Conflicts Within: Managing Internal Dissent
Not everything in Dvaraka proceeded smoothly. A faction of younger merchants began to agitate for practices that contradicted the city's established principles—they wanted to reduce protections for artisans, to allow for more aggressive competitive practices, to maximize profit above all other considerations. They had data, they had articulate arguments, and they had the blessing of some who believed the city had grown too soft.
Rather than suppress the dissent, Pradyumna invited the faction to present their case fully in the assembly. The presentation was impressive—economically sound in ways that standard practice was not, appealing to ambition and entrepreneurial spirit. The city listened and genuinely considered whether the principles it had adopted were perhaps too constraining.
The response came not from Pradyumna but from the apprentices and young artisans who had been trained in the Artisan's Guild. They spoke of what they would lose—not just income but dignity, purpose, the sense of belonging to something beyond mere transaction. They spoke of having been valued not for the volume they could produce but for the quality they could achieve. It was not a speech designed to persuade but rather to make visible what was at stake.
The assembly decided, ultimately, to continue the established path—not because the merchants' arguments were wrong but because the cost of following them would be to become a different city. It was a choice to remain Dvaraka rather than become something else that might be profitable. The merchants who had advocated for change had to decide whether to accept the decision or find other opportunities elsewhere.
Some left; a few stayed and were gradually transformed by the city's culture. The city learned an important lesson: dissent was not dangerous; suppressed dissent was dangerous. The ability to hear arguments and still choose differently was a strength, not a weakness. A community that could sustain disagreement while maintaining coherence had discovered something precious.
Pradyumna established a formal council of dissent—advisors whose specific role was to argue against decisions the assembly had made, to ensure that policies were regularly re-examined and remained consciously chosen rather than merely inherited. The city that honored questioning had made questioning itself part of the structure of governance. Disagreement, given voice and form, became a way of strengthening rather than threatening the whole.