“‘Bhishma said, “Conversant as thou art with duties, thou hast, O bull of Bharata’s race, asked me a question relating to mystery (in connection with duties).388 Without being questioned, O Yudhishthira, I could not venture to discourse upon this duly. Morality is very subtle. One understands it, O bull of Bharata’s race, by the aid of the texts of scriptures. By remembering what one has heard and by practising good acts, some one in some place may become a righteous person. By acting with intelligence the king may or may not succeed in acquiring wealth.389 Aided by thy own intelligence do thou think what answer should be given to thy question on this head. Listen, O Bharata, to the means, fraught with great merit, by which kings may conduct themselves (during seasons of distress). For the sake of true morality, however, I would not call those means righteous. If the treasury be filled by oppression, conduct like this brings the king to the verge of destruction. Even this is the conclusion of all intelligent men who have thought upon the subject. The kind of scriptures or science which one always studies gives him the kind of knowledge which it is capable of giving. Such Knowledge verily becomes agreeable to him. Ignorance leads to barrenness of invention in respect of means. Contrivance of means, again, through the aid of knowledge, becomes the source of great felicity. Without entertaining any scruples and any malice,390 listen to these instructions. Through the decrease of the treasury, the king’s forces are decreased. The king should, therefore, fill his treasury (by any means) like to one creating water in a wilderness which is without water. Agreeably to this code of quasi-morality practised by the ancients, the king should, when the time for it comes,391 show compassion to his people. This is eternal duty. For men that are able and competent,392 the duties are of one kind. In seasons of distress, however, one’s duties are of a different kind. Without wealth a king may (by penances and the like) acquire religious merit. Life, however, is much more important than religious merit. (And as life cannot be supported without wealth, no such merit should be sought which stands in the way of the acquisition of wealth). A king that is weak, by acquiring only religious merit, never succeeds in obtaining just and proper means for sustenance; and since he cannot, by even his best exertions, acquire power by the aid of only religious merit, therefore the practices in seasons of distress are sometimes regarded as not inconsistent with morality. The learned, however, are of opinion that those practices lead to sinfulness. After the season of distress is over, what should the Kshatriya do? He should (at such a time) conduct himself in such a way that his merit may not be destroyed. He should also act in such a way that he may not have to succumb to his enemies.393 Even these have been declared to be his duties. He should not sink in despondency. He should not (in times of distress) seek to rescue (from the peril of destruction) the merit of others or of himself. On the other hand, he should rescue his own self. This is the settled conclusion.394 There is this Sruti, viz., that it is settled that Brahmanas, who are conversant with duties, should have proficiency in respect of duties. Similarly, as regards the Kshatriya, his proficiency should consist in exertion, since might of arms is his great possession. When a Kshatriya’s means of support are gone, what should he not take excepting what belongs to ascetics and what is owned by Brahmanas? Even as a Brahmana in a season of distress may officiate at the sacrifice of a person for whom he should never officiate (at other and ordinary times) and eat forbidden food, so there is no doubt that a Kshatriya (in distress) may take wealth from every one except ascetics and Brahmanas. For one afflicted (by an enemy and seeking the means of escape) what can be an improper outlet? For a person immured (within a dungeon and seeking escape) what can be an improper path? When a person becomes afflicted, he escapes by even an improper outlet. For a Kshatriya that has, in consequence of the weakness of his treasury and army, become exceedingly humiliated, neither a life of mendicancy nor the profession of a Vaisya or that of a Sudra has been laid down. The profession ordained for a Kshatriya is the acquisition of wealth by battle and victory. He should never beg of a member of his own order. The person who supports himself at ordinary times by following the practices primarily laid for him, may in seasons of distress support himself by following the practices laid down in the alternative. In a season of distress, when ordinary practices cannot be followed, a Kshatriya may live by even unjust and improper means. The very Brahmanas, it is seen, do the same when their means of living are destroyed. When the Brahmanas (at such times) conduct themselves thus, what doubt is there in respect of Kshatriyas? This is, indeed, settled. Without sinking into despondency and yielding to destruction, a Kshatriya may (by force) take what he can from persons that are rich. Know that the Kshatriya is the protector and the destroyer of the people. Therefore, a Kshatriya in distress should take (by