Dharma : Aspects of Justice
Introduction
Dharma is a Sanskrit word which defy all attempts at an exact rendering in English or in any other language. Some rendering of this word according to dictionary meanings are ordinance, usage, duty, right, justice, morality, virtue, religion, good works, function or characteristic. In most cases the meaning of dharma is religious ordinances or rites. In fact the term dharma in Hindu jurisprudence passed through several transitions of meaning: in its most prominent significance it stands for the privileges, duties and obligations of man, his standard of conduct as member of Aryan community and so on. Dharma acquired a meaning of what is just and customary. The term ‘dharma’ is used in this sense, in the second verse of the first chapter of Code of Manu: Medhatithi, commenting on this text of Manu saysw that the expounders of the smrtis dilate upon dharma as five fold, eg., varunadharma, asramadharma, varunasramadharma, naimittikadharma, (such as prayardna) and gunadharma (The duty of the crowned king, whether ksatriya or not, to protect). In this work, the term dharma is used in the secular sense as to include the varnasrama-dharma and gunadharma, ie., the duty of the king (state) to protect.
An enquiry into the concept of justice in ancient India will require us to grasp correct rendering of the term dharma as used by ancient Indian law givers like Manu and others. This requires a comprehension of the full scheme of these codes and the socio-legal philosophy enshrined in them. Hindu Law Codes lay down complete code of conduct for the individual, society and the state. It is so because the ancient Indian law givers had a definite goal in view to achieve. The scheme of the Codes was so framed as to be conductive to attaining the prescribed goal. The legal philosophy was not a separate branch of learning; it was a part of the social science which included th totality of human relatuions. As Holmes rightly observed, “To be master of any branch of knowledge one must master whose which lie next to it.” The Code of Manu not only deals with a branch of learning, but it also deals with all the aspects of human life. It is primarily a socio-legal treatise as it is evidenced from this text. “ Deign, divine one, to declare to us precisely and in due order the sacred laws of each of the (four chief) ……………………….
The ancient Hindu jurists did not separate the socio-legal aspect of human life from its ethical or spiritual aspect. According to them a separation of law from sociology, ethics or spirituality would render the former incomplete and barren. In other words a viable legal code is a representation of all the aspects, traditions, manners, and ideas of a particular society. It is rather a compendium of view-the-society was expected to follow in life. Therefore, the end of dharma that the ancient law givers had in view must be studied in the context of the attitude of the society towards life and its various aspects. Consequently, the inclusion of social, ethical and spiritual values in a law code is inevitable. These values thus become inseparable part of the study of jurisprudence. There are thinkers even today in the west who consider these elemens essentialt to the elucidation of legal philosophy, MacCormick’s observation about Dworkimanism is relevant in this context. He observes: “The key fact about Dworkin is that he is a pre-Benthamite; the perspective of jurisprudence since Bentham with its insistence on the separation of expository and censorial jurisprudence, legal facts and legal values. He finds as inimical to grasping the truth as did the pre-Raphaelites find, that other perspective which they abandoned in their painting. Dworkin’s stated ambition is to restate legal theory in such terms as reunify exposition and censorship. Legal theory in this programme is not divided from but an intimate part of moral and political theory. As important as anything else in Dworkin’s writings are the elements of ethics and politics which he finds essneital to the elucidation of laws and rights”.
The jurists of Analytical school namely, Bentham, Austin, Kelsen and Hart believe in the separation between law and the ideology of law. They consider the latter unnecessary” for the study of jurisprudence. However, for jurists of Historical, Sociological and Realist schools, the study of the different branches of learning, like philosophy of law, ethics and economics etc., is inevitable for the proper understanding of law. According to the jurists of these schools law cannot be understood in isolation of the society it operates in.
