Pages

Sunday, May 13, 2007

#011 HOW DID Dasaratha take back Kaikeyee's rajya shulkam

Shri Rama knew that Dasaratha promised to the father of Kaikeeyi at the time of her marriage to Dasaratha, that Dasaratha would confer his (Dasaratha's) kingdom as dowry to the father of the girl.

2-107-3 Sanskrit Verse
Puraa bhraataha pitaa naha
sa maataram tee samudvahan
maataamahee samaas`raus`iid
raajya shulkam anuttamam


CONTEXT
Bharata approached Rama at Chitrakoot with a request to return to Ayodhya. One of the replies given by Rama to Bharata was that their father Dasaratha promised to Bharata's maternal grand father that he (Dasaratha) was giving his kingdom as dowry to her father. Rama wanted their father's promise to be kept.

ENGLISH gist
Brother! In the past, while marrying your mother, our father promised your maternal grand father that he would confer an exceptional "rajya s`ulkam" (kingdom as dowry).
BLOGGER'S VIEWS
When Dasaratha gave away his kingdom as dowry to the Kaikeeyi's father: Asvapati, Dasaratha had no right on the kingdom. He was only a representative/fief of Asvapati. Dasaratha knew that he was breaking his promise to Kaikeeyi's father, by proposing the coronation of Rama S/o Kausalya.


At 2-2-16 Dasaratha expressed his desire to coronate Rama, in his assembly. There he did not disclose the promise made by him to Asvapati and ask the opinion of the Assembly whether it will be correct to break a promise. Kaikeeyi's father was a powerful king with a strong cavalry. Dasaratha should have discussed the "military" consequences if As`vapati (Kaikeyi's father) retaliated, irritated by the broken promise.


At 2-3-8, sage Vasisht`a ought to have raised the issue of Dasaratha's promise to Kaikeeyi's father. But Vasisht`a goes on with the preparations for the coronation. Vasisht`a is a great ancient sage who is believed to have super-human powers. Hence, there cannot be a question of his not knowing about Dasaratha's promise.


At 2-3-48, Rama hearing Dasaratha's proposal to coronate him (Rama), just folds his hands to his father. Rama ought to have raised the issue of promise made to Kaikeeyi's father. If he was unable to tell his father directly, he could have approached the Guru Vasisht`a and approached his father for clarification. It means that Rama was willing to be coronated before Bharata came and his grandfather raised objections.


At 2-4-25, Dasaratha wants the coronation to take place while Bharata is away from the city. This shows that Dasaratha is apprehensive that Asvapati or Bharata will object.


At 2-4-27, Dasaratha expresses a suspicion that Bharata may change his mind, howsoever righteous he may be.


At 2-4-28, Rama should have questioned his father "Why should Bharata change his mind?". But Rama does not question because he is aware that Bharata has a legitimate claim on the kingdom and that he may raise it. Hence Rama salutes his father (probably for bestowing a secret benefit).


If Dasaratha had given his kingdom as dowry to Asvapati, Rama would not have had a right to occupy the throne even after returning from 14 years exile. After returning from exile, Rama joyfully took back his throne from Bharata and ruled it for thousands of years. Then what would have happened to the promise made by Dasaratha to Asvapati, giving his kingdom as dowry in exchange for Kaikeeyi?

5 comments:

nitin said...

You claim to be a lawyer? i don't think u've passed the law exam LOL!!
We do not know the condition how this promise was extracted ...whatever. we surely know that Dasharatha married Kaikeye enchanted by her beauty n that she could bear an heir for his kingdom, however in due course of time she too couldn't do so and Dasharatha had to resort to 'putrakanesti' so how is kaikeyi special?? when Manthara instigates kaikeyi she doen't even mention abt the rajyashulka only she mentions about the 2 boons given by dasharatha to kaikeyi as gratitude of saving his life while warring againt timidhwaj or better known as shambharsura.
The very question of rajyashulka is nullified when kaikeyi is not able to give him an heir naturally.

