Changes

Because, whatever system of polity, it is the ruler who is largely responsible for the state of the nation or society. Whether the people in general are virtuous or not also largely depends upon the character and conduct of the ruler and his capacity to enforce Dharma, i.e., the rule of law. <blockquote>यथा राजा तथा प्रजा | ''yathā rājā tathā prajā |''</blockquote>Since enforcement of Dharma was entirely dependent upon the effective implementation of Raja Dharma, it was considered supreme. And the propounders of Dharma Shastra declared the Raja (State) as an absolute necessity to maintain the society in a state of Dharma which was essential for the fulfillment of Artha and Kama. Thus, Raja Dharma, which laid down the Dharma of the Raja, was paramount. Mahabharata (Shanti Parva) reinforces this. It says that 'all Dharmas are merged in Raja Dharma, and it is therefore the Supreme Dharma.'<ref name=":0" /><blockquote>सर्वे धर्माः सोपधर्मास्त्रयाणां राज्ञो धर्मादिति वेदाच्छृणोमि ॥24॥... एवं धर्मान् राजधर्मेषु सर्वान् सर्वावस्थान् सम्प्रलीनान् निबोध ।<ref>Pandit Ramnarayanadatta Shastri Pandey, Mahabharata (Khanda 5-Shantiparva), Gorakhpur: Gita Press.</ref> (Maha. Shan Parv. 63.24-25)</blockquote><blockquote>''sarve dharmāḥ sopadharmāstrayāṇāṁ rājño dharmāditi vedācchr̥ṇomi ॥24॥... evaṁ dharmān rājadharmeṣu sarvān sarvāvasthān sampralīnān nibodha । (Maha. Shan Parv. 63.24-25)''</blockquote>

Because, whatever system of polity, it is the ruler who is largely responsible for the state of the nation or society. Whether the people in general are virtuous or not also largely depends upon the character and conduct of the ruler and his capacity to enforce Dharma, i.e., the rule of law. <blockquote>यथा राजा तथा प्रजा | ''yathā rājā tathā prajā |''</blockquote>Since enforcement of Dharma was entirely dependent upon the effective implementation of Raja Dharma, it was considered supreme. And the propounders of Dharma Shastra declared the Raja (State) as an absolute necessity to maintain the society in a state of Dharma which was essential for the fulfillment of Artha and Kama. Thus, Raja Dharma, which laid down the Dharma of the Raja, was paramount. Mahabharata (Shanti Parva) reinforces this. It says that 'all Dharmas are merged in Raja Dharma, and it is therefore the Supreme Dharma.'<ref name=":0" /><blockquote>सर्वे धर्माः सोपधर्मास्त्रयाणां राज्ञो धर्मादिति वेदाच्छृणोमि ॥24॥... एवं धर्मान् राजधर्मेषु सर्वान् सर्वावस्थान् सम्प्रलीनान् निबोध ।<ref>Pandit Ramnarayanadatta Shastri Pandey, Mahabharata (Khanda 5-Shantiparva), Gorakhpur: Gita Press.</ref> (Maha. Shan Parv. 63.24-25)</blockquote><blockquote>''sarve dharmāḥ sopadharmāstrayāṇāṁ rājño dharmāditi vedācchr̥ṇomi ॥24॥... evaṁ dharmān rājadharmeṣu sarvān sarvāvasthān sampralīnān nibodha । (Maha. Shan Parv. 63.24-25)''</blockquote>

== ONE LAW-ONE PEOPLE-MANY STATES ==

== धर्मप्राधान्यम् ॥ Supremacy of Dharma ==

Politically the whole of India never came under the rule of anyone emperor or king. The territorial extent of a kingdom depended on the prowess and capability of each king. Therefore, innumerable kings ruled over different parts of the sub-continent, each of whom was independent of the others, except in cases where one became a vassal of an emperor.

