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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.