Manava Dharmashastra 2.24

2.24

yadarthaṃ deśasaṃjñābhedakathanaṃ tamidānīṃ vidhimāha| etānbrahmāvartādīn deśāndvijātayo deśāntare'pi jātāḥ saṃśrayeran | janmadeśaṃ tyaktvā brahmāvartādideśasaṃśrayaṃ prayatnena kartavyam |
atra kecidāhuradṛṣṭārtha evāyametaddeśasaṃśrayaṇavidhiḥ | satyapi deśāntare'dhikārasambhave eteṣu deśeṣu nivāsaḥ kartavyaḥ| tatra kalpyādhikāratve, yadi vā gaṅgāditīrthasnānavadetaddeśanivāsavidhiḥ pāvanatvena kalpyate | yathaiva kāścidāpaḥ pavitratarā evaṃ bhūmibhāgā api kecideva pavitrāḥ, yathoktaṃ purāṇe | yadi vā saṃśrayaṇādeva svatantrātsvargo viśvajidvat |
tatraitau dvāvapi pakṣāvaprāptau | yadyaprāptaḥ saṃśrayo vidhīyate kalpyetāpyadhikāraḥ | tatra cintyate kataraḥ pakṣo yukta iti | sa tu nityakāmyānāmuktayā rītyā etaddeśa evānuṣṭhānasambhavādadhikṛtānāṃ prāpta eva | na hyetaddeśavyatirekeṇa kṛtsnadharmānuṣṭhānasambhavaḥ | tathāhi | himavati tāvatkāśmīrādau śītenārditā na bahiḥ sandhyopāsane'dhikriyante| na ca yathāvidhi svādhyāyasambhavaḥ prāgvodagvā grāmādupaniṣkramyeti | na hi hemantaśiśirayoraharaharnadīsnānādisambhavaḥ |
idameva ca dvijātaya iti vacanaliṅgam| na kaścideva deśo'sati mlecchasambandhe svata eva mlecchadeśaḥ | anyathā taddeśasambandhānamlecchatve kathaṃ dvijātitvam ? athocyate-“na gamanamātrānamlecchatā'pi tu nivāsāt | sa cānena pratiṣidhyate''-tanna | saṃśrayo'tra śrūyate | sa ca deśāntare bhavatastyāgenānyadeśasambandhaḥ | na saṃśritasyaiva saṃśrayaṇam | anyathā evamevāvakṣyat 'etāndeśāṃstyaktvā nānyatra nivaset' | atha siddhe saṃśrayaṇe tadvacanamanyanivṛttyarthamiti-parisaṅkhyā tathā syāt| tasyāśca trayo doṣāḥ| “atha hānirlakṣyateetāndeśānna jahāditi''-na śrutārthasambhave lakṣaṇā yuktā | ata eva na bhūtapūrvagatiḥ | tasmālliṅgamidaṃ na deśasambandhena puruṣā mlecchāḥ, kiṃ tarhi puruṣasambandhena mlecchadeśatā |
śūdrasya dvijātiśuśrūṣāyā vihitatvāttaddeśanivāse sarvadā prāpte tatrājīvato deśāntaranivāso'bhyanujñāyate | yadā bahukuṭumbatayā śuśrūṣāśaktyā vā'yaṃ dvijātimāśritaḥ sa enaṃ bibhṛyāt | tadā deśāntare sambhavati dhanārjane nivaset | tatrāpi na mlecchabhūyiṣṭhe, kiṃ tarhi yajñiye; mlecchāvṛte yānāsanāśanādikriyānimittasya saṃsargasyāparihāryatvāttadbhāvāpattiprasaṅgāt |
vṛttikarśito vṛttyabhāvapīḍitaḥ | 'vṛtti'rātmakuṭumbasthitisamarthaṃ dhanam | tadabhāve yat'karśanaṃ' tatsambandhitayocyate | yathā varṣākṛte subhikṣadurbhikṣe | durbhikṣaṃ varṣābhāvakṛtam | durbhikṣaṃ varṣākṛtatvena vyapadiśyate |
yasmiṃstasminnityaniyamamāha |

The twice-born people should seek to resort to these countries; the Śūdra may however, when distressed for a living, reside in any land.—(24).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The author now proceeds to state that injunction for the sake whereof the names of several countries have been set forth.

