Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c13.s1.12

v1.c13.s1.12

This orthodox view of the great lawgiver is to some extent modified by Kauṭilya, who brings into relief the suggestion of Manu that justice should be tempered with mercy. Kauṭilya advocates the following: "... for whoever imposes severe punishment becomes repulsive to the people; while he who awards mild punishment becomes contemptible. But whoever imposes punishment as deserved becomes respectable. For punishment (daṇḍa), when awarded with due consideration, makes the people devoted to righteousness and to works productive of wealth and enjoyment; while puishment, when ill-awarded under the influence of greed and anger or owing to ignorance, excites fury even among hermits and ascetics dwelling in forests, not to speak of householders".¹ But Kauṭilya was not unaware of the supreme necessity of instituting punishment for the maintenance of social order. "But when the law of punishment is kept in abeyance, it gives rise to such disorder as is implied in the proverb of fishes (*mātsyanyāyamudbhavayati*); for in the absence of a magistrate (*daṇḍadharābhāve*), the strong will swallow the weak; but under his protection the weak resist the strong".²