The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c12.18

c12.18

Now, although the "circle" is seen from the single point of view of the would-be conqueror, it is clear that he is just one of the seventy-two "elements." Each of the first twelve can in his turn be a vijigīṣu, none being at the top or even in the center. In fact, the whole exposition turns on the pivotal question of how to husband one's resources in such a way that one may attain the central position in the "hub" of the "circle of elements".³⁸ Moreover, as Hartmut Scharfe has shown, the terminology shows a conflation of two schemes, a concentric one and a dualistic rectilineal one in which the would-be conqueror faces his rival while their allies and enemies interlock at their backs.³⁹ In the latter scheme, there cannot even be a single central position, since the center is held by two chief contestants. In order to achieve whatever predominance is attainable, one has to move with utmost caution on the same level as all the other "elements"—not only the twelve "king elements"—each of which is a power in its own right. This, incidentally, makes short shrift of the notion of states with a modicum of centralization and entertaining "interstate relations." It also means that the difference between "monarchy" and "republic," already alluded to, cannot be a very significant one. The circle doctrine is a schematic representation of a universe made up of various interlocking forces, where the king has to stake himself in an ever-continuing gamble with his like as well as with other forces.