End of Dharma: Justice
The society as conceived by the ancient Indian law givers has an ideal. Each individual according to his nature and capacity strives to realise his ideals of life which are the by-products of the social philosophy of the society. Law or dharma is not a body of rules practised for its own sake. Dharma has a definite end. When it is used in the sense of obligation its purpose is to keep everybody within his assign role prescribed by the Dharmasastras. The visible is to maintain the status quo in the society and ultimate end lies in providing to each one in society an opportunity to realise his ultimate goal human existence. According to the philosophy Many the ultimate goal of human life is to realise on nature. Manu is a firm believer in non-dualistic of philosophy. He observes, “Then the divine Soul existent, (svayambhu), (himself) indiscernible (in making (all) this, the great elements and the rest, cernible, appeared with irresistible (creative) post-dispelling the darkness. He pervades all …… beings in the five forms, and continently make them by means of birth growth and decay revolve like wheels (of a chariot)”. He who thus recognise Self through the Self, in all created beings, become equal (minded) towards all, and enters the higher state Brahman.”
It is this ideology of Manu which colours history on all the social and legal aspects of life. It is in context that the analysis of concept of justice maintain attempted. In order to realise the ultimate ideal of the scheme of varna and asrama is put forth by and other Hindu sages.
The concept of varuna is based on the rational classification of the society into four groups according to the capacities, - intellectual and physical – of all its members; the word varna is used in the context of the society, it means the basic assumption or the tradition with which one starts the description of society. The society shall have to be divided into four classes; Brahmana, Ksatriya, Vaisya and Sudra, as without this assumption social construction is impossible. Likewise individual life is divided into four asramas or stages viz., brahmacarya, grahastha, vanaprastha and sanyasa. The aim of the socio-legal philosophy of Manu is to create a society in which all facilities and opportunities for the well being of the people many be provided so that they can realise their true nature and attain their ultimate end.
It is through social order based on varna and asrama that all aims of the individual and the society can be achieved, whether the ends are spiritual or secular. The classification of human life into arasmas is with definite view to provide opportunities to all according to their guna (qualities) and capacities – spiritual, mental and physical. The ancient Indian legislator-philosophers formulated a system of rules for the welfare of the society as a whole. The institution of varma and asrama effects a balance between the interest of the society and the individual. The tenets of individualism and socialism were properly worked out through this system. The legal philosophy of ancient India was directed towards individualistic socialism or socialistic individualism. It enunciated the middle path which was the golden path. Neither was the individual neglected nor was the society. The concept of dharma in Manu is directed towards the realisation of secular and spiritual ends which certainly includes the realisation of the idea of justice in human society. It is with this aim that the aforesaid classifications have been made. The sagacity and importance of Manu’s views may be grasped only if we keep in mind his socio-philosophical views. In this connection the views of Stone are relevant. He observes: “It is the present view that theorising about law, (to an even greater degree than with most other matters), must for adequate understanding, be examined within the frame of a thinker’s social and personal situation; his arguments and conclusions must be brought home to him as he was in his time and place. This design forbids us to take him summarily at our present” understanding of life. It requires us to document what we attribute to him in his own context, acknowledging other possible interpretations. It requires us to speak as faithfully as we can with his voice before we chide him with ours. Thus, to explain with his voice is not of course to justify what he said; but it is at least a necessary preliminary “to the question of ratification.
Varnasrama-dharma had two-fold aims, one was to maintain the harmony and peace in the society which is a condition precedent to the attainment of the ultimate end. The other purpose of it was to discipline the individuals according to their capacities in order to prepare them to follow their cherished pursuits in life. The king was the custodian and protector of varmasra,a-dharma. The emergence of the king in Hindu jurisprudence has been to uphold and protect this dharmas. “The king has been created (to be) the protector of the castes (varuna) and orders (asramas) who, all according to their rank, discharge their several duties.” This view is fortified in the Dharmasutra of Apastamba. The sutra states:
If those who have had the sastranic samskaras fall from the proper standard of conduct by reason of their weakness, the Acarya will prescribe, the appropriate prayaschitta; if the delinquent does not obey, the matter will be referred to the king who in turn will refer to his Purohit versed in the Dharmasastra and the Arthasastra. He will prescribe the punishment (other than corporal punishment) and (servitude); the culprit if still disobedient will be subjected to Niryama (fasting, restraint, etc.) according to his capacity till he agrees to perform the explanation.
