Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champa; Vol. II: Suvarnadvipa) v2.c20: Book V. Culture and Civilisation in Suvarnadvipa

Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East (Vol. I: Champā; Vol. II: Suvarṇadvīpa) v2.c20

Language
English

Contents

Book V. Culture and Civilisation in Suvarnadvipa

v2.c20.2

the Lacedaemonians, who had been waiting for the signal, now attacked the city. The Plataeans, seeing the enemy already inside and their own men falling, and knowing nothing of the plot, were seized with panic and, thinking that the Thebans were far more numerous than they really were, surrendered at discretion. But when they discovered that the Thebans were few, they took heart and, resolving to attack them, closed the gates and fell upon them.

v2.c20.3

The Thebans, finding themselves in a trap, began to defend themselves. Twice or thrice they repelled the attacks of the Plataeans, but when the women and slaves began to shout and throw tiles and stones from the houses, and a heavy rain began to fall, the Thebans, confused and blinded, broke and fled through the city. Most of them, not knowing the way in the darkness and rain, fell into the drains or were killed by the Plataeans, who knew the streets. The gate through which they had entered had been shut by a Plataean who had found a javelin-head and used it as a bolt, so that there was no way out. Pursued through the city, some climbed the wall and jumped down, most of them perishing; others reached the gate and, finding it shut, were cut down by the women and slaves. A small party, seeing a large building with an open door, rushed in, thinking it was a gate, and were captured.

v2.c20.4

Meanwhile, the main body of the Thebans, who were to have arrived at daybreak to support the first party, had been delayed by the rain and the swollen river Asopus. When they heard of the disaster, they hurried to the city, intending to seize any Plataeans who might be outside the walls. The Plataeans, suspecting their intention, sent a herald to them, warning them not to harm the prisoners they had taken, and threatening to kill them if they did not withdraw from their territory. The Thebans, upon this, retired.

v2.c20.5

The Plataeans, having thus cleared the city, collected their dead and the prisoners. The prisoners, numbering about one hundred and eighty, were executed the next day, despite a message from the Thebans claiming that they had surrendered on terms. The Plataeans denied this, asserting that they had promised to spare them only if they did not commit further acts of violence.

v2.c20.6

Thus ended the attempt of the Thebans upon Plataea, an event which was the immediate cause of the war between Athens and the Peloponnesians. The Plataeans, having secured their city, sent a messenger to Athens with the news, and the Athenians, fearing for the safety of the Plataeans, sent a garrison to their aid and removed the women and children to Athens.

v2.c20.8

BOOK V

Chapter I. Law

v2.c20.s1.1

LAW

v2.c20.s1.2

The legal system of Java was mainly of Hindu origin, though modified by local conditions. There were written law-codes in Java and Bali, and these resembled the Indian Law-books—Dharmaśāstras or Smṛtis—to a large extent, both in form and substance. How far these Law-books were promulgated by constituted authorities and represented the actual conditions of society is a common problem both for India and her colonies. But the general picture afforded by these books may be taken in either case as a safe guide for obtaining a broad view of the state and society in the past. The variations of rules and principles noticed in different law-books must be attributed, as in the case of India, to varying indigenous customs in different localities and in different ages. To this we may perhaps add the influence of the different Indian Law-books introduced, perhaps at different times, in Java.

v2.c20.s1.3

Among the more important Law-books of Java and Bali which are known to exist at the present time, the following deserve special mention.¹ :—

v2.c20.s1.4

¹ The list is given on the authority of Juynboll (B.K.I., Vol. 71, pp. 568-569). It differs from that in Friederich-Bali, pp. 93 ff. See further fn. 3, p. 2, and fn. 1, 2, p. 3.

v2.c20.s1.5

1. Sārasamuccaya²—It consists mostly of Sanskrit verses, followed by an Old-Javanese translation. It begins with an account of Viṣṇu who came to Mdang, ruled there as *rahyang tarkan dyāran*, and had four sons.

v2.c20.s1.6

² This is different from a Tutur work of the same name, though Friederich (op. cit) took the two to be identical, cf. Cat. II, pp. 275-6.

v2.c20.s1.7

2. Svara Jambu (probably corrupted from Svayambhu)¹ is mostly the translation of the eighth book of the Mānava-dharmaśāstra. Only the last part, written in later dialect, deviates from this source.

v2.c20.s1.8

¹ Jonker—Wetboek, p. 3.

v2.c20.s1.9

3. The Śivaśāsana, written in pure Old-Javanese, is referred to in an inscription of 991 A.D., and is associated with king Dharmavaṁśa teguḥ Anantavikramottuṅgadeva.²

v2.c20.s1.10

² See p. 264, Part I. For Nos, 3-5, cf. also Krom—Geschiedenis, pp. 230-231.

v2.c20.s1.11

4. The work generally known as Pūrvādhigama, and designated at the end as ‘Śivaśāsana-sāroddhṛta’ may be regarded as a later redaction of No. 3.

v2.c20.s1.12

5. The Balinese work Pūrva-āgama is perhaps the modern form of No. 4.

v2.c20.s1.13

6. The Devāgama, also known as Kṛtopapati, quotes many rules from Mānava-dharmaśāstra.

v2.c20.s1.14

7. The Kuṭāra-mānava is also largely influenced by Mānava-dharmaśāstra.

v2.c20.s1.15

8. ‘Gajah Mada’—a law book attributed to Gajah Mada, the famous Prime Minister of Majapahit. The existing text is undoubtedly more modern, but as Gajah Mada is credited with a knowledge of law in Nag. Kr. (12:4), it is not unlikely that he was the author of the original work.³

v2.c20.s1.16

³ For Nos. 8 and 9, cf. Krom, op. cit., pp. 421-2, 445. No. 8 is not mentioned by Juynboll.

