DIVINE RIGHT THEORY OF THE STATE: IMPORTANCE AND

LIMITATIONS

Political Science

Submitted by

Tripti Kejriwal

UID: SF0117056

Year 1 & Semester 1

Faculty in-charge

Dr. Mayengbam Nandakishwor Singh

Assistant Professor of Political Science

National Law University, Assam

Guwahati

1
 Table of Contents
PG.NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 3-4
1.1. Literature Review 3
1.2. Objectives of Research 4
1.3. Research Methodology 4

2. IDEA OF THE STATE 5-8

2.1. Definitions 5
2.2. Elements of the State 6
2.3. Functions of the State 8

3. THEORY OF DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 8-15

3.1. Divine Right Theory of the Kings 10
3.2. Divine Right Theory in Christianity 11
3.3. Divine Right Theory followed by the Jews 12
3.4. Divine Right Theory among Hindus 13
3.5. Importance of the Theory of Divine Origin of the State 14
3.6. Limitations of the Theory of Divine Origin of the State 15

4. KINGSHIP AS AN IDEOLOGY 16

5. PRACTICAL RELEVANCE THE THEORY OF DIVINE ORIGIN IN THE

PRESENT TIMES 19

6. CONCLUSION 20

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 21

2
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In terms of a political entity, a state is any politically organized community living

under a single system of government. It means a politically unified people occupying a
definite territory. The famous Greek philosopher Aristotle defined state as “a union of
families and villages having for its end a perfect and self - sufficing life by which we mean a
happy and honourable life”. State is a technical expression implying a human association
having four essential elements namely, population, territory, government and sovereignty.

The Divine Right Theory of the State is the oldest and the earliest theory on the subject of
origin as well as nature of political authority. This theory states that the state is a divine
institution of God who created it for the common welfare. The state is not manmade but that
God established it for stable rule and chose the king to rule on His behalf. This theory
propagates that either God is the ruler or He sends His representative or agent to rule over the
common masses. The king is God’s representative and he is responsible and accountable to
God and not the people. The people are obliged to obey the rules and command of the king
even though the king maybe tyrannical in nature. The king has the supreme authority and is
considered superior to all. Therefore no other power on this earth has the right to put a
restraint to the kings will. The supporters of the theory opine it as a sin to protest against the
will of the king. In this paper the researcher seeks to study the theory and its various aspects
as a whole.

1.1. Literature Review

1) POLITICAL THEORY: R.C. AGARWAL: This new edition of “An Introduction of

Political Theory” examines a fairly wide range of issues concerning the ever-expanding field
of political theory in a multidisciplinary perspective. It elaborates the nature and significance
of political theory, concept of ideology with a concise and critical discussion of major
political ideologies, nature of politics and various approaches to its study including empirical,
normative, behavioural, post-behavioural as well as interdisciplinary approach. It elucidates
the concepts of the state and sovereignty with reference to the challenges of imperialism, neo-
colonialism, impact of globalization, grounds and limits of political obligation, various

3
dimensions, of law, power, citizenship, human rights, liberty (including creative freedom),
equality (including equality of opportunity), justice (including social justice) and the common
good. Then it dwells on various models and theories of democracy, indicating the
significance of multiculturalism. Finally it gives a critical account of the theories of social
change and development with special reference to the problems of underdevelopment,
sustainable development and political development. This book serves as a guide for the multi
ranging aspects of political studies.

2) PRINCIPLES OF MODERN POLITICAL SCIENCE: J.C. JOHARI: This book

presents a purview of Political Science topics including origin and evolution of state,
democracy, government, etc. It also revolves around aspects like rights, liberties and justice
and the various theories incorporated with it. The book gives an overview of the different
political ideologies, political power, mechanisms of democracy, etc together with its
operation and justification. It presents study of the changing scenario in the present context
giving the readers a horizon of the new approaches made to the field of Political Science.

1.2. Objective of Research

The objective of this research is to discuss about-

1. The idea of state as a whole together with the importance and limitations of the Divine
Right Theory of the State.
 The state
 Divine Right Theory of the State
 Importance and Limitations of Divine Right Theory of the State

2. The practical relevance of the theory in the primitive as well as the present aspect.

 Whether the theory is still in practice in the present time?