In administering justice the king aimed at putting those people back on the right path who transgressed Wadharma (personal duties) and thus essayed to maintain perfect peace and harmony in the society. But the administration of justice is not possible without a body of rules. The king cannot administer justice arbitrarily. Many enjoins upon a king to follow the established law in administering justice. He should administer justice according to the established law (dharma). Thus the primary end of dharma, when we use the word dharma in, the sense of Raja dharma, means to maintain status quo; and provide opportunities of self development.
Justice : As Virtue
The idea to help the weak and t6o bring the lower to the higher level of life lies in the domain of both morality and law. This idea is the moral part of man’s nature and the instinct for justice is part of it. The most important of virtues in Manu which an administrator of justice must possess in humility or modesty. “Let a king, though he may already be modest, constantly learn modesty from the Brahmanas, learned in the Vedas, because a king who is modest never perishes. Manu cited precedents of several kings who perished together with their belongings because of the want of modesty and through modesty, hermits gained kingdoms. “Through the want of humility, Vena perished, likewise perished the king Nabusu, Sudas, the son of Pijavana, Sumukha and Nemi. The virtue of modesty or humility is capable of raising a person from the lower social status to the higher socials status. By virtue of humility Prthu and Manu enjoyed sovereignty, Kubera, the position of the Lord of wealth and the son of Gadhi the rank of a Brahmana. The king who is the dispenser of legal justice must possess this moral virtue without which justice cannot be administered in the true sense of the term. Manu requires of asking that when he is about to administer justice the virtue of humility must find expression on his face and his dress should be the insignia of it. The king should always smile before speaking. He shall not browbeat even one, who is condemned to death. Smitapurvabhibhasi syai badhyesvapi na bhrukutimacaret.
Legal justice is the most important of virtues in the life of a social order and if this virtue is sacrificed then the whole social order would collapse. But where justice wounded by injustice, approaches, and the judges do not extract the dart, they (they also) are wounded (by the dart of injustice). Justice is the virtue which is both individual and public because it resides in the hearts of the individuals, ie., depending on one’s attitude towards it, it is public since it can be realised only in social or legal relations. If there is only one man in the world no action of that man would be called just or unjust, fair or unfair. He could not be called moral or immoral. Because morality and justice are always manifested in the attitudes of men towards others. As they are manifested in the attitude of individuals they are private viortues, because in morality of a person is judged through his attitude towards life and others. It is in the sense that morality and justice are called virtues. But justice is necessarily a public virtue and therefore, it is an inseparable, constituent of both the law and the morality. This aspect of justice is discussed by Manu with clarity: “Justice is personified as the revered vrs (bull) and he who commits the violation of it, him the Gods regard as vrsala, lowborn; Hence one shall not violate justice.
The judge who prevents justice is censured. The titkle of vrsala (low born) applied to a Brahmana judge, who perverts justice. It is supported by such ideas as no vrsala should come in during the performance of sradha or the vrsala thief should be killed. Consequently, one should not violate justice lest he should become tainted with the character of the vrsala, the application of this character to the Brahmana being a form of depreciation. He term Vrsala is used to refer to one who violates dharma. Justice in this sense is pure virtue. The term dharma is interchangeably used according to context for virtue, justice and law. So dharma is a moral part of judge’s nature. Allen observes: “Justice does not consist in merely doing what is just, it consists in a certain moral disposition or state of character.” In Manu, justice is inherent in the idea of morality of the judge. Justice is the only friend who follows one even after death, everything else perishing with the body. Justice as a virtue of the judges has been attributed Eternal divine character. It is the highest type of virtue which cannot be subordinated to anything in this world. In as must as justice is the only friend in this world and the next, one should cultivate it. Ordinarily men abandon their friends even during life. Even in the case of those who are very great friends, the friendship lasts only till death. Justice on the other hand follows friendship; one should not either pervert justice or conceive its perversion. This warning of Manu to the judge is of great significance. The concept of justice in Hindu jurisprudence and specially according to Manu was understood and realised in a way not inferior to any legasl system in the modern, world. Justice as part of man’s moral nature in Platonic doctrine is not only a virtue but the highest of all, and indeed the sum of them all. Glorification of the idea of justice in Manu shows its importance and its significant place in Hindu jurisprudence and it compares fairly well with its counter part in the West. It is because of the importance attached to the idea of justice that the judges were required to be well versed in law. Allen rightly observes that:
Justice, in this sense of righteousness, is not merely a human but a divine perfection-indeed, in the theological view, it is, like all other virtues, excellent only as a reflection of the divine.
