"'Yudhishthira said, "Why, O bull of Bharata's race, have the Brahmanas
said that the king, that ruler of men, is a god?"
"'Bhishma said, "In this connection, is cited the old story, O Bharata, of
the discourse of Vrihaspati unto Vasumanas. There was a king of Kosala
possessed of great intelligence, named Vasumanas. On a certain occasion
he questioned the great sage Vrihaspati of much wisdom. Conversant with
the requirements of humility, king Vasumanas, ever devoted to the welfare
of all, having observed the proper humilities and having circumambulated
the great sage and bowed unto him duly, enquired of the virtuous
Vrihaspati about the ordinances in respect of a kingdom, moved by the
desire of securing the happiness of men.
"'"Vasumanas said, 'By what means do creatures grow and by what are they
destroyed? O thou of great wisdom, by adoring whom do they succeed in
obtaining eternal happiness?' Thus questioned by the Kosala king of
immeasurable energy, Vrihaspati of great wisdom discoursed unto him
coolly about the respect that should be paid to kings.
"'"Vrihaspati said, 'The duties of all men, O thou of great wisdom, may be
seen to have their root in the king. It is through fear of the king only
that men do not devour one another. It is the king that brings peace on
earth, through due observance of duties, by checking all disregard for
wholesome restraints and all kinds of lust. Achieving this, he shines in
glory. As, O king, all creatures become unable to see one another and
sink in utter darkness if the sun and the moon do not rise, as fishes in
shallow water and birds in a spot safe from danger dart and rove as they
please (for a time) and repeatedly attack and grind one another with
force and then meet with certain destruction, even so men sink in utter
darkness and meet with destruction if they have no king to protect them,
like a herd of cattle without the herdsman to look after them. If the
king did not exercise the duty of protection, the strong would forcibly
appropriate the possessions of the weak, and if the latter refused to
surrender them with ease, their very lives would be taken. Nobody then,
with reference to any article in his possession, would be able to say
"This is mine." Wives, sons, food, and other kinds of property, would not
then exist. Ruin would overtake everything if the king did not exercise
the duty of protection. Wicked men would forcibly appropriate the
vehicles and robes and ornaments and precious stones and other kinds of
property belonging to others, if the king did not protect. In the absence
of protection by the king, diverse kinds of weapons would fall upon those
that are righteous in their practices, and unrighteousness would be
adopted by all. In the absence of royal protection men would disregard or
even injure their very mothers and fathers if aged, their very preceptors
and guests and seniors. If the king did not protect, all persons
possessed of wealth would have to encounter death, confinement, and
persecution, and the very idea of property would disappear. If the king
did not protect, everything would be exterminated prematurely, and every
part of the country would be overrun by robbers, and everybody would fall
into terrible hell. If the king did not protect, all restrictions about
marriage and intercourse (due to consanguinity and other kinds of
relationship) would cease; all affairs relating to agricultures and trade
would fall into confusion, morality would sink and be lost; and the three
Vedas would disappear. Sacrifices, duly completed with presents according
to the ordinance, would no longer be performed; no marriage would take
place; society itself would cease to exist, if the king did not exercise
the duty of protection. The very bulls would not cover cows and milk-jars
would not be churned, and men living by rearing kine would meet with
destruction, if the king did not exercise the duty of protection. In the
absence of royal protection, all things, inspired with fear and anxiety
and becoming senseless and uttering cries of woe, would meet with
destruction in no time. No sacrifices extending for a year and completed
with presents according to the ordinances would occur if the king did not
exercise the duty of protection. In the absence of royal protection
Brahmanas would never study the four Vedas or undergo austerities or be
cleansed by knowledge and rigid vows. In the absence of royal protection,
the slayer of a person guilty of the slaughter of a Brahmana would not
obtain any reward; on the other hand the person guilty of Brahmanicide
would enjoy perfect immunity. In the absence of royal protection, men
would snatch other people's wealth from their very hands, and all
wholesome barriers would be swept away, and everybody, inspired with
fear, would seek safety in flight. In the absence of royal protection,
all kinds of injustice would set in; an intermixture of castes would take
place; and famine would ravage the kingdom. In consequence again of royal
protection, men can everywhere sleep fearlessly and at their ease without
shutting their houses and doors with bolts and bars. Nobody would hear
the evil speeches of others, far less actual assaults, if the king did
not righteously protect the earth.[213] If the king exercises the duty of
protection, women decked with ornament may fearlessly wander everywhere
without male relatives to attend upon them. Men become righteous and
without injuring serve one another because the king exercises the duty of
protection. In consequence of royal protection the members of the three
orders are enabled to perform high sacrifices and devote themselves to
the acquisition of learning with attention. The world depends upon
agriculture and trade and is protected by the Vedas. All these again are
duly protected by the king exercising his principal duty. Since the king,
taking a heavy load upon himself, protects his subjects with the aid of a
mighty force, it is for this that the people are able to live in
happiness. Who is there that will not worship him in whose existence the
people exist and in whose destruction the people are destroyed? That
person who does what is agreeable and beneficial to the king and who
bears (a share of) the burden of kingly duties that strike every caste
with fear, conquers both this and the other world.[214] That man who even
thinks of doing an injury to the king, without doubt meets with grief
here and goes to hell hereafter. No one should disregard the king by
taking him for a man, for he is really a high divinity in human form. The
king assumes five different forms according to five different occasions.