v2.c20.s1.17

9. Ādigama—This is one of the Law-books now regarded as authentic in Buleleng (Bali). It is attributed to Kanaka, the Prime Minister of Majapahit from 1413 to 1430. The date given in the manuscript is 1401 A.D.

v2.c20.s1.18

10-11. Kerta Sima and Kerta Sima Subak, showing strong Balinese influence.¹

v2.c20.s1.19

¹ For Nos. 10 and 11, cf. T.B.G., Vol. XXIII.

v2.c20.s1.20

12. Pasvara—a comparatively recent Balinese Law-book² in the form of a collection of royal edicts. There are many collections of this kind.

v2.c20.s1.21

² To this list we may add Agama, Duṣṭakalabaya, Devadaṇḍa and Yajña-Sadina mentioned by Friederich (op. cit, pp. 93-4); Drama Upapati (Dharmopapatti) and Uttara Mānava, mentioned by Van Eck; and Śastra Pasobaya cited by Jonker (Wetboek, p. 3). Among these Devadaṇḍa is described by Juynboll (Cat. II, pp. 182-184) and others, and there is a Dutch translation of it by Blokzijl (T.B.G., Vol. 18, pp. 295-309). But although the older writers describe it as written in very old language it is not borne out by the manuscripts catalogued by Juynboll. Of the other books I am not able to say much, not even whether they are all really different books from those mentioned above; e.g. the ‘Uttara-Mānava’ may be the same as Kuṭāra-mānava.

v2.c20.s1.22

Among the texts mentioned above, the Kuṭāra-mānava³, No. 7, which is now held authentic in Bali, may form the basis of a detailed study of the Indo-Javanese law. The book was regarded as of the highest authority in the flourishing period of the Majapahit empire. This is indisputably proved by the Bendasari inscription⁴ dating from the middle of the fourteenth century A.D. It is a record of a judgment in a civil case (dispute over the possession of land) and describes the way in which the judges came to a decision. There were six of them, referred to as ‘Dharmapravakta Vyavahāra-vicchedaka’. They heard the statements of both the parties, and in accordance with established practice, interrogated some impartial local people about it. Then they took into consideration the law, as enunciated in legal texts, the local usages and customs, the precedents, and the opinions of religious teachers and old men, and ultimately decided according to the principles enunciated in Kuṭāra-mānava.

v2.c20.s1.23

³ Edited with a scholarly introduction and Dutch translation by J.B.G. Jonker (Leiden, 1885).

v2.c20.s1.24

⁴ O.J.O., No. 85; Krom, op. cit., pp. 421-2.

v2.c20.s1.25

That the Kuṭāra-mānava was regarded as of the highest authority also follows from another inscription, dated 1358 A.D.,¹ in which the judges, seven in number, are described as ‘Kuṭāra-mānavādi-śāstra-vivecana-tatpara’, i.e., persons skilled in the knowledge of ‘Kuṭāra-mānava and other Law-books.

v2.c20.s1.26

¹ O.V., 1918, pp. 108-112; Krom, op. cit., p. 422.

v2.c20.s1.27

The antiquity of the Law-book also follows from the total absence of fire-arms in the list of weapons, enumerated in section 59², by which a wound could be caused. The language of the existing text of the Kuṭāra-mānava, however, shows that it is a later redaction of that work, though it is not easy to determine the nature and extent of the modifications introduced in later times. That the book underwent some amount of Balinese influence is also clear from a study of the existing text.³

v2.c20.s1.28

² Jonker-Wetboek, p. 34.

v2.c20.s1.29

³ Ibid, pp. 34-35.

v2.c20.s1.30

The text, as we have it now, is a compilation from various sources, some of which are named in the book itself, and others are referred to in general terms, such as ‘so say the wise people,’ etc. The arrangement is also somewhat irregular, the same topics even the same rules, recurring in different parts of the work, and sometimes there are different rules about the same topics. This is more particularly the case with regard to rules about slaves, pledge, the marriage-price, and adultery. The legal principles and detailed rules are mostly based on Hindu law-books, but slight modifications of these and addition of new rules betray clearly the influence of indigenous laws and customs. The influence of indigenous law and variations from or modifications of Indian law are clearly much greater in the earlier than in the later part, and this has given rise to the question whether the whole of the present text formed part of the original work. The unity of the language is in favour of this view.¹ But Brandes thinks that it really consists of two parts, the Kuṭāra, inspired by Bhṛgu, and the Mānava, inspired by Manu. Brandes also refers to a Malay Chronicle according to which it was composed under Surya Alam, king of Demak.²

v2.c20.s1.31

¹ Ibid, pp. 1-35.

v2.c20.s1.32

² Catalogue, sv. Kuṭāra-mānava.

v2.c20.s1.33

About the indebtedness of Kuṭāra-mānava-śāstra to different Indian Law-books we find the following interesting passage in the book itself.

v2.c20.s1.34

"A buffalo or a cow, given in pledge, is forfeited to the creditor, if it is not redeemed within three years. Thus says Kuṭārāgama. According to Mānavāgama, the period is five years. One of these two must be followed. It is wrong to suppose, however, that one of these Law-books is better than the other, both being authoritative. The Mānava-śāstra was communicated by Mahārāja Manu who was like god Viṣṇu. The Kuṭāra-śāstra was communicated by Bhṛgu in the Tretāyuga; he was (also) like god Viṣṇu; the Kuṭāra-śāstra is followed by Paraśurāma and by the whole world, it is not a product of the present time, but...........(121).³

v2.c20.s1.35

³ The figures within bracket on this and the following pages indicate the section or paragraph of Kuṭāra-mānava-śāstra.

v2.c20.s1.36

In many other sections (cf. § 137, 143) also, the different rules of Mānava-śāstra and Kuṭāra-śāstra are placed side by side. There is no doubt that this circumstance explains the title of the Law-book. References to Manu or Mānava-śāstra are, however, more frequent.