It is this aspect of justice in ancient Indian legal philosophy which is relevant in modern times in relation to administration of justice and appointment of judges. It has double effect: first it makes justice the basis of the social order. Secondly, it subordinates the judge to dharma or law. The concept of justice as understood in Hindu jurisprudence in a sense does not encourage judicial activism, which has a tendency to make a judge above the law, creator and transformer of law. It is difficult to reconcile judicial activism with the doctrine of ‘rule of law’ as it generates retrolegislation. Judicial activism can be compared with the concept of administration of justice in Equity Courts in England. In ancient Indian jurisprudence the concept of justice carried with it, by necessary implication, the underlying philosophy of the modern doctrines, like ‘rule of law’, justice according to law and doctrine of separation of power, and all other allied doctrines including the concept of ‘natural rights’ etc. Even the principles of equity owe their origin to this pure virtue. The moral part of the nature of a judge finds expression when he gives effect to ‘justice, equity and good conscience’.
Manu uses the word dharma for justice. That what is virtuous is dharma and in the administration of justice it is the dharma or duty of a judge to be just. When dharma (norms of law) is applied to a fact situation, justice results. Truth is revealed, truth is dharma and dharma is truth. It is a fact situation which gives rise to the demand of justice. Legal justice is realised when a decision is arrived at in strict accordance with dharma, scriptures, reasoning and local customs. When a judge renders a decision in violation of the aforesaid requirements, he is said to have done injustice and such a judge is bound to be destroyed. There cannot be more severe depreciation of an unjust judge. A judge, therefore, should not abandon justice and morality even for the sake of his wife son friends and relations. In this description of justice the doctrine of equality is inherent.
Justice: As Equality
The society in accordance with the Indian socio-religious philosophy is divided into two groups, varna and avarna. Varnas are four, Brahmana, Ksatriya, Vaisya and Sudra. Thus there are five social groups. If this division is accepted as scientific and necessary then it implies that this classification is based on a rational distinction, and on intelligible differentia. This rational distinction among the members of the social order is not destructive of the concept that “all human beings are equal”. In the social order of ancient India man and woman represent the two aspects of one person. It is clear from the text, “Having divided his body into two parts. He, the lord (Brahman) became, male by means of the (one) half, and female by means of the other, and on that female he beget Viraj. According to Manu, he alone is a complete man who consists of three persons united; his wife, himself and his offspring. The veda says the same and the learned Brahmana propounded this maxim likewise. The husband is declared to be one with the wife.
An unbiased analysis of the law, code of ancient India reveals that although all human beings are born equal, yet the natural and societal conditions render them unequal. The recognition of this fact is the distinctive feature of Indian legal philosophy which cannot be ignored. It was accepte by Manu, a votary of true democracy, as he believed in the individual right to independent action which gave, rise to the karmavipaka theory. Karmavipaka means a theory of action according to which every action performed gives rise to its consequences – “karmaphat”. According to Indian metaphysics immortality is at the root of karmavipaka theory (action consequence theory). The consequences, which subsists in invisible form after the completion of the act follow the soul in the next birth. Law of karma is a characteristic of Indian philosophy and is of universal nature; it is demonstrative of the doctrine of freedom of action for which a man cannot shift his responsibility. The Indian philosophy thus makes man sovereign in the sphere of his salvation which is essentially individual in nature. Indian legal philosophy of the ancient sages tries to be practical and in this endavour attempts to remedy the evils of practical inequality to the largest extent possible Varnasrama system has its underlying principle work according to ability. It is not the permanent and essential stratification of the social system of Hindus, it is based on functional grounds. The considered opinion of the intellectual giant of mankind Samkaracharya can remove the misgivings of those who believe that Indian society is divided into varnas in essence and fact. He says: “Varnasrama division, Brahmana, Ksatriya etc., being instrumental of action and producing the results of acts are as much the