Attributing divinity to monarchs is a recurring theme across human history. In the context of India, the practice of associating upper-caste kings with divine status by Brahmins, the highest caste within the Hindu-Brahmin social hierarchy, demands nuanced exploration due to its intricate historical, political, and religious motivations.
While it’s crucial to avoid sweeping generalizations, examining these factors can shed light on a complex phenomenon that empowered kings and reinforced the caste system.
Religious Foundations
Central to understanding this practice is the deeply ingrained concept of Dharma, the cosmic order governing right conduct and societal roles within Hindu-Brahmanism.
Vedic scriptures (ancient texts) establish the Chaturvarna system, dividing society into four varnas: Brahmins (priests, scholars), Kshatriyas (rulers, warriors), Vaishyas (merchants, farmers), and Shudras (laborers).
Each varna has its specific duties, with Kshatriyas ordained to protect and rule while Brahmins hold spiritual authority. Kingship, therefore, occupied a divinely sanctioned position within the cosmic order.
Kings were often associated with deities like Indra, the Vedic god of kingship and war, further linking their rule to divine sanction.
Additionally, rituals like Rajasuya (royal consecration) solidified this connection. Performed by powerful Brahmins, these elaborate ceremonies imbued the king with divine power and legitimacy, reinforcing his authority over his subjects.
Also Read| Does Bhagavad Gita promote caste system?
Political Benefits
Brahmins, occupying the pinnacle of the social order, possessed immense religious and intellectual influence.
By associating kings with divinity, they secured their own positions. Kings, seeking legitimacy and stability, relied on Brahmins to validate their rule through religious pronouncements and rituals. This symbiotic relationship ensured mutual reinforcement of power and influence.
Moreover, linking divinity to the king created a powerful tool for social control. The belief in a divinely ordained ruler discouraged rebellion and instilled obedience in subjects. It fostered a sense of cosmic duty to obey the king, leading to greater social cohesion and stability for the ruling elite.
Historical Evolution
The practice of bestowing divinity on kings wasn’t static. Different periods witnessed varying degrees of emphasis and diverse justifications.
Mythical
Most kings in Hindu-Brahmin mythology have been referred to as gods and deities. According BR Ambedkar, the architect of Indian constitution, some like King Rama of Ayodhya have been even elevated to the status of incarnation of God over a period of time.
It becomes quite evident from Ambedkar’s writings and acclaimed book “Riddles of Hinduism” that as Brahmins have an age-old habit of bestowing divinity especially on upper-caste Kshatriya kings, they did the same with Lord Rama and forced Bahujan-backward classes to worship him as their God. And with the passage of time this false deification of Lord Rama by elite Brahmanical classes became a part of larger Indian culture, ritual and tradition.
Also Read-
- Ambedkar’s views on Lord Rama: Excerpts from Riddles of Hinduism
- 22 Vows of Ambedkar against Hindu-Brahmanism
- Read why Quran blames Elite and Upper Classes for Corrupting Religion and People
Mauryan Empire
The Mauryan Empire (3rd century BCE) saw monarchs portrayed as benevolent guardians, emphasizing their just rule rather than direct divinity.
The Ashokan inscriptions which generally do not carry his name mention only devanampiya piyadasi, dear to the gods, and leave out the name Ashoka. The title devanampiya or ‘dear to gods’ adopted by Ashoka was not unique but also adopted by his ancestors. However, piyadasi or ‘good looking’ seems to have been his unique title.
We quote below the words of Ashoka from his Thirteenth Major Rock Edict that deals with his brutal consquest of Kalinga:
“When he had been consecrated eight years the Beloved of the Gods, the King Piyadasi, conquered Kalinga. A hundred and fifty thousand people were deported, a hundred thousand were killed and many times that number perished. Afterwards, now that Kalinga was annexed, the Beloved of the Gods very earnestly practised dhamma, desired dhamma, and taught dhamma. On conquering Kalinga the Beloved of the Gods felt remorse, for when an independent country is conquered the slaughter, death and deportation of the people is extremely grievous to the Beloved of the Gods and weighs heavily on his mind. What is even more deplorable to the Beloved of the Gods, is that those who dwell there, whether brahmanas, shramanas, or those of other sects, or householders who show obedience to their teachers and behave well and devotedly towards their friends, acquaintances, colleagues, relatives, slaves, and servants, all suffer violence, murder and separation from their loved ones … Today if a hundredth or a thousandth part of those people who were killed or died or were deported when Kalinga was annexed were to suffer similarly, it would weigh heavily on the mind of the Beloved of the Gods … The Beloved of the Gods considers victory by dhamma to be the foremost victory”.
This is how Ashoka changed his modus operandi and now appealed ideologically to the tribal people and the frontier kingdoms. The subjects of the independent states in Kalinga were asked to obey the king as their father and to repose confidence in him, writes RS Sharma in his acclaimed book “India’s ancient Past”.
Kushana Empire
The Shakas and Kushans strengthened the idea of the divine origin of kingship.
Ashoka called himself ‘dear to the gods’, but the Kushan kings called themselves sons of god. Many Kushana rulers adopted the title devaputra, or “son of god”, possibly inspired by Chinese rulers who called themselves sons of heaven.
It was naturally used in India to legitimize the royal authority. According to RS Sharma, the brahmanical lawmaker Manu asks people to respect the king even if he is a child because he is a great god ruling in the form of a human being (India’s ancient Past).
