representative of the State it is only a limited virtue. He must punish the guilty as a matter of course. Not only that. When he has an enemy, he is not to sit quiet, allowing him to grow in power and strength, but he must attack and subdue him before he becomes strong enough to menace him seriously (879). And when a neighbouring prince defies him, he should not forgive him but humble his pride at once (880). But all the same, the king and the State have not a carte blanche to do what they please with regard to their subjects or their neighbours. They shall not think of acquiring even kingdoms by means for which they shall have to blush (1016). And "to try to lay by wealth by means of guile is like trying to preserve water in a pot of clay that is not baked" (660).
While admiring the high moral purpose and the sublime ethics of Tiruvalluvar, Christian writers, actuated by what we may call for want of a better term a spell of religious chauvinism, cannot resist the temptation of making use of this very moral elevation of the poet to attack the religions of India in an insidious manner.
