NCERT Solutions for Class 9th Social Science Chapter 5 Duties and Ideals of the King — THINK ABOUT IT

Book page 108 Updated on2026-09-08

Q1.
Texts such as the Mahābhārata and the Arthaśhāstra describe the king’s duties as protecting people and ensuring justice. Why do you think it was important for rulers to protect people and ensure justice?
Answer

Because in an agrarian state, protection and justice were not favours the king granted — they were the reason the state existed at all, and the condition of its own survival.

Four reasons, each supported by the chapter:

  1. No safety, no agriculture; no agriculture, no revenue. The king was primarily responsible for protecting his subjects from external threats and internal disorder. A cultivator will not clear forest, sow and wait months for a harvest if the crop can be seized. The chapter says facilitation of agriculture continued to be a major preoccupation of the state because it was one of the major sources of revenue — the basic land tax being generally one-sixth of the produce.
  2. No safety on the roads, no trade. The state ensured the safety of trade routes and took measures to prevent the adulteration of goods and to protect consumers from unfair practices. Trade produced customs revenue and the goods the state itself needed.
  3. Justice was the king's own duty, not an office he could delegate away. He was expected to administer justice in cases such as abduction, robbery, theft and adultery. The Yajurveda's coronation oath advises the king to judge the strong and the weak impartially and fairly — which matters most for the weak, since the strong can protect themselves.
  4. Legitimacy. The Śhānti Parva of the Mahābhārata gives rulers guidance on ethical conduct, justice, and the responsibilities of a king towards his subjects. Where kingship is judged against a standard, failing the standard has consequences: the chapter records that there are references to kings being elected or even expelled.
Why the texts put the burden on the king personally: the Arthaśhāstra states, “Only if a king is himself energetically active, do his officers follow him energetically.” In a state with no telegraph, no printing and no audit office, the standard of the whole administration was set by the example at the top. The king's own conduct was an instrument of government.
Q2.
What do these descriptions tell us about ideas of governance and the relationship between rulers and subjects during that period?
Answer

They tell us that governance was understood as a relationship of duty, not of ownership. The king was answerable to a standard outside himself, and the standard was dharma.

Three things the descriptions reveal:

  • Power came with obligations attached. Every source the chapter cites states duties, never unlimited rights — the Yajurveda oath (judge impartially, protect the country from calamities, do good to the people), the Śhānti Parva (ethical conduct, justice, responsibility towards subjects), and the Arthaśhāstra (personal energy in office). Later texts continue it: Kāmandaka's Nītisāra and Bāṇabhaṭṭa's Kādambarī — widely celebrated as one of the world's first novels — contain reflections and advice on kingship and governance.
  • Authority was shared and layered. The Arthaśhāstra says “one wheel does not move the carriage”. The king governed through a mantri-pariṣhad, and the state itself was conceived as an organic whole of seven constituents (Saptāṁga), of which the king is only the first. The state functions effectively only if all seven remain properly integrated.
  • Succession was not wholly fixed. Kingship was generally hereditary, but there are references to kings being elected or even expelled — which, as the chapter says, suggests that royal authority was not always absolute.
The ethical foundation: the chapter's later section makes it explicit — the idea of justice is closely linked to dharma, which means duty, obligation, righteousness and moral conduct. The epics present goodness as non-discriminatory and hold up the ideal of a good person and ruler as “one who works for the welfare of all beings”. A ruler who protected and judged fairly was not being generous; he was performing his own dharma.
Handle these sources carefully. The Mahābhārata and the Arthaśhāstra describe an ideal. They tell us what learned advisers thought a king ought to be, which is genuine historical evidence about the values of the time — but not proof that every king lived up to it. To find out what rulers actually did, historians turn to inscriptions and archaeology. That limitation is the subject of Question 11 in the end-of-chapter set.
Was this helpful? Report an error