|
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, France and Germany being 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 Sadam 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. 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 injuctions. 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) bounding 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. 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") 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". The Quran also says that those who go to Heaven will live in the presence of a "Great 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. 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. 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.
<< Yoga Council Home || Questions & Answers >> |