|
YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED: F.A.Q. 22
|
|
Divine Kingship QUESTION: Should countries be ruled by elected
presidents or by hereditary rulers such as kings? ANSWER: The word used in Yoga to designate a Ruler
is Rajah. Although Rajah can mean any leader in charge of
governing a country, it is translated as King due to the fact that
this is the English word that normally suggests Governance as a divinely
ordained institution, which is the sense and meaning generally intended in
Yoga. The Sanskrit word Rajah is one of the oldest known to
man. Like a great tree, its ancient roots reach deep into prehistoric times
while its many branches stretch out from Asia to the Western shores of
Europe. Related words are found in many Western tongues: French Roi, Spanish
Rey, Romanian Rege, English Regent. Etymologically speaking, Rajah is allied to the verbal
roots Raksh, to protect, hence Latin Rex, and Rak/Rag,
to stretch out, make straight, make right, rule, hence English Right.
It is therefore rightly associated with Protection, Righteousness,
Spiritual Power and Divine Rule. In consequence, it is not
surprising that Kingship (Rajatva) has a special significance in Yoga.
This is what the Holy Scriptures of India have to say on this matter: "God created the King for the
protection of all. Indeed, the Yogic concept of Divine Kingship, that is
to say, the authority whereby a country is ruled in harmony with the Supreme
Principle of Goodness (God), has until recently been universally accepted
by the thinking men of East and West as the ideal form of governance. The notion that Monarchy (rule by one divinely guided person)
is somehow inferior to Democracy (rule by common, anti-Spiritual people) is a
relatively new development in the history of human thought. Ancient man
recognised the fact that some people possess greater intelligence, knowledge
and experience - and therefore are better suited to govern a country - than
others are. Even more so, when the Ruler appears to have some kind of
close contact to a Higher Intelligence (or Divine Spirit) that endows him
with seemingly superhuman abilities, and when he is, literally, born and bred
to that task. Indeed, it was on this basis that the Kings of the
Ancient World were appointed to rule over their people, and history offers
many examples of great Kings who on account of their natural
Spirituality, which was supported and enhanced by long military, political
and Spiritual training, have earned the gratitude and admiration of countless
successive generations. The reason why most monarchies were in recent times replaced
by so-called democracies is that due to the Spiritual degeneration of mankind
many Kings in the past came to power not by the Will of God but by political
and military means. Consequently, these "Kings" (1) were either
incapable or unwilling to follow divine guidance and (2) abused their powers
in ways that gave rise to the erroneous belief that only democracy can
somehow guarantee that the interests of the people are served as intended by
them. Is Democracy better than Monarchy? There are a number of problems with democracy, of which we
shall enumerate just a few. The reader is invited to form his own arguments
for or against our findings and decide for himself: 1. Democracy means rule by majority. This can only work on
the supposition that majority view is always the right view. But the fact is
that the truth or falseness of a view has nothing to do with the number of
people subscribing to it. In practice, majority view is often logically and
factually wrong. The main reason for this is that people in general do not have
sufficient political, economic or social training to understand and foresee
all the ramifications (both short-term and long-term) of their choice when
electing a Government into office and therefore often elect the wrong person
or policy. Moreover, the democratic election system whereby politicians - and
their programmes - are elected in and out of office every few years, results
in politicians taking short-term views of their policies, to the detriment of
systematic long-term planning. Thus, in Western democracies, politicians become primarily
concerned with offering superficial, temporary solutions to the problems that
are of concern to the electorate who in turn have neither the specialised
expertise nor the time nor, indeed, the inclination, to analyse the policies
they have voted for or which are being designed and implemented on their
behalf. 2. Majority view is largely formed by the media. But the
majority has no control over the media. The media are controlled by obscure
individuals and shadowy organisations. This makes it easy for a powerful
minority to manipulate the majority. Thus on January 26 2005, the founder of the American news
network CNN, Ted Turner, acknowledged the misuse of the media as a political
propaganda tool and the problems this poses for democracy. He even went so
far as to compare sections of US media to the propaganda machine of Nazi
Germany, describing this as one of the "five biggest problems we face in
America". In Britain, the BBC was likewise indicted as biased in an
official report by the BSC (Broadcasting Standards Commission). The fact is that, in democracies as in dictatorships, even
language is being distorted and used as a propaganda instrument of mass
