The Problem of the First Traditional King

The Problem of the First Traditional King [paramparaprasiddhasya sradirajasya prasnah] / By Shri Om Prakash; Research Fellow, Allahabad University, Allahabad. / 128-136

[ asmin nibandhe mahabharatasya srimadbhagavatamahapuranasya ca saksyadharena paramparaprasiddhasya prathamasya rajno visaye rajyasya udbhavavisaye ca vivecanam krtam | jayasavala prabhrtinam vidusam mate purananam saksyam nopadeyam kinca tesam matam na pramanabhutamiti nidarsitam | mahabharate rajya- syodbhavasya vivaranam dvayoh sthanayorhasyate | ekatra tu krtayugasya varnana- prasange uktam yat krte rajna apeksa nasit, praja dharmena atmanam raksita- vatyah | anantaram kama-lobhadinamutpattau rajyasyavasyakata jata | tada prajapatih dharmasastram nirmitavan, visnustu virajonamanam rajanam krtavan | dvitiyavivarananusarena parasparam vivadamana narah prajapati ittham virodho jagmuh prajapatisca manum rajapade niyuktavan | drsyate - ko'yamadya raja manuh, virajo va ? sratra lekhe pradarsitam yat virajastu prajapatih ( prajanam neta ) asit na tu raja | tasyanvaye prajapatayah kirtiman, kardamah, sranangah, vena ityete srasan, raja tu vainyah prthurabhut | sah prathamah sasako raja''sit, atha ca mantribhiryuktam tasyaiva rajyamasit | bhagavate'pi prthuh 'adiraja ' ityuktah | ato jnayate yat prthureva adiraja asinna tu virajah | srimadbhagavata-visnupuranamatanu- sarena srstyai brahmana manuh srstah | manuna svakanya devabhutih virajasah pautraya kardamaya pradatta | purananusarena kardamasya putrah kapila asit, kintu mahabharatanusarena sranangah | idam sambhavyate yat anangah kardamasya dvitiyah putra srasit yah puranakartra na nirdistah | anantaram nidarsitam yat manustu jatinam neta asit sah bhupati- nasiditi | adijatinam samaye bhumya sradhipatirnasit | prthurevadyo bhupala srasit | tadanantaranca tasyadarsena rajyasya sthapanamabhut | ] "The Puranas have no originality. The Purana merely copy some chapters from some well-known authors, e. g. the Agnipurana borrows from an author called Puskara." (Hindu Polity p. 7. ). So says Dr. K. P. Jayaswal on the value of the Puranas as

Jan., 1965] THE PROBLEM OF FIRST TRADITIONAL KING 129 a source of ancient Indian polity and not only Jayaswal but also almost all of his age and even some of us would like to say thus, if ever there is occassion to say. If such is the first hand impression of the value of the Puranas even now and our sight is so weak or disinclined to take any view of their value without a magnifying glass, it is certainly not justice to blame Dr. Jayaswal who wrote at a time when almost all the branches of Indian literature, except the Vedas and the Vedic, required magnification to express their value. It is intended here, therefore, to illustrate the nature and value of the Puranic notices of Hindu polity through a long sought riddle-the origin of State-institution in India. So far the accounts of the origin of State in the Santi Parvan of Mahabharata and that in the Digha Nikaya have been based upon by scholars to draw certain conclusions out of it. A discussion of the origin of State, therefore, involves the analysis of these legendary theories and a mass of suggestions and conjectures. As to the historical origin of the State it is admitted that there is no clue and Altekar suggested it to emerge out of the patriarchal organization of the Aryan society. It must be admitted, however, that the Puranas add no new theory as to the origin of the State, but they certainly modify to a large extent our confusing interpretation of the already existing theories of Mahabharata. How they do it let us see. It is said that there are two accounts of the origin of State in the Santi parvan of Mahabharata. The one starts with the eloquent description of the Golden Age () when there was no State, no king, no sceptre and no chastiser, and people were protecting themselves through Dharma. But they fell from this state of exceptional beings among whom there was no need for the institution of State through their passion Lobha and Moha to which Kama and Krodha was added later on. As the result the people who once protected each other through Dharma turned against each and the sorry state of their affair moved the Gods who requested Prajapati to mend it. Prajapati on this compiled a code of law and then the Gods went to Visnu who appointed his 17

