Hindu Administrative Institutions c5.14

c5.14

Life in society, we have therefore to presume, actually was for the purpose of prosecuting Dharma ultimately, in its four divisions. Life in these, four divisions, ‘the four aims of man’ in practical life, reduced itself to the prosecution of the first three of these four, namely, Dharma, Artha and Kāma. Dharma here may be taken to be conduct proper to one’s station and circumstances. Artha is the honourable and legitimate earning of the means by which to prosecute the general Dharma of one’s duty in life, and Kāma may be interpreted generally as the legitimate enjoyment of that which is really worth enjoying in life. When these are done in the proper place and in the prescribed form, life in society would receive its fulfilment in the prosecution of Dharma as a whole, by leading to the real and happy life hereafter, whatever be the ultimate shape of this life. The idea of Trivarga and its position as the guiding factor of social life seems at once to imply that, whatever kind of social life was contemplated and whatever the organizations that were projected for the carrying on of these were, life in society contemplated a society already composed of various and perhaps even varying groups. Where various groups are congregated to prosecute common life in society, the first essential seems to be the deterring of the stronger groups from doing anything detrimental to the pursuit of life by the weaker or less fortunate groups in their neighbourhood. This can be done only by a supervisory authority which could see to it that each group pursued its life with a freedom which guaranteed a similar life of freedom to other groups to pursue their lives. The organization called for therefore is primarily an organization whose principal function was the doing of justice by administering punishment upon the erring, and that is what the Hindus meant by the term Daṇḍanīti, a life of discipline enforced by punishment.