1.3. Research Methodology

In this research paper, doctrinal form of research has been applied wherein materials from
secondary sources such as libraries, archives, articles and the internet have been used.

4
 CHAPTER 2

IDEA OF THE STATE

Political science deals with the State, the highest of all associations. State means a politically
organised people of a definite territory. The Greek used the word “Polis” which corresponds
most nearly to the English term “state”. The Greek used the term “Polis” for “City States”.
The term is appropriate because at that time there were many “city-states” in Greece. The
Romans employed two terms “civitas” and “respublica” for this purpose. The first term
connoted the idea of “polis” and the latter term implied public welfare. Thus the two terms
conveyed a meaning very similar to our modern notion of the state. The modern term “State”
has been derived from the word “status” earlier employed by the Teutons. It was Niccolo
Machiavelli who was the first one to introduce the word in the modern literature of Political
Science. The term “state” did not become very popular in until sixteenth century. The concept
of modern state was unknown to the people living in a greater part of Medieval Europe.
Eventually, the word started gaining recognition and acquired the neutral sense of authority
pure and simple or constitution whatever its principles or direction.

2.1 DEFINITIONS

The term “state” has been defined by a number of political thinkers. Some of the popular
definitions are stated below-

(1) Cicero defined state as “a numerous society united by a common sense of right and a
mutual participation in advantages.”
(2) Burges defines the state as a “particular portion of mankind viewed as an organised
unit.”
(3) According to Robert Philimore “ The state is an association which, acting through law
as promulgated by a government endowed to this end with coercive power, maintains
within a community territorially demarcated by the universal external conditions of
social order.”

5
2.1. ELEMENTS OF THE STATE

State implies a human association having four essential elements for the sake of public
welfare. These elements include-

(1) Population - Population is one of the ‘physical’ elements of the state. The state is a
human institution and is the highest human associations. Population is necessary for the
existence of state. A state cannot stand isolated without the presence of human beings.
Therefore is its primary element.
The ancient Greek writers like Plato and Aristotle favoured a small population. According
to Plato, an ideal state should have a figure of 5040 people and a modern thinker like
Rousseau prefers the population of 10,000 in a real democratic state. The population of a
state should neither be so large that the administration may be a problem, nor so small that
people may not lead a life of peace and security. Population should be as such that the
people should lead a self sufficient life. Also, it should be homogeneous. Homogeneity is
determined by factors like commonness of religion, or blood, or language or culture.
Homogeneous population makes the task of national integration easy. A state with a
population marks diversity and irrespective of the diversities there is unity which leads to
formation of a nation. Together with this, there should not be over- population as it poses a
threat to the survival of the state. Hence, a state should comprise of an adequate
population for its smooth functioning.

(2) Territory - Territory is also a physical element of the state. The territory of a state
includes land, water and air space. It has maritime jurisdiction extending upto a distance of
three miles, though some states contend for a distance upto 20 miles. The territory also
extends to ships on high seas under its flag as well as its embassies and legations in
foreign lands. The size of the territory cannot be fixed. It is good that the territorial
makeup of a state should be large. The views of Aristotle and Plato are no longer prevalent
in the present scenario. The small states tend to isolate and shut off their inhabitants and
narrow the horizon of the views. As an advantage, the small states remain compact and
well – governed. But in context of natural resources and defence, it poses a difficulty.
Hence, it can be concluded that without a fixed territory, a modern state cannot exist. For
example, the Jews could not form a state until they definitely settled in Palestine.

6
(3) Government – Government is a spiritual or metaphysical element of the state
Government forms an integral and crucial element of the state. It is regarded as the soul of
the state. The government functions as the organ which safeguards people’s security and
implements the will of the community. The government, in other terms is the
administration. It is responsible for maintenance of law and order in the state and thereby
make people’s life much comfortable and at ease.
Government of a state should be much organised and well operated so that it can enforce
the law and ensure peace and security in the state. A competent government is required to
eradicate chaotic mass of disconnected atoms. There are different forms of government
which includes monarchical, democratic, or dictatorial. All these vary in size and
complexity. The government functions through its three agencies namely the Executive,
Legislative and Judiciary. Therefore no government in particular can be recommended as
an essential element of the state. And also, without the presence of a government, the state
is not known to exist.