deception and manipulation. For example, in addition to their irrational
opposition to the time-honoured principle of Kingship, democracies often
succumb to radical, left-wing, liberalist ideologies which would have us
believe that governments must be "secular". Now in the English
language, secular means atheistic or godless. Why then should a country, most
of whose citizens believe in God, be ruled by non-believers or even
anti-religious elements? 3. In practice, democracy does not always give people the
freedom and equality it is supposed to guarantee: people often have the
freedom to say what they want only so long as they do not contradict
official, media-dictated consensus opinion. A party can be excluded from the
political process by other parties through their refusal to co-operate with
it. Indeed, political or religious groups holding views that
differ from or oppose the official line are often outlawed, deprived of
public funding, ridiculed in the media or otherwise marginalised, undermined
and suppressed. This makes it hard or impossible for large sections of the
population to find a voice or wield any degree of power. Thus many people are
denied the opportunity to make a contribution to national and international
politics. This is a blatant contradiction of democratic principles which
demand that power belong to all the people and not to part of the people. In
short, democracy is often just a thinly veiled form of mass deception. On strict logic, it makes no difference what system of
governance we employ, so long as it guarantees the Spiritual and material
good of the people. In practice, however, monarchies such as Britain, Japan
and Sweden have in the past proved to be far more efficient in serving the
interests of their people than many a democratic government. By contrast,
supposedly democratic governments such as that of modern India, have often
notoriously failed to adequately promote the much needed material and
Spiritual progress of their people. It is not mere coincidence that, even today, when only a handful
of monarchies remain in power, a recent study places five monarchies (Norway,
Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark and Spain) among the ten countries with the
highest living standards in the World - out of a total 111 countries. By
contrast, most of the World's democracies (including USA) are rated lower
than the above monarchies. Anti-monarchist, leftist-liberalist France and
Germany are on places 25 and 26, respectively. Predictably, Communist
countries - the most anti-monarchist of the lot - are rated among the lowest
on the list. (The Economist, "The World in 2005") The failure of Democracy In their obsessive attempt to abolish their own history and
reinvent themselves, democratic nations all over the World have exhibited a
curious tendency to become bogged down in all manner of political, cultural
and social experiments which by and large have failed to produce the expected
results. Having lost their link to the Divine, large sections of Humanity are
now in danger of losing their human touch. Millions of unfortunate Souls are suffering the nefarious
effects of anti-Spiritual excrescences such as rampant capitalism (rule by
big business), communism (atheist state rule) and religious fundamentalism
(rule by self-appointed religious authorities), the proliferation of which
could have been inhibited by the establishment of Spiritually-inspired
monarchies based on time-honoured Yogic principles. It is beyond dispute that crime, violence, corruption,
terrorism, mental disorder and disease are on the rise in all of the World's
democracies. The reasons for this are not hard to find. Firstly, it is
important to understand that most democracies in the World were established
after the Second World War, from the 1950s onwards. Secondly, the problem is
that both the means whereby democracies were established and the motives
behind their establishment were flawed. Most democracies were sponsored by financial powers - led by
US banks - and based on money-centered economies. The reasoning behind this
was that such economies would generate enough income to keep everybody happy
and quiet. What was not realised was that ever-growing Western economies
forced non-Western nations to adopt lifestyles and means of production to
suit Western needs. "Undeveloped" nations were forced to give up their
traditional self-sufficient existence and put all their energy and resources
into producing goods required by the developed World. The global tourism,
consumer and arms industries further contributed to the irreparable damage
inflicted on traditional societies everywhere. Meanwhile, Western nations were growing wealthier but not any
happier. Because the basic plan of the democratic utopia was drawn on
materialistic patterns of thought that completely ignored man's most
fundamental psychological and Spiritual needs, it has resulted in unstable
and volatile societies all over the World. Today, human civilisation is a
shaky, profoundly unsound makeshift structure that can collapse any time. While conflicts in the past remained largely local,
modern conflicts threaten to engulf the whole World in chaos, anarchy and
destruction. "Bread and games" or food and entertainment, was the
mantra of Ancient Rome. As we know, the Roman Empire didn't last for ever.