force) what he can, with a view to (ultimately) protect the people. No person in this world, O king, can support life without injuring other creatures. The very ascetic leading a solitary life in the depths of the forest is no exception. A Kshatriya should not live, relying upon destiny,395 especially he, O chief of the Kurus, who is desirous of ruling. The king and the kingdom should always mutually protect each other. This is an eternal duty. As the king protects, by spending all his possessions, the kingdom when it sinks into distress, even so should the kingdom protect the king when he sinks into distress. The king even at the extremity of distress, should never give up396 his treasury, his machinery for chastising the wicked, his army, his friends and allies and other necessary institutions and the chiefs existing in his kingdom. Men conversant with duty say that one must keep one’s seeds, deducting them from one’s very food. This is a truth cited from the treatise of Samvara well-known for his great powers of illusion. Fie on the life of that king whose kingdom languishes. Fie on the life of that man who from want of means goes to a foreign country for a living. The king’s roots are his treasury and army. His army, again, has its roots in his treasury. His army is the root of all his religious merits. His religious merits, again are the root of his subjects. The treasury can never be filled without oppressing others. How then can the army be kept without oppression? The king, therefore, in seasons of distress, incurs no fault by oppressing his subjects for filling the treasury. For performing sacrifices many improper acts are done. For this reason a king incurs no fault by doing improper acts (when the object is to fill his treasury in a season of distress). For the sake of wealth practices other than those which are proper are followed (in seasons of distress). If (at such times) such improper practices be not adopted, evil is certain to result. All those institutions that are kept up for working destruction and misery exist for the sake of collecting wealth.397 Guided by such considerations, an intelligent king should settle his course (at such times). As animals and other things are necessary for sacrifices, as sacrifices are for purifying the heart, and as animals, sacrifices, and purity of the heart are all for final emancipation, even so policy and chastisement exist for the treasury, the treasury exists for the army, and policy and treasury and army all the three exist for vanquishing foes and protecting or enlarging the kingdom. I shall here cite an example illustrating the true ways of morality. A large tree is cut down for making of it a sacrificial stake. In cutting it, other trees that stand in its way have also to be cut down. These also, in falling down, kill others standing on the spot. Even so they that stand in the way of making a well-filled treasury must have to be slain. I do not see how else success can be had. By wealth, both the worlds, viz., this and the other, can be had, as also Truth and religious merit. A person without wealth is more dead than alive. Wealth for the performance of sacrifices should be acquired by every means. The demerit that attaches to an act done in a season of distress is not equal to that which attaches to the same act if done at other times, O Bharata! The acquisition of wealth and its abandonment cannot both be possibly seen in the same person, O king! I do not see a rich man in the forest. With respect to every wealth that is seen in this world, every one contends with every one else, saying, ‘This shall be mine,’ ‘This shall
be mine!’ This is nothing, O scorcher of foes, that is so meritorious for a king as the possession of a kingdom. It is sinful for a king to oppress his subjects with heavy impositions at ordinary times. In a season, however, of distress, it is quite different. Some acquire wealth by gifts and sacrifices; some who have a liking for penances acquire wealth by penances; some acquire it by the aid of their intelligence and cleverness. A person without wealth is said to be weak, while he that has wealth becomes powerful. A man of wealth may acquire everything. A king that has well-filled treasury succeeds in accomplishing everything. By his treasury a king may earn religious merit, gratify his desire for pleasure, obtain the next world, and this also. The treasury, however, should be filled by the aid of righteousness and never by unrighteous practices, such, that is, as pass for righteous in times of distress.”’“
SECTION CXXXI
(APADDHARMANUSASANA PARVA)
“‘Yudhishthira said, “What, besides this, should be done by a king that is weak and procrastinating, that does not engage in battle from anxiety for the lives of his friends, that is always under the influence of fear, and that cannot keep his counsels secret? What, indeed, should that king do whose cities and kingdom have been partitioned and appropriated by foes, who is divested of wealth, who is incapable (through such poverty) of honouring his friends and attaching them to himself, whose ministers are disunited or bought over by his enemies, who is obliged to stand in the face of foes, whose army has dwindled away, and whose heart has been agitated by some strong enemy?”
