Who is the King?

The consumer of course! After all, Gandhiji said it.

Well…True. But I am not talking of the consumerism here. I am talking of the King in literal sense. Way back in late 90’s there was a litigation going on in Supreme Court, about the ownership of the Palace of Mysore. Srikanthadatta Wodeyar, kin of the last Maharaja of Mysore, claimed it saying it was his ancestral property, while the Govt. of Karnataka stated that the property belonged to the people of Karnataka. If I remember correctly, the Court ruled it in the favor of the Govt. of Karnataka.

As a student, when I first read about this case I was infuriated at Wodeyar for claiming it as his. How could he do that? It clearly belonged to people. My thinking was straight and clear: ‘People accepted someone as their king and he was just their representative to run the functioning and administration of the State. He enjoyed the royal treatment because he shouldered the bigger responsibility, much like a CEO of a company. That’s it. Next to him whoever came to power got the responsibility and the royalty. But all the property belonged to the people of the state.’

In fact this is exactly what happens today। The Prime minister, chief minister or the President enjoy the benefits they enjoy only as long as they take on the bigger responsibility. However the difference is, in the present days there is a notion a fixed governing body called the Government, which is permanent and the office bearers are temporary. On the contrary, in the olden days, the King owned the government. The king could create rules & regulations, formed various departments, organizational structures, etc. the way he wished, unlike today which follows a commonly established framework of governance called the ‘Constitution’. However, though it appears that the king had freewill in the creation of governance, he rarely did so. Invariably he followed a governance framework that he learnt through scriptures like Vedas, or religious doctrines or through acquired knowledge.

I think it seems like we digressed a bit from our original quest. Let's get back.

So, who really owns the property of the state; the king or the people? And how much freedom does a king (or person in power) have to spend the tax payer’s money especially on things that do not cater to tax payers?

The latter question came to me, when I recently saw an ancient temple, of Hoysala architecture, in a small town. Immediately what came to my mind was the great temple at Halebidu, built by Shantala and Vishnuvardhana and other such beautiful temples at Hampi. I have always wondered how a certain sight or a smell makes us connect disparate things, for the very next picture that came to my mind after Hampi was that of the Taj Mahal. From a historical perspective both temples at Hampi & Halebidu, and the Taj are no doubt great monuments; one was built to help people worship in a common place and feel united while the other was built to express Shahjahan’s eternal love to his wife Mumtaj.

I wondered what good did Taj do to a common man in those days, who paid (through taxes) for its construction? Agreed that it’s a marvelous piece of work, but at what cost? Did they want it? However even before I embark on their wants and wishes I must ask myself if they had a choice in saying NO to Taj. Could anyone dare say that he or she wouldn’t pay taxes because (s)he felt it’s being squandered away on unnecessary things? Now, if people did not have a choice over how their tax money is being spent what does that mean? Did Shahajahan ‘own’ it all? If he did not own it, ideally, he had to seek permission from people to spend it on his private affair, which I am sure he did not. Then what do we make out of this? That people let him do whatever he wished, with their tax money? If so, then he could as well pass it onto his progeny. But this conclusion contradicts Court’s decision on the possession of Mysore Palace and also my own thinking!

While we thought so much let’s also look at how does power and property get transferred from time to time? Typically the king handed over his kingdom to his successor, who mostly would be his kin. The successor got the state’s property too along with it. So in other words the king transferred all the state’s property to his successor, who now has all the rights to spend it the way he wished. As we discussed already there is very thin line between ‘owning’ it and using it the way they wanted.

Another way a state’s power and property got transferred was through overthrowing an existing king. The new king, the winner, now became the head of the state and also owned all the property. Remember what happened just after Independence? Under the leadership of Sardar Vallabbahi Patel the Indian public actually overthrew almost all the kings in India and thereby became the new king. Extending the logic we established, the public owned the government and all of the state’s property.

Wow! It feels so great to be the King! Wait a minute… Now that means I can do what I want and have a say in where and how my tax money needs to be spent? Say on primary education and not on foreign travel of 250 legislators? Well… can I actually do that even if I know that that’s what all the tax payers want? Can I dare say that I wouldn’t pay taxes because my money is being squandered away? Technically yes but in reality can I? By the way can someone tell me which era I am living in? Shahajahan’s?

Really, Who’s the King?