Nor can its successor, the modern Western Empire, reasonably expect to last
any longer. Ultimately, money cannot save the World. What it can do, when in
the wrong hands, is send Humanity even faster to its grave. This is precisely
what is happening now. The dangers of Secularism Secularism, in particular, which is an offshoot of
Democratism, has done incalculable damage to World stability and peace. For
example, secularist democracies have patently failed to prevent the rise of
materialism and its attendant environmental and moral decline. Although
Secularism was expressly introduced as a means of combating the excesses of
religious extremism within a nation, it has in fact rendered secular
democracies vulnerable to infiltration and subversion by foreign religious
extremists who view it as their duty to impose their own beliefs on the
"unbelieving" host country. The disillusionment of democratic nations with their own
governments is such that millions take to all kinds of aberrant behaviour
from compulsive consumerism and drug or alcohol abuse to joining bogus cults
and "religions" some of which actively promote violence against
everybody else. For example, some of the largest public demonstrations ever
held in Western "democracies" were in support of the Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein and the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. In 2003, there were
more supporters of Saddam Hussein on the streets of Western capitals than in
Baghdad! When a large part of the population is so ignorant, confused
and frustrated as to side up with terrorists and dictators against its own
government, this is unmistakable proof that Democracy doesn't work. As reported in the national papers, secret underground
networks have been established in Britain to protect people who choose to
leave mainstream religions (in this case, Islam). Such underground support
groups have been forced to "adopt a method of operation normally
associated with dictatorships, not democracies", writes the Times
(February 5, 2005). This is a remarkable admission that democracy is not quite
so different from dictatorship, after all. Thus in less than a century, the transition from Monarchism to
Secularist Democratism has created two of the greatest problems Mankind has
ever seen: Environmental Disasters and Religious Terrorism. To sum up, the obsessive preoccupation of the Modern World
with Western-style democracy stems from a double misunderstanding. The
first misunderstanding is the notion that democracy gives power to the
people: it does no such thing; democratic countries are in fact ruled by an ideologically
or financially committed elite; once it has been elected (with the help of
financial interests) one political party will largely determine how the
country is ruled. Moreover, why support several parties (with the tax-payers'
money) when only one party will be elected for government anyhow? Take the
election system in the USA. About 50 per cent of the electorate vote for the
Democrats while the other 50 per cent vote for the Republicans. If any of the
two parties wins, say, 51 per cent of the total vote, this will entitle its
supporters to rule the country for four years, forcing 49 per cent of the
nation to take a back seat and allow the others to do practically anything
they wish! The fact is that "majority" means "the greater
number". While 51 out of 100 may indeed be greater than 49 in purely
mathematical terms, in real life 51 per cent means "barely over
half". For example, a person who owns 51 pounds or dollars can hardly be
said to be richer than one who owns only 49; an army of 51 soldiers can
hardly be considered to be numerically stronger than one of 49, etc. In
consequence, "majority" should mean at least 60 or, even better, 75
per cent. By contrast, a 51 to 49 situation means roughly half for and half
against, that is, insufficient to decide either way and should not be allowed
to masquerade as "majority". In theory, the electoral system is supposed to ensure that the
country is ruled in accord with the wishes of the people. In practice,
however, not every party has the financial means to get its message across to
enough people or to present its views in a sufficiently attractive way as to
stand a chance. To challenge the ruling party, other parties must either (a)
possess greater financial resources than the ruling party or (b) resort to
physical force. As most people detest violence, it is clear that the
wealthiest political group or the money-men behind it, will win. While in a
Monarchy all people know who the King is and what he stands for, in a
Democracy nobody knows who is behind an elected party, who are its financial
supporters or what its true motives are. This once again demonstrates the
fallacy of Western Democratism and its aberrations. The second misunderstanding is the irrational belief that
Monarchy means that the country is ruled by one single person to the complete
exclusion of everybody else. This is supposed to lead to dictatorship,
despotism and tyranny. This view ignores the fact that monarchies have been
established for the good of all. "God created Kingship for the protection
of all", says Scripture. Indeed, the ideal king in the Indian tradition has never been
a tyrant or despot but a Wise King
(Raja-Rishi). Thus the Artha-Shastra (Science of Prosperity) of Kautilya
– a unique Sanskrit work on statecraft written some 2000 years ago and widely
read by statesmen even today – teaches that, “As a chariot cannot move with
just one wheel, so the King can reign only with the help of others.