The Kushans also adopted the pompous title of ‘king of kings’, which indicates that they collected tributes from numerous small princes.
Gupta Empire
In contrast, Gupta rulers (4th-6th century CE) actively encouraged associations with Vishnu, the Hindu god of preservation, solidifying their claims to universal rule. Some Gupta rulers adopted titles like “Parameshwara” i.e. the Supreme God.
The Prayaga Prashasti (also known as the Allahabad Pillar Inscription) composed in Sanskrit by Harishena, the court poet of Samudragupta, arguably the most powerful of the Gupta rulers (c. fourth century CE), is a case in point. Given below is an excerpt from the Prayaga Prashasti-
“He was without an antagonist on earth; he, by the overflowing of the multitude of (his) many good qualities adorned by hundreds of good actions, has wiped off the fame of other kings with the soles of (his) feet; (he is) Purusha (the Supreme Being), being the cause of the prosperity of the good and the destruction of the bad (he is) incomprehensible; (he is) one whose tender heart can be captured only by devotion and humility; (he is) possessed of compassion; (he is) the giver of many hundred-thousands of cows; (his) mind has received ceremonial initiation for the uplift of the miserable, the poor, the forlorn and the suffering; (he is) resplendent and embodied kindness to mankind; (he is) equal to (the gods) Kubera (the god of wealth), Varuna (the god of the ocean), Indra (the god of rains) and Yama (the god of death)”.
Also Read| Gupta Empire: Society, Administration, Economy and Critique
Muslim Rulers
The Muslim era (11th-19th centuries) saw another shift. Though Muslim rulers adopted popus titles like Zill-e-Ilahi (Shadow of God) “Jahanpanah” (refuge of the world) to project divine-like authority and to garner acceptance from their Hindu subjects, they never claimed to be God.
They also regularly faced stiff opposition from Islamic scholars like Ahmad Sirhindi, etc because, Islam not only forbids such titles and statuses for kings and rulers but also frowns upon divine kings, monarchy and hereditary succession in matters of governance.
According to a Hadith narrated Abu Huraira RA, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said that the most awful name in Allah’s sight on the day of judgment will be that of a man calling himself ‘Malik-al-Amlak’ i.e. king of kings. (Sahih al-Bukhari 6205).
فَتَعٰلَى اللّٰهُ الۡمَلِكُ الۡحَـقُّ
Fata’Aalallahul Malikul Haqqu
So exalted be Allah (God), the (only) true King…”
Al-Quran 20:114
Also Read-
- Who is Allah? Definition and Attributes of God in Islam
- Democracy: Quran and Hadith quotes on Good Governance
Nuances and Criticisms
It’s essential to avoid portraying this practice as solely orchestrated by Brahmins for their own benefit. Many kings genuinely believed in their divinely ordained roles, striving to uphold Dharma and ensure societal well-being.
Additionally, not all upper-caste kings enjoyed full-fledged divine status. The degree of association varied depending on individual rulers, historical context, and regional specificities.
However, it’s also crucial to acknowledge the inherent inequalities embedded in this practice. By linking divinity to upper castes, it perpetuated the hierarchical structure of the caste system, marginalizing lower castes and justifying their subordinate positions.
This aspect remains a sensitive subject in contemporary India, sparking debates about historical injustices and ongoing social disparities.
Conclusion
Bestowing divinity on upper-caste kings in India was a complex phenomenon intricately linked to religious beliefs,political realities, and historical evolution.
While it served to legitimize rulers and maintain social order, it also reinforced an inherently unequal caste system.
Recognizing this complexity and its historical context paves the way for informed discussions about the legacy of kingship and its impact on present-day India.
Important Note:
This article aims to provide a brief overview of a complex topic. It’s crucial to remember that generalizations can be misleading and individual historical cases might present diverse situations. Engaging with academic scholarship and critically analyzing primary sources are essential for deeper understanding.
Primary Sources:
- Rig Veda: The oldest Hindu scripture, containing hymns that often associate kings with Indra, the Vedic god of kingship.
- Arthashastra: An ancient Indian treatise on statecraft, discussing the duties and divine aspects of kingship.
- Manusmriti: A legal text considered foundational to Hinduism, though contested for its hierarchical and discriminatory views, which nonetheless shed light on the justification of caste roles.
- Inscriptions and edicts: Many Indian kingdoms left behind inscriptions and edicts that often describe the king’s divinity and relationship with deities.Examining these primary sources from specific historical periods can provide valuable insights.
Secondary Sources:
- “Kingship in Colonial India” by Nicholas Dirks: Analyzes the changing conceptions of kingship during the British Raj and critiques the colonial appropriation of the “divine king” narrative.
- “Ancient Indian History and Civilization” by Romila Thapar: Offers a comprehensive overview of Indian history, including sections on the evolution of kingship and its religious associations.
- “Caste and Untouchability: Anthropological Insights” by Dipankar Gupta:Examines the complex relationship between caste and kingship, highlighting the social implications of associating divinity with upper castes.
- “The Hindus: An Alternative History” by Wendy Doniger: Provides a critical perspective on Hindu history, challenging traditional narratives and questioning the assumptions behind concepts like the “divine king.”
- “India: A History” by Stanley Wolpert: A comprehensive historical text that discusses the concept of the “divine king” in various periods and its impact on Indian society
Read more subaltern articles-