(4) Sovereignty – Sovereignty is a spiritual or metaphysical element of the state. It is the

attribute of the state. It is a creation of modern times. It is the absolute, unlimited,
inalienable, indivisible, and permanent and all- embracing power of the state in internal
and external spheres so as to make society political and independent. Sovereignty thus
means supremacy of the state. The state rules supreme in both internal and external
matters. The sovereignty of the state is expressed through its government which rules
supreme in both matters.
The existence of sovereign authority appears in the form of law. It is for this reason that
law is binding on all and its violation is gifted with suitable punishment. A sovereign state
is competent enough to issue any command or regulation.

Thus, a state should essentially comprise of all the four elements to be regarded as a fully
fledged state. The definition of Garner proves to be the most suited because it includes all
the four elements along with orderly arrangement. It is evident from his words that “state,
as a concept of political science and public law, is a community of persons more or less
numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent or nearly so
of external control, and possessing an organised government to which the great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience.”

7
2.1 FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE

 Establishment of areas and frontiers of political authority – local, regional and

national.
 Establishment and control of the forms of communication and transport.
 Exercise of the police function, securing life and property.
 Conservation and utilisation of natural resources and planning and general control of
urban and rural development.
 Promotion of industrial, agricultural, commercial and financial development in relation
to general and not particular advantage, etc.
Thus, it can be said that state is a fundamental theme of the discipline whose best
manifestation appears in the form of power that, in the words of Austin, makes a
society ‘political and independent’.

8
 CHAPTER 3
THEORY OF DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

The Divine Origin Theory is a significant theory on the subject of origin as well as nature of
political authority. It is the oldest theory concerning primary origin of the state. The theory
treats authority as a creation of God and as a result it finds its expressions in the religious
scriptures. The theory states that the state is a creation of God which naturally came into
existence without any artificiality. It was established by God for the welfare of the common
masses. It promulgates that either God rules over or sends His representatives to rule over as
an agent. It was believed that there was anarchy and chaos in the society initially. This made
people pray to the Almighty for establishment of an institution promising stable rule and
welfare and this led to the creation of state by God.

In context of the theory of divine origin, the king rules over the state as a representative of
God and he is responsible for his activities only to God and not the people. The common
masses are expected to abide by the command of the king even if he is tyrannical and cruel in
his rule. The people do not have the right to go against the king and disobey him as it would
clearly imply disobedience to God.

The king is regarded as superior to the people and law. He has supreme authority and no
power on this earth has the right to counter the king’s will and whims. To violate the dictates
of the king and to disobey him is not only a legal offence but also a sin. So the people should
unconditionally surrender to the king. Thus, it is quite clear that nobody is entitled to go
against the king or to dethrone the king even though he proves to be a tyrant.

The theory that the State and its authority have a Divine Origin and sanction finds
unequivocal support in the scriptures of almost all religions in the world.
In the Mahabharata, it is recounted that the people approached God and requested him to
grant them a ruler who should save them from the anarchy and chaos prevailing in the state of
nature. “Without a Chief, O Lord”, they prayed, “We are perishing. Give us a Chief whom
we shall worship in concert and who will protect us.” It was under these circumstances that
God appointed Manu to rule over the people.

The theory of Divine Origin, however, received a new impetus with the advent of
Christianity. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” said Jesus Christ, and Paul

9
amplified this is his Epistle to the Romans, which has been quoted by writers time and again
in support of the theory Divine Origin.
We are, thus, told, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power
but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisted the
power, resisted the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive themselves
damnation.”

The theory of Divine Origin so enunciated, believed in and accepted, thus, implied-
 That God deliberately created the State and this specific act of His grace was to save
mankind from destruction.
 That God sent his Deputy or Vice-regent to rule over mankind. The ruler was a divinely
appointed agent and he was responsible for his actions to God alone whose Deputy the
ruler was. All were ordained to submit to his authority and disobedience to his command
was a sin for which there was divine punishment.

