Introduction:

The Little Oxford Dictionary of current English (VI edition -1989) defines “King” as “Male sovereign ruler of independent state” and “kingdom” as “State or territory ruled by a king or queen”. The annotation of “king” can be taken as another term for the meaning of “supremacy”. Say, the King of Pop music.

During the early period of human civilization there was a need for the whole tribe, clan or people to safeguard the inhabitants from all the dangers which one faced, say invasion from other tribes, wild animals and beast in the forest. Among the groups of man perhaps, the most powerful in muscles and intellect were given the simple task to look after the whole tribe.

Later on, this practice paved way to a position of hereditary assignment of kingship/Chief hood. But man had other fears which he could not conquer: the fear of what he could not explain by his logic and conscience. The happenings around him could not be reasoned by his logic and understanding. Thus religion was borne around mankind which could suffice all his fears.

In olden days and even now supremacy was combined with divinity with the only aim to alleviate him to the higher up among the whole tribe. Perhaps man and society were in a cocooned stage when knowledge and information were confined to few bunch rather then to the whole masses.

No wonder, from the “Pharaohs” of Egypt, to the Kings of Shang dynasty of China in circa 1500 BC , the king was regarded more than a mortal being on the earth, a person with exceptional qualities (both natural and supernatural). It is a simple logic that by attributing divine qualities to a king, all the people in a land could be easily suppressed and subjugated.

Within a tribe one who was the strongest in any combat both physically and intellectually, one who could annihilate the most enemy was made a king or chief. In the Indo- Aryan context, Rajan later on with the expansion of the boundary elevated to Maharajan and Maharajaadhiraja . These were many adjectives assigned by the sycophants court writers to the ruler.

In Meso-American, the earliest warrior state of major importance was probably Teotihuacan, which in he 6th century AD was sending armed embassies far to conquer and expand the territory. One who annihilate most of the enemies and who could plunder wealth of other tribes were exhausted and regarded as the most efficient ruler.

Reasons for to be rule and its methods:

Probably the feeling of insecurity of life and property by the then inhabitants, made the simple people to cluster around a person who could safeguard their lives and properties. A person who could impart justice to the subject and who could defeat enemy was given the post of kingship in the belief that both security and psychology solace can be achieved.

Probably these nuclei turned up as the starting point of kingship with a ruler who was considered as person with supreme power. The story even goes to the extend that Phaorahs in Egypt were placed as representatives of the Sun god. Similarly Maharajas in Hindu India were given the status of a Hindu deity – Vishnu. These are few example of combination of divinity and supremacy.

It is an ugly fact that supremacy went far ahead than it’s requirements paving a way to accumulate wealth in the form of taxes from all the people into the hand of a king. No wonder pomp and joy, gold and silver, dames and eunuch surrounded the king. The attributes and fame a king had after a span of time reached a stage as “divinity assembled on earth”.

As a consequence, the distance between the ruler and the ruled widened thus paving a society in which classes clashed one against another either to get more wealth or favour from the king. Perhaps this might be the reason why many kingdoms sprang up and shine for some time and all had natural deaths.

In the context of India, researches are still going on to find out the rulers of the Indus Valley cultures: whether they were a guild of merchants, a municipal body or a supreme king? Question varies from one another on this point. Later with the advent of Aryan cultures a proto democracy formed amongst the tribe and using the ground of “specialization”; hereditary assignment of kinghood , division of society might have established within whole tribe.

One can imagine the life then. The so called twice borne Brahmin and the Kshatriya were labeled as “learned” and the “warrior”. Mostly the kings in Indo Aryan tribes were from the latter caste. It is a wonder that a rigid and compartmentalized society has landed presently into a land of “Hero worshippers” be it in politics or any other field.

Thus a romantic scene in the novel is a society in which “Unity in diversity” is the brown paper for caste politics, corruptions, neo colonialism and regional imbalances, economic segregations and demographical entrenchment using inhuman black laws.

“Plutocracy in real form and democracy in name” will lead to a place in which the dailies / news papers are headlined with the news of “killing first & then reasons to the killed later”.

Can we call the people as the “citizen” of such nation to be “democratic citizen”? The writer feels that they can be called as the “ruled without even knowing the identity and whereabouts of the Ruler? Here again the basic reason of bridle around their neck is again – fear.

When there is so much fear how can there be happiness, prosperity and trustworthy progress? In the name of globalization workers are in constant fear of loosing job. Perhaps, this in one of the main reasons for Blood pressure and other numerous mental disorders we find among the workers.

The covenanted ones in the consortium (in fact capitalist agents) extracts from his subordinates and when all the subordinate’s blood are sucked then formalities in the form of entrenchment is done. Where then is the security of man ? Aren’t these capitalist a form modern parasites in disguised form? No wonder one thinker wrote: “Man is borne with freedom, and then everywhere he is in chain.”

to be continued ..