By: Kavitaram Shrestha

Translated by: Michael Hutt

Even now Haribhunge the King and Bhatabhunge the Minister are ruling from Vijaypur fort. Many rumors are current in this region about their personalities. It is said that those who ventures out in daylight were considered thieves and that those who went about by night were considered gentlemen. Similarly, it is said that the price of every commodity was set according to its color. So silver, flour and milk all cost the same because they are all white.

Although a measure of madness seems apparent in their policies and methods, their approach might prove worthy of consideration if you look at it in this way. If you take into account the psychological fact that people become insane for some strong mental reasons, not for no reason at all, then some basis of this madness can be discerned. Afflicted in some measure by established, ostentatious moves and values, these rulers must have decided that all these values and mores had been created by man himself, and that they themselves could change them.

They were the rulers. They could at least put these opinions into practice in their own kingdom. And so they did. If the events related in this folktale really did take place, then it must be admitted that this effort to oppose narrow man-made tradition was unforgettable and historic, and thus it lives on in folklore. For the sake of analysis, I shall take one whole story.

What happened was that a man came to the rulers court and said, "Maharaj, I was a guest in the house of so-and so, and because the doorway was low I banged my head and nearly died.” The king and the minister consulted each other and ordered that the door be removed and sent to them. Their opinion was that the door should be punished for this.

Here the door can be regarded as a symbol of man-made questions. People have to come and go through this door several times for every activity of their daily lives. Why wasn't this man-made question made practical? Why should people have to suffer by being obliged to bow down before it? Why should a man be forced to bow down in front of his own creation? Such doors, such questions, such traditions should be demolished.

If the door were removed, it was inevitable that the house would collapse. The owner of the house came before them and pleaded, "Maharaj, it is no fault of the door. The carpenter made it like this." The king and the minister immediately issued a new command: "Lo! Bring that carpenter!"

Indeed, it is true: which door, which tradition, was ever made before Man? No door, no value, was made until Man had come. Why did Man make the values to which he must bow, the door through which he must pass a thousand times a day, so low? He must have had some selfish motive: the wood he used must have been stolen or perhaps he was a crazy craftsman who enjoyed watching others bending down under his creation; or a sadist who took satisfaction form punishing others.

The carpenter was brought in . In his defense he said, "Maharaj, I was making the door properly. But a young woman came close to me and jingled her anklets, and all my measurements went away." Immediately, the king and the minister commanded, "Lo! Bring us that young woman!"

Here, the woman is a symbol of attraction. The jingling sound of her anklets is an artificial advertisement, and this artifice undermined propriety. People were led astray, carpenters were distracted from making a proper door. That woman who so immodestly flaunted her attractions is the very root of all this torment.

The woman was brought in. In her defense she said, "Maharaj, this was not my fault .The blacksmith made these anklets so that they would jingle." The king and the minister commanded, "Lo! Bring us that blacksmith!"

Blacksmiths make artificial things that provide not a pennyworth of benefit and merely lead people astray. These blacksmiths are the root of all human suffering.

The blacksmith was brought in. He had been oppressed, suppressed and exploited by society for ages and, dishonored as he was, he could not utter a single word in his own defense. This very blacksmith was judged to be responsible for all narrow man-made tradition. The king and the ministers ordered the soldiers to execute him forthwith.

An insignificant blacksmith was blamed for all suffering. How laughable! There is a class, which creates the ethics, ideals, morals and processes of society and scrabbles and fights to reap the benefits. Now a poor helpless blacksmith mounts the gallows, judged to be the root of all the torments that afflict society. The blacksmith was shaking with fear, and the king and the minister felt sorry to see such a thin blacksmith tremble. So they commanded the soldiers, "Lo! Release him, you must execute a fat man instead."

Indeed, how could the blacksmith is blamed ? The wearing of ornaments is a tradition. How could a blacksmith be responsible for such artificial attractions ? Would the tradition persist if the whole of humanity did not observe it ? If everyone is responsible, why should a poor blacksmith, and , moreover, a thin blacksmith, suffer the punishment alone ? Instead of him, anyone at all could be executed who had benefited from and grown fat on this tradition.

The soldiers who were searching for the fattest person came across a sadhu who had grown fat by consuming the alms of Dantakali and Pindesvara temples, and they presented him at court. These saints are the real creators of the difficult values on which people are impaled. These saints create suffocating rules for householders and then grow fat by exploiting those, meanwhile boasting that they have taken refuge from worldly ties and that their opinions are free. The king and the minster ordered that the sadhu be put to death. When he heard the command, the sadhu smiled. The king and the minister were curious to see a man smiling at his own death sentence, and they asked, "Why do you smile ?"

The crafty sadhu replied, "I am smiling with happiness because I have seen a boon descending from Heaven. He who ascends the gallows now will later be the king of this land."

The yogi had exploited each age for centuries past with his cunning: why should he not defeat the king, who had been born and raised in the same culture ? The king and the minister were trapped by the sadhus cunning: thinking that such a grizzled one should not be allowed to be king, and craving to be king and minister again themselves, they climbed onto the gallows one after the other, and died.

These two heroes, who had engaged in an experiment in the belief that Man could change the traditions he himself had made, became martyrs in the conflict. Or else one could even say-two warriors struggling to change values were wiped out in the conspiracy of those who grow fat on established conceits and mores. No-one knows how many such Bhatabhunges and Haribhunges have wanted change, and have come to such a sorrowful end. Let us see what becomes of the Bhatabhunges and Haribhunges of this age.

…..0….