The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c14.s1.27

c14.s1.27

The total "circle" can perhaps best be viewed as a schematization of a continually shifting and unstable factional system. The *Arthaśāstra*'s intention is, of course, to let the conqueror-king win through to universal dominion, but even then he would still be tied down by the crisscross of factional relationships that constitute the total polity of the "circle of kings." The ambivalence of the conqueror-king's position—on the one hand pretending to universal rule, on the other hand tied down by the diffusion of power and authority throughout the "circle"—comes out even clearer when we consider that the maṇḍala configuration is based on two different, in fact incompatible, principles that have been conflated in the seemingly unitary scheme, namely, a concentric and a linear principle. The concentric principle places the conqueror-king in the "hub of the wheel," surrounded by rings of enemies and allies. The linear principle, on the other hand, does not have one conqueror-king in the center; instead the center is formed by two kings, the conqueror and his enemy, with the various allies and rivals aligned behind each of the two, the conqueror's ally being placed at the back of the enemy and so on.³⁴ In the first case, the conqueror forms the center, supported by his allies and subduing his rivals; the second configuration is a dualistic scheme which continually pits the conqueror against his rival in never-ending conflict (if it ended, the whole configuration would collapse). Where the concentric scheme still seems to leave open the possibility of the conqueror's eventual universal rule, the linear alignment definitely precludes that eventuality. But in neither case does the king rise above the maṇḍala; his position remains dependent on the changing outcome of the perennial contest.