So called 'truth seeker' ...u are one wretched persob full of filth and lies ofcourse.

nitin said...

yes u are full of lies! ashwapati agrees to give his daughter kaikeye in marriage only if her son is allowed to rule. since she's not able to give him a son without putrakamesti the promise doesn't hold true. dont advise me on studying ayodhya kanda i have read ramayana n number of times.

what point u've raised is mnot raised by either by aswapati or kaikeye even manthara doesn't raise it, why is that so??



whether i took dowry or not is not not a matter of discussion here ;-)

Multisubj Yb TruthSeeker said...

Pl. quote the relevant verse from Valmiki Ramayana for Asvapati's condition.

Reference to a groom's dowry is to compare it to rajya shulkam. No hurt intended against you. It seems u are hurt when a reference is made to dowry which is very common in Indian society. It seems that you had taken your dowry and hence were hurt. I unconditionally tender my apologies to you. I also feel that my reference to your dowry is not wrong because you have questioned my law degree. We shall treat this matter as closed.

Reg. Putrakamshti: You are speaking as if Bharata is an illegitimate son of Kaikeyi. Is he not her son, simply because he was born in Putrakameshti? Did Dasaratha inform his kula Guru Vasisht`a that he was taking back his promise? Did he inform Kaikeyii or Bharata? Did he discuss it with Asvapati? Before promising Asvapati to make Kaikeeyi's son as king, did Dasaratha discuss with Kausalya or her father? Did he discuss with Vasist`a? Did he discuss with Saptarshis? Did he discuss with his amatyas? If you read Valmiki Ramayana thoroughly, you will get 1000 genuine questions. You are not getting any questions because you are blindly believing. I am not asking you to abuse Ramayana or Rama. It is not our work. Just, pl. try to see the truth.

I believe that you are very young in age. You have to learn courteous language while writing/speaking to your equals. You will say that I should not say this. Then, if you write a language of courtesy, nobody will request you to soften. You have to go very high up in your profession and become a great Indian. Refined language will enhance your personality. I hope you will not misunderstand me.

You are calling me a lier, even when I quote Valmiki Ramayana? Have you not seen Rama not keeping up his word of living like a sage eating only fruits and roots? Won't you be astonished when he kills a krishna mrigam just to please dushta sakti's (evil powers) before entering a parna saala. Shall I give you a Ramayana quote for this?

What is your opinion about Kausalya stabbing the horse with three gold knives? Have you read all the posts made by me at this blog, particularly post No. 1 (the oldest)?

Anonymous said...

What is the point in quarelling over differing views of readers of Ramayana
which is accepted and revered by millions of Hindus, and is more a fiction and legendary than History, as you say.
Do you agree that authors tend to exagerate the good qualities about their Heros and Heroins for emulation.
Everyone has both good and bad. One is called GOOD, if the good in him is more than the bad. We are expected to emulate the good qualities in great men and benefit from reading scriptures and Puranas.
Surely we have some bad qualities in us. Our parents and near dear have too. For that reason we do not dis respect them. We adore them for their good qualities.
I am sure, if Rama was your HERO, you will not be reading Ramayana to pick holes in it!
S.Balasankar

vitahavya said...

it is true that there was a practice of kanya shulkam. dasharatha had said to ashvapati that a son thru marriage to kaikeyi will inherit the kingdom. but you should know the circumstances too. ashvapati had questioned him as to why he wants to marry again especially when he had two other wives. dasharatha had replied that he is marrying because he wants an heir. then the next question of ashvapati was will such a son inherit the kingdom?

there can also be on other interpretation. it can be interpreted that only the chief queen was considered legitimate and other marriages were simply illegal and could not inherit anything.

in any case, if you are a lawyer you should have known that in ancient india only the eldest inherited everything (no i am not talking about just kingdoms alone) i am talking about properties and livestock. this rule is what is mentioned in baudhayana. now apasthambha who was a student of baudhayana lineage, criticizes this unequal and allows equal division of property among all the children. ashvapati may merely represent the forward thinking elements in the society