130 puranam - PURANA [Vol. VII., No. 1 mind-begotten son Virajas as King. The line of Virajas is continued through the tyrant Vena upto Prthu his son. The second account, it is said, begins with the sorry state of affairs when the people themselves felt the need for state and failing to settle the affair by a common agreement reported matters to Prajapati who appointed Manu as King. Manu was at the beginning unwilling to hold the office as it involved great sins whereupon the people agreed to give a portion of their Punya to the King to make him agree to rule over them. What is the relation between these two theories? Do they have in view the two different sorts of state which they seek to explain or put the theories as alternatives of the same problem of the origin of State? How can a single work and a single expositor--Bhisma--regard Manu as the first king (f) at one place and Virajas at another? Such questions were never discussed merely because of the fact that there was no available data to answer them convincingly and the scholars avoided Manu in their treatment of the origin of state. But the Puranas have a valuable piece of information which would help us in resolving above doubts. But before discussing them we should examine some points in the first theory of Mahabharata more closely. It is important to notice that Virajas the mind-begotten son of Visnu according to the account of Santiparvan disliked the mastery over the earth and his intellect chose the way of ciation. virajastu mahabhagah prabhutvam bhuvi naicchata | renun- nyasayaivabhavad buddhih pranita tasya pandava || Santi, 53.99 So he was not the first king. Similarly, the account states that his son Kirtiman also grew super human and even his son Kardama took to severe penance. kirtimamstasya putro'bhut so'pi pancatigo'bhavat | kardamastasya putro'bhut sopyatapyanmahat tapah || Santi 53.100

Jan., 1965] THE PROBLEM OF FIRST TRADITIONAL KING 131 What is again noticeable is the fact that inspite of his indifference towards the worldly affairs and indulgence into penance Kardama is called Prajapati in the next verse and his son Ananga is said to have procured the Status of Maharaja and to have become the great protector of the people and master of Dandaniiti. prajapateh kardamasya anango nama vai sutah | prajaraksayita sadhurdandanitivisaradah || Santi. 53. 101 His son Bala became addicted to passion finding a wife who was the daughter of Yama and begot on her Vena who was the socalled tyrant of the scholars. anangaputreti balo nitimanadhigamya vai | abhipede maharajyamathendriyavaso'bhavat || prapya narim mahabhagam rupinim kamamohitah | saubhagyena sampannam gunaiscanuttamam satim || mrtyostu duhita rajan sunitha nama namatah | prakhyata trisu lokesu ya sa venamajijanat || Santi 53. 102-104. Yet more striking is the fact that the mention of the high officials taking charge of their respective offices takes place only in the case of Prthu, the son of Vena who was killed by the curse of the sages, as said above. Had Vena been the full-fledged king wielding his sceptre through a host of high officials there was no need for Prthu of asking for the services of the Brahmanas. vainyastu tanuvacedam devanrsipurogaman || brahmana me sahayasced evamastu surarsabhah | evamastviti vainyastu tairukto brahmavadibhih || purodhascabhavattasya sukro brahmamayo nidhih | mamtrino balakhilyastu sarasvatyo gano bhut || Santi. 53.119-121.