v2.c20.s1.37

What Indian Law-book is meant by Kuṭāra-śāstra, we do not know. The reference to Paraśurāma makes it plausible enough to derive Kuṭāra from Kuṭhāra,⁴ but that does not help us much in tracing the original work.

v2.c20.s1.38

⁴ Jonker-Wetboek, p. 15.

v2.c20.s1.39

As regards Mānava-śāstra there cannot, of course, be any doubt, that it refers to the famous Indian Law-book, Mānava-dharmaśāstra or Manu-saṃhitā. An analysis of the contents of the Javanese Law-book shows that this work formed its chief source. Not only numerous isolated verses, but sometimes a whole series of them, are reproduced, with slight variations and modifications in many cases. These variations are sometimes the results of the misunderstanding of the original text, but are also in some cases undoubtedly due to an effort to bring the law into line with Javanese conditions. But the parentage is unmistakable.

v2.c20.s1.40

In the passages quoted from Manu-saṃhitā, the order of topics, and also, generally speaking, of the individual rules, closely follows that of the original. It is, therefore, exceedingly probable that there was an Old-Javanese translation of Manu-saṃhitā or parts of it (notably chaps. VIII-IX) as *e.g.*, Svara Jambu, from which our author largely borrowed. The high authority enjoyed by this Indian law-book is proved by other evidences also. It is mentioned in Bhomakāvya (1.5), and an Old-Javanese inscription¹ refers to it in such a way as to leave no doubt of its authoritative character. The Carita Parahyangan, from which so many interesting historical details have been quoted above, says of king Niskalavastu Kañcana, "that he did many good deeds for the holy persons, was dear unto the gods, and strictly followed the law-code of Manu".² The Ṛṣiśāsana also refers to Manu as law-giver,³ while Pratasti Bhuvana and Puruṣadasanta refer to Manuśāsana⁴. All these references indicate the high honour in which Manu's Law-book was held in Java, and it is, therefore, quite natural that the Javanese law-book should take it as the chief guide.

v2.c20.s1.41

¹ K.O., No. 16.

v2.c20.s1.42

² Cf., Bk. III, Chs. I, VIII (pp. 230, 358).

v2.c20.s1.43

³ Pigeaud—Tantu Panggelaran, p. 300.

v2.c20.s1.44

⁴ Ibid, p. 294; Juynboll, Cat. I, p. 211.

v2.c20.s1.45

At the same time a close analysis of the Javanese text makes it abundantly clear that Indian law-books, other than Manu-saṃhitā, were consulted by the Javanese author.¹ For, in some cases more than one Hindu legal principle is given, while in others, such as the use of ‘documentary evidence’, ‘Sāhasa’ (Assault), ‘Śulka’ (marriage-price) etc., the rules given differ from those of Manu. It is not always easy to trace the origin of these rules, but a strong presumption arises in certain cases. The rule, for example, that rights over land are barred by limitation after twenty years (268) is found in Yājñavalkya, Vyāsa, and Kauṭilīya alone, while the classification of interests for money (262) is given only in Bṛhaspati-saṃhitā. It is probable, therefore, that some of these law-books were known in Java, though the possibility is not excluded that the same rules occurred in other Indian law-books, or in different versions of existing law-books, not known to us at present. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that the Javanese law-book contains several Sanskrit terms which cannot be traced in existing Indian law-books e.g., Pañcasādhāraṇa, Jīvadāna, Devāgama (for divya), etc.

v2.c20.s1.46

¹ Jonker—Wetboek, pp. 17 ff.

v2.c20.s1.47

While the Javanese law-book clearly shows that not only were Indian law-books known in general, but also the Indian legal system was transplanted in Java, it is equally clear at the same time that it was substantially modified by indigenous laws and customs. This is quite natural and inevitable, specially in view of the fact that in the Manu-saṃhitā the local manners and customs are recognised as possessing legal authority. These modifications are met with in other law-books of Java, such as Devadaṇḍa or Sāra-Samuccaya, and it is probable that legal texts like these served, in this respect, as the source of Kuṭāra-mānava-śāstra. These modifications will be noticed in course of explaining the detailed contents of the book, to which we may now turn.

v2.c20.s1.48

These detailed rules may be broadly divided into two classes, Civil and Criminal Law, and each is dealt with under several sub-heads or titles of law.

v2.c20.s1.49

The very first section deals with murder. Eight classes of murderers are defined: (1) He who kills an innocent man; (2) he who incites another to kill an innocent man; (3) he who wounds an innocent man; (4) he who eats with a murderer; (5) he who keeps company with a murderer; (6) he who is on friendly terms with a murderer; (7) he who gives shelter to a murderer; and (8) he who renders any help to a murderer. The first three classes are liable to capital punishment, which however may be changed by the king to a fine of 40,000¹. The last five are liable to a fine of 20,000.

v2.c20.s1.50

¹ While giving the amount of fines, the law-book never states the unit coin it has in view. For reasons explained below, the value of this unit may be regarded as one-twentieth of that (paṇa) used in Manu-saṃhitā.

v2.c20.s1.51

Similarly, thieves are divided into eight classes (21-28) on the above principle so as to include, in addition to actual thieves, those who instigate, help, or befriend him. The man who actually steals is not only liable to capital punishment, but his wives (lit. women) and children together with all his possessions become the property of the king. But a thief may purchase life by paying 40,000 to the king, and a compensation to the owner equivalent to double the value of the stolen goods. He who instigates another to commit theft is also liable to capital punishment. His wives and children may escape with a heavy fine, but if they are also guilty of joining him in instigating the crime, they are liable to capital punishment. Other abettors of the crime are fined according to the nature and gravity of the offence.