Therefore, let the King appoint advisers and listen to their wise counsel”; “in the happiness of his subjects lies his
happiness, in their welfare his welfare”; “a prince should be taught what is
true righteousness and prosperity, not what is unrighteous and harmful”,
etc. Moreover, while a monarch may well consult his people on a
particular issue, democratic governments often don't even bother to hold
referendums but impose their agenda on everyone without any kind of
consultation. The only options people are left with in these circumstances
are either to instigate a bloody revolution (which very few people are
prepared to even contemplate) or patiently wait till the next elections - by
which time the issue is either forgotten or overshadowed by new ones, or due
to lack of plausible alternatives, the old, despised government is reluctantly
re-elected for another few years and so on. Finally, if elected presidents are supposed to be more
democratic (or equalitarian) than hereditary monarchs, why do they live in
palaces or palace-like mansions like the White House? Raja-Dharma Having demonstrated that, in reality, democracy is just an
illusion, we shall now see whether monarchy would be a better system. The Holy Scriptures of India detail the qualities,
qualifications and duties a King must fulfil in order to carry out his
function as righteous leader. Although there are small variations between
different Scriptures, a list of thirty-six such points may be regarded as
universally valid. Thus a King would have to be chosen by an Assembly of
Holy Sages (Wise Men) and enthroned in accord with Scriptural injunctions.
The King must be of handsome and auspicious features, strong, able and free
from any defects in body and in mind. His foremost duty shall be to establish
Righteousness on Earth. He shall be a follower of Truth. He shall have no dealings
with the people of Untruth. Ever remembering that God is the True Sovereign
he shall be a tireless Defender of Divine Law (Dharma). The King must favour peace above war. He shall not start a war
without just cause. But if assailed by the enemy, he shall be fearless in
defending himself and his realm. He shall be skilled in the use of the
thirty-six kinds of weapons and in tactics of war. He shall enter the
battlefield like an elephant entering a lotus pond. He shall be brave in
battle, magnanimous in victory and unbowed in defeat (compare this with the
proverbial cowardice of democratic presidents and prime ministers!). Furthermore, the King must maintain good relations with
neighbouring kings and protect all allied kings and their people. He shall be
like a father and an elder brother unto his subjects. He shall rule with
courage, humility and wisdom. He shall apportion punishment and reward after
befittingly enquiring into the matter. He shall always be well-informed in
regard to the character, behaviour and intentions of his subjects. He shall
be aware that excessive generosity can corrupt and too much censure can give
rise to resentment. The King shall be fair and kind to his Queen, wives and female
attendants. He shall be courteous and just to ministers and menservants
alike. He shall be devoted to the protection and welfare of all his subjects.
He shall work for the prosperity of his people, his family and his own person
through righteous means. He shall surround himself with trustworthy informers
and advisers. He shall himself mingle among the people in disguise in the
search for truth. (In India, kings are historically known to have toured the
country to uncover any misdemeanour of ministers and other state servants,
such as imposing excessive taxes on the people, etc. Thus common people were
given a real opportunity to make their grievances known directly to the
Sovereign.) The King shall be moderate in eating, physical exercise and
sexual enjoyment. He shall be ever watchful and awake even in sleep. He shall
practise self-control and abstain from unnecessary thoughts, words and deeds.
He shall not divulge secrets of state. He shall be a speaker of truth in a
gentle and clear voice. He shall be a dedicated follower of Shiva, an
accomplished practiser of Yoga and a master of the Eight Yogic Powers
(Ashtasiddhi). The King shall receive in payment for his service to the
nation neither more nor less than the sixth part of the land's produce. He shall
build holy temples, contemplation halls and schools as well as water tanks,
wells, parks and shelters, sanctuaries for the poor and the oppressed and
abodes of healing for those of ill health. He shall encourage Spiritual study
and debate and take part therein so often as his royal duties permit.