products of ignorance and unreal, as the rope is, which is taken through ignorance (due to lack of light) as snake. The real equality is the essence of Indian social philosophy, but practical aspect cannot be ignored and must not be confused in actual life on social plane, because it is a fact so long the ignorance is not destroyed by knowledge. A man in dream if afraid of a lion cannot have peace until awakened. Therefore, the stratification in social life for functional purposes is the admitted fact in all legal and social systems of the world; it was, it is, and it shall be. But it should be taken in the sense in which Samkaracarya puts it ie., outward inequality is the fact of social life. Without accepting the reality of inequality among human beings equality can never be a principle of justice. Social conditions and freedom of action with its consequences, karmavipaka theory, are at the root of existing inequality in the society. It is also in conformity with the doctrine of “freedom of will advocated by Kant and Hegel in the West. According to the karmavipaka theory, it is admitted that the freedom of will results in the diversity in actions which is the necessary result of it. This diversity in actions implies the diversity and inequality among individuals regarding their capacities of act. Consequently; there cannot be equality as to the capacity among individuals. Therefore, all persons are not equal in this respect, but they are equal in then necessity of enjoyment. The necessity of food, sleep, fear and that of sex are equally inherent among human beings and animals: Ahara, nidra, bhaya, maithunam, samanya etad pasubhirnaranam. In these matters, discrimination among persons cannot be made. It is on this psycho-physiological principle that the doctrine of equality among human beings is worked out in the Hindu thought. The doctrine of liberty of actions is the natural consequence of this principle, the karmavipaka theory in a word.
In the present century only lip service is being paid to the doctrines of equality and liberty. These principles were the very basis of ancient. Hindu legal philosophy. Though these principles were not spelt out us they are advocated today, but these principles were inherent in the concept of dharma and the concept of karma theory. The doctrine of equality is proclaimed in the scriptures of ancient India and our saints propounded the theory of ‘non-dualism’. Equality is proclaimed on spiritual basis because the same reality pervades the whole universe. Mandukyopanisada declares the equality of all human beings in these terms. Sarvam hyetad brahmayamalma Brahman soayamatma catuspat. (All this is surely Brahman, This Atman is Brahman. This Atman such as it, is possessed of four quarters.) Atman and Brahman have the same characteristics of being consciousness, all pervadingness and bliss. These are the fundamental principles of Indian thought which are accepted by Manu as the basis of his socio-legal philosophy. According to this view which is in conformity with the karmavvipaka theory we come to the conclusion that the doctrine of equality culminates in the identity of the Atman with Brahman. “Verily I am thou, O holy Godhead, and thou are I.” It is only the Indian philosopher who could afford to say, “I am Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi): “That art Thou” (Tat tvam asi) in which the difference between the creature and the created is transcended. But all human beings on the lower plane are different in their capacity to act and in their disposition of character because of the doctrine of liberty of thought and action. They are equal because the same Atman (soul) pervades them all and all are equally entitled torealise their true nature. It is the ingenuity of the Indian thinkers that they could solve the problem of inequality, the basis of social justice, and lay the foundationof real democratic society. In the absence of metaphysical doctrine of non-dualism, such an approach was not possible in the western thought. The western sociologists, therefore, found it difficult to put forth any satisfactory solution of the problem of inequality, and in their entilasiasm accepted a fact contry to reason and experience that all men are equal: Is there equality among human beins in any country? If there would have been equality, there would not have been the ruler and the ruled. Principle of equality is the basis of both social justice and democracy. Manu has laid down rules for the realisation of these two important aims of society. He divided the whole social order into five groups. The classification is based on functional basis. The unit of the society was not to be a single individual but men and women were to form a social unit of Hindu social order. Unlike the other legal systems of the world the Hindu society starts with the idea of collectiveness. It is the unique characteristic of the social system of Manu.