v2.c20.s1.52

The next important headings of criminal law are defamation and assault described in the Indian Law-books by the technical terms Vākpāruṣya and Daṇḍapāruṣya. Here, for the first time, we meet with that discrimination of treatment in law according to the caste of persons, which is a characteristic feature of Hindu law. In order to give an adequate idea of this, we may give in full the penalties for abuse or defamation. If the offender and the offended belong to the same class the fine is only 250. The following table shows the amount of fines when the two parties belong to different castes.

v2.c20.s1.53

| Offender | Offended | Penalty (Figures denote Amount of fine) |
| Brāhmaṇa | Kṣatriya | 1,000 |
| Do | Vaiśya | 500 |
| Do | Śūdra | 250 |
| Kṣatriya | Brāhmaṇa | 2,000 |
| Do | Vaiśya | 1,000 |
| Vaiśya | Brāhmaṇa | 5,000 |
| Do | Kṣatriya | 2,000 |
| Do | Śūdra | 1,000 |
| Śūdra | Brāhmaṇa | Death |
| Do | Kṣatriya | 5,000 |
| Do | Vaiśya | 2,000 |

v2.c20.s1.54

The regulations exactly follow Manu-saṃhitā (VIII. 267-269), if we regard the unit, to which the amount of fine refers, as one-twentieth of that used in Manu. The Javanese law-book, however, gives a complete statement, and further adds that a Caṇḍāla who defames a Brāhmaṇa should be put to death.

v2.c20.s1.55

Similarly, the rules about the assault closely follow those of Manu. The famous dictum of Manu, that "with whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off" (VIII. 279), is reproduced with the specification of the limbs. As a matter of fact many of the penal laws about assault, hurt, theft, robbery, plunder, cattle-lifting, damage or destruction of property, and adultery are taken directly from Manu, and the following passages from this law-book are reproduced with little or no modification : Manu-saṃhitā—Bk. VIII, verses 279-284, 286-288, 295-300, 320-23, 325, 328-330, 337, 350, 352, 356, 357, 361, and also probably 365 and 366. All these penal laws provide discrimination in punishment, according to castes, as in the case of defamation, and need not be described in detail. There are, of course, additional rules or illustrations in many cases, too numerous to mention in detail.

v2.c20.s1.56

Penalties are also laid down for miscellaneous offences such as witchery (27, 173, 174, 178-182), quackery (274) etc.

v2.c20.s1.57

Although the system of criminal law is evidently based on Hindu law and follows it closely, we may notice some striking differences which are presumably to be attributed to indigenous influence.

v2.c20.s1.58

In the first place, the regulations about murder and theft are more comprehensive than what we find in the Hindu law. They also introduce two new principles, viz., (1) that the crime is shared by the abettors and friends of the criminals, and (2) even the family members of the criminal (in case of theft) and persons who instigate the crime are liable to punishment.

v2.c20.s1.59

Secondly, the penal law in Java shows that the old idea that offences were torts rather than crimes had not altogether died out. Although offences were usually regarded as crimes and punished by the king with fine and corporal punishment, the idea of paying compensation to the injured is more marked in the Javanese law than in the Hindu law-books. For example, in Manu VIII, 295-296, the death caused by rash driving is considered purely as a crime, but the corresponding rule in Javanese law-book (232) adds that a compensation should be paid to the blood-relations of the deceased, if he is a free man, and to his owner, if he is a slave. The same conclusions follow from the laws of adultery (134-8) in which the fine was chiefly a compensation to the injured husband, and the latter had the right to put the criminal to death if he were caught red-handed. Again, the penalties imposed by Manu for theft include only in two specific cases (VIII—319-20) a compensation to the owner, equivalent to the value of the stolen goods. But the general rule in Java was to add to the fine a compensation equivalent ito double the value of the goods stolen.

v2.c20.s1.60

Thirdly, while both Javanese and Hindu laws make discrimination according to castes, in awarding punishments for various offences, the former make an exception in cases of murder and theft (1-2, 21-28). In other words, all criminals in Java, accused of these two offences, were dealt with in the same way, irrespective of the castes to which they belonged, while in India, the consideration of caste prevailed even in these two classes of crimes.

v2.c20.s1.61

The Civil Law throws a great deal of light on the social conditions in Java, and, in particular, deals in great detail with two classes of persons, *viz* : (1) Women and (2) Slaves.

v2.c20.s1.62

The marriage of a woman is preceded by the payment of *Sulka* or marriage-price by the bridegroom. The acceptance of this price by the bride's party creates the legal obligation to marry the girl to the bridegroom. If the father marries the girl to another or connives at the girl's marrying another, he has not only to return to the original suitor twice the amount given by him, but is also fined 40,000 by the king. The girl and her husband also are each fined the same amount (18.111). If the bridegroom, after the payment of the price, refuses, or fails to marry the bride within five months, the price remains with the bride as her own property (213-14). On the other hand if he violates the girl before the fixed date, he not only loses the price but is also fined 40,000 (192). If a bride dies after the payment of the price, the bridegroom cannot claim it back. On the other hand, if the bridegroom dies after paying the price, his younger brother (*devara*), if any, may, if he so desire, claim the bride as his own (215).

v2.c20.s1.63

But a girl was legally entitled to refuse to marry anyone suffering from physical deformities or disabilities, bad diseases in hidden parts of the body, insanity, impotence, or epilepsy. In these cases she had simply to refund the marriage-price, The law lays down no restriction regarding the prohibited degrees of marriage except that one should be punished if one marries his step-daughter (149)¹. As regards legal formalities, a sort of registration by the village headman seems to be regarded as essential (191).

v2.c20.s1.64

¹ According to Vratiśāsana, certain relatives could not be married (Pigeaud—Tantu Panggelaran, p. 296).