132 puranam - PURANA [Vol. VII., No. 1 It may be argued with some force that since Vena was opposed to the Brahmanas and Brahmanas killed him and since the above statement of Prthu is preceded by the condition of the Brahmanas and the Gods that Brahmanas would be unpunishable ( adandya ) for him the above assumption that high officials were not in the reign of Vena or his predecessors is not borne out. But we should not forget that the author is relating the origin of state and as the conception of state in Santiparvan involves all the seven Angas in which Ministers are very important constituent element of the state next only to the king he would not have missed it while dealing with Virajas or any of the predecessors of Prthu, had he any such intention in his mind. Moreover, if the author intended Virajas to be first king what was the need to proceed the line upto Prthu. It is therefore, improper to call any of the predecessors of Prthu as king; they were Prajapatis, i.e. patriarchs-the successive heads of the tribes. Prthu was the first king and the territorial kingship backed by a host of to the legendary lore. The Bhagavata-Purana, though indication towards the same is found in almost all the Puranas and even in the Santi parvan itself. This Purana during the course of the famous story in which Prthu moved by the hunger and poverty of his people chases the earth in the form of a cow mentions that the pleased king moved with the daughterly love made the earth, from which was already milched out desires of all, plain (c) by reducing to dust the hills and mountains by the point of his bow and made on the plainearth the settlements and habitats called variously as Grama, Puras, Pattana, Durga, Ghosa, Vraja, Sivira, Akara, Kheta and Kharvata. The Purana expressly states that before Prthu there was no conception of villages and towns and people were living fearlessly wherever they liked. officials began with him according allusion to such an idea occurs in tato mahipatih pritah sarvakamadugham prthuh | duhitrtve cakaremam premna duhitrvatsalah ||

Jan., 1965] THE PROBLEM OF FIRST TRADITIONAL KING curnayana svadhanuskotya girikutani rajarat | bhumandalamidam vainyah prayascaka े samam vibhuh || 133 athasmin bhagavan vainyah prajanam vrttidah pita | nivasan kalpayancakre tatra tatra yatharhatah || graman purah pattanani durgani vividhani ca | ghosan vrajan sasiviranakaran khetakharvatan || prak prthoriha naivaisa puragramadikalpana | yathasukham vasanti sma tatra tatrakutobhayah || Bhagavata, 4. 18. 28-32. At more than one places in the same Purana Prthu is expressly called as Adiraja, e.g. in 4. 20. 21, 32. ; 4.21. 8 etc. All this shows that the institution of territorial kingship began, according to legendary account, with Prthu and not with any of his predecessors. The meaning of the word 'Raja' is again justified with reference to the story of milching the earth in the santiparvan also. Thus it says : teneyam prthivi dugdha sasyani dasa sapta ca | yaksaraksasanaganamipsitam yasya yasya yat || tena dharmottarascayam krto loko mahatmana | ranjitasca prajah sarvastena rajeti kathyate || Santi. 53. 131-132. Because he by milching the earth provided the 17 foodgrains and whatever else was dear to the Yaksas, Raksasas and Nagas and others and pleasing ( ranjita ) thereby his (hungry) people he is called Raja-one who pleases. So here Bhisma answers the first question of Yudhisthira-'why is he called Raja ?' ya esa rajan rajeti sabdasvarati bharata | kathamesa samutpannastanme bruhi pitamaha || Santi. 53.5. Thus we can now safely conclude that the legendary lore regarded Prthu as the first king and not Virajas as is ordinarily held.

134 puranam - PURANA [Vol. VII., No. 1 Now let us determine what the predecessors of Prthu and Manu of the second account were. Was Manu like the predecessors of Prthu ? According to Visnu-purana Prajapati after creating the different phenomena of the world created out of his mind his Praja. But as they were indifferent towards sexual enjoyment and invariably thought otherwise he felt angry and out of his anger was created Rudra. After this Manu Svayambhuva was created who made himself Prajapala and took a woman called Satarupa as his wife and begot over her Priyavrata, Uttanapada, Prasuti, and akuti. tato brahmatmasambhutam purvam svayambhuvam prabhum | atmanameva krtavan pranapalam manum dvina || satarupam ca tam narim taponirdhutakalmasam | svayambhuvo manurdevah patnyartham jagrhe vibhuh || tasmattu purusaddevi satarupa vyajayat | priyavratottanapadau prasutyakutisamjnitam || Visnu I. 7. 14-16. Bhagavata Purana repeats almost the same account with greater details and interspersed with large episodes. It adds that from Manu onward the creation was prolonged through male and female contact: tada mithunadharmena praja dhambabhuvire | sa capi satarupayam pancapatyanajijanat || priyavratottanapadau tisrah kanyasca bharata | akutirdevahutisca prasutiriti sattama || Bhag, III. 12, 54-55. The story of the birth of Rudra from the wrath of Prajapati and his creation of such beings who began to eat the world is alluded to by Bhagavata and Visnu alike. Thus Bhagavata says: rudranam rudrasrstanam samantad grasatam jagat | nisamyasamkhyaso yuthan prajapatirasankata || alam prajabhih srstabhiridrsibhih surottama | maya saha dahantibhirdisascaksurbhirutvanaih || Bhagavata. III. 12. 17-18.

