"Yudhishthira said, 'What course of conduct should be adopted by a king
shorn of friends, having many enemies, possessed of an exhausted
treasury, and destitute of troops, O Bharata! What, indeed, should be his
conduct when he is surrounded by wicked ministers, when his counsels are
all divulged, when he does not see his way clearly before him, when he
assails another kingdom, when he is engaged in grinding a hostile
kingdom, and when though weak he is at war with a stronger ruler? What,
indeed, should be the conduct of a king the affairs of whose kingdom are
ill-regulated, and who disregards the requirements of place and time, who
is unable, in consequence of his oppressions, to bring about peace and
cause disunion among his foes? Should he seek the acquisition of wealth
by evil means, or should he lay down his life without seeking wealth?'
"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). Without being questioned, O Yudhishthira, I could not
venture to discourse upon this duty. 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. 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, 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, show
compassion to his people. This is eternal duty. For men that are able and
competent, 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. 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. 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, 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 up 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. Guided by such
considerations, all 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 become 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.
