Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s1.18

c10.s1.18

That law must change according to new conditions and circumstances must be borne in mind. And this was certainly understood and realized in ancient India. Even Yājñavalkya, the orthodox pandit, has to admit ‘equity’ at least as a secondary source of law. This means that positive law as found in the *smṛtis* was not adequate to minister to the needs of the times. In this respect Kauṭalya and Nārada show themselves not mere theorists as some scholars seem to believe, but practical men wellversed in administrative affairs. Because equity is recommended we cannot say that the authors have no regard for the law of the *śāstras*. Equity arises only when the law of the *smṛti* cannot properly provide equality of justice. Thus Kauṭalya and Nārada were not blind pandits as some take them to be but true statesmen. The sanction of law has the common will as the basis, and so long this idea of the common will underlies these legal principles, the law operates satisfactorily to all, whether you call it law, morality or by any other name. This common will is nothing but the expression of healthy public opinion which is a feature of ancient Indian democracy.