Self-sacrifice for the good of the people shall be regarded by him as the
highest goal. He shall give his daughters in marriage to the best among men
and procure virtuous wives for his sons. At the end of his reign on Earth the
King shall entrust his kingship unto his first-born son or some other
suitable successor. The Wise King must rule the country according to the Four
Means of (1) Peaceful Persuasion, (2) Enticement, (3) Sowing Dissension
and (4) Punishment. Firstly, he shall persuade his opponents by peaceful
means such as reasoned argumentation, the invocation of Divine Eternal Law
(Sanatana Dharma), and so forth. Secondly, if he be unable to achieve the
desired end, he should bestow gifts of land, gold, or give his offspring in
marriage to those powerful rulers with whom he wishes to make peace for the
good of the people. Thirdly, if that were to be in vain, he should sow
dissension among his foes that they may be divided by discord and become
easier to conquer. And fourthly, if that also fail, he shall impose his will
by means of force. He shall diligently apply these four means in his dealings
with powerful men, be they strangers or of his own race, ever seeking to do
good for his people. For restraining the evil-doers in his own land the King is
advised to employ the Six Means, each according to the crime and the
perpetrator of the crime: (1) verbal admonition, (2) imposition of a fine,
(3) inflicting corporal punishment, (4) binding in fetters (i.e., imprisonment
or enslavement), (5) banishing and in the case of very serious crimes, (6)
death. Thus the King, ever remembering that God is the True
Sovereign, shall keep his people on the Road of Righteousness according
to Dharma (Divine Law). He shall restrain the thieves, the robbers, the
murderers, the oppressors of the upright, and the godless who seek to corrupt
the righteous. The King who restrains not the sinners shall take their sins
upon himself. Therefore the King shall ever exert himself to punish the
wrongdoers and reward the virtuous. Evil shall be banished by him like weeds
and Righteousness cultivated like flowers and fruit-bearing trees. In
consequence, towards such a King the hearts of the people will turn like
rivers towards the Sea. (See Skanda Purana, Shiva Rahasya, etc.) We must remember at this point that Kingship was traditionally
regarded as a divinely-established institution that was taken very seriously
by the ancients. A Monarch could not act on his whims but according to the
strict rules of Raja-Dharma (Code of Royal Conduct). In addition to the time-honoured rules of Raja-Dharma,
a King would have to give due consideration to the advice of his Council of
Ministers, which consists of incorruptible, trustworthy, honest and loyal men
who are skilled in military and political matters and who have been tried.
Corrupt rulers who transgressed the principles of Raja-Dharma would be
eliminated either by popular uprising or on the orders of the Council of the
Wise (Rishi Mandala). Thus the Skanda Purana declares that tyrants be thrown
into a dark well. Thus the notion that Kings exploited the people, turns out to
be the product of left-wing imagination which has been used as a propaganda
tool to deny and cover up the criminal actions of Communist Rulers like
Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Indira Gandhi and Pol Pot. Until the abolition of
Monarchy by the left-wing (Congress) government of India half a century ago,
Indian Kings were still observing the ancient custom of Tula-Dana or Purusha-Dana.
This consisted in weighing their own person in gold and silver and then
donating the cash equivalent to the poor. Under the ancient system, vast
amounts of money were also donated to temples which had the duty to carry out
various forms of social work for the benefit of those in need of help or
welfare. What becomes evident, is that far from being self-seeking
despots and dictators, the Kings of the Ancient World, in particular
in the Holy Land of India, were benevolent rulers who were in many ways
superior to their modern-day "democratic" counterparts who often
are more interested in amassing power and wealth than in anything else. In
consequence, it is not surprising that the greatest men of Ancient Greece -
the country credited with the introduction of democracy - such as Socrates
and Plato, favoured governance by a Wise King ("Philosopher
King", or “Raja-Rishi” in the Indian tradition) over all other
systems. It is our firm conviction, therefore, that only leaders who
function as part of a time-honoured, Spiritually-inspired tradition can have
a unifying, stabilising and elevating effect on a nation and the course she
follows in history. The fact is that the Supreme God of Ancient Greece was called
"King of the Gods"; the Bible (New Testament) similarly speaks of
the "Kingdom of God"; it describes Jesus Christ as "King of
Israel" (indeed, Khristos or Christ means "King") ; while, in
the Old testament, God Himself declares: "I have set the King on Zion,
My Holy Hill". Even the Quran refers to God as “the King". In
consequence, the Yogic teaching of Divine Kingship must be admitted to be in
agreement with the Scriptures of the World and Kingship clearly represents a
divinely ordained institution. Among India's many wise and valiant Kings who are still
remembered today, are: Lord Rama, Emperor Ashoka, King
Vikramaditya and Shivaji Maharaj. Last but not least, Lord
Buddha himself was a Royal Prince by birth. Indeed, the DIVINE KING is a Servant of the People and
a Servant of God. His aim is not to divide and rule but, in true Yogic
fashion, to Unite and Serve. He represents both a nation's link to the sacred
past and her guiding light towards a glorious future. This being so, it is the duty of all
Spiritually-minded people in the World to join forces in the struggle for the
re-establishment of Divine Kingship on Earth. As far as India is
concerned, sixty long years of left-wing, secularist republicanism have
clearly demonstrated that the only way forwards is a Hindu Monarchy rooted in
the time-honoured tradition of Hindu Raja-Dharma. |