Jan., 1965] THE PROBLEM OF FIRST TRADITIONAL KING 135 Having thus forbidden Rudra from creation Prajapati created ten Rshis for promoting creation and then he created Manu. Now Manu is said in the Bhagavata as well as in the Visnu to have married his daughter Devahuti with Kardama and Kardama was the grandson of Virajas. But according to the purana his son was Kapila while according to Mahabharata his son was Ananga. Ananga might have been another son of Kardama which would have been ignored by the devotional nature of Bhagavata Purana. But in this way Virajas antedates Manu by one generation. But since both Virajas and his son and even grandson were indifferent towards the world, speaking of Manu as the first Prajapati does not involve any contradiction. The context of Arajaka in which Santiparvan mentions the second account again becomes compatible when seen in this light as indifference of Virajas, Kirtiman and Kardama would have created conditions of anarchy which the second explains through Matsyanyaya. In this way both the accounts are not different but are one and the same. And as the author of these accounts expected an advance acquaintance with these legends he does not hint at their context in the popular mythology as such, but only alludes to them perhaps with the assumption that the readers will make out the rest. In this way to speak of Manu as the first king is borne out as is also mentioned in the Bhagavata (af af:... III. 21.44) but Virajas being the first king is not borne out in any case. 600 Now arises the question as to how a single discourse can speak of two Adirajas? As a matter of fact as remarked already above the traditional legendary conception of Kingship or State was of two kinds: firstly that in which man was not attached to the soil and secondly when he was. In the first case the severity of the loss or absence of the leader (king) of a people would have jeopardised their very existence as threats from animals and alien tribes would have easily overpowered a disunited people and hence the dread of Arajaka as depicted in the Santiparvan is fully justified. So Manu was the first king of the tribal kingship. As he also regarded as the progenitor of mankind the conjecture of Altekar that among Indo-Aryan people the institution of kingship

136 puranam - PURANA [Vol. VII., No. 1 arose out of the patriarchal system of social organization prevalent among them finds fresh support from the traditional legendary lore also. But of the territorial kingship which meant more than mere tribal leadership and presupposed people's attachment with soil (agricultural economy) Prthu was the first king. It was indeed the model upon which the later imperial states framed themselves. Our treatment of the problem of the first king and the conception of kingship may be charged with unscrupulous mixing of sources belonging to different datas. But against any such charge we may humbly submit that the theme which we are dealing with though belonging to the works of differing dates is not the product of any of their authors. It is on the contrary a tradition of Yore which no body may be credited to have invented and both the Purana-karas and Mahabharata-kara drew upon it. It is, therefore, not the mixing of the source pertaining to different ages but an attempt of reading critically the truth out of different versions of the same theme. This brief discussion of the topic will amply demonstrate the value of Puranic evidence on Hindu polity, Although they have much nuisance, interpolation and paradoxes but the kernels which swelled into the present volumes are certainly valuable complements without which we may either misinterpret or completely overlook the value of the evidence of other lines. But it must be frankly admitted that the utilization and much less basing on them entirely is not an easy task and even after a careful treatment of the matter none may be assured of his position beyond risk. But this risk is worth taking.