“‘Bhishma said, “If the invading enemy be of pure heart and if he be conversant with both morality and profit, a king of the kind you have indicated should, with no loss of time, make peace with the invader and bring about the restoration of those portions of the kingdom that have already been conquered. If, again, the invader be strong and sinful and seek to obtain victory by unrighteous means, the king should make peace with him, too, by abandoning a portion of his territories. If the invader be unwilling to make peace, the king should then abandon his very capital and all his possessions for escaping from danger. If he can save his life he may hope for similar acquisitions in future. What man conversant with morality is there that would sacrifice his own self, which is a more valuable possession, for encountering that danger from which escape can be had by the abandonment of his treasury and army? A king should protect the ladies of his household. If these fall into the hands of the enemy, he should not show any compassion for them (by incurring the risk of his own arrest in delivering them). As long as it is in his power, he should never surrender his own self to the enemy.”
“‘Yudhishthira said, “When his own people are dissatisfied with him, when he is oppressed by invaders, when his treasury is exhausted, and when his counsels are divulged, what should the king then do?”
“‘Bhishma said, “A king, under such circumstances, should (if his enemy be righteous) seek to make peace with him. If the enemy be unrighteous, he should then put forth his valour. He should, by such means, seek to cause the foe to withdraw from his kingdom; or fighting bravely, he should lay down his life and ascend to heaven. A king can conquer the whole earth with the help of even a small force if that force be loyal, cheerful, and devoted to his good. If slain in battle, he is sure to ascend to heaven. If he succeeds in slaying (his enemies), he is sure to enjoy the earth. By laying down one’s life in battle, one obtains the companionship of Indra himself.”’“
SECTION CXXXII
“‘YUDHISHTHIRA SAID, “WHEN practices fraught with high morality and beneficial to the world, (viz., those that appertain to righteous rule) disappear, when all the means and resources for the support of life fall into the hands of robbers, when, indeed, such a calamitous time sets in, by what means should a Brahmana, O grandsire, who from affection is unable to desert his sons and grandsons, subsist?”
“‘Bhishma said, “When such a time sets in, the Brahmana should live by the aid of knowledge. Everything in this world is for them that are good. Nothing here is for them that are wicked. He who making himself an instrument of acquisition, takes wealth from the wicked and gives it unto them that are good, is said to be conversant with the morality of adversity. Desirous of maintaining his rule, the king, O monarch, without driving his subjects to indignation and rebellion, may take what is not freely given by the owner, saying, ‘This is mine!’ That wise man who, cleansed by the possession of knowledge and might and of righteous conduct at other times, acts censurably in such season, does not really deserve to be censured. They who always support themselves by putting forth their might never like any other method of living. They that are endued with might, O Yudhishthira, always live by the aid of prowess. The ordinary scriptures, that exist (for seasons of distress) without exceptions of any kind, should be practised by a king (at such times). A king, however, that is endued with intelligence, while following those scriptures, would do something more.398 At such times, however, the king should not oppress Ritwijas, and Purohitas and preceptors and Brahmanas, all of whom are honoured and held in high esteem. By oppressing them, even at such times, he incurs reproach and sin. This that I tell thee is regarded as an authority in the world. Indeed, this is the eternal eye (by which practices in seasons of distress are to be viewed). One should be guided by this authority. By this is to be judged whether a king is to be called good or wicked. It is seen that many persons residing in villages and towns, actuated by jealousy and wrath, accuse one another. The king should never, at their words, honour or punish anybody. Slander should never be spoken. If spoken, it should never be heard. When slanderous converse goes on, one should close one’s ears or leave the place outright. Slanderous converse is the characteristic of wicked men. It is an indication of depravity. They, on the other hand, O king, who speak of the virtues of others in assemblies of the good, are good men. As a pair of sweet-tempered bulls governable and well-broken and used to bear burthens, put their necks to the yoke and drag the cart willingly, even so should the king bear his burthens (in seasons of distress). Others say that a king (at such times) should conduct himself in such a way that he may succeed in gaining a large number of allies. Some regard ancient usage as the highest indication of righteousness. Others, viz., they that are in favour of the conduct pursued by Sankha, towards Likhita, do not hold this opinion. They do not advance such an opinion through either