CHENNAI : Markandeya’s meeting with the Pandavas is long and he tells many stories to the brothers. He narrates, in great detail, the oncoming apocalypse at the turn of the yugas and also the possibilities after that. Here, a mention is made of the proposed tenth avatar of Vishnu, Kalki Vishnuyasha. Kalki shall be born in a place called Shambhala, and it is through him that a great return to the ways of dharma shall begin. The return to dharma means, of course, moving towards a more stratified society, one where inequality is a structural element so as to provide lasting order. One wouldn’t be too far off the mark is saying that in Markandeya’s ideology, Brahmanism is so important that a god has to be reborn to reestablish it.
None of this order-setting is possible, of course, without the complicity of the rulers of the time. Therefore, it figures why, in the Mahabharata, the only thing that is close to being as important as Brahmin supremacy is the sanctity of the Brahmin-Kshatriya collaboration right at the top of the social order. No rift between these two groups can be allowed; they have to work in perfect harmony. The education of Kshatriyas in Mahabharata-time inevitably includes multiple stories of discord between these two groups in ancient times. But as might be guessed, the culmination of these stories is always the humbling of an ancient Kshatriya ruler at the hands of an all-powerful Brahmin.
There is a mystical power available to the priest that the ruler is always well-advised to accept unchallenged. At the same time, the priest is not to test the powers of the ruler without provocation. This mutual acceptance is central to the world that the Mahabharata shows and is very similar to what a European mind might call the nexus of state and church. For upholders of this nexus, it is important to present any veritable threat to it as tantamount to bringing on the apocalypse.
For example, Markandeya tells the Pandavas the story of the Ikshvaku ruler Parikshit, whose three sons, Shala, Dala, and Bala suffer at the hands of a brahmin named Vamadeva. The eldest, Shala, while on a hunting expedition, borrows special horses from Vamadeva’s hermitage. But after seeing how fast those horses are, he argues that a brahmin has no reason to possess such good animals and keeps them in the royal stable. In the eventual confrontation, Vamadeva kills Shala, and almost metes out the same fate to his brother Bala, before a ceasefire is reached and the horses returned to their rightful owner.
This story is peculiar because the conflict takes place because of the misappropriation of a brahmin’s private property. One could argue that the brahmin’s attachment to his property is more out of line than the kshatriya ruler’s appropriation of what he deems fit. Taking things by force is very much a quality for kshatriyas. But such nuances are irrelevant here; only the larger idea counts.