Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c9.s3: III.—The Râmâyaṇa

The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c9.s3

Language
English

Contents

III.—The Râmâyaṇa

c9.s3.1

Along with the Mahâbhârata, the Râmâyaṇa of Vâlmiki ranks as one of the two great Epics of India. It has a unity and individuality which the longer compendium lacks. But its date is almost equally uncertain. In its present form it is certainly later than the kernel of the Mahâbhârata. Jacobi shows that the Râmâyaṇa originally consisted of five books, II—VI, though here, too, some cantos are interpolated. The Seventh Book is certainly so late that it cannot be utilised along with the rest. The first beginnings of the real epic may go back to 500 B.C. but extensive additions were made till the second century B.C., and even later. However, the second century B.C. saw most of the work complete. The Râmâyaṇa arose in Kośala, with its centre at Ayodhyâ in Avadha (Oudh). Its narrative leads much further towards the south, though Laṅkâ, the abode of Râvaṇa, the king of Râkṣasas, is hardly likely to be Ceylon.¹ Whatever the locale of Kiṣkindhâ or of Laṅkâ, the Râmâyaṇa, for the most part, illustrates the political conditions only of the eastern districts of Madhyadeśa just as the Mahâbhârata pertains to its western parts. Unlike the Mahâbhârata, the Râmâyaṇa is a Kâvya; it is called the Âdi-Kâvya, the first ‘artificial’ poem. Its style is certainly polished and graceful, but it has all the naturalness and spontaneity of true poetry.² It was meant to be recited before gatherings. The fourth section of the First Book, the Bâlakâṇḍa, says that after composing the Râmâyaṇa the master reflected as to how he should publish it before assemblies. The Buddhist Jâtakas make it clear that there were several versions of the Râmâyaṇa current. In the Daśaratha Jâtaka, Sitâ is the sister of Râma paṇḍita and Lakkhaṇa paṇḍita as the two princes are called and the other details of the story are also different.¹

c9.s3.2

¹ Jacobi located Laṅkâ in Assam Sardar Kibe has recently located it in the Central Provinces.

c9.s3.3

² Jacobi, Das Râmâyaṇa. Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, 302-11. Griffith, Appendix to his Abridged Translation of the Râmâyaṇa. Keith, J. R. A. S., 1915, pp. 318-28. The statements of Dischrysontonius (50-117 A.D.), and Philostratus (170 or 180 A.D.), that Homer's poetry was sung in India (Eggeling, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 21, 9th edition, p. 281) can refer only to the Râmâyaṇa and not to the Mahâbhârata as was once supposed. The Râmâyaṇa consists of 24,000 Ślokas and has come down in three distinct recensions, (1) the Bengal, (2) the Bombay and (3) the West Indian.

c9.s3.4

¹ Daśaratha Jâtaka, IV, 124—31.

c9.s3.5

In spite of the difference in locale, the chronological approximation makes the social and political atmosphere of the Mahâbhârata and the Râmâyaṇa much the same. Caste is present in either, but it must be added that priestly influence is stronger in the Râmâyaṇa. For instance, at the conclusion of the horse-sacrifice for the birth of a son, king Daśaratha conferred the earth upon Brâhmaṇas. The latter, however, knew their resources and interests better and said, "Thou alone art worthy to protect the earth; nor can we rule it being constantly engaged in Vedic studies. Do thou, therefore, confer on us something instead, as the price thereof. Do thou confer upon us gems or gold, or kine, or anything else, for . . . we do not want earth." Daśaratha then bestowed on them ten lacs of kine, ten koṭis of gold and twenty of silver.² Later, the king calls Viśvâmitra his guide and his god, when the latter comes to request him to depute two of his sons, Râma and Lakṣmaṇa, to fight the demons who molested his sacrifices The king is unwilling to part with his tender children for the sake of a hazardous enterprise. Viśvâmitra gets angry with the king and the earth trembles. Vasiṣṭha, the Purohita of Daśaratha, advises compliance with Viśvâmitra's demand. The king yields.³ In the course of a dialogue later on, the power of the Brâhmaṇas is affirmed to be greater than that of Kṣatriyas.⁴ Describing the ideal kingdom of Ayodhyâ, the poet specially notes that the Brâhmaṇas were obeyed by Kṣatriyas, who, in their turn, were followed by Vaiśyas, while the Śūdras occupied with their proper vocations, ministered unto the three higher orders.¹

