Little Kongdoms in Kalinga: Ideologie, Legitimation und politik regionaler Eliten.

AuthorDas, Rahul Peter

What this German dissertation is about is handily stated at the beginning of the English summary on p. 317:

The goal of this thesis was to test the applicability of the model of the little kingdom in a regional context in South Asia in order to demonstrate the model's performance beyond the borders of its previous application by Bernard Cohn and Nicholas Dirks. For this the emphasis of the research was transferred from Tamil Nadu to the Kalinga region. In addition, an extension of the temporal frame beyond the time of the Polygars researched by Dirks (early modem period) was undertaken in order to test the possible temporal boundaries of the model.

The little kings(1) are in Berkemer's terminology rulers, who, while accepting domination by another ruler, at the same time also dominate, in their turn, rulers subservient to them. Berkemer uses the example of Kalinga to show how in the (Indian) middle ages and early modem period the system of authority, both political and social, based on the ranking of little kings functioned; how, even though not a rigid pyramidal hierarchic structure, it remained relatively stable as a whole until the colonial period, in spite of all changes it actually underwent. At the same time, it offered ample scope for mobility both within and from without, this being evident also in the permanent state of interior flux and constant redefinition. Since none of the rulers involved in the process was by nature of a different status, their relationship to each other was in constant need of adjustment due to changing circumstances. Berkemer investigates not only the historical development of this system, but also the methods by which legitimization, or the right to rule, was obtained, as well as the ways in which forces drawing their strength from this system interacted with forces bound to a more centralized authority.

The findings of the work are that the system functioned by each ruler letting a lesser ruler share in a part of his authority, which, while it granted the lesser ruler authority, at the same time also served to heighten the authority of the person with authority to give away. Highlighted is the fluidity of the whole system and the lack of a clear and fixed hierarchical system, which thus also allowed overlapping and even contradictory claims to authority to coexist within the same system, something which Berkemer finds lacking in pre-democratic western European hierarchical political systems and which therefore might appear chaotic to a Westerner. It is thus only consequent that this study also focuses both on the problems that appeared when colonial powers operating under quite different assumptions interacted with the South Asian powers embedded in the system described, and also on those resulting from scholars (not only from the West) similarly applying Western models in their attempts to understand such South Asian happenings.

Since the worth of Berkemer's individual deductions can only be ascertained by a thorough scrutiny of his sources, which cannot be attempted within the scope of a review and is also beyond the capacity of someone as unfamiliar with the details of the history of the region examined as I am, such detailed criticism may best be left to the small handful of specialists for this area. What I shall concern myself with here are several questions of fundamental importance both for this study and for others of a similar nature, regarding matters which ultimately might turn out to be even more important for determining the worth of such investigations. But before embarking on this discussion, it should be pointed out that this book is in any case to be welcomed as part of a refreshing trend in which more localized history is, on the one hand, freed from the shackles of having to conform to a pan-Indian picture, whilst, on the other hand, simultaneously attempting to take into account the sum total of social, religious, economic and other factors in a manner that more traditional historiography seems not always to have done. Berkemer also shows several times how ideological and other biases not only of Western, but also of Indian historians have served to distort their portrayals - a very good example being what has been written on the Matharas (see pp. 103ff.). Kalinga, in particular,(2) is discussed as a "nuclear area" in its own right and not just as an appendage to the regions or kingdoms of Andhra and/or Orissa, or merely as a bone of contention between these two.(3) In this context it is highly commendable that Berkemer uses a great deal of material in Telugu, not only manuscripts and printed editions of "traditional" texts, but also modern secondary literature;(4) the use of secondary literature in modern Indian languages is still relatively rare among Westerners, and even among many Indian scholars writing in English. And it should also be highlighted that the author shows an awareness of the difficulties associated with terminological studies and theoretical issues - in other words, shows a great deal more sophistication than an earlier thesis, dealing with a closely allied subject, originating from the same school of historians.(5) These points should not be lost sight of while reading the following remarks.

The starting point of Berkemer's reflections is the Arthasastra. Drawing attention to the methods mentioned therein for the king ("Konig") wishing conquest (vijigisu) over his neighboring states (samanta rajya, "benachbarte Staaten"), he then points to the advice given to the weak king, namely to "act finding shelter with a king superior to him or in an unassailable fort."(6) The relationship of this weak ruler, in whom Berkemer sees the prototypal samanta, to his overlord is, according to the author, what his own work is concerned with.

Already this opening statement involves several problems. Whether the Arthasastra indeed had the wide-reaching importance in shaping actual developments that Indological scholarship often even today invests it with, or whether its position is, rather, to be seen as analogous to that of the normative, but not necessarily authoritative, dharmasastras,(7) is very much a matter of debate. Taking it as a basis of reference to explain later developments in a linear fashion is a procedure requiring some explanation itself, particularly in view of the fact that the linear evolutionistic and normative argumentation of scholars, especially in the last century, is being increasingly challenged as much too simplistic and superficial.(8) A parallel case is that of traditional Indian medicine, in which we paradoxically have an on-going process of modern normativization (of different traditions) based on ancient works regarded as "standard," but which were widely disseminated only through the modern printing press.(9) It might not be amiss to cite what a modern scholar has written, also with reference to the Arthasastra:

It is not legitimate to reason forwards from any particular idea to the actual behaviour of people seen as a consequence of having the idea. There is no way whatsoever of discovering the actual behaviour of Indian kings directly from texts which say how they ought to behave.(10)

A different matter, of course, is how far the Arthasastra reflects the actual state of affairs of its time or times previous to it. The German Indologist Dieter Schlingloff is one of the few scholars who have enunciated this problem;(11) Schlingloff has further tried to compare the statements of the Arthasastra with verifiable data from other sources. Unfortunately for us, his interest lay more in the field of material culture (in which...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT