Symbolic/Significant Meanings

What does one understand from the story of Mahabali? Are there any political or social messages underwritten in the story of the exiled king?...

A political agenda

As mentioned earlier Mahabali was an Asura king. The Asuras and Devas were always at war with each other. Just like a movie script, the Devas are seen as the heroes and the Asuras as the villains. The hero must win at the end of the day at the cost of the villain.

If we realize that life has more to offer than movie scripts and accept that everybody has a hero-villain inside each one of us how would the Deva-Asura rivalry be seen? And could the hero in one person’s eyes be a villain in front of another person? This thought gains light when one sees that in Persian mythology Daivas are the villains and the Ahuras are the heroes! So it is possible that one’s heroes may be another person’s villains!

So the Devas and the Asuras could be a mixture of both hero and villain. So what? What if it is told that they shared the same blood? The same father according to Hindu mythology!

In a political context the Deva-Asura rivalry can be seen as nothing but a political struggle to capture power and land-the prized possessions for any king.

The Devas had no issues with Mahabali till he captured their kingdom- Heaven. So the defeat of Mahabali, an Asura king by Lord Vishnu at the request of the Devas is nothing but a victory of the Devas. For a king to get banished from his own kingdom is nothing short of the ultimate humiliation that can be imposed on him.

In the midst of this Deva-Asura rivalry is there space for the people’s choice to be heard?...

A social agenda

As mentioned earlier Lord Vishnu comes in the form of Vamana, the Brahmin dwarf/boy. According to Hindu mythology Lord Vishnu comes in ten forms, Dasavatar, at different periods of time to defeat evil persons who happen to Asuras invariably.

In the Dasavatar, the Vamana avatar is the only human form which Lord Vishnu takes and that too in the form of a Brahmin. It was the norm and custom of ancient kings to give ‘Daanam’ (gifts) to Brahmins frequently on auspicious occasions. Mahabali being no different does the same to Vamana.

What does one read into the consequences of Mahabali giving ‘Daanam’ to Vamana? Should he have listened to his guru Shukracharya and refused to give ‘Daanam’ to Vamana? And was it possible for Lord Vishnu to appear in the form of only a Brahmin and defeat Mahabali, a righteous king loved by his people?

Caught between disobeying his guru and refusing to gift a Brahmin Mahabali chose the former. With fatal consequences as we observe. In short Mahabali bends his will at the hands (and feet) of the Brahmin.

This dilemma faced by Mahabali was shared by many rulers in different parts of India. Even if they had conquered vast areas of land and yielded considerable power the king could not afford to be ‘socially’ accepted except with the tacit stamp of approval of the Brahmin.  This peculiar situation comes into significance when one sees that most of the rulers were from non- Brahmin backgrounds. Shivaji could only be accepted as the undisputed ruler of the Marathas after he was coronated by a Brahmin priest.

In short, even a king’s regal status is determined by the Brahmin. He is crowned by the Brahmin as in the case of Shivaji. And he is removed by the Brahmin as in the case of Mahabali!

One can understand the full significance of this scenario when one observes the present day Travancore royal family and the issue of Sri Padmanbhaswamy Temple. If the male head of the family misses even a day’s morning prayers he is liable to pay a fine to the Temple! Innumerable other social-religious sanctions have been placed on the royal family by the Brahmin priests so much so that they cannot afford to challenge the Brahmin because their own position has been interlinked with the Brahmin.

In the midst of this king-Brahmin alliance is there space for the people’s choice to be heard?...