Thailand Law Journal 2011 Fall Issue 2 Volume 14

Hence, in stark contrast to the Sukhothai kingship, a close relationship between the Ayudhya king and his subjects was quite impossible. It seems that there was no way to approach the king to ask for his help or a pardon, but actually there were some rare cases. Approaching the king during the Ayudhya era was an extremely-indeed, a life-threatening-endeavor. Severe penalties might visit themselves upon such a person because the king himself felt insecure about his life and power. The king was always afraid of rebellions and assassins, so aide de-camp soldiers and royal pages would surround his presence all the time, especially when he would exit the palace. Any soldier who let someone reach the king's body would be beheaded, as stated in the Palace Law, Article 21, which outlined the rules for accompanying his majesty on the royal barge procession:

When the king goes anywhere by the royal barge...if someone tries to present a petition to the king by passing through the barge of the Interior noblemen, through the barge of swordsmen, and through the barge of guards, then officers in those barges must wave a piece of cloth [to warn the person to stop]. If the person does not stop, officers must throw a brick, stick, or a sword [at the man, as a second warning]. If the person still does not stop and the king sees and calls upon the person, then an officer must send a barge to receive the petition. If an officer falls to do as this article states, he shall be beheaded and his house shall be confiscated.²⁴

            "Khun Chang Khun Pan"-- a classic piece of Ayudhya literature-reflects the reality of the abovementioned rule by describing Khun Chang's effort to present to King Panvasa a petition about Khun Pan's kidnapping of Chang's wife.²⁵ Because the story was originally in the form of poetry, we can consider the following translation in English prose:

When the royal barge came, Khun Chang jumped off the dock, swimming to His Majesty's presence. Some royal pages cried out that a water devil was coming! Some screamed that a tiger was attacking! Every officer in the procession tried to stop Khun Chang, but not one could do so. King Panvasa was furious, scolding the members of his procession, "Damn! Can't you see me on land?" and issuing a command, "Officer! Receive his petition, whip Khun Chang's back 30 times, and then release him." A royal page went to receive the petition. Guards arrested Khun Chang and whipped him according to the royal command. Thereafter, King Panvasa proclaimed that, from now on, if an officer could not strictly guard the king as the law stated, allowing anyone into the royal procession, he would be beheaded.²⁶

            The above story shows not only that there really was a case of a petition for royal help in Ayudhya, but also how absolute the king's power was, particularly the legislative and judicial powers. Thus, the Ayudhya king was not only a god but also the lord of life, who could impose on any and every person in the realm a punishment ranging from a petty fine to execution.²⁷ In general, punishment is a significant element of royal power in a state where the king is the sovereign. According to the Indian royalty's rules of conduct, to punish a wrongdoer is not a sin but to release a wrongdoer is a true sin that will later destroy the king's power, analogizing a king who commits this type of sin to an elephant without tusks, a snake without poison, a sword without a sheathe, and a lion without a cave. The king, therefore, has a duty to punish a wrongdoer more or less depending on the guilt of the wrongdoer.²⁸ During the Ayudhya era, punishment promoted, thus, both the peace of society and royal power. Every crime was, thus, a direct violation of and a direct challenge to the king's power. Sentences for each crime during that era were severe. Nobody could mitigate the severity of a sentence except the king himself through a granted pardon. Likewise, the royal power to grant a pardon was absolute. Whether to grant a pardon or not was the king’s prerogative.

Reflective of the absolute power of the king as lord of life is the Palace Law, Article 39, which addresses the situation in which the king would try to loop an elephant.

When the king goes to a forest and the royal shelter is in danger [of being overrun by elephants], if the king asks for a rope to loop an elephant, an officer must not present a rope to him. The officer must resist the king first. If the king insists, the officer must offer his life instead of a rope. If the king still insists, the officer must lie down before an elephant, letting it stab him to death. If officers do not follow this law and the royal shelter is damaged, officers and their families shall be beheaded."²⁹

The Palace Law's treatment of severe penalties for crimes against the king sheds light on some of the practices relative to the lord of life. A king's exercising of royal power reflects not only absoluteness of power to punish, but absoluteness of power to pardon, as well. No matter how petty or severe the crime was, imprisonment at that time meant life-imprisonment. To release a criminal from prison depended entirely on the king's pleasure. The criminal would be imprisoned until someone asked or reminded the king to grant a pardon to that criminal- and the king agreed to the request or the reminder.
           
In the story about Khun Chang Khun Pan, when the king was angry at Khun Pan and imprisoned him with five fetters,³⁰ Khun Pan was imprisoned for life. Plai Ngarm -- Khun Pan's son, acting as one of the king's great soldiers-- then asked the king to grant a pardon to his father. King Panvasa thus released Khun Pan, as the story relates:

Plai Ngarm said, "May Your Majesty pardon my father! I would like my father to accompany me to war because he knows battle well." The King replied, "Oh! Poor Khun Pan. He has been imprisoned too long. I am remiss to have forgotten him. What blinded my memory of his imprisonment?...Look Noblemen! Not a soul reminded me. I imprisoned him for fifteen years and nobody reminded me. Maybe, because Khun Pan does not have much money, so you fellows have not given him much thought-- is that not so? If such criminals had lots of money, you noblemen would ask me to exercise my mercy every single day, right.

Therefore, we may conclude that being a Deva Raja (a god-king) and lord of life at the same time can support the royal absolute power to punish and to pardon very well. According to the presumption that all matters concerning life and death in the realm were solely the king's prerogative, the Ayudhya kings' powers were obviously tough and lacking in flexibility. An idea that could inject flexibility into the king's rigid power was the idea of Dhamma Raja, which was quite popular in the late Sukhothai period. Although the focus on the Deva Raja idea was strong in the Ayudhya era, there are some documents showing that the king had to rule in accordance with the Ten Virtues of Buddhism. King Trilokanarth had Sukhothai blood and was much influenced by his Sukhothai family, so he emphasized the Ten Virtues strictly. The Ayudhya Annals state the following in this regard:

...King Trilokanarth strictly followed the Ten Virtues. He undauntedly placed himself under 'the Buddhist Morals. He was skillful in his study of treatises in Buddhism. He needed heaven arid Nirvana. He always granted audiences to nobles to administer officials. Whoever created merit received reward. Whoever committed a crime received a sentence that reflected the legal guidelines. It was not unusual that, if one committed a serious crime and the jury decided to execute him, the king would grant him a pardon.³¹

This above statement describes the Ayudhya king as not only a god and lord of life, but also the righteous king. To be a Dharnrna Raja, the king shall support Buddhism and behave himself well under the Ten Virtues. Most important, the Dhamma Raja has to be the just supreme judge. If punishment as decided by nobles or jurists were too extreme, the king had to make it lenient. The idea of Dhamma Raja has thus been one of the most significant factors underlying improvements in the previously excessively rigid royal power: Buddha's teachings expanded the role of mercy in the exercise of royal power. Hence, the royal pardoning power during the Ayudhya era was a combination of many concepts -- Deva Raja, Lord of Life, and Dhamma Raja. The king's effective power was a combination of "force" and "good will." The righteous king had to punish a deserving criminal and pardon an undeserving one.³²