v2.c20.s1.65

The grounds, stated above, on which a maid could refuse to marry a man, also entitled her to seek divorce even after the marriage were consummated. A wife could also seek divorce from her husband simply on the ground that she disliked him (19); and so could the father of the girl dissolve the marriage if he disliked his son-in-law (125); but in either case twice the marriage-price had to be refunded to him, and certain prescribed ceremonials had to be gone through before the marriage was legally dissolved. The relevant law runs as follows: "For a divorce four things are necessary: (1) Pronouncement of the divorce; (2) the breaking of a coin while the husband makes the pronouncement; (3) the giving of water to wash the face; (4) the giving of a rice. These serve as the evidences of the divorce. After all these four are performed the marriage is deemed to be legally dissolved, but not otherwise. If a woman re-marries without going through these formalities, then the new husband will be fined, 40,000" (5).

v2.c20.s1.66

Further, a woman could divorce her husband, before the marriage was consummated, simply by repaying double the marriage-price, and evidently without any other formality (126).

v2.c20.s1.67

This is clearly an indigenous custom which is not only without any parallel in Indian Law-books, but directly contrary to the spirit and provisions of Hindu law. But the influence of the latter is clearly visible in another set of regulations. These prescribe heavy penalties for the man who takes to wife a married woman with husband living (17). The former husband can either put the new pair to death or accept a fine of 40,000. Those who were witnesses of such a marriage are also liable to heavy fines.

v2.c20.s1.68

But in certain contingencies even a married woman, with husband alive, could take another husband after waiting for a prescribed period. These are described in a tabular form below (143, 254-256).

v2.c20.s1.69

| Conditions of the husband | Period of waiting. |
| 1. Going abroad for performing sacred or religious duty, penance, or some other good work. | 8 years. |
| 2. Going abroad to learn the śāstras. ... | 6 " |
| 3. Going abroad for commerce, sea-voyage, or acquisition of wealth ... ... ... | 10 " |
| 4. Going abroad to marry a second wife. ... | 3 " |
| 5. Making journey to distant lands. ... | 4 " |
| 6. If the husband is absent but not on any ground mentioned in 2, 3, and 5 above ... ... | 4 " |
| 7. If the husband is mad, epileptic, impotent, or destitute of manly strength ... ... | 3 " |
| 8. If the husband is lost (i.e. missing), dies in course of journey, becomes a monk, or is impotent . . . . . | nil. |

v2.c20.s1.70

Nearly the whole of these regulations is based on Hindu legal principles as enunciated in Manu (IX. 76-78) and Nārada (XII. 97ff) and follow them closely. These are followed immediately by the single regulation which authorises a husband to discard a wife.

v2.c20.s1.71

"If a wife dislikes her husband, he must wait for one year. After that, if the dislike still continues, she shall return double the marriage-price. This is named-rejection of sexual intercourse" (257).

v2.c20.s1.72

This is obviously based on Manu IX. 77. But it is to be noted that while this and other Indian law-books authorise the husband to discard his wife on this and sundry other grounds (cf. Manu, IX. 80-81) the Javanese law-book ignores them altogether, save and except this one, *i.e.*, on ground of dislike. But, then, it is to be remembered that the Javanese law-book gives the same right to the wife, *viz.*, to divorce the husband if he dislikes her. Again, the Javanese laws that a wife could marry again, if the husband was mad, epileptic, or destitute of manly strength, or that a Javanese maid could refuse to marry or seek divorce from a husband suffering from diseases, physical deformities, or disabilities *etc.*, have no parallel in Indian Law-books. Rather, according to Manu (IX. 78), “she who shows disrespect to a husband who is addicted to (some evil) passion, is a drunkard, or diseased, shall be deserted for three months (and be) deprived of her ornaments and furniture,” though the same Law-book permits a diseased wife to be superseded at any time by another wife” (IX-80). When we remember that the Javanese law-book so closely followed the Manusambitā, the additions and the omissions leave no doubt that a woman enjoyed a far higher status in Java that in India in the age of Manu. In support of this view we may quote a curious provision of the law that a man shall be fined 20,000 if he quarrels with a woman, the amount to accrue to her husband, if the woman were married (142).

v2.c20.s1.73

But while the Javanese law gave means to a wife to regain her independence, the husband seems to have complete domination over her so long as she remains in his family. The head of the family is to keep a strict vigilance on women, slaves, and children, and can even chastise them for doing wrong by a cane or a wooden stick. But he must not strike them on the head, otherwise he should be fined by the king (131). This is obviously a leaf taken out of Manu’s book (*cf.* VIII. 299, 300). The dominance of the husband is also manifest from the following :—

v2.c20.s1.74

“Father alone has the control of children, not the mother. If a mother arrange the marriage of her daughter without the consent of the father, the father may dissolve the match, and the marriage-price has to be returned to the rejected suitor by the mother and the girl” (193), Law permitted a husband to sell his wife to another (171). But even here it is noticeable that a man was liable to punishment if he purchased a woman without the permission of her husband and kept her as a slave. But if he purchased her from the husband and married her himself he was free from any guilt.

v2.c20.s1.75

The higher regard for women and the dominance of a husband over the wife are both reflected in the laws of adultery which indicate some peculiarity in Javanese conception As stated before, many of these laws are taken from Manu, and, on the whole, the Javanese law resembles the Indian in regarding the offence of adultery as a serious one, and penalises not only the perpetrators and abettors of the crime, but also actions which might ultimately lead to adultery, e.g. speaking to a woman in loneliness, offering her presents, tempting her with money, etc. It recognises that human passions are difficult to control, and therefore forbids all actions and movements which inevitably tend towards an illicit connection (139). But the penalties prescribed are less severe. The extreme penalty of death, or mutilation of hands, accompanied by branding and banishment, is reserved only for the male offender. Manu's direction that the king shall cause the female offender to be devoured by dogs in a public place (VIII-371) has no parallel in Javanese law. The Javanese law mostly imposes fines, the amount of which varies with the gravity of the offence. But this fine is to be paid to the husband of the violated woman and not to the king (134-138). In other words, the offence is regarded more as a private wrong done to the husband, than a crime against the state. A further illustration of this principle is furnished by the fact that the husband had also the right to put the criminal to death if he were caught red-handed (134).

