17

Kingship

Our great epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, are about kings and royalty, not about ordinary people. Why is that so?

It’s not so much about kings as about social structure—how it should be. The head or the leader of the structure, the pivot who holds it all together, is the king. According to experts, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata were written between 300 BCE (the era of Chanakya and Chandragupta of the Maurya dynasty) and 300 CE (the era of Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty), a period of almost 1000 years.

What is special about this period? During the Mauryan era, there were two main forces. The first was the Buddha parampara or Shraman parampara which primarily believed that life was full of sorrow and it was better to renounce it. There was talk of viharas or monasteries. Dhamma means, ‘I am unhappy with the world and I am going to the forest or the monastery in search of truth.’ The second force was ambitious kings like Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka and Bimbisara who wanted to conquer the world. There was a tension between the two forces. In between this, people asked what the role of the king was. So royal stories became very important.

If you look closely, these are stories of kingship. What makes a good king? Is an ambitious king a good king? Buddha was a king too who gave it all up and eventually became a guru. Was he then a good king? The great epics were written in this social context. They are about politics, economics, administration and governance.

In the Puranic stories, Rama rajya is considered to be the ideal kingdom. Why so?

What is a successful kingdom? It is one wherein wealth and prosperity (Lakshmi) come to you without kalaha or conflict (Alakshmi). Saraswati also comes to this kingdom and there is a perfect balance of knowledge and wealth. There is power too which comes with Goddess Durga, a form of Shakti. So an ideal kingdom is where all the three goddesses—Saraswati (knowledge), Durga (power) and Lakshmi (wealth)—reside. This is what constitutes Rama rajya.

Rama is supposed to have been a great king because he cared only for his subjects—to the point that he destroyed his own life for their welfare. A king who keeps his word, listens to his people and is more concerned about them than himself is considered a great king. Rama’s is a tragic story because his personal life was miserable—he abandoned his wife because he listened to the people. A good king always keeps his word so there’s a sense of predictability, integrity and commitment about him.

Ravana is called Lankeshwara. Was he a good king of Lanka?

There are many fans of Ravana who would not like to hear any criticism about him! Now, why was Rama the king of Ayodhya? Was it because he wanted to be the king or because it was his duty or responsibility? Rama never says he wants to be king. He is Raghukul’s eldest son; at that time, the eldest sons were given importance. When his stepmother, Kaikeyi, wants her son to become king, Rama agrees. When he returns fourteen years later, he asks Bharata again, ‘Are you sure you want me to be king?’ Rama is not greedy for the throne. It’s not his ambition; it’s his responsibility.

Let’s compare him with Ravana. Ravana has an ambition to be king. He snatches Lanka from his brother, Kubera, who created it. This is the first point. Ravana then focuses more on himself than his kingdom and takes decisions that destroy it. Lanka burns, people (rakshasas) are killed and an unnecessary war is waged. The war happens because he kidnaps another man’s wife, then refuses to send her back and is willing to go to war for it. It’s a futile war which causes hardship to his people who have nothing to do with it. Where there is a big ego, there cannot be a good king. Is the king there for his subjects or the other way round?

In the Mahabharata too, when war is waged, nobody talks about Hastinapur. They talk of the kingdom as though it’s their property. It’s wrong to believe that it’s like a zamindari system. Looking after the kingdom is their responsibility. This is what the great epics want to show. Both the Pandavas and the Kauravas are guilty of this. When Krishna recites the Gita, he asks the Pandavas, ‘Why do you want to rule? You are talking of rights over the land, authority, but not about duty or responsibility.’

Thus a king is always given a Vishnu roop. The Vishnu who sits in Vaikuntha is called Daridra Narayan or the king of the poor. His wife is Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. But he does not consider the wealth she brings his property. He does not say, ‘Lakshmi is mine.’ He says, ‘I love Lakshmi. She comes to me because I am establishing dharma, order and harmony, an environment where all the people of a kingdom can perform brilliantly. Be it a potter, merchant or weaver, everyone will do their work well so that Lakshmi will come on her own. I am such a good man; I work hard so that prosperity will come to me.’

This is the dharma of a king. Rama shows all these qualities. Governance is most important. Raj dharma means that the prosperity of the kingdom is not the king’s; it’s for the people. ‘I (Vishnu, king) attract Lakshmi so that there’s pleasure and happiness in my kingdom.’ Only in a prosperous kingdom can art flourish. There will be museums, theatres and so on. A king’s job is to create a happy ecosystem, called Vishnu charitra or vritti, which Ravana fails to do.