3.1 DIVINE RIGHT THEORY OF KINGS:

Divine Right of kings is one of the oldest theories about origin of state. The theory of divine
origin was used to support the theory of divine rights of the kings. It says that the King was
sent by God as his delegate and is not chosen by the people themselves. It also states that
kings are answerable only to God and ordinary people have no right to question their acts
and also that only God can judge the king for the sins and crimes he has committed during
his lifespan. Having sought the assistance of the divine right theory the kings of Europe
formulated their own known as the “Divine Right of kings”. Some supporters of this theory
are Robert Filmer and Dr. J.N Figgs. Robert Filmer in Patriarcha, argued that civil society
was founded on divinely sanctioned patriarchism. According to J.N Figgs, it is a sin to
disobey the king and go against his will because he has been given political power by God
and is a great source of wisdom and intellect. It is evident from the statement above that God
appointed the king as his spokesperson to rule over the world after whose death his son would
naturally succeed automatically being qualified to rule in place of him. According to King
James the First in his book, “The Law of Monarchy” he wrote, “Kings are justly called
Gods, for they exercise a manner of resemblance of Divine power upon Earth. As it is
atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do, so it is a presumption and high contempt
in a subject what God can do, so it is presumption and high contempt in a subject to dispute

10
what a king can do or to say that a king cannot do this or that , kings are breathing images of
God upon Earth”.1

It is a political doctrine in defence of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings

derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions
by any earthly authority such as a parliament. Originating in Europe, the divine-right theory
can be traced to the medieval conception of God’s award of temporal power to the political
ruler, paralleling the award of spiritual power to the church. By the 16th and 17th centuries,
however, the new national monarchs were asserting their authority in matters of both church
and state. King James I of England (reigned 1603–25) was the foremost exponent of the
divine right of kings, but the doctrine virtually disappeared from English politics after
the Glorious Revolution (1688–89). In the late 17th and the 18th centuries, kings such
as Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France continued to profit from the divine-right theory, even
though many of them no longer had any truly religious belief in it. The American
Revolution (1775–83), the French Revolution (1789), and the Napoleonic wars deprived the
doctrine of most of its remaining credibility.
The bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704), one of the principal French theorists of
divine right, asserted that the king’s person and authority were sacred; that his power was
modelled on that of a father’s and was absolute, deriving from God; and that he was governed
by reason (i.e., custom and precedent). In the middle of the 17th century, the English Royalist
squire Sir Robert Filmer likewise held that the state was a family and that the king was a
father, but he claimed, in an interpretation of Scripture, that Adam was the first king and
that Charles I (reigned 1625–49) ruled England as Adam’s eldest heir. The philosopher John
Locke (1632–1704) wrote his First Treatise of Civil Government (1689) in order to refute
such arguments.2
The doctrine of divine right can be dangerous for both church and state. For the state it
suggests that secular authority is conferred, and can therefore be removed, by the church, and
for the church it implies that kings have a direct relationship to God and may therefore dictate
to ecclesiastical rulers.

1
R.C Agarwal, Political Theory, S.Chand, pp. 113
2
www.shareyouressays.com

11
3.2 DIVINE RIGHT THEORY IN CHRISTIANITY:

According to Christianity man lived in the heaven before but for the sins he committed was
cast out of paradise. God created Earth and appointed the King as its ruler whom everyone
had to obey without question. This gave rise to an era of despotic monarchs who thought that
they alone were responsible to God alone. The foremost exponent was King James the First
of England who in his book “Law of Free Monarchies” stated that since the King derived his
power from God he had no legal obligation what so ever since the laws were indirectly a
product under his authority and therefore they could not be above him. This gave him power
over the life and death of his subjects and those he ruled over and even if they wanted to take
a stand against such absolutism they could not as a rebellion against the King would mean
committing blasphemy as he was the breathing image of God on earth.

The Divine Right of Kings garnered support from religious behemoths such as Saint
Augustine, Pope Gregory and Bishop Jacques Benigne Bossuet, who asserted that the Kings
person and Authority were sacred. English royalist squire, Sir Robert Filmer believed the
state to be like a family and the King it’s father. In the medieval period there was a dispute
between the Papacy and Holy Roman Empire on the Ground of Divine Right, the people who
supported the Pope argued that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and he had transferred all
matters relating to rule to the King. However, it was later argued that the Pope had in turn
transferred all his worldly powers to the King and kept all the spiritual powers to himself
making the Pope under the King’s control. The rulers of the Holy Empire protested against
this and later it was established that both the King and the Pope concurrently drew their
powers from a single source that is God. The theory of Divine Right eventually lost relevance
by the time of the renaissance when revolutions such as the American, French and
Napoleonic wars deprived it of most of its credibility. Philosophers like John Locke wrote
his” First Treatise of Civil Government” in order to refute claims of such absolutism. The
first treatise is a criticism of Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha which argued in support of the
divinely ordained, hereditary and absolute monarchy which says every man is born a slave to
natural born kings. John Locke strongly believed against this because he held the notion that
every man could virtuously govern himself according to God’s law. Today such practices
have completely been dropped and the Monarchs in England serve a mere titular purpose.
Similarly Judaism dealt with almost identical beliefs where in the “Old Testament” God was
the progenitor of the state who bequeathed powers to the King as his representative on Earth.3
3
R.C Agarwal, Political Theory, S.Chand, pp. 112