The classification of the social order was made in such a way that opportunity to enjoy the social amenities and social production were equally available to all. This theory reflects principles of socialism. The classification was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Article 39 of the Indian Constitution is anticipated in this scheme. Doctrine of cheeks and balances was fully worked out in the theory of the classification of the social order. One group was to be dependent upon the other. Each group was divided into families which was the miniature form of society. The families were sovereign in their internal affairs. They had their laws known as kuladharma (rules of the clan) which were to be recognised by the king. A king who knows the sacred law, must inquire into the laws of castes (jatis) of districts, of guilds, and of families, and thus settle the peculiar law of each. The joint family system provided the universal insurance against unemployment. The varnasrama system eliminated the danger of unmoral competition. The Chapter X texts 74 to 129 of the Code of Many lay down elaborate but flexible rules for each varna. The reading of these texts leaves no doubt that the people of one varna were not prohibited to take up the work of other varna, and a Sudra could achieve higher status and also he was not precluded from performing religious acts. The text clearly says: nasyadhikarodharmoasti na dharmatprutisedhanam (he is neither privileged for vedic sacrifices nor is he precluded). It shows that there was a room for everyone to rise to a higher level.
In Manu we find that there were kuladharma and jati dharma (rules of the caste), which mean that the families following similar occupation were to be classed into a jati. They had their own rules which were of authority and they were recognised and applied by the king in matters of jatis. Those jatis (castes) were to form a village which had its own system of rules which were also recognised by the king. The villages were to form a nation (rastra). The highest law was the law of the Smrti which occupied the same position as the Constitution in the modern world. The king was as much subject to the law as the other subjects. “The king and the Brahmana on the contrary were to be punished more heavily than other ordinary offenders on account of their more exalted political and social position, not to speak of the kings alone, the judges also according to ancient Hindu Law could not go unpunished on account of wanton and negligent judgement, if any.” The social system of Manyu ensured equal participation of all the sections of the society in the affairs of the state,. The natural implication of the system was the equitable distribution of the duties amongst all people according to their capacities which in their turn conferred upon them respective co-relative rights. The fruits of justice and equality were properly worked out in the social system of Manu as people enjoyed sovereignity in the true sense of the term.
Social Justice
According to the Hindu sociology the emphasis was on overall welfare of the society. Progress is evolutionary in character and evolution implies ascendance on a higher plane. Ascendancy is possible only when there is no impediments. Social progress thus implies the progress of the whole society. This aspect is described by Swami Vivekananda in a masterly manner:
The solution is not by bringing down the higher but by raising the lower upto the level of the higher. And that, is the line of work that is found in all our books in spite of what you may bear from some people, whose knowledge of their own scriptures and whose capacity to understand the mighty plans of the ancients are only zero.
This approach of Swami Vivekananda is progressive in nature and also practicable, and reasonable, because in factual world there is undoubtedly inequality, which calls for action to bring the lower to a higher level. Basis of varna and asrama is psycho-physiological according to the gunatraya (sattva, rajas and ramas) which are inherent in different proportion in the members of different varnas. A change can be effected into these gunas (qualities), otherwise how Visvamitra would have become a Brahmana. Manu had recognised that by effort there may be a change in the caste, and therefore, Varna is not necessarily by birth. It is in conformity with the peinciple of evolution. This recognition with precedents of change in varna in the Code of Manu is sufficient for those who seer at Manu that Varna is an inflexible institution.
The underlying principle of social life of Manu is therefore, the ultimate welfare of the individual and the society which can be attained gradually through the various states of life and discipline; therefore, the idea of social justice in Manusmrit is realised through the varna and asrama techniques. The complete social philosophy of Hindus is expressed in these two words varna and asrama. The whole of Hindu law may be said to be based on the varnasramadharma. Sarkar remarks: “As a matter of fact, the entire law of the Dharmasastra was based essentially on the varna and asrama dharma.”
In upholding or maintaining the varnasrama system lies the idea of social justice, ie., all persons should be made to work according to their capacities but all must be given an equal share in the enjoyment of the social production. One purpose of dharma (law) was to inflict punishment upon those who transgress the varnasramadharma. “Of the members of all the (four) several castes in their order of enumeration, true to the duties of their respective orders, the king has been created the protector.