v2.c20.s1.76

Before leaving the topic of women, it is necessary to point out, that although the laws regarding re-marriage of women, and payment of *sulka* or marriage-price are based on Indian Law-books, the latter also contain regulations of exactly opposite character, forbidding both. These are, however, entirely absent from the Javanese Law-book, showing thereby the strong hold of the customs which formerly prevailed but later fell into disfavour or disuse in India. Again, the right of a wife to divorce her husband is unknown to Manu and foreign to the spirit of Indian law and practice, though Nārada (XII. 16, 96) permits it only in the cases of certain physical disabilities of the husband. Lastly, to the general rule that pledged property vests in the holder of the pledge after the lapse of a fixed period of time, there are some notable exceptions, *viz.*, those belonging to a married or unmarried girl, to the king, and to a Paṇḍita (206). These exceptions not only give a preferential treatment to women over men, but also supply another evidence that women could own real property (206). In all these cases the divergence from Hindu law may be explained by higher conception of the status of women among the indigenous people in Java.

v2.c20.s1.77

This view is fully supported by the very interesting *Jayapattra* or Judgment, dated 927 (or 907) A.D. published by Brandes¹. Here the case arose out of a sum of money lent to a woman who died without repaying it. Her husband was sued, but it was held by the tribunal, that the husband was not responsible for the payment when the wife borrowed without his knowledge and left no children. In other words, the wife had an independent status. It is also interesting to note that the tribunal consisted of Samget Pinapan and his wife who tried the case with the help of four assessors. The fact that a woman acted as a judge is also not without significance about the high status of women in general.

v2.c20.s1.78

¹ T.B.G., Vol. XXXII (1898), pp. 98-149; also O.V. 1928 (64), 1925 (59).

v2.c20.s1.79

The Berbek Inscription² of Wawa, dated 927 A.D., refers to the hereditary ownership of property by Bingah's, mother, a woman bearing the title *rake*. The property would descend to Bingah, but there could be no claim to it by Bingah’s step-brothers or step-sisters, showing the independent possession of a wife apart from her husband.

v2.c20.s1.80

² O J.O., XXXII.

v2.c20.s1.81

Next to women, the Javanese law-book contains elaborate regulations about the slaves. The following causes are enumerated as grounds for reducing a man to the status of a slave (169, 270).

v2.c20.s1.82

1. Imprisonment in war (called *dhvaja-hṛta*).
2. Born of parents who are themselves slaves (called *gṛhaja*).
3. Non-payment of debt or fine (called *daṇḍa-dāsa*).
4. Willingly accepting the status of a slave for food and shelter (called *bhakta-dāsa*).

v2.c20.s1.83

A slave might change his master, by purchase or sale, gift, and inheritance.

v2.c20.s1.84

Now the above closely follows Manu (VIII. 415), but differs from Nārada who enumerates fifteen kinds of slaves, including the above (26-28). According to the Javanese law all these slaves might obtain their freedom by payment of a requisite fee to their master (270, 166, 167). Manu is silent on this point, but Nārada states definitely ‘that slaves by birth or those obtained by purchase, gift, and inheritance cannot be released from bondage, except by the favour of their owners.’ In this respect, therefore, the Javanese law seems to be more liberal; but except in the cases of slaves belonging to classes 1 (166) and 4 (167), it does not lay down detailed regulations about their mode of obtaining freedom. These two classes of slaves could free themselves by paying a sum of 8000. Heavy penalties were prescribed for forcing a freed slave to work for his old master (160, 162, 172).

v2.c20.s1.85

The slaves were regarded as the absolute property of the master. Not only were they to live and work according to his bidding, but he was also entitled to the property (128) and even the issues of his male and female slaves. If a male slave of one married the female slave of another, then their children, if any, were divided among the two owners, the male children going to the owner of the male slave, and the female children to the other owner (10, 152, 153). Runaway slaves and those who helped them were severely punished (3). The murderer of a slave had to recompense the owner for his loss (7). The slave could be given as a pledge (101, 120), and such a slave was liable to capital punishment if he stole goods worth more than 100 from the owner of the pledge (118). A slave was, however, protected by law in many respects. He could be chastised, and even bound, by the master, but the latter was not permitted to strike him on the head (31; cf. Manu, VIII. 299-300). If a master made an attempt to outrage the modesty of a female slave, she could run away and would become automatically free (165). So were the slaves of a thief automatically set free (24). Any one who abducted a slave was liable to capital punishment (157). A master could marry a slave, and in such a case their children inherited the property of the father if the latter had no children by wives of equal birth (155). If one married the slave of another, the children would inherit one-fourth of his property, if he had other children, and the whole of it, if he had none by any wife of free birth (158).

v2.c20.s1.86

In addition to regulations about women and slaves, the Kuṭāra-mānava-śāstra deals with many other important topics of civil law such as debt, pledge, property, inheritance, etc.

v2.c20.s1.87

The rules of debt are very comprehensive and follow closely those of Nārada and Yājñavalkya. Six kinds of interest are mentioned as in Bṛhaspati (XI-5). Detailed directions are given for preparing the necessary document (72), and three kinds of evidence are laid down as sufficient to prove the transaction,—viz., documents, witness, and enjoyment of interest (74). Failing satisfactory evidences, trial by ordeal is prescribed though no details are given. The debts are classified according as they are re-payable or not by the debtor's children (79, 80), and judicial procedure for the recovery of debt is also laid down (81-84).