12
3.3 DIVINE RIGHT THEORY FOLLOWED BY JEWS

The divine right theory of the origin of the state takes us back to the earliest stage of political
life. “The Old Testament”, the religious book of the Jews is the glaring example of this
theory. In the Old Testament, “God is looked upon as the immediate source of royal powers”.
Bluntschli has very aptly pointed out that according to the Jews, “the state was the immediate
work of God, the direct revelation upon the earth of the divine government.” In the Bible it
has been stated that, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power
but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God.”4

3.4. DIVINE RIGHT THEORY AMONG HINDUS:

Divine Theory can be illustrated in Hinduism through various literary sources such as the
Bhagwat Gita, Manusmriti and Arthashastra. The Manusmriti describes the King as an
individual who cannot be hated because he is God’s manifestation on Earth. It has further
been stated that people were plagued by the cycle of hatred and suffering and to break this
chain of relentless Anarchy, God blessed mankind with a state and a ruler to administer it. In
the Arthashastra, Kautilya has compared a person who is a King at the same pedestal as
Indira, the ruler of the heavens and God of thunder and rain and also Yama, the God of death.
However, it should be noted that such edicts were only inspired to arouse a sentiment of
acquiescence among the people towards their ruler because none of the authors in these texts
aimed at making the king an absolute monarch because, as it has been seen in Manusmriti,
the role of the king is someone who protects religion and any such king who desists or
opposes the same shall be killed by his followers. Such can be seen in the epic of Ramayana,
where the Rakshasa king of Sri Lanka, Lord Ravana, inspite of being such a learned Brahmin

4
Dr. Vidya Dhar Mahajan, “Political Theory : Principles of Political Science”, S. Chand, 2015

13
was put down by Sri Ram, prince of Ayodhya for violating the principles of Dharma for
having abducted his wife, Sita.

3.5. IMPORTANCE OF THE THEORY OF DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

The Theory of Divine Origin had great significance in the primitive ages. As it was difficult
to control the uncivilised people, something more than just humans were needed. So the kings
posed themselves as agents of God on earth. These kings were solely the representatives of
the Almighty and asserted control over the masses. People feared the kings as they were
agents of God. They considered it as their moral obligation to respect and obey the command
of the kings. In this manner the king controlled anarchy and protected the life and liberty of
the people thereby contributed to welfare. Thus the theory had its utility. At the time when
man was emerging from semi – civilised conditions and was not accustomed to obey any
regular authority, this theory served as a bulwark against anarchy. It did emphasis on the
moral basis of political order. Even an absolute ruler owes a moral responsibility to God for
whatever he does. It played a very significant role in raising the status of political authority.
Gettell has rightly pointed out that this theory taught men to obey when they were not ready
to govern themselves. According to Gilchrist, “To regard the state as the work of God is to
give it a high moral status, to make it something which the citizen may revere and support,
something which he may regard as the perfection of human life.” 5

3.6. LIMITATIONS OF THE THEORY OF DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

The theory of divine origin suffers from many criticisms. It suggests that it is wrong to say
that the state was created by God. It is a human need as human beings cannot live without a
state and nor a state can exist in isolation. Hence, it goes against human reason. Also, this
theory justifies mis-rule and tyranny and leaves the people at the mercy of an incompetent
person. As a result people become passive.

It explains only one form of government that is monarchy and fully explains how kingship
begins but remains silent about all the other forms of government like democracy.
5
www.readorrefer.in

14
According to Gilchrist, “To say that God selects this or that man as ruler is contrary to
experience and common sense.” God cannot be expected to do such worldly things for
humans. It is too illogical in the present era to say that God thought of creating a state and
created one. 6

The theory also seems dangerous because it justifies the unlimited and arbitrary powers of the
kings. In a theocratic state the ruler is responsible only to God. Irresponsibility to human
opinion might be a grave danger in the hands of an unscrupulous man. It would lead to
tyranny.