The territorial extent of a Rajya depended on the prowess and capability of each Raja. Therefore, multiple Rajas ruled over different parts of the Bharatiya sub-continent, each of whom was independent of the others, except in cases where one became a vassal of an emperor. However, as a society, entire Bharata constituted itself into one homogeneous unit. And the civil, criminal and procedural laws evolved by the society and recorded in the various Dharma Shastras and Smrtis were followed uniformly in the whole country irrespective of different political entities under different Rajas. Thus, by virtue of governance of the same laws on all matters including Raja Dharma, the entire population of Bharata constituted themselves into one nation.  

Politically the whole of India never came under the rule of anyone emperor or king. The territorial extent of a kingdom depended on the prowess and capability of each king. Therefore, innumerable kings ruled over different parts of the sub-continent, each of whom was independent of the others, except in cases where one became a vassal of an emperor.

Such an importance given to the principle of Dharma also indicates another fundamental aspect accepted by the people as well as the rulers of the various kingdoms of India. According to this principle of dharma, the Raja had no legislative powers. To this extent the doctrine of separation of the law making and law enforcing powers had been brought about. Political power of any state in the whole of India was subordinated to the power of the entire people as a whole. The sanction behind all the laws including Rajadharma (collectively called Dharma) lay in its acceptance by the people. Dharma held sway for thousands of years and no king questioned its authority over and above him. Thus, the entire political system in this country was based on Dharmic Supremacy.

However, the importance given to the principle of Dharma, indicates another fundamental aspect accepted by the people as well as the rulers of the various kingdoms of India. According to this principle of dharma, the Raja had no legislative powers. To this extent the doctrine of separation of the law making and law enforcing powers had been brought about. Political power of any state in the whole of India was subordinated to the power of the entire people as a whole. The sanction behind all the laws including Rajadharma (collectively called Dharma) lay in its acceptance by the people. Dharma held sway for thousands of years and no king questioned its authority over and above him. Thus, the entire political system in this country was based on Dharmic Supremacy.

As a result, though the States were very many and under different kings, the Rajadharma ( constitutional law) uniformly applied to all of them and regulated the constitution and organisation of all the kingdoms as also the civil and criminal laws, including procedural law, subject to local variations on the basis of approved usage and custom, which were recognised as one of the sources of law. The position therefore was that India consisted of several independent sovereign states but one people governed by one legal, judicial and constitutional system -the Vyavahara Dharma and Raja Dharma, meant for the implementation of doctrine of TRIVARGA.  

As a result, though the States were very many and under different kings, the Rajadharma ( constitutional law) uniformly applied to all of them and regulated the constitution and organisation of all the kingdoms as also the civil and criminal laws, including procedural law, subject to local variations on the basis of approved usage and custom, which were recognised as one of the sources of law.  

Having evolved the concept of enforceability of the law through the institution of kingship, ancient Indian jurists proceeded to define the law. The law was recognised as a mighty instrument necessary for the protection of individual rights and liberties. Whenever the right or liberty of an individual was encroached upon by another, the injured individual could seek protection from the law with the assistance of the king, however, powerful the opponent (wrong doer) might be. The power of the king (state) to enforce the law or to punish the wrong doer was recognised as the force (sanction) behind the law which could compel implicit obedience to the law. After declaring how and why the Kshatra power (i.e.; the King) was created, the Brihadaranyakopanishat proceeds to state, finding that the mere creation of kingship was not enough, that the most excellent Dharma (law), a power superior to that of the king, was created to enable the king to protect the people, and gives the definition of law (Dharma) as follows:<blockquote>तदेतत्-क्षत्रस्य क्षत्रं यद्धर्मः | तस्माधर्मात्परं नास्ति | अथो अबलीयान् बलीयांसमाशंसते धर्मेण | यथा राज्ञा एवं ||</blockquote><blockquote>''tadetat-kṣatrasya kṣatraṁ yaddharmaḥ | tasmādharmātparaṁ nāsti | atho abalīyān balīyāṁsamāśaṁsate dharmeṇa | yathā rājñā evaṁ ||''</blockquote>Meaning: The law (Dharma) is the king of kings No one is superior to the law (Dharma) ; The law (Dharma) aided by the power of the king enables the weak to prevail over the strong.