c9.s3.6

² Bâlakâṇḍa, Section XV. The later Uttarakâṇḍa, Ch. 74, has a peculiar theory of the development of caste.

c9.s3.7

³ Bâlakâṇḍa, XX.

c9.s3.8

⁴ Ibid., LIV. See also VII.

c9.s3.9

¹ Bālakāṇḍa., VI. The Uttarakāṇḍa, which is later than the rest of the Rāmāyaṇa, records an episode which found an echo in subsequent Sanskrit literature. Śūdras were forbidden to practise religious austerities, lest the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas should be enfeebled. A Śūdra who dared to transgress the prohibition was killed by Rāma with his own hand. (Uttarakāṇḍa, LXXXVII—XCI.) ² Bālakāṇḍa, VII, for instance ³ Ibid., VI. ⁴ Ibid., V. ⁵ Ibid., XIII. ⁶ Ayodhyākāṇḍa, LXXXII.

c9.s3.10

The Rāmāyaṇa reflects the same type of feudalism as the Mahābhārata. Daśaratha who is often designated King of Ayodhyā is quite as often called a universal ruler.² It appears that while he actually governed only the region of Kośala with its capital at Ayodhyā³ he exercised a sort of suzerainty over a wider area which was parcelled out among a number of feudatories. Daśaratha's court is described as ordinarily crowded with neighbouring kings who come to pay tribute.⁴ For Daśaratha's horse-sacrifice, they pour into the city of Ayodhyā daily and nightly in a long stream and bring with them various kinds of gems for presentation to the king.⁵ Elsewhere there is mention of "princes throned as well as those without thrones," that is, ruling feudatories as well as other members of their families, "from east and west, north and south," bringing countless gems for presentation to Bharata.⁶ In a remarkable episode, there is an assertion of the suzerain's right to call feudatories to order and to take them to task for misconduct. When the Vānara king Vālin reproves Rāma for hitting him secretly instead of fighting him openly as behoved a Kṣatriya, Rāma replies that Kiṣkindhā was part of Ikṣvāku dominions, that the Ikṣvâkus had the power of awarding favour or punishment on men, beasts and birds alike, and that, as commanded by Bharata who then ruled the capital Ayodhyâ, he was entitled to determine how he would punish those who went astray. Śâstras had sanctioned the destruction of miscreants.¹ In the Râmâyaṇa however, Kośala, the real kingdom of the Ikṣvâkus, is rather small. On his banishment, Râma had quickly passed its bounds.² Marriage alliances are of frequent occurrence among suzerains and feudatories alike.

c9.s3.11

¹ Kiṣkindhâ-kâṇḍa, XVIII.

c9.s3.12

² Ayodhyâkâṇḍa, XLIX. Yet in the next Canto L, it is called the extensive and romantic Kośala.