He becomes Agni, Aditya, Mrityu, Vaisravana, and Yama. When the king,
deceived by falsehood, burns with his fierce energy the sinful offenders
before him, he is then said to assume the form of Agni. When he observes
through his spies the acts of all persons and does what is for the
general good, he is then said to assume the form of Aditya. When he
destroys in wrath hundreds of wicked men with their sons, grandsons, and
relatives, he is then said to assume the form of the Destroyer. When he
restrains the wicked by inflicting upon them severe punishments and
favours the righteous by bestowing rewards upon them, he is then said to
assume the form of Yama. When he gratifies with profuse gifts of wealth
those that have rendered him valuable services, and snatches away the
wealth and precious stones of those that have offended him, indeed, when
he bestows prosperity upon some and takes it away from others, he is
then, O king, said to assume the form of Kuvera on earth. No person who
is possessed of cleverness, who is capable of work, who desires the
acquisition of virtue, and who is free from malice, should ever spread
evil reports about the king. No man, by acting against the king, can ever
make himself happy, even if he happens to be the king's son or brother or
companion or one whom the king regards as his second self. Fire, having
the wind for his urger, blazing forth (among articles that are
inflammable), may leave a remnant.[215] The wrath of the king, however,
leaves not anything to the person that incurs it. Whatever belongs to the
king should be avoided from distance.[216] One should turn away from what
belongs to the king as he would from death itself. A person by
appropriating what belongs to the king speedily meets with destruction
like a deer upon touching poison. The man of intelligence should protect
as his own what belongs to the king. They that appropriate wealth
belonging to the king sink senseless into a deep hell of eternal gloom
and infamy. Who is there that will not worship the king who is adored by
such terms as delighter of the people, giver of happiness, possessor of
prosperity, the foremost of all, healer of injuries, lord of earth, and
protector of men? That man, therefore, who desires his own prosperity,
who observes all wholesome restraints, who has his soul under control,
who is the master of his passions, who is possessed of intelligence and
memory, and who is clever (in the transaction of business), should always
be attached to the king. The king should duly honour the minister who is
grateful, endued with wisdom, large-hearted, loyal, possessed of mastery
over his senses, virtuous, and observant of the dictates of policy. The
king should entertain the man who is loyal, grateful, virtuous, possessed
of self-control, brave, magnanimous in his acts, and competent to
accomplish tasks without the assistance of others. Knowledge makes men
proud. The king makes men humble. The man who is afflicted by the king
can never obtain happiness. On the other hand, the man who is favoured by
the king becomes happy. The king is the heart of his people; he is their
great refuge; he is their glory; and he is their highest happiness. Those
men, O monarch, who are attached to the king, succeed in conquering both
this and the other world. Having governed the earth with the aid of the
qualities of self-restraint, truth, and friendship, and having adored the
gods by great sacrifices, the king, earning great glory, obtains an
eternal abode in heaven.' That best of monarchs, viz., the heroic
Vasumanas, ruler of Kosala, thus instructed by Vrihaspati the son of
Angiras, began thenceforth to protect his subjects."'"