v2.c20.s1.88

According to Nārada, “the guarantee to be offered to a creditor may be twofold : a surety and a pledge.” Both of these are referred to in the Indo-Javanese law-book. It is interesting to note in this connection that only two kinds of surety are recognised, *viz.*, that for appearance of debtor (88), and that for payment (89). In this and other respects it agrees with Manu-smṛti, but not with Nārada and other law-books which recognise a third surety, *viz.*, that for honesty.

v2.c20.s1.89

The rules about pledge are also laid down in great detail, and are based generally on the Hindu law. The use of a pledge without the permission of the owner is regarded as a grave offence as in Manu (VIII. 144, 150) and Nārada (I, 127-128), but the punishment is more severe. The offender has not only to give to the pledge-giver twice the value of the pledge but is also fined 20,000 as a thief (102). In connection with the laws about pledge we come across one important principle which has been the subject of serious discussion in this country. After saying that certain pledges, *e.g.*, clothes *etc.*, are forfeited after five years (99), it proceeds : “If some one pledges landed property, it is never forfeited, for the land is the property of the king, it only remains in possession of the creditor” (100). Thus it is clearly laid down that the ownership of the soil is vested in the king and no one else. Whether this rule is derived from an Indian Law-book, or whether it is an Indonesian modification, it is difficult to say. It may be added that a later section of the book lays down that a man loses his right over landed property, if another is in possession of it for twenty years with his knowledge (268). This is in accordance with Indian law as laid down by Yājñavalkya, Kauṭilya and Vyāsa.

v2.c20.s1.90

Some idea of the king’s right over land may be gathered from an inscription of king Tuloḍong, dated 919 A.D.¹ The king makes an endowment and grants some lands. About the waste-land it is simply recorded that it was fenced round by the king. But as to the cultivated grounds we are told that he first purchased them from the headman of the village. There thus appears to be a distinction in the right of the king over lands according as they are cultivated or waste-lands.

v2.c20.s1.91

¹ K.O., I.; Dacca University Studies, Vol. I, pp. 102 ff.

v2.c20.s1.92

The rules of property (including prescription), and those of sale and purchase follow the principles of Indian Law-books, but the illustrations given are mostly new. The rules of inheritance offer some striking novelty. If a man dies, leaving more than one child from the same wife, then the eldest son gets an additional share (uddhāra), which varies according to the value of the property left. In the most extreme case, the eldest takes four-fifths of the property, while the remaining fifth part is divided among his younger brothers (197). Now, some of the Indian Law-books recognise the claim of the eldest son to an additional share deducted from the state, also known technically as uddhāra, but both Manu and Viṣṇu-smṛti reckon it as one-twentieth, and Baudhāyana as one tenth. There is no Indian authority, known to us, for such a heavy share as four-fifths. It may be due to indigenous custom or misunderstanding of the original text.

v2.c20.s1.93

The rules of inheritance vary if a man leaves children from wives of different castes. The children in that case obtain preferential treatment according to the caste of their mothers. A specific rule lays down that the property of a Brāhmaṇa with wives of four different castes should be divided into eleven shares (258). The idea, probably, is that the children should share in the proportion of 4, 3, 2, and 1, according as their mothers belong to the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya, and Śūdra castes, as is laid down in Manu (IX.153). But, then, the property is to be divided into ten and not eleven shares. The extra share perhaps belongs to the eldest. A man may, however, formally discard a son (78), and then the latter cannot inherit the property of his father.

v2.c20.s1.94

In these rules of inheritance it is not quite clear whether both sons and daughters, or only the former, are to be regarded as heir, for, with a single exception, quoted above, the word used denotes children of both the sexes. Another remarkable point is that the children inherit the property of both the father and the mother, which is different from the Hindu laws. Another deviation from the latter is the total absence of all references to collateral descendants as heirs. Further, the word used for 'property' in these rules denotes always, at least if we take it in a literal sense, only movable property. As regards landed property, no rules of inheritance are clearly laid down, but there are two sections which run as follow:—

v2.c20.s1.95

1. If any one puts forward a claim over a land and this claim proves unfounded, then he is fined by the king 160,000. It is called "falsely pretending to be a blood-relation" (132).

v2.c20.s1.96

2. If any one does not permit his blood-relations to use the land, he is fined by the king 160,000, and is named "repelling his blood-relations". (133)

v2.c20.s1.97

These two rules seem to indicate that land was regarded as the joint property of the family, and did not admit of divided ownership. But there are no clear statements on this point.

v2.c20.s1.98

There are no definite rules about the inheritance of wife. But there is one rule, unfortunately fragmentary, which may be quoted in this connection. It runs as follows: 'If a married couple have no children, and one of them dies, then by the death of the wife the whole household property.........' (195). Jonker thinks that the missing portion referred to the right of the husband, but it might also include the corresponding right of the wife in case of the death of the husband. This view is strengthened by the regulation that immediately follows. It states that five years after marriage, but not before that, the household property of the husband and wife together with what each of them had obtained at the time of the marriage, shall be mixed up and regarded as common property, inheritable by each in the case of the death of the other (196). The same rule is laid down in another section where the period of interval is set down as 12 years, but it is distinctly laid down that the marriage-gift of the pair after that period shall be the property of the survivor, in case of the death of either the husband or the wife (123). It may be noted here that this merging of the property of the husband and wife is altogether foreign to Hindu law and must be regarded as an indigenous custom.

v2.c20.s1.99

The right of the king to inherit the property of one who has no legitimate heir, with the exception of a Paṇḍita, whose property belongs to God (202-3), also closely follows the Indian legal principle, but the expression *deva-dravyātmaka* used in the Javanese book, cannot be traced to any existing Indian law-book.

v2.c20.s1.100

In connection with inheritance we get a list of twelve classes of sons (*lit.* children). The list is expressly referred to Manu, and indeed closley, though not fully, agrees with that given in Manu-saṃhitā (IX. 158-160).

