to be successful." Rajadharma is "the way
a king should comport himself in order to be righteous." The rationale of the former is that a
successful king will the better maintain a quiet and harmonious people; the rationale of the
latter is that un- less the king observes righteousness when he has the fullest freedom to do the
reverse, he personally will go to hell. No sacrificial performances by a former ruler can wipe
out the effects of unrighteous administration persisted in, knowingly, while he ruled. The basis
of this last development is more or less known. The ritual specialists of the Vedic period caught
from their compatriots the notion held by many peoples living on the great dry, seldom watered
plains of the world-namely, that nature requires harmony from man, and that man's misconduct
with his own kind, and even in his dealings with the animals and the unseen powers, is avenged
by a jealous nature. Sin is an extension of the idea of "stain." What cannot be washed from the
conscience must be atoned for by propitiation of some sort. The specialists in ritual knew what
pleased the gods: not merely the offering poured into the fire, but also the condition of the
conscience of the principal for whom the agent performs the ceremony. Ritual correctness and
moral uprightness came to be intertwined as intellectual concerns in the same practitioners'
heads. The books of ritual advice, and instructions for the training and comportment of the ritual
expert, began to contain dos and don'ts of a purely moral character. How to cleanse oneself
from inadvertent moral as well as ritual lapses became a question with which they were
preoccupied. The society, and therefore its leaders, needed expert advice on how to rid the
group of individuals' taints.

The brahmin thus became a moral teacher, philosopher and guide for all the community, all the
castes. The purohit does penance for his king's failure to punish a sinner. And those who
emulated him included many who were skeptical of his "superiority." Keeping away from
tainted wealth, the brahmin could afford to be strict with himself and his family, and to set an
example for the remainder of the people, an example that a few would successfully copy for
thousands of years. Accepting gifts from the ruler, or rather from the people by way of the ruler,
he raised their supernatural status and hopes, without lowering his own, provided he remained
faithful to his observances. The subordination of the political to the spiritual, as Dumont puts
it, is thus a very qualified subordination, and for very limited purposes. It is the subordination
of the prime minister before the ascetic don who once taught him political science at the
university. Each fulfills himself in his own way, each has his own sphere in which he is
supreme. To compare their superiorities may be fun as an intellectual exercise, or as poetry; but
one cannot fruitfully compare this situation with the victory of the crown over the church in the
sixteenth century, or the victory of reason over tradition in the Enlightenment.
The usefulness of making the comparison lies perhaps in this: the brahmins' dharma was not
dharma in the abstract. Brahmins' dharma and rulers' dharma were quite different and went to
help make up a whole-the varriasrama-dharma, which was an intellectual systematized ethical
world view in classical Hinduism. Brahmins alone discussed and refined what dharma was, and
what the duties of individual castes were. Their views could not be interfered with by kings,
who were advised to consult them as well as astrologers (Visnu 111.75-6). But then kings need
never obey either. If it was expedient to do so, they tried to do so. If they feared hell, they did
their best to take supernatural, super substantial, transcendental questions into account. The
people were satisfied if fundamental principles of righteousness as generally understood
(sadharaqa- dharma) were observed. A great deal of latitude was, in practice, allowed to their
kings. The superiority of dharma was a matter of the Hindu world view. It was not the
superiority of brahmins. It is quite wrong to talk of dharma as if it were a brahmin concoction,
as if it were something imposed by them. They were its servants, its interpreters. Rajadharma,
Dharma, they were bigger than just one sect of humans.