You spoke about tyrannical kings. Were there others like Ravana?

This is quite an important theme in the Puranas. It’s said that once Bhudevi goes to Vishnu weeping and complains that egoistical kings are exploiting her. She asks Vishnu to destroy them. So he takes various avatars—Rama, Krishna and Parashurama—to kill these adharmi (unconscientious) kings, those who don’t think about their kingdoms but only about themselves.

There is one King Ven who forces his people to worship him instead of Shiva and Vishnu, imposes arbitrary rules and bans pilgrimages. The rishis remind him of his duties as a king: ‘The people of the kingdom don’t have food to eat and houses to live in. There’s moral corruption everywhere. Instead of penalizing the oppressors, you’re interested only in your own wealth and pleasure.’ The king refuses to pay heed and the rishis kill him.

They then debate who can take over the kingdom as the king did not leave a direct heir. His ancestors were the kings Daksha, Dhruv and Anga—a great lineage—so the next king should also be of the same standing. As they’re left with no other choice, they decide to produce another king. They pray and a man appears with a chakra symbol on his hand. He is a Vishnu avatar. The rishis name him Prithu and pronounce him king.

So which kingdom did Prithu rule?

This story should be seen as an allegory. The rishis defeat a bad king and produce a good one from the dead king’s body. This is to show that our ‘default setting’ is that of adharma. We are inherently egoistical and hungry for power instead of being conscious of our responsibilities.

The story goes that Prithu takes a bow and chases after Earth. Earth takes the form of a cow and runs away, fearing more exploitation. The king asks her forgiveness and says it’ll never happen again. So the righteous king is called Gopala and the earth, Gomata—cowherd and cow. Bhudevi calls herself Prithvi, after Prithu, because he is a good king. He is aware that she is a mother and should not be exploited and that a king is a caretaker of his subjects, not their master.

We’ve heard about Rama rajya but never ‘Krishna rajya’ although he too is an avatar of Vishnu. Why so?

Vishnu is associated with dharma and to establish it, he takes different forms. Sometimes he is a leader, sometimes a follower, sometimes a king and sometimes an advisor. Rama is king; Krishna is kingmaker. Krishna is also from Yadava Vansh, the Yadava clan, which is a kind of republic. There is no king amongst them; it is like a democracy. Krishna is also the younger brother, so he’s Dwarkadhish, that is, the protector or guardian of Dwarka, not king.

Kings have some symbols associated with them. For instance, fan made of yak tail (chamar) is used for a king, and thus it is Rama’s symbol, while fan made of peacock feathers (morcha) is used for a diwan or a person one rung below the king. This is used for Krishna, as he is like a king but not a king.

What are the other symbols for a king?

A king was believed to be god, a roop of Vishnu—Vishnuswarup—who will bring in Lakshmi. So most icons associated with Vishnu are used for a king—chamar, singhasana (lion throne) and paduka (royal footwear made of gold). Only royals were allowed to wear gold on their feet. Others are a footstool, an umbrella above his head. In Maharashtra ‘Chhatrapati’ is a title for Shivaji as a chhatri (umbrella) is a symbol of kingship. A king had a bow in his hand—a symbol of balance. The chakra is also very important as it suggests that the king is in the centre and his rule extends up to the borders. So a king is called ‘chakravarti’, the centre of the wheel.

I have read about Raja Bhoj and Vikramaditya in the Amar Chitra Katha. But these stories do not tell us about their origins.

These stories are part of folklore or legend and are not from the Puranas. Mythological stories and legends are slightly different. Puranic stories are mythological, which means they speak of sanatana satya or eternal or timeless truth. In folklore, the stories are partly historical. There may have been such a king in history, but the stories are more practical, not eternal; they’re only for that time. These stories appear in the Kathasaritasagar (ocean of stories).

Vikramaditya is believed to have lived in Ujjain 1000 years before the start of the Islamic period. These stories were probably made up like the Panchatantra to teach princes how to become good kings (‘raj dharma’), somewhat like case studies in management courses today. The uniqueness of these stories is that there’s a puzzle in each story. Different scenarios and perspectives are presented and a king is asked what he would do. The problems presented do not have clear-cut answers about who is right and who is wrong—there is always a dilemma. Since he was a king, Vikramaditya had to take a call, a decision. This kind of situation could make you anxious because you could not know whether the effect of the decision would be positive or negative. In Vedic times, the person who took decisions was called yajman or king. He would make what is known in English as the Judgement of Solomon. This is the answer Vikramaditya would give Vetal.