Jain Journal 1974 01

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 25

JANUARY, 1974
well-being of the State. Indeed, according to Somadeva, knowledge is the prime requisite in worldly affairs. He even went to the extent of maintaining that anarchy was preferable to rule, by a king, who was uninstructed in the art of Government. A perverse king was worse than a calamity; while a worthy king, who was the repository of all goodness and merit, was extolled by all men.55 In this particular regard Somadeva had outstripped even Kautillya, who does not seem to prefer anarchy to rule of an unworthy king.
What was the end of the State? To this question Somadeva would reply in Kautilyan manner that the prosperity of the subjects was the end of the State. But prosperity was impossible without protection which, in turn, could not be maintained without punishment. It is here that we see how Somadeva completely repudiated Jinasena's theory of protection as given above. In order to understand Somadeva's theory of punishment, we should follow him in his description of the king and of the latter's functions. The king was almost a God on earth, who bowed only to his ancestors and gurus. His prime duty was protection. Somadeva asks the pertinent question-How can he be a king who does not protect his subjects (sa kim rājā yo na rakṣati prajah) ?56 Protection surpasses all royal duties in importance and religious merit. Protection of the subjects is the king's sacrifice (prajā pālanamhi rājño yajñah); and when the king protects his people in just ways, the skies shower beneficiently all benefits (nyayatah paripālake rājñi prajānām kamadugha disah).57
109
But protection was impossible, without being strict in regard to sinners and criminals. They were obstacles in the way of the happiness of the people. No mercy was to be shown to them: they were to be just weeded out. The king could not condone crime he had to repress it. If a king did not put down the wicked, he was on the road to perdition. This was to be done by wielding the danda or punishment which was to maintain the social order. Indeed, the king was to set himself, like the God of Death, the task of inflicting punishment, so that people did not transgress their prescribed limits, and so that they could attain the three ends of life. Punishment was to be meted by the king only for the protection of the subjects, and not for amassing wealth. In this direction Somadeva followed the Smrti tradition.58
55 Somadeva, Nitivakyamrtam, p. 26-56.
56 Somadeva, ibid., p. 17. Cf. Aiyangar, op. cit., p. 108.
57 Somadeva, ibid., 66, 105.
58 Ghoshal, op. cit., p. 486.