Pregnant King Read online

  Before he could make up his mind, Shilavati addressed the Danda-Nayak, ‘You are clearly disturbed by the situation. Find out the truth about these boys. Where have they come from? Who are their parents? Are they really Brahmanas?’

  Yes, they are, Keshini wanted to say. They belong to my village. But she kept quiet.

  The Danda-Nayak looked at Yuvanashva not sure whether he should proceed. Yuvanashva did not like his mother giving the orders. But this had to be done. He nodded in agreement and let the Danda-Nayak proceed with the investigations. ‘Ask Matanga to confirm if the man you saw yesterday is now actually a woman.’

  the truth of the boys

  When Matanga came to the dungeons, he recognized Somvat instantly. ‘I know him. I know his uncle. He is a Brahmana from my village. He serves in the temple complex of the goddess Tarini and is due to marry the widow Kaveri’s daughter soon. Why is he dressed as a woman?’ he asked the guards. They said nothing.

  ‘How did this happen?’ he asked the boy, after examining him.

  ‘It just did,’ said Somvat.

  The Danda-Nayak spoke to Matanga, visited Tarini-pur, pieced the whole story together and informed the king of his findings. ‘They belong to Tarini-pur, not Pratishthana and are sons of poor but decent Brahmana families. Their names are Sumedha and Somvat. Both are orphans. Their parents were killed in the flood that struck Tarini-pur fourteen years ago. Somvat lives with his uncle. Sumedha has no one and is raised by all the Brahmana families collectively, each family taking the responsibility of feeding, clothing and sheltering him one month at a time. The boys study and serve in the temple of Tarini, the village goddess. They are the thickest of friends, inseparable, like twin brothers. As the years passed, they watched all their friends get married and raise families. Without wives by their side, Sumedha and Somvat were not allowed to perform yagnas, and pujas, or serve as Acharyas. Struck by the arrows of desire, frustrated at being excluded from all village ceremonies, finding boys even younger than them getting married, the two boys had started showing signs of desperation. They neglected their duties and spent all day looking at the images of Apsaras painted on the temple ceilings. The chief priest even overheard them saying that a Chandala wife is better than no wife at all. Not wanting the boys to do something foolish in their frustration, he gave himself the task to find them wives. But he found this difficult. No one wanted to give their daughters to men without parents or property. Finally, Kaveri, a widow, agreed to let the two boys marry her two daughters. But she had one condition: that they must secure at least one cow for themselves before marriage thus proving their capability to provide for their wives. Somvat was lucky. Thanks to his uncle’s position in the temple, he was chosen to perform niyoga on the wife of Trigarta, the horse-herder. The union was successful and it earned the boy a cow. But Somvat refused to get married until Sumedha found a cow too. He was adamant that he and his friend who had lost parents on the same night should get wives on the same day. It was this desire to find a cow for Sumedha, I suspect, that made them do what they did at the temple. Somvat’s cousin says that he overheard Sumedha say that life was unfair, the widow of Tarini-pur would not give him a wife unless he had a cow while the queens of Vallabhi would not give him a cow unless he had a wife.’

  Somvat’s uncle was summoned to Vallabhi. ‘My nephew is a man,’ he said on arrival, pleading for his nephew’s life. ‘How dare Matanga say he is a woman? Under the influence of the vile Sumedha, he put on a woman’s clothes. For that he is guilty. We apologize on his behalf, Rajan. Forgive him. He is a child. He does not share the guile of his friend.’

  The horse-herder, Trigarta, came forward and said, ‘Yes, yes. He is a man. Who better than me to say it? He planted his seed in my wife’s body right before my eyes. What a fine specimen of manhood! Why would he want to wear women’s clothes? Momentary madness, I think. Or a youthful prank whose magnitude they did not fathom. Forgive them, Arya.’

  The chief priest of Tarini’s temple was outraged because the sari Somvat draped around him and the jewels he adorned himself with were stolen from the shrine. ‘They have insulted the goddesses. They must be punished. Tarini must be appeased. Else she will spread out her tongue and cause a flood to destroy our village once again.’

  only the king can judge

  When he was a boy, Yuvanashva kept hearing the story of Bharata, who knew the answers to the most unanswerable of questions. The Yoginis, handmaidens of Shakti, kept asking him difficult questions. He kept giving replies that satisfied them immesely. Sixty-four answers to sixty-four riddles. Pleased, the Yoginis let him sit on their throne which made him Chakra-varti.

  Once, the Yoginis asked Bharata about Lakshmi and Alakshmi. ‘Lakshmi, the goddess of fortune, and Alakshmi, the goddess of strife, are inseparable. They always travel together. Like twins. Like sisters. Both approach Vishnu and ask him who is more beautiful. What should Vishnu answer? You know the consequences of offending either sister.’

  Bharata replied, ‘Vishnu should tell Lakshmi that she is beautiful when she walks towards him. He should tell Alakshmi that she is beautiful when she walks away from him.’

  ‘What a clever answer,’ said the Yoginis, ‘You have made both sisters happy and ensured fortune walks towards Vishnu and strife walks away from him. You, Bharata, are truly the wisest of kings.’

  On hearing this story, Yuvanashva told his mother, ‘That was a clever answer. But was it a correct answer? Who is really more beautiful? Lakshmi or Alakshmi?’

  Shilavati replied, ‘There are no correct answers. There are only appropriate answers. And it all depends on one’s point of view. If I was Shiva, it would not matter who walked towards me and who walked away from me. Shiva is a hermit, indifferent to peace, prosperity, strife and poverty. Vishnu, however, is a guardian of society. A householder’s god. For him Lakshmi matters. She makes the world bountiful and joyful. Alakshmi, he shuns.’

  Yuvanashva was told that a Chakra-varti is the model king. He gives the most appropriate judgments.

  The case of Sumedha and Somvat was an opportunity to demonstrate he too could give appropriate judgments. The Yoginis were posing an unanswerable question. ‘Is Somvat a woman because he has no manhood today? Or is he a man because he had a manhood yesterday?’

  What would be the correct answer? Whose point of view sould he consider? A hermit’s or a householder’s? Masculinity and femininity did not matter to Shiva. But they mattered to Vishnu. Hence it mattered to kings, who were Vishnu’s dimunitive doubles, upholding dharma in their tiny kingdoms just as Vishnu upheld it in the entire cosmos.

  How can manhood and womanhood depend on a point of view? wondered Yuvanashva. Surely, it is a truth independent of a point of view? An unchangeable truth. We don’t choose our bodies. Like we do not choose our parents. Both come to us at birth as Yama’s decrees.

  Shilavati had summoned Vipula, Mandavya and Matanga to her audience chamber to discuss the strange case. Yuvanashva insisted on joining them. ‘What about the yagna?’ asked Shilavati.

  ‘I can manage both, mother,’ said Yuvanashva firmly.

  Yuvanashva was clear he wanted the case to be presented in the maha-sabha, not in his mother’s audience chamber. This was his opportunity to show his prowess as king. He hoped that his mother would let him. Vipula always said that power is taken, never given. Yuvanashva hoped there was a better way. He wanted to convince his mother. Or at least make Mandavya compel her.

  Mandavya replied, ‘Long ago, Janaka, a forefather of your mother, organized a gathering of Rishis to find out the nature of truth. They discussed and debated the topic for years. Finally, Yagnavalkya concluded, “There is one truth which depends on the point of view, changes with history and geography. It is contextual, impermanent, incomplete. Then there is the opposite kind of truth, independent of all viewpoints, responding neither to history nor to geography. It is permanent and complete and known only to Prajapati, who sees all with his four heads. You and I are not Prajapati. We h