On some recent Interpretations of the Mahābhārata: Theories of Kingship
Summary
This essay examines recent interpretations of the Mahābhārata’s political theory, focusing on its conception of kingship. The author surveys Sanskrit commentators and modern historians who view the epic as articulating a social contract model in which sovereign power originates with the people. According to the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the gods first elected a king to maintain order and delegated to him the power of danda (punishment); the Mahābhārata transposes this myth into human society, portraying subjects electing a ruler to uphold dharma. Kingship thus has both divine and popular sanction, and the king is bound by moral law and accountable to his subjects. The essay analyses passages where Bhīṣma instructs Yudhiṣṭhira on royal duties, emphasising that the ruler’s authority rests on righteous conduct, generosity and impartiality. Conversely, when kings become tyrannical they may be deposed, and the community may even withdraw its allegiance. The author engages with scholars who argue that the epic simply legitimises absolute monarchy; he contends that such readings ignore the text’s critique of despotic rule and its advocacy of ethical restraints on power. By comparing the Mahābhārata to Dharmasūtras and Buddhist political treatises, the essay situates the epic within a broader tradition of ancient Indian political thought that recognises royal authority as necessary but conditional. The piece also explores the concept of dharma‑saṃsthāpana (protection of righteousness) as the primary duty of the king, linking this to social welfare, agrarian prosperity and the maintenance of law. Ultimately, the article argues that the Mahābhārata presents a sophisticated theory of kingship in which legitimacy derives from both cosmic order and the consent of the governed.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
The essay concludes that the Mahābhārata envisions kingship as both divinely sanctioned and socially constructed. It stresses that rulers must be guardians of dharma, accountable to their subjects and subject to removal if they lapse into adharma. By recovering this nuanced theory, the article challenges modern readings that reduce ancient Indian political thought to mere absolutism and demonstrates the epic’s continued relevance for discussions of legitimacy and good governance.