SECTION CCLXVII
"Yudhishthira said, 'How, indeed, should the king protect his subjects
without injuring anybody. I ask thee this, O grandsire, tell me, O
foremost of good men!'
"Bhishma said, 'In this connection is cited the old narrative of the
conversation between Dyumatsena and king Satyavat. We have heard that
upon a certain number of individuals having been brought out for
execution at the command of his sire (Dyumatsena), prince Satyavat said
certain words that had never before been said by anybody else.[1212]
'Sometimes righteousness assumes the form of iniquity, and iniquity
assumes the form of righteousness. It can never be possible that the
killing of individuals can ever be a righteous act.'
"Dyumatsena said, 'If the sparing of those that deserve to be slain be
righteousness, if robbers be spared, O Satyavat, then all distinctions
(between virtue and vice) would disappear. 'This is mine',--'This (other)
is not his'--ideas like these (with respect to property) will not (if the
wicked be not punished) prevail in the Kali age. (If the wicked be not
punished) the affairs of the world will come to a deadlock. If thou
knowest how the world may go on (without punishing the wicked), then
discourse to me upon it.'
"Satyavat said, 'The three other orders (viz., the Kshatriyas, Vaisyas,
and Sudras) should be placed under the control of the Brahmanas. If those
three orders be kept within the bonds of righteousness, then the
subsidiary classes (that have sprung from intermixture) will imitate them
in their practices. Those amongst them that will transgress (the commands
of the Brahmanas) shall be reported to the king.--'This one heeds not my
commands,'--upon such a complaint being preferred by a Brahmana, the king
shall inflict punishment upon the offender. Without destroying the body
of the offender the king should do that unto him which is directed by the
scriptures. The king should not act otherwise, neglecting to reflect
properly upon the character of the offence and upon the science of
morality. By slaying the wicked, the king (practically) slays a large
number of individuals that are innocent. Behold, by slaying a single
robber, his wife, mother, father and children are all slain (because they
become deprived of the means of life). When injured by a wicked person,
the king should, therefore, reflect deeply on the question of
chastisement.[1213] Sometimes a wicked man is seen to imbibe good
behaviour from a righteous person. Then again from persons that are
wicked, good children may be seen to spring. The wicked, therefore,
should not be torn up by the roots. The extermination of the wicked is
not consistent with eternal practice. By smiting them gently they may be
made to expiate their offences. By depriving them of all their wealth, by
chains and immurement in dungeons, by disfiguring them (they may be made
to expiate their guilt). Their relatives should not be persecuted by the
infliction of capital sentences on them. If in the presence of the
Purohita and others,[1214] they give themselves up to him from desire of
protection, and swear, saying, 'O Brahmana, we shall never again commit
any sinful act,' they would then deserve to be let off without any
punishment. This is the command of the Creator himself. Even the Brahmana
that wears a deer-skin and the wand of (mendicancy) and has his head
shaved, should be punished (when he transgresses).[1215] If great men
transgress, their chastisement should be proportionate to their
greatness. As regards them that offend repeatedly, they do not deserve to
be dismissed without punishment as on the occasion of their first
offence.'[1216] "Dyumatsena said, 'As long as those barriers within which
men should be kept are not transgressed, so long are they designated by
the name of Righteousness. If they who transgressed those, barriers were
not punished with death, those barriers would soon be destroyed. Men of
remote and remoter times were capable of being governed with ease.[1217]
They were very truthful (in speech and conduct). They were little
disposed to disputes and quarrels. They seldom gave way to anger, or, if
they did, their wrath never became ungovernable. In those days the mere
crying of fie on offenders was sufficient punishment. After this came the
punishment represented by harsh speeches or censures. Then followed the
punishment of fines and forfeitures. In this age, however, the punishment
of death has become current. The measure of wickedness has increased to
such an extent that by slaying one others cannot be restrained.[1218] The
robber has no connection with men, with the deities, with the Gandharvas,
and with the Pitris. What is he to whom? He is not anybody to any one.
This is the declaration of the Srutis.[1219] The robber takes away the
ornaments of corpses from cemeteries, and swearing apparel from men
afflicted by spirits (and, therefore, deprived of senses). That man is a
fool who would make any covenant with those miserable wretches or exact
any oath from them (for relying upon it).'[1220]
"Satyavat said, 'If thou dost not succeed in making honest men of those
rogues and in saving them by means unconnected with slaughter, do thou
then exterminate them by performing some sacrifice.[1221] Kings practise
severe austerities for the sake of enabling their subjects go on
prosperously in their avocations. When thieves and robbers multiply in
their kingdoms they become ashamed.. They, therefore, betake themselves
to penances for suppressing thefts and robberies and making their
subjects live happily. Subjects can be made honest by being only
frightened (by the king). Good kings never slay the wicked from motives
of retribution. (On the other hand, if they slay, they slay in
sacrifices, when the motive is to do good to the slain), Good kings
abundantly succeed in ruling their subjects properly with the aid of good
conduct (instead of cruel or punitive inflictions). If the king acts
properly, the superior subjects imitate him. The inferior people, again
in their turn, imitate their immediate superiors. Men are so constituted
that they imitate those whom they regard as their superiors.[1222] That
king who, without restraining himself, seeks to restrain others (from
evil ways) becomes an object of laughter with all men in consequence of
his being engaged in the enjoyment of all worldly pleasures as a slave of
his senses. That man who, through arrogance or error of judgment, offends
against the king in any way, should be restrained by every means. It is
by this way that he is prevented from committing offences anew. The king
should first restrain his own self if he desires to restrain others that
offend. He should punish heavily (if necessary) even friends and near
relatives. In that kingdom where a vile offender does not meet with heavy
afflictions, offences increase and righteousness decreases without doubt.
Formerly, a Brahmana. endued with clemency and possessed of learning,
taught me this. Verily, to this effect, O sire, I have been instructed by
also our grandsire of olden days, who gave such assurances of
harmlessness to people, moved by pity. Their words were, 'In the Krita
age, kings should rule their subjects by adopting ways that are entirely
harmless. In the Treta age, kings conduct themselves according to ways
that conform with righteousness fallen away by a fourth from its full
complement. In the Dwapara age, they proceed according to ways conforming
with righteousness fallen away by a moiety, and in the age that follows,
according to ways conforming with righteousness fallen away by
three-fourth. When the Kati age sets in, through the wickedness of kings
and in consequence of the nature of the epoch itself, fifteen parts of
even that fourth portion of righteousness disappear, a sixteenth portion
thereof being all that then remains of it. If, O Satyavat, by adopting
the method first mentioned (viz., the practice of harmlessness),
confusion sets in, the king, considering the period of human life, the
strength of human beings, and the nature of the time that has come,
should award punishments.[1223] Indeed, Manu, the son of the Self-born,
has, through compassion for human beings, indicated the way by means of
which men may adhere to knowledge (instead of harmfulness) for the sake
of emancipation.'"[1224]
