|
Introduction
Yesterday we had discussed the functions of State in a Nation. According to
the Bharatiya traditions. a nation is an organic living entity which has come
into existence on its own and has not been made up or created by any group of
persons. A nation brings forth a variety of institutions to fulfill its needs,
as well as to give concrete shape to its inner fundamental nature. The State is
one of these institutions which though being an important institution, is not
supreme. In our literature where the duties of a king are referred to, his
importance is definitely recognized. This is so, perhaps, to make him realize
his immense responsibility. He exercised tremendous influence on the lives and
character of the people. Hence he had to give due attention to his own behavior.
Bhishma has said the same thing, in Mahabharata when he was asked whether
circumstances make a king or a king makes the circumstances. He categorically
stated that the king shapes the circumstances. Now some persons interpret this
to mean that the considered the king above all. But this is not true. He did not
suggest that the king was above Dharma. It is true that the king wielded a great
deal of influence. and that he was the protector of Dharma in society, but the
king could not decide what constitutes Dharma. He only saw to it that people led
their lives according to Dharma. In a way he was equivalent to present day
executive.
In the present State, the executive has the responsibility to execute the
laws properly, but does not enact laws. When the executive does not function
with honesty and efficiency, the laws are entirely disregarded, as we see very
well around us. We can well say today "Executive is responsible for the present
evils to a great extent." After all why has prohibition failed? Who is
responsible for the failure?? When those very persons who have been entrusted
with the task of implementing prohibition. Start taking monthly allowances from
the bootleggers, how is the prohibition policy to succeed? The executive is,
therefore, responsible for the proper enforcement of law. This is the meaning of
Bhishma's statement. It would be a mistake to interpret it as acceptance of
approved supremacy of a monthly allowances from the bootleggers, how is the
prohibition policy to succeed? The executive is therefore, responsible for the
proper enforcement of law. This is the meaning of Bhisma statement. It would be
a mistake to interpret it as acceptance of approved supremacy of a king. If this
were so, how was it that the tyrant king Venu was removed by the Rishis and
Prithu was enthroned? This action by the Rishis was never condemned by any one
in history. On the contrary it was hailed by everyone. When the supremacy of
Dharma is accepted as a principle, then, though the authority of Dharma, the
Rishis derive a right to remove a king who defaults in his duty. Otherwise, it
would have been absolutely illegal to remove a king from his throne. Thus if a
King does not act according to Dharma, it becomes the duty of everyone to remove
him.
Author : Pundit Deendayal Upadhyaya
|