c9.s3.13.1

The Râmâyaṇa knows only of the monarchical form of government and recognises the succession not only as hereditary but as governed by the law of primogeniture. The heir-apparent was installed Yuvarâja and associated in the task of administration during the lifetime of his father. The yuvarâja as well as the king is formally accepted by the people who protest if any violation of the recognised custom is attempted. At the approach of age, Daśaratha desires to retire into the forest and entrust the kingdom to Râma.³ He summons a huge assembly of people from the capital and the provinces, lays his proposal before them and requests them to speak out their minds. They heartily approve of the project of Râma’s installation and paint his transcendent virtues on which their judgment was based. *Inter alia* Râma had mastered the use of all the weapons known among men, gods and Asuras. Returning from the field on horse-back or on an elephant, he had always enquired after the welfare of the people, after their sons and wives, their disciples and servants, their fire and home and all else. So he must be king.⁴ Not long after when people notice Râma on his way to his father's palace, they exhort him to protect them after the manner of Daśaratha.¹ When Daśaratha, bound by his previous promises to one of his wives, Kaikeyī, is led to exile Râma for fourteen years and to command Bharata's installation in his place, there is general consternation at the departure from the established law.

c9.s3.13.2

Lakṣmaṇa advises Râma to take instantaneous possession of the government, threatens dire civil war and talks of depopulating Ayodhyâ with sharp arrows and of despatching his father in case of opposition. Râma's mother Kauśalyâ, though devoted to her husband, seriously requests her son to consider Lakṣmaṇa's proposals.² When Râma meekly accepts exile, Lakṣmaṇa is beside with rage. "People will mark this thy forsaking of the kingdom for redeeming the vows of thy father with opprobrium." "Do thou perform the rites of installation with things necessary for benediction—do thou engage in these affairs—myself alone shall be able by force to thwart the opposition of the kings."' Râma, however, explains that Daśaratha was the lord and master of all people and might do what he liked.⁴ This, however, was not the view of the minister Sumantra when he reproved Kaikeyī saying, ". . . the princes will obtain the kingdom one after another according to age,—this custom it is your study to render nugatory even while the lord of the Ikṣvâku race is still alive. . . . . . No Brâhmaṇa will dwell in your dominion."⁵ When Râma has departed for the forest and the ministers, assembled, request Bharata to "become our king," the latter replies, ". . . In our line it is over fit for the first-born alone to perform the task of government . . ." He must bring Râma back." Later when a huge assembly again presses the crown on him he reiterates that “ First-born, foremost in merit, righteous-souled . . . .

c9.s3.13.3

Râma deserved the kingdom as Daśaratha did.” If he, a younger prince, accepted the offer, he would bring disgrace on the race of Ikṣvâku.¹ On meeting Râma at long last in the forest, Bharata says, “ Thou art the first-born ; and meet it is that thou shouldst get thyself installed. Râma answers that “ the monarch is competent to make me stay in the woods clad in black deer skin, as to establish me in the monarchy.” ² To this view of the case Bharata’s reply is significant. “ Deprived of the kingdom in consequence of my posteriority in point of birth, what doth regard for morality avail me ? . . . . even this morality has been established with reference to us, *viz.*, that the eldest son of the king existing, a younger one cannot be the king.³ Elsewhere, too, in the Râmâyaṇa the same rule is established. In the Bâlakâṇḍa, on the death of Sagara the people make his son Amśuman king. It will be observed that in such transactions popular opinion and feeling counted for something. Nevertheless it could sometimes be disregarded. In the episode of Râma’s proposed installation it is to be noted that the people’s will, which Daśaratha had so sedulously endeavoured to ascertain and which still favoured Râma’s installation, eventually goes unheeded. Sometimes, of course, a popular agitation could redress some grievous wrong.

c9.s3.13.4

A legend in the Ayodhyâkâṇḍa recalls how a king had been compelled, by the pressure of the people, to banish his son who amused himself by throwing people into the river Sarayû.⁴

c9.s3.14

³ Ayodhyâkâṇḍa, I.

c9.s3.15

⁴ Ibid., II.

c9.s3.16

¹ Ayodhyâkâṇḍa, XVII.

c9.s3.17

² Ibid., XXI.

c9.s3.18

³ Ibid., XXIII.

c9.s3.19

⁴ Ibid., XXIV.

c9.s3.20

⁵ Ibid., XXXV.

c9.s3.21

⁶ Ibid., LXXIX.