 

Commenting on the above provision, Dr. S. Radha krishnan observes that even kings are subordinate to Dharma, to the Rule of law.2 The utility and the necessity of the power of king to enforce the law is explained thus:-<blockquote>सर्वो दण्डजितो लोको दुर्लभो हि शुचिर्नरः । दण्डस्य हि भयात्सर्वं जगद्भोगाय कल्पते । । ७.२२ । ।</blockquote><blockquote>''sarvo daṇḍajito loko durlabho hi śucirnaraḥ । daṇḍasya hi bhayātsarvaṁ jagadbhogāya kalpate । । 7.22 । ।''</blockquote>Meaning:

 

 

The king's (sovereign's) power to punish, keeps the people in righteous path. Fear of punishment (by the king) yields worldly happiness and enjoyment.

 

One aspect discernible from the definition of 'law' given in the Brihadarayaka Upanishat and accepted in the Dharmasastras is, that the law and the king derive their strength and vitality from each other. It was impressed that the king remained powerful if he observed the law and the efficacy of the law also depended on the manner in which the king functioned, because it was he who was responsible for its enforcement. There was also a specific provision which made it clear to the king that if he was to be respected by the people, he was bound to act in accordance with the law. Thus the first and foremost duty of the king as laid down under Rajadharma was to rule his kingdom in accordance with the law, so that the law reigned supreme and could control all human actions so as to keep them within the bounds of the law. Though Dharma was made enforceable by the political sovereign -the king, it was considered and recognised as superior to and binding on the sovereign himself. Thus under our ancient constitutional law (Rajadharma) kings were given the position of the penultimate authority functioning within the four corners of Dharma, the ultimate authority.

The position therefore was that India consisted of several independent sovereign states but one people governed by one legal, judicial and constitutional system -the Vyavahara Dharma and Raja Dharma, meant for the implementation of doctrine of TRIVARGA.

Rules of Dharma were not altere able according to the whims and fancies of the king. The exercise of political power in conformity with "Dharma" was considered most essential. This principle holds good for every system of government and is a guarantee not only against abuse of political power with selfish motives and out of greed but also against arbitrary exercise of political power.

 

The belief in the supremacy of Dharma among the people was the best guarantee for the proper functioning of kings. In other words, 'Dharmic Supremacy' generally prevailed, which corresponds to constitutional supremacy under the present day written constitutions. Every king was required to take oath at the time of coronation that he would rule according to 'Dharma'. Thus Dharmarajya means the Rule of Law.

 

In this regard, the famous historian R.C. Majumdar in his book "Ancient India" observes thus :-<blockquote>''The duty of the king was clearly defined in the Sastras. It would have created as much a sensation in those days, if the king had failed in his duties as would follow the violation of people's rights in modern days.''</blockquote>Historical records prove that Raja Dharma formed the fundamental law which regulated the Constitution and the organisation of every kingdom (State) in the country throughout the centuries.

 

Dharma is universal. It is a code of conduct for all human beings for all time to come. It is eternal and unalterable just as you cannot alter the property of fire of burning and of water of flowing.

== Rule of succession ==

== Rule of succession ==

Now it has become clear that unless a Dharma-abiding nature is ingrained in the individuals who exercise power of the state, either as ministers or elected representatives or as bureaucrats, the whole social fabric will be torn into pieces. It is only by the internal check in the form of Dharma, which can destroy sinful thoughts in the mind of the individuals who exercise state power and inspire them to serve the people, for which purpose they are elected or appointed.

Now it has become clear that unless a Dharma-abiding nature is ingrained in the individuals who exercise power of the state, either as ministers or elected representatives or as bureaucrats, the whole social fabric will be torn into pieces. It is only by the internal check in the form of Dharma, which can destroy sinful thoughts in the mind of the individuals who exercise state power and inspire them to serve the people, for which purpose they are elected or appointed.

== DHARMA binding on the Rulers and the Ruled ==

== DHARMA binding on the Rulers and the Ruled ==