Latest researches in the field of anthropology and sociology prove that the theory of Divine
Origin of State is vague. "The state came into existence" as Aristotle put it "out of bare needs
of man and continues for the good of man". Man is a social and animal and it was by nature
and necessity of the humans that the state came into existence. The theory is thus unscientific.

The theory of divine origin is also religious and not purely political in nature. Therefore, it
fails to give a satisfactory interpretation of the origin of the state. Many political thinkers
assert that God has only asserted about religious matters and not political matters in this
theory. Superstitions, which rules supreme in religious matters cannot rule over the political
matters in context of the state.

Thus, the theory of divine origin of the state seems obscure in the present scenario due to its
unrealistic and unscientific nature. Also, the state has evolved through an evolution process
and is not a creation of God. The theory was popular for a long time but soon started to
decline on account of many factors. The theory of social contract, with its emphasis on
consent, was a great setback to the theory of divine origin.

CHAPTER 4

KINGSHIP AS AN IDEOLOGY

6
www.readorrefer.in

15
The Divine Origin of State and Divine Right of Kings are perhaps the oldest theories of the
origin of the state and of king's divine right to rule. In medieval social formations the reign of
a monarch was legitimised through his birth or genealogy and a particular family's rule was
accepted and approved on the basis of certain concepts and beliefs prevalent about that
family. These beliefs are propagated from above and are hegemonic in nature. In such
ideologies the monarch was given a divine status.

His functions were seen in an inverted form. He himself was viewed as celestial, of divine
origin and his functions as instructed by Divinity. The king was believed to be a
representative of God and one possessed of superhuman power. He was not only seen as a
guarantor of welfare and protector of his subjects, but also as the guarantor of fertility and
higher returns of land and so on. In other words, there was a complete fetishism of the kings.
Marc Bloch has shown that the belief that both the English and the French kings were
endowed with healing powers was a fundamental part of the concept of Royalty and an
important element in maintaining the strength of the respective kings.7

The Ahom kings were believed to have possessed divine status and whose functions were
postulated to be ordained by divinity itself. According to Ahom tradition, Lengdon, the king
of heaven, directed his son, Thenkam to earth to establish a kingdom. At the reluctance of
Thenkam, his two sons, Khunglung and Khunlai, descended to earth by means of a golden
chair. They brought with them an idol called ‘Somdeo', a Lengdong or sword and two drums
which could be used for invoking the divinity and four cocks for calculating badomen.
Thereafter, the Ahom king settled in Assam, assuming the title CHAO-PA meaning king of
heavens. Chao-pa became Swargadeo or Swarga Narayan. This title emphasized the divine
origin of the kings. In other words, the Ahom kings could not be equated with ordinary
mortals.

This theory of the divine origin of the Ahom kings was the ideology on which not only kings,
but their family and offsprings were accepted as fit to be kings. In this way the royal lineage
was perpetuated. The idea was coined and propagated to grow into a belief that it was
ordained by providence that a particular family or lineage or clan was fit to rule over a

7
Marc Bloch Les Rois Thaunaturge' (Paris, 1924) quoted in Arthur Marwick, The Nature of History, (London,
Second edition, 1981) p.75.

16
particular people. It was carried out through the creation of traditions, ideas and rituals, for
e.g. it was propagated that a man must be of royal blood if he aspired to be a king. In other
words, it meant that only a prince or a member of the royal family could become king.

As long as this ideology worked, threats to the throne from outside was eliminated. This
theory which in course of time became a tradition further laid down that an ordinary being
would not be a worthy ruler. No state could be built or developed by beings of ordinary blood
or flesh. It required godly elements in the body to become a king, which were found only in
those who had divine ancestry. For e.g. blood currents of eight heavenly gods {Ashta-Basu)
entered the body of the king to enable him to build and rule the state. Such theories had the
sanction of the priestly class thereby confirming the solidity of the idea.