c9.s3.22

¹ Ayodhyâkâṇḍa, LXXXII.

c9.s3.23

² Ibid., CI.

c9.s3.24

³ Ibid., CII.

c9.s3.25

⁴ Ibid., XXXVI.

c9.s3.26

In the ordinary course of things, it will appear, the consecration of a new king was attended by festivity on a gigantic scale. The whole city was decorated. Courtezans played and danced all around. Priests, generals, merchants, citizens, provincials—all thronged the palace and made a holiday.¹ The white umbrella was one of the signs of kingship. Sītā, before she knew of the abandonment of the proposed installation of her husband, innocently inquires, . . . “Why has not thy charming face been placed under the shade of an umbrella, having hundred ribs and white as a watery foam?”² Later, the Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa and Yuddhakāṇḍa describe actual consecrations more or less in the Mahābhārata style. The Uttarakāṇḍa which is later than the rest of the Rāmāyaṇa, has two descriptions in the same strain. In every one of them, auspicious waters are collected from the seas and rivers in golden jars. They are sprinkled over the prince seated on a throne. The crown is placed on his head. Generally he receives presents from his nobles and subjects and offers gifts to Brāhmaṇas. Generally, too, a sacrifice is performed.³

c9.s3.27

¹ Ayodhyākāṇḍa, III, XIV, XV.

c9.s3.28

² Ibid., XXVI.

c9.s3.29

³ Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa, XXVI. Yuddhakāṇḍa, CXII, CXXVIII. Uttarakāṇḍa, LXIII, CVII.

c9.s3.30

Thus installed on the throne, the king was expected to be the embodiment of all virtues.⁴ As in the Mahābhārata, he should run the governmental machine himself. He is the chief executive officer, the chief judge, the chief military commander. None the less he lives a life of luxury and pomp. For instance, every morning eulogists, bards, singers and genealogists present themselves at his palace.¹ His eldest son was generally associated with him in the task of administration. The knightly age for a prince was sixteen when he could be expected to take the field.² After his marriage he lived apart from his parents.³ A king sometimes also gave his brothers high positions. For instance, king Janaka placed his brother Kuśadhvaja in charge of an important sacrifice. At the king’s command he occupied a seat worthy of a king.⁴ The story of the Rāmāyaṇa shows that polygamy, rampant among aristocrats, could occasionally lead to serious political complications. When informed of Daśaratha’s command for Rāma’s banishment, Kauśalyā bursts out that she had been disregarded by her husband and reduced below the level of her rival Kaikeyī’s maidservants.⁵ A queen seems to have had an ‘anger-chamber’ where she could retire in moments of high dudgeon, like Kaikeyī, to the discomfiture of her husband.⁶ The daily ‘politics’ of the harem must have been disturbing while their occasional repercussions on the affairs of the kingdom might have proved calamitous. Not the least attractive feature in Rāma’s character is his monogamy.

c9.s3.31

⁴ For the ideal of kingship Nārada’s description of Rāma to Vālmīki, Bālakāṇḍa I. Also the delineation of Daśaratha, Ibid., VI.

c9.s3.32

¹ Bālakāṇḍa, VI; Ayodhyākāṇḍa, LXV.

c9.s3.33

² Bālakāṇḍa, XX. For the ideal of a prince, see the delineation of Rāma, Ayodhyākāṇḍa, I.

c9.s3.34

³ Ayodhyākāṇḍa, XVI.

c9.s3.35

⁴ Bālakāṇḍa, LXX.

c9.s3.36

⁵ Ayodhyākāṇḍa, XX.

c9.s3.37

⁶ Ibid., X.