malice or covetousness399. Examples are seen of even great Rishis who have laid down that even preceptors, if addicted to evil practices, should be punished. But approvable authority there is none for such a proposition. The gods may be left to punish such men when they happen to be vile and guilty of wicked practices. The king who fills his treasury by having recourse to fraudulent devices, certainly falls away from righteousness. The code of morality which is honoured in every respect by those that are good and in affluent circumstances, and which is approved by every honest heart, should be followed. He is said to be conversant with duty who knows duty as depending on all the four foundations. It is difficult to find out the reasons on which duties stand even as it is difficult to find out the legs of the snake.400 As a hunter of beasts discovers the track of a shaft-struck deer by observing spots of blood on the ground, even so should one seek to discover the reasons of duties. Thus should a man tread with humility along the path trod by the good. Such, indeed, was the conduct of the great royal sages of old, O Yudhishthira!”’“
SECTION CXXXIII
“‘BHISHMA SAID, “THE king should, by drawing wealth from his own kingdom as also from the kingdoms of his foes, fill his treasury. From the treasury springs his religious merit, O son of Kunti, and it is in consequence of the treasury that the roots of his kingdom extend. For these reasons the treasury must be filled; and when filled it should be carefully protected (by putting a stop to all useless expenditure), and even sought to be increased. This is the eternal practice. The treasury cannot be filled by (acting with) purity and righteousness, nor by (acting with) heartless cruelty. It should be filled by adopti
ng a middle course. How can a weak king have a treasury? How again can a king who has no treasury have strength? How can a weak man have kingdom? Whence again can one without a kingdom obtain prosperity? For a person of high rank, adversity is like death. For this reason the king should always increase his treasury, and army, and allies and friends. All men disregard a king with an empty treasury. Without being gratified with the little that such a king can give, his servants never express any alacrity in his business. In consequence of his affluence, the king succeeds in obtaining great honours. Indeed, affluence conceals his very sins, like robes concealing such parts of a feminine form as should not be exposed to the view. Those with whom the king has formerly quarrelled become filled with grief at the sight of his new affluence. Like dogs they once more take service under him, and though they wait only for an opportunity to slay him, he takes to them as if nothing has happened. How, O Bharata, can such a king obtain happiness? The king should always exert for acquiring greatness. He should never bend down in humility.401 Exertion is manliness. He should rather break at an unfavourable opportunity than bend before any one. He should rather repair to the forest and live there with the wild animals. But he should not still live in the midst of ministers and officers who have like robbers broken through all restraints. Even the robbers of the forest may furnish a large number of soldiers for the accomplishment of the fiercest of deeds, O Bharata! If the king transgresses all wholesome restraints, all people become filled with alarm. The very robbers who know not what compassion is, dread such a king.402 For this reason, the king should always establish rules and restraints for gladdening the hearts of his people. Rules in respect of even very trivial matters are hailed with delight by the people. There are men who think that this world is nothing and the future also is a myth. He that is an atheist of this type, though his heart is agitated by secret fears, should never be trusted. If the robbers of the forest, while observing other virtues, commit depredations in respect only of property, those depredations may be regarded as harmless. The lives of thousands of creatures are protected in consequence of robbers observing such restraints. Slaying an enemy who is flying away from battle, ravishment of wives, ingratitude, plundering the property of a Brahmana, depriving a person of the whole of his property, violation of maidens, continued occupation of villages and towns as their lawful lords, and adulterous congress with other people’s wives — these are regarded as wicked acts among even robbers, and robbers should always abstain from them. It is again certain that those kings who strive (by making peace) to inspire confidence upon themselves in the hearts of the robbers, succeed, after watching all their ins and outs, in exterminating them. For this reason, in dealing with robbers, it is necessary that they should not be exterminated outright.403 They should be sought to be brought under the king’s sway. The king should never behave with cruelty towards them, thinking that he is more powerful than they. Those kings that do not exterminate them outright have no fear of extermination to themselves. They, however, that do exterminate them have always to live in fear in consequence of that act.”’“
The Sanskrit Epics Page 673