‘The twice-born people.’ even though they be born in another country, should ‘resort these countries’ i.e. to Brahmāvarta, etc. Abandoning the country of their birth, they should make every effort to reside in Brahmāvarta and the other countries just described.

In connection with this some people hold that the injunction of residing in these countries is with a view to unseen (spiritual) results; the sense being that even though certain results might accrue to one in other countries also, yet people should reside in these countries; and when we come to look for the reward of such residence,—we may conclude, either (a) that the residence in the said countries is enjoined as purificatory, just like bathing in the Gaṅgā and other sacred places,—the idea being that just as the water of one place is more sacred than that of another, so also it is only some regions that are sacred, as has been described in the Purāṇas; or (b) that from the mere residence itself the man goes to Heaven, this assumption being on the analogy of the Viśvajit sacrifice.

Neither of these two views is admissible. If the present verse had laid down such residence as would not be possible (without this injunction), then there might be some justification for assuming a reward, and for considering which of the two alternatives mentioned (in the previous paragraph) is the more reasonable. As a matter of fact however, the possibility of the residence in question is already secured by the fact that it is only in the said countries that the performance of the compulsory and optional rites is possible; in fact, apart from the said countries, there is no possibility of the performance of Dharma in its entirity. For instance, in the snowy regions of Kāśmīra and such places, people suffer so much from cold that they are unable to attend to their evening prayers outside their house; nor (for the same reason) is it possible to read the Veda in the proper manner, going out either to the east or to the north of the village; nor lastly, is it possible to bathe in the river every day during the winter.

The implication of the expression ‘twice-born people’ is that no country can be ‘the land of mlecchas’ except when it is inhabited by mlechhas. For otherwise any man entering that country would at once become a ‘mleccha’; and as such how could he be a ‘twice born’ person? It might be argued that—“by merely entering that country one does not become a mleccha, he becomes so only by residing there, and it is this residence that is prohibited here.”—But this can not bo accepted; because what is mentioned here is ‘resorting,’ which connotes the idea of the man being born in one country and then leaving it and going to another country; and there can be no ‘resorting’ to a place which is already inhabited. If this were not meant, then the Author would have simply said that ‘one should never reside in any other country after renouncing these.’ It might be argued that “the ‘resorting’ being already accomplished, the re-iteration of it serves the purpose of precluding others.”—But in that case this would become a ‘Parisankhyā’ a ‘Preclusive Injunction and such injunctions are beset with three defects.

It might be argued that “it is the abandoning (of the countries) that is indirectly indicated, the sense being that one should never abandon these countries.”

But so long as the direct meaning of a text is admissible, there can bo no justification for admitting an indirect indication. For this reason what has been said above cannot be accepted. From all this it follows that what the words imply is that men do not become ‘mlecchas’ by merely coming into contact with a certain country, it is the country that becomes ‘the land of mlecchas’ through the contact of men (mlecchas).

In as much as service of the twice-born people constitutes the prescribed duty of the śūdra, it follows as a matter of course that the latter should reside where the former reside; but if he fails to obtain a living in that country, then he may go. and live in another country; this is what is permitted (in the latter part of the verse). When the man comes to have a large family, or becomes unfit for service,—even though the twice-born person on whom he is dependent may be prepared to support him,—the śūdra may go and live in another country, where there may be a chance for him to acquire wealth. But even so he should never live in a country where mlecchas form the majority of inhabitants; he should betake himself to a land fit for sacrifices; because if he lived in a country abounding in mlecchas it would be impossible for him to avoid their contact, in the course of moving, sitting, eating and so fourth; so that there would be the fear of his becoming a mleccha.

‘Distressed for a living,’—i.e., suffering from want of a living. ‘Living’ means wealth sníficient for the maintaining of one’s family. In the absence of such ‘living,’ there is a curtain amount of ‘distress;’ and this distress which is caused by the want of living is spoken of as caused by the ‘living’ itself; just as good harvest being the effect of rain, famine is caused by want of rain, but is spoken of as ‘caused by rain.’

‘In any country’ implies want of restriction.