The varna and asrama system provide social norms the observance of which is primarily helpful in the maintenance of the social order but ultimately leads to the spiritual welfare. Aiyangar observes:
The ruler is as much a mummuksu as any subject. The progress of the people towards the goal is possible only if there is law and order in the society, protection for every one from dangers internal and external, as well as from seasonal vicissitudes such as famine, which are held to be due to the failure to propitiate the gods by sacrifices, and the moral order as established in varnasrama. Anarchy is acsorted, not only for the physical havoc it may cause to people but for its effect in impending their efforts to attain Mukti. The social balance must be maintained. Neglect by any one of his duty has repercussions not only on his own position and future, but on those of every one else. Universal peace and harmony are the fruits of universal performance of duty (dharma).
In view of the nature of the Hindu society it can be said that the impact of religion was very much visible in each of their secular institutions, and, therefore, it was practically impossible to separate the two aspects of an institution. Therefore, the idea of dharma was wide enough to include the welfare of the individual both in the secular and the spiritual sense. In fact, there was hardly any topic which was not influenced by the consideration, of religion. Marriage, sonship, partition and succession, etc., all have their bases in religion. All these matters were covered by dharma and naturally in the administration of justice the king had to go into extra-secular questions also, as they happened to influence the social life of the people. To that extent the king was bound to administer justice in the domain of dharma (law).
In Hindu jurisprudence, so much emphasis was laid on the duties of a king that he was to be held resp9onsible even for supernatural calamities over which he had no control but which were supposed to be caused due to the failure of the king in his duties of general administration. If the king fails in his duties then no dharma, varna or asrama can exist. It is, therefore, rightly said in Santiparva, “know that all dharmas are merged in Rajadharma, that Rajadharma is at the head of all dharmas. The welfare, good rains, sickness, calamities and death among people owe their origin to the king.
Therefore, the end of dharma or that of the law of the land was to see that the people in the society pursue their aims in accordance with dharma as ordained in the Dharmasastra for the various varnas and asramas. The question of administration of justice arose where the transgression of dharma occurred. The responsibility of administering justice was so wide that even a modern socialistic state cannot afford to assume as much responsibility as a Hindu king had under the concept of Rajadharma.
Duties were prescribed for the subjects as well as for the king. Whoever failed in the discharge of his duties incurred liability. People who paid tax and obeyed the king, were not to suffer for the wrongs of the king. The king himself should suffer for the failures in discharge of his duties which caused miseries to his people.
To maintain perfect social, cultural and occupational balance in the society, according to the accepted norms of dharma, was the sole end of law according to Manu. It was to prepare individuals for developing their personality so that the highest spiritual goal of mankind may be undertaken. To ensure the observance of the dharma (varnasramadharma) by the people was the main concern of the king in the sphere of administration of justice. Justice, social and individual was to be realised by inflicting punishment not in vengeance but to purge the conscience of the wrongdoer in order to bring him back to the position and status in which he would have been had he not committed the wrong. The punishment is for the benefit of the wrongdoer and after infliction of punishment he becomes as pure as the saints and goes to heaven.
Though there is a direction laid down by Manu that the king was to administer justice according to dharma, yet in inflicting punishment the doctrine of relativity was to be applied which was in keeping with social order conceived under Hindu jurisprudence. The varna of the offender also determined the nature and extent of punishment. The higher was the varna of an individual the more was his responsibility to observe the rules of dharma. In case of theft, the guilt of a Sudra shall be eight fold, that of the Vaisya sixteen-fold and of the Ksatriya thirty-two-fold, and of the Brahmana sixty-four-fold or quite a hundred-fold, or (even) twice sixty four-fold, each of them knowing the nature of the offence. Neither a father nor a teacher, nor a friend, neither anther nor a wife and neither a son nor the priest shall go unpunished by the king if they do not keep within their duty. Not only this even the king was subject to punishment if he committed an offence and that too more severely. Where a common man would be fined one karsapana the king shall be fined one thousand, that is the settled rule.
Thus we see the doctrine of equality was not applied blindly. The nature of the offence and status and Varna of the offender, and all other relevant circumstances were taken into consideration while fixing the punishment. So far as the liability was concerned, no discrimination whatsoever was to be made, but the ends of justice were fully served by the infliction of punishment proportionate to the social status of the offender, because the psycho-social conditions and status of the offender are very important factors, even in the modern age.
****************
No comments:
Post a Comment