On the Hindu Theories of Social Contract and Divine Right

Summary

This article is a response by U.N. Ghoshal to criticisms made by P.V. Kane concerning the former’s theory of social contract in ancient India. Ghoshal clarifies that he never claimed that the dharmaśāstras espouse a modern democratic contract; rather, he argued that the Buddhist tradition portrays kingship as an office created by society and that early texts like the Mahābhārata preserve traces of a contract between the people and the king. He notes that in the Buddhist origin story of kingship, the people elect a leader, pay him a share of their harvest and retain the right to dismiss him if he fails in his duties. According to Ghoshal, this conception stands in contrast to the later brahmanical idea of a king created by divine beings and acting as a manifestation of Dharma. He acknowledges that texts such as the Manusmṛti and passages of the Mahābhārata declare that kingship is divinely ordained, but he interprets these statements as ideological attempts to buttress royal authority in times of political disorder rather than as a doctrine of innate divinity. Ghoshal stresses that there is no Hindu equivalent of the Western “Divine Right of Kings,” for the king in Hindu thought is always bound by dharma and can be overthrown if he violates it. He rejects Kane’s insinuation that he advocated a pan‑Indian Brahmana empire and contends that his study sought to elucidate the historical evolution of political ideas rather than to support any political agenda. The article further argues that Vedic passages likening kings to gods are ritualistic and symbolic and cannot be construed as legal affirmations of royal divinity. Ghoshal concludes by urging readers to appreciate the diversity of Indian political thought and to avoid imposing modern categories like “social contract” or “divine right” without careful textual analysis.