c9.s3.38

Throughout the Rāmāyaṇa the Purohita appears as the right-hand man of the king, his constant advisor. The king had eight ministers, who had served the dynasty from father to son. Here is a strong confirmation of the view that high office was often hereditary. They were expected to be upright counsellors, capable administrators, ever intent on the good of the monarch, skilful in divining the motives of others, adepts in dealing tactfully with the people, ever busy in replenishing the treasury and in enrolling troops for the defence of the realm. They should bear no ill-will towards Brâhmaṇas or Kṣatriyas or the people at large.¹ The priest and ministers could play a higher role in emergencies. When Daśaratha dies of bereavement, they take the situation in hand, send for Bharata from his maternal grandfather's country, press the sovereignty on him, and failing in their endeavour, accompany him to Rāma's forest abode and participate in consultations of high moment.² Sumantra can reprove the queen herself. From a passage in the Yuddhakāṇḍa it appears that ministers fell into two classes, Sacivas and Mantrins and that the term amātya was a general one including both.³ Another passage in the Ayodhyākāṇḍa divides ministers into three classes—Mukhya or chief, Madhyama or middle and Jaghanya or low. In the same section, the Ayodhyākāṇḍa speaks of eighteen Tīrthas or heads of departments of superior and inferior categories.⁴ As in the Mahābhārata, one of the most important offices is that of the ambassador. The lives of envoys are sacrosanct.⁵ Kings had magnificent courts. The Ayodhyākāṇḍa mentions one which consisted of a thousand members.⁶

c9.s3.39

¹ Bālakāṇḍa, VII.

c9.s3.40

² Ayodhyākāṇḍa, LXXIX, LXXXII, CIV et seq.

c9.s3.41

³ Yuddhakāṇḍa, CXXX.

c9.s3.42

⁴ Ayodhyākāṇḍa, C.

c9.s3.43

⁵ Ibid., CIX; Sundarakāṇḍa, LII-LIII.

c9.s3.44

⁶ Ayodhyākāṇḍa, C.

c9.s3.45

The capital was well laid out according to plan. Ayodhyā is described as two yojanas (about eight miles in length), though in another passage its dimensions are given as twelve yojanas in length and ten in breadth. It was intersected with roads, wide, straight and beautiful. They were regularly sprinkled with water and on the sides were flower-plants which charmed all eyes with their full-blown blossoms. The mansions rose high in the sky and glittered with gems. The city was laid out in four squares. The whole was defended by battlemented towers and moats.¹ Generally, there were four gates though Laṅkā is said to have had eight.²

c9.s3.46

¹ Ayodhyākāṇḍa, V, VI.

c9.s3.47

² Yuddhakāṇḍa, XCIII.

c9.s3.48

Guilds appear in the Rāmāyaṇa as in the Mahābhārata.³ There is a reference to Sayodhaśreṇī which most probably implies a corporation of soldiers, or a guild which combined economic and warlike functions.⁴

c9.s3.49

³ Ibid., III, CXI.

c9.s3.50

⁴ Ayodhyākāṇḍa, CXXIII.

c9.s3.51

The imperative necessity of Government is vividly realised in the Epic. In a passage of wonderful eloquence, the poet paints the horrors of anarchy. A realm without a king is like a river without water, a forest without grass and a herd of cattle without the herdsman. The gods themselves frown over kingless regions. In anarchy, there is no rain and no agriculture. Trade disappears. None can feel secure about his property or even his life. The very idea of law goes to the winds. Men prey on each other, like fishes, from hour to hour. Family life and morality fall to the lowest depths. Father and son fight each other, wives get out of hand. Religious practices suffer a woeful decay. Brāhmaṇas do not keep their vows. None cares to perform sacrifices with texts and prayers. Sages can be sure of nothing. In short, a country without a king is perfectly wretched. It can witness no happiness, no festivity, no joviality. From such unspeakable misery, the monarch alone rescues the people. He is the universal benefactor, he is father, mother and friend, he is the hope and mainstay of all, he is the right, he is the truth.⁵

c9.s3.52

⁵ Ayodhyākāṇḍa, LXVII.

Linked texts (5)