v2.c20.s1.101

The twelve classes (259) are :

v2.c20.s1.102

(1) The child of a woman, who was engaged with a man from her infancy and was afterwards given in marriage to him by the parents.

v2.c20.s1.103

(2) The child of a re-married woman, if her character were pure and if the marriage had taken place with the permission of the parents.

v2.c20.s1.104

(3) A child given by kinsmen.

v2.c20.s1.105

(4) A child obtained from another.

v2.c20.s1.106

(5) A child begotten on one's wife by another with his permission.

v2.c20.s1.107

(6) A child cast off by his father.

v2.c20.s1.108

(7) The child of an unmarried girl and whose father is unknown.

v2.c20.s1.109

(8) The child of a woman pregnant at the time of her marriage.

v2.c20.s1.110

(9) The child of a woman who divorced her husband, remarried another husband who died shortly, and then returned to her first husband.

v2.c20.s1.111

(10) The child who is bought.
(11) The child who offered himself as such.
(12) The child of a slave-woman of low birth, accepted as such.

v2.c20.s1.112

Of these the first six alone are entitled to inherit the property of their father, but the last six are not regarded as heirs (cf. Manu. IX. 158).

Chapter II. Economic Condition

v2.c20.s2.2

From a very early period Malayasia formed one of the most important centres of trade in the world. We have already given an account of the early maritime intercourse between India and Suvarṇabhūmi, so far as it has been preserved in Indian literature in the shape of vague traditions, legends, and folk-stories. We now propose to refer briefly to the trade activities of this region so far as we can determine them by means of positive and reliable evidence.

v2.c20.s2.3

Apart from the trade-relations of the various islands grouped under Malayasia, either among themselves or with Indo-China, India, China, and Arabia formed the three main centres of trade with this region.

v2.c20.s2.4

As regards India, the earliest definite account is furnished by Fa-hien’s travels. From Tāmralipti (modern Tamluk) Fa-hien “embarked in a large merchant vessel, and went floating over the sea to the south-west. After sailing day and night for fourteen days he reached Ceylon”¹. After two years Fa-hien again took passage in a large merchantman with a view to return to China. The detailed account of this voyage is so interesting and instructive regarding the early trade and maritime intercourse between Malayasia on the one hand and India and China on the other, that I make no apology for quoting the lengthy passage².

v2.c20.s2.5

¹ Fa-hien, p. 100.

v2.c20.s2.6

² Ibid, pp. 111-114.

v2.c20.s2.7

“Fa-hien took passage in a large merchantman, on board of which there were more than 200 men, and to which was attached by a rope a smaller vessel, as a provision against damage or injury to the large one from the perils of the navigation. With a favourable wind, they proceeded eastwards

v2.c20.s2.8

for three days, and then they encountered a great wind. The vessel sprang a leak and the water came in. The merchants wished to go to the smaller vessel; but the men on board it, fearing that too many would come, cut the connecting rope. The merchants were greatly alarmed, feeling their risk of instant death. Afraid that the vessel would fill, they took their bulky goods and threw them into the water. Fa-hien also took his pitcher and washing-basin, with some other articles, and cast them into the sea; but fearing that the merchants would cast overboard his books and images, he could only think with all his heart of Kwan-She-yin, and commit his life to (the protection of) the church of the land of Han, (saying in effect), 'I have travelled far in search of our Law. Let me, by your dread and supernatural (power), return from my wanderings, and reach my resting place!'

v2.c20.s2.9

"In this way the tempest continued day and night, till on the thirteenth day the ship was carried to the side of an island, where on the ebbing of the tide, the place of the leak was discovered, and it was stopped, on which the voyage was resumed. On the sea (hereabouts) there are many pirates, to meet with whom is speedy death. The great ocean spreads out, a boundless expanse. There is no knowing east or west; only by observing the sun, moon, and stars was it possible to go forward. If the weather were dark and rainy, (the ship) went as she was carried by the wind, without any definite course. In the darkness of the night, only the great waves were to be seen, breaking on one another, and emitting a brightness like that of fire, with huge turtles and other monsters of the deep (all about). The merchants were full of terror, not knowing where they were going. The sea was deep and bottomless, and there was no place where they could drop anchor and stop. But when the sky became clear, they could tell east and west, and (the ship) again went forward in the right direction. If she had come on any hidden rock, there would have been no way of escape.

v2.c20.s2.10

“After proceeding in this way for rather more than ninety days they arrived at a country called Java-dvīpa, where various forms of error and Brāhmanism are flourishing, while Buddhism in it is not worth speaking of. After staying there for five months, (Fa-hien) again embarked in another large merchantman which also had on board more than 200 men. They carried provisions for fifty days, and commenced the voyage on the sixteenth day of the fourth month.

v2.c20.s2.11

“Fa-hien kept his retreat on board the ship. They took a course to the north-east, intending to fetch Kwang-chow. After more than a month, when the night-drum had sounded the second watch, they encountered a black wind and tempestuous rain, which threw the merchants and passengers into consternation. Fa-hien again with all his heart directed his thoughts to Kwan-she-yin and the monkish communities of the land of Han; and, through their dread and mysterious protection, was preserved to day-break. After day-break, the Brahmans deliberated together and said, ‘It is having this Śramaṇa on board which has occasioned our misfortune and brought us this great and bitter suffering. Let us land the bhikshu and place him on some island-shore. We must not for the sake of one man allow ourselves to be exposed to such imminent peril’. A patron of Fa-hien, however, said to them, ‘If you land the bhikshu, you must at the same time land me; and if you do not, then you must kill me. If you land this Śramaṇa, when I get to the land of Han, I will go to the king, and inform against you. The king also reveres and believes the Law of Buddha, and honours the bhikshus’. The merchants hereupon were perplexed, and did not dare immediately to land (Fa-hien).

First 128 of 1,100 passages. Read on

Linked texts (26)