The Chiring Phukan or the head priest addressed the king publicly after his enthronement as
"0 son of ' Indra, Lord of Heaven, you are made the king under the commands of god. You
are hereby enthroned and made the ruler of this land. You are hereby bestowed with all the
powers and virtues of Indra, the lord of heaven."8

Other ideas that were part of this theory that were fostered and which eventually emerged to
be a belief were many. As for e.g. a theory was locally developed in Assam by the time of
Lara Raja ir latter part of the seventeenth century A.D. that being of divine origin the king's
person was to be sacred and perfect, free from any blemish or mark of injury, whether from
disease or injury . On the one hand this belief made subjects look upon the kings as truly
higher beings (physical proof of the belief) and on the other hand the ruling class used it as a
means to debar rival claimants to the throne by forcefully making them scarred and
blemished.

Since the king was above his people as a superior being, he also had great responsibilities
towards his subjects. He was to perform certain duties and succeed in difficult tasks.

The above theory of Kingship was actually a reflection of the structural relationship of the
monarch vis-a-vis his subjects. The divine attributes of kings postulated, were based on the
actual functions. In other words, what appeared as the heavenly attributes of the monarchs

8
Quoted in A.C. Sharma 's Tai-Ahom system of Government (Delhi,1986), p. 81.

17
were actually merely the effects of his functions in the appropriation, distribution and
utilisation of surplus labour.

CHAPTER 5

PRACTICAL RELEVANCE OF THE THEORY OF DIVINE ORIGIN IN THE

PRESENT TIMES

18
The Theory of Divine Origin of the State has lost its significance in the present context. With
the thought advancement and the introduction of “new learning” the people have discarded
the idea of superstitious beliefs and have incorporated a sense of rational thinking. We know
that in the light of the doctrine of divine rights, first the bishops and then the rulers acted in
the most despotic manner for hundreds of years. Now the people are not prepared to accept
that they have no part in the creation of their political organisation, or God prefers a
monarchical system alone, or their ruler is not accountable to them for his acts of
commissions and omissions. As this theory is hypothetical and reactionary, it cannot be
appreciated by the people in the present times of democracy and secularism.

With the emergence of the social contract theory, the theory of divine origin came to a
standstill. The separation of the Church from the state was also partly responsible for the
decline of the theory. Religion began to lose its integrity and the people refused to believe
that everything was attributed to God and the state was His creation. The ideas of evolution in
the 19th century also discredited altogether the theory of divine origin. The growth of
democratic ideas also gave a setback to the theory of divine origin as it supported the idea of
absolute monarchy.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

19
During the primitive times, the doctrine of Divine Right theory was seen fit for ruling a state
but it eventually lost its importance. The study of this theory enables the reader to fully
understand in depth the relevance and intertwining of politics and religion in ancient times. It
enables us to know how this theory managed to arouse public sentiment towards the king
which is essential for the stability of a state. Since man fears God, it can be supposed that the
king is also afraid of Divine Justice. The theory of divine origin of state, thus, gave moral
support, which helped in removing the anarchy and chaos which was prevalent during those
times, and maintained peace. It thus created a sense of law and order in the common masses
which is essential for the stability of the state.

The theory of Divine Origin adds a moral tone to the functions of the State. “To regard the
State as the work of God is to give it a high moral status, to make it something which the
citizen may revere and support, something which he may regard as the perfection of human
life.”9

The Divine Origin Theory and with that the Divine Right of Kings was discredited in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the West and was replaced by the Social Contract
Theory and Rousseau’s concept of popular sovereignty. Thus, the ‘Voice of God’ gave place
to ‘the voice of the people.’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. J.C. Johari, “ Principles of Modern Political Science”, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi.
9
http://www.shareyouressays.com/essays/essay-on-the-theory-of-divine-origin-of-state/88711

20
2. Dr. Neelam Kant, “An Introduction to Political Science for Pre-Law Students”, Central
Law Publications, 2011

3. Dr. Vidya Dhar Mahajan, “Political Theory : Principles of Political Science”, S. Chand,
2015

4. R.C Agarwal, Political Theory, S.Chand

5. www.shareyouressays.com
6. Marc Bloch Les Rois Thaunaturge' (Paris, 1924) quoted in Arthur Marwick, The
Nature of History, (London, Second edition, 1981) p.75.

7. www.readorrefer.in

8. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/62035/14/14_chapter%206.pdf

21