The Nation (Thailand)
Throughout Asia, kings and their family members traditionally took part in royal ploughing ceremonies.
It was considered a sacred ritual.
In his book, "The Burmese Lost Their Independence" (Phama Sia Muang), the late MR Kukrit Pramoj provided an insight into ceremonies in which ancient Indian and Chinese kings took part. By doing so, he said, the monarchs restored honour to farmers. In the old days, farming was considered an honourable profession because it brought prosperity to countries.
In Thailand, Kukrit wrote, the Siamese kings had not been taking part in ploughing ceremonies for quite a long time. There was only evidence that they assigned a minister of agriculture, or Phraya Pholathep, to act as a Ploughing Lord on their behalf.
But as Burmese kings had been participating in such ceremonies since ancient times until the period that coincided with the reign of King Chulalongkorn, the question was raised of why the Siamese kings were not directly involved.
Kukrit explained that this probably had to do with the belief of the ancient Siamese people. If the start of the harvest season went well, farming for the whole year would bear good yields. It affected the economy of the Kingdom as a whole. If the farm yields were bad, then the Ploughing Lords, who launched the official start of a new harvest season, would have to take the responsibility.
The dilemma was that if the Siamese kings were to directly take part in the ceremony, they could not escape the blame in the event that the harvest season was bad. The ancient Thai administration held that the king could do no wrong, a concept similar to that of the western monarchs. For this reason, when there were any royal activities that could bear unforeseen consequences, there must be ministers acting on the kings' behalf. When something went wrong, the ministers would have to assume the responsibility instead.
Kukrit also wrote that King Vajiravudh, or King Rama VI, treated this issue with delicacy. He appointed his halfbrother Kromluang Rachaburi Direkrit as agriculture minister. But when the ceremony took place, he had another person act as a Ploughing Lord instead. For if Kromluang were to be blamed, King Vajiravudh would also feel the repercussions because the minister was his elder halfbrother.
In this sense, Kukrit said, democracy took hold in the Thai way of administration because the Siamese kings could also bear the responsibility if things went wrong.
The last king of Burma, King Hsipaw, who reigned between 1878 and 1885, was reluctant to travel outside his palace. He failed to follow the tradition of taking part in the ceremony. He felt it might not be safe for him to venture outside his palace, so he had the ceremony performed within the palace grounds.
This meant ordinary Burmese people could not have access to the ceremony. They were not aware of what was going on. Gradually, the ceremony lost its significance and relevance. The farmers were discouraged and lost their morale.
There were all kinds of prophecies about the adverse events that might happen to King Hsipaw, who witnessed his kingdom being taken away by the invading British.
King Ekkathat, the last Ayutthaya king, shared a similar fate to that of King Hsipaw. He was also reluctant to venture beyond his palace. He had a royal pavilion built at the city wall so that he could watch the river and the scenes outside.
Back to the contemporary scene, last Saturday Cambodia performed its own ploughing ceremony. King Norodom Sihamoni presided over the sacred ritual, performed in an open field near the palace. Thousands of people took part.
Hun Sen, the prime minister, prayed for the sacred beings to help provide good weather and improve the farming of the Cambodian people.
As the Sacred Cow ate only 45 per cent of the maize provided, court astrologer Kang Ken forecast that Cambodian farmers might suffer from drought and see a reduction in their yields.
It was considered a sacred ritual.
In his book, "The Burmese Lost Their Independence" (Phama Sia Muang), the late MR Kukrit Pramoj provided an insight into ceremonies in which ancient Indian and Chinese kings took part. By doing so, he said, the monarchs restored honour to farmers. In the old days, farming was considered an honourable profession because it brought prosperity to countries.
In Thailand, Kukrit wrote, the Siamese kings had not been taking part in ploughing ceremonies for quite a long time. There was only evidence that they assigned a minister of agriculture, or Phraya Pholathep, to act as a Ploughing Lord on their behalf.
But as Burmese kings had been participating in such ceremonies since ancient times until the period that coincided with the reign of King Chulalongkorn, the question was raised of why the Siamese kings were not directly involved.
Kukrit explained that this probably had to do with the belief of the ancient Siamese people. If the start of the harvest season went well, farming for the whole year would bear good yields. It affected the economy of the Kingdom as a whole. If the farm yields were bad, then the Ploughing Lords, who launched the official start of a new harvest season, would have to take the responsibility.
The dilemma was that if the Siamese kings were to directly take part in the ceremony, they could not escape the blame in the event that the harvest season was bad. The ancient Thai administration held that the king could do no wrong, a concept similar to that of the western monarchs. For this reason, when there were any royal activities that could bear unforeseen consequences, there must be ministers acting on the kings' behalf. When something went wrong, the ministers would have to assume the responsibility instead.
Kukrit also wrote that King Vajiravudh, or King Rama VI, treated this issue with delicacy. He appointed his halfbrother Kromluang Rachaburi Direkrit as agriculture minister. But when the ceremony took place, he had another person act as a Ploughing Lord instead. For if Kromluang were to be blamed, King Vajiravudh would also feel the repercussions because the minister was his elder halfbrother.
In this sense, Kukrit said, democracy took hold in the Thai way of administration because the Siamese kings could also bear the responsibility if things went wrong.
The last king of Burma, King Hsipaw, who reigned between 1878 and 1885, was reluctant to travel outside his palace. He failed to follow the tradition of taking part in the ceremony. He felt it might not be safe for him to venture outside his palace, so he had the ceremony performed within the palace grounds.
This meant ordinary Burmese people could not have access to the ceremony. They were not aware of what was going on. Gradually, the ceremony lost its significance and relevance. The farmers were discouraged and lost their morale.
There were all kinds of prophecies about the adverse events that might happen to King Hsipaw, who witnessed his kingdom being taken away by the invading British.
King Ekkathat, the last Ayutthaya king, shared a similar fate to that of King Hsipaw. He was also reluctant to venture beyond his palace. He had a royal pavilion built at the city wall so that he could watch the river and the scenes outside.
Back to the contemporary scene, last Saturday Cambodia performed its own ploughing ceremony. King Norodom Sihamoni presided over the sacred ritual, performed in an open field near the palace. Thousands of people took part.
Hun Sen, the prime minister, prayed for the sacred beings to help provide good weather and improve the farming of the Cambodian people.
As the Sacred Cow ate only 45 per cent of the maize provided, court astrologer Kang Ken forecast that Cambodian farmers might suffer from drought and see a reduction in their yields.
4 comments:
That is right, farming used to be
a respected profession, but only
until came along the Evil
westerner. Since then, khmer
beliefs and tradition have been
gone down hill.
World change 7:12Am, you want to stay nacket like stone age?
And slavery is out of date be independent dud!
Yes, and tell that to the US, will
ya? There are too many Mexican and
Asian slave there.
To 10:52AM !
In the U.S there are only 3% of the population still do farming!!Now compare that to Cambodia which 90% of the people still do farming!
The U.S don't want to hear anything from the world including your stupid ass!!!
Post a Comment