The divine origin of kingship is a notion that suggests a ruler’s authority is derived from a higher power, whether directly from a deity or through spiritual narratives.
Throughout history, kings and leaders have used several methods to justify their rule. One common concept used across various cultures and epochs is the idea of divine kingship, indicating authority being derived from a higher power to validate governance. These concepts and notions are curated by kings to gain legitimacy not only in the political sphere but also in the social and religious sphere, reinforcing methods of control without retaliation and shaping societal relations.
In different societies, rulers have used this theory to legitimise their governance. For instance, in Islam-inspired culture, phrases like “an al haq (I am God)” have been used to establish a divine mandate. Similarly, Sanskrit phrases such as “Aham Brahmasmi” reflect the notion of kings as divine figures. The Sufi notion of Ibn al-Arabi’s “insan-i kamil“, used for Prophet Muhammad, was borrowed by Abul Fazal to develop the concept of “farr-i-zadi” for Akbar, employing supreme authority and hierarchy through divinity. In China, rulers were often referred to as the “sons of heaven,” symbolising their role as mediators between heaven and earth. These concepts of divinity served to validate the ruler’s authority and shaped social and religious relations within society. By elevating their status to a divine level, some rulers even called themselves “devputra (sons of god).”
However, in modern democratic societies like India, establishing a narrative of divine origin is challenging due to constitutional constraints and the emphasis on secularism.
In a democracy, it is difficult to cultivate an image of divinity through religious and spiritual means. The Indian constitution provides safety and protection for citizens, eliminating the need for a divine saviour. In a democratic nation where rights and duties are derived from the constitution, it is near impossible for an individual to set a notion of divinity. However, the intersection of religion and politics is often apparent in democratic settings, with political parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party making their appeal to religious sentiments their mainstay.
Even so, the narrative of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s non-biological existence was not well received by the public, and perceived as a narrative set to advance the party’s political agenda. India, being a democratic and secular country, also has constitutional constraints in making the divinity claim.
Also read: By Ascribing Divinity Unto Himself, Modi Emulates None Other Than Hitler
Modi has evolved from chowkidar or watchman in 2014 to pradhan sevak or prime server in 2019 – before attempting a further evolution this time. The chowkidar narrative in 2014 emphasised his role as a watchman for the nation, protecting citizens and ensuring good governance at a time when corruption claims had overtaken popular imagination. By 2019, the pradhan sevak narrative further humanised him, emphasising his dedication to serving the people. However, Modi’s recent attempts to portray himself as divine or non-biological suggest a shift towards a more grandiose, almost mythical self-image.
This evolution indicates a strategic effort to resonate with the deeply ingrained religious and spiritual sentiments of many Indian voters.
While these efforts may resonate with certain voter groups, election outcomes are influenced by myriad factors beyond religious matters, such as unemployment, inflation, and poverty. For example, even though the BJP concentrated its campaign on the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, it did not win in the seat of Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh – where Ayodhya is – indicating a notable change in political dynamics. The ethical implications of using religious and spiritual narratives for political gain are also worth considering at a time when scientific approaches and democratic principles are paramount.
In essence, the historical concept of divine kingship faces challenges in adapting to modern democratic systems. Democracy emerged as an antithesis of the theory of divine origin. The clear distinction between secular and sacred made it impossible for such a theory to exist. According to R. N. Gilchrist, a semi-divine or non-biological king would turn out to be despotic as he would only be held accountable to the divine source and not to the people. Setting a narrative of divine origin to get votes is unethical and misguides people. In a time of need for scientific approaches, the state cannot afford to revert to the barbaric ideas of divine origin and autocracy.
Thus, while the divine origin of kingship has historical roots, its application in a modern democracy is not only impractical but also ethically questionable. Democratic principles rely on accountability, transparency, and secularism, all of which stand in stark contrast to the idea of divine kingship. The evolution of political narratives, as seen in the case of Narendra Modi, highlights the tension between historical concepts of authority and the demands of a contemporary democratic society.
Anurakti Vajpeyi is a history student and an independent journalist.
