Ordinary People in the Kingdoms

Introduction

India is presumed to have been a rich country, but the majority of the riches throughout history rested with the monarchs, and aside from the aristocratic privileged population, most of the Ancient Indians lived a humble life, and mostly very religious. We can witness some indications of the situation with regards to ordinary people from plays and the accounts of travelers.

Kalidasa, the Great Playwright

Kalidasa’s is popular for his plays which drew a pretty accurate portrait of life at the monarch’s court. A revelation about the social order is that the royalty and a majority of the Brahmins are depicted as speaking Sanskrit. On the other hand, the everyman, or common people from daily life, used Prakrit. He is most famous for his most popular play, Abhijnana Shakuntalam; is the tale of the love shared by a King, named Dushyanta and of a young woman called Shakuntala. This story portrays a fascinating description of the state of an impoverished fisherman.

The Ring

In the play, Abhijnana Shakuntalam, a fisherman discovers an immensely valuable ring, which the monarch had gifted to Shakuntala, but had been inadvertently ingested by a fish. Upon this realization, he attempts to go back to the royal premises to return in; the gatekeepers suspected and even accused him of stealing the ring. The King, on the other hand, was elated with the discovery of the ring, and ordered that a reward be given to the gentleman. Ironically, the very police officer and the gatekeepers decided to take a cut of the reward, and joined the fisherman for a drink.

The common man, was therefore, very much subservient to authority during that era. The fisherman could’ve questioned the officer’s intentions in joining him for a drink and taking a share of the reward, as he would have in modern times, but he chose not to. This tells us that people were ruled over, and that they gladly accepted this authority as being for their own good.

Sadly, there has not been much change in attitudes, at least with regards to the attitudes of officials like policemen. A person who is not privileged would be treated very differently from a person who is privileged, and this acknowledgment and nod to status seems to have survived the test of generations.

The people, however, have changed – they are less likely to accept exploitative behavior from authorities, because they are more aware of their rights. They are more educated. They know the law. We have to realize that this was before the advent of the printing press and mass printing. It was difficult for a citizen to know their rights, and this ignorance due to a lack of access to technology was a root cause of their subservience.

Thus, we can deduce that the ordinary people in the kingdom were compliant to authority, didn’t oppose inequity, but were generally good natured, well-intentioned and affable. They were poor, and due to their lack of access to printed knowledge, they were disenfranchised.

Fa Xian and his Travels

The Chinese Pilgrim Fa Xian observed the condition of people who were regarded as untouchables by the privileged sections of society. It was socially expected for them to populate the outskirts of the city, and if such a person came into a town or a market place, he was expected to strike a piece of wood signifying his arrival, so people could avoid brushing against him and avoid contact with him.

Banabhatta gives us a clear depiction of the king’s army in action. The army travelled with the requisite tools of war, in addition to things of everyday usage, such as pans, pots and other utensils. Food that was carried by the army included meats, such as deer and rabbits. The army was accompanied by the loud sounds of drums, trumpets, and other loud instruments such as horns.

Where does the common man come into the equation? The sounds were a signal that the army was in the vicinity of the village. Villagers were expected to provide their services and hospitality as the army was on the way to their battles, they carried gifts of gur and flowers, dahi, and fed the animals. This was also an opportunity for them to get in touch with and communicate with the monarch, and talk about their complaints and concerns, so the King could learn of the life of the subjects.

They were even allowed to file petitions to the king, so in a way, this served as an ancient town hall for the citizens, where everybody had an equal voice and a say in issues that concerned them and the kingdom.

The Royal Jaws of Ingratitude

Even though there appears to be an element of democracy and equity here, the royal army was unaccountable and left destruction in its wake, elephant troops demolished the huts of villagers as they walked over them, and the livestock hooked to the caravans of merchants ran in fear, frightened by the chaos and destruction. Banabhatta recollects: “The entire planet was swallowed in dust.”

Therefore, we can see that there is no existence of a two-way relationship between the citizens and royalty, with citizens accepting their role as subordinate in silence, probably due to fear of retaliation from the empire. The ordinary people of the day were expected to give, and the royalty took, while disenfranchising their own citizens.

Therefore, we can see the power of privilege here, the entitlement, and disloyalty of the monarchy towards its own citizens. This is corroborated by the snippet from Kalidasa’s Abhijnana Shakuntalam, where we saw the fisherman blindly accepting the authority of the policeman, bowing down to their entitlement. To add insult to injury, the policemen and the gatekeepers did not even apologize for their prior behavior!

Therefore, the plight of the citizens was not very enviable, and they were expected to obey and conform to the monarchy with blind subservience. While there were democratic kings who recognized the efforts of honest citizens such as the fisherman, there is an undercurrent of oppression that was accepted by the common man of the day. One can only attribute this to a lack of education, and the disproportionate power of the rulers and the ruled.

Essentially, what was applicable to the rulers was not applicable to their subjects. But it has to be mentioned that we do see that the roots of modern democracy had started to take root −

• The citizen’s capacity to interact directly with the King, and air out their concerns, and worries about their lives and the kingdom at large.

• Kalidasa’s portrayal of the fisherman being justly regarded for his good actions, fiction is based on reality, and this could have very well have been the attitude of certain democratic rulers.

Conclusion

• India is presumed to have been a privileged country, historically, but aside from the royalty and aristocrats, ordinary people led a humble life.

• Kalidasa’s depictions of the ordinary people portray that citizens were subordinated by authority, often unfairly, a role which they accepted.

• The Ordinary People were expected to pay tribute to the army, in the form of dahi, food to their livestock, gur and flowers, and feed the animals.

• Their loyalty was not paid back in kind, as the monarchy destroyed the huts of villagers and the caravans of traders with their elephants as they left the village.

• However, elements of democracy are present, with the people asked to voice out their opinions and concerns in front of the King.

• The same elements of democracy can be seen in Kalidasa’s play, with the fisherman being justly rewarded for his virtue.

FAQs

Qns 1. Were Indian citizens always privileged?

Ans. No, the Indian monarchy and the aristocracy were the privileged parties, with ordinary people playing a subordinate role. This is demonstrated in Kalidasa’s play, the Abhijnana Shakuntalam.

Qns 2. How were the untouchables treated?

Ans. They were treated as an afterthought, not enjoying the same rights as the upper caste. They couldn’t enter markets and were expected to signify their arrival with a wooden stick so others could avoid them.

Qns 3. Had modern democracy started to take root regardless of injustices?

Ans. Yes, as evident in the input the king took during their army’s travels from the villagers, and open communication with the populace of the village.

Qns 4. Was the Royalty grateful for the kindness of the villagers?

Ans. No, they destroyed their villages with their elephant troops and ran over the caravans of traders.

Qns 5. What do you think was the cause of the citizen’s subordination? Was it a product of the times?

Ans. Yes, this was before